DHT and Testosterone kills hair DIRECTLY........study

[htownballa]

The reason I'm posting this Stephen is I want newbies to realize androgens are the driving force behind male pattern baldness. Not to insult you.

Bryan and Dr. Proctor might disagree with me on this one but you MUST treat the androgen side of the male pattern baldness equation agressively or you're, most likely, "doomed" IMHO.

Hey Old Baldy,

Can you elaborate on this quoted part of your post?

Is dutasteride 0.5 mg/day enough to treat the androgen side or do you mean applying stuff like spironolactone too?

And what do you mean by Bryan and Proctor disagreeing?

Jayman, Im pretty sure they mean it is best to attack the androgens from all levels, that means including things like spironolactone and revivogen to have an effective anti-androgen regimen

 

[S Foote.]

So yet another "mechanism of the day" to explain the direct theory then Bryan? :roll:

When are people going to realise that these in-vitro tests mean "nothing" at all in the genuine scientific context!

These cultured cells are completely different to the in-vivo cells we need to understand. The cell culturing "itself" creates major genetic changes in these cells, reducing both androgen receptor expression and the expression of 5AR type 2.

Just one example of the blatent contradictions these in-vitro studies throw up, is clear when you compare this study with the others.

Oh, I don't know that it's a "blatant" contradiction, Stephen; at the most, I'd call it a relatively mild one. After all, large doses of androgens were required in this most recent study, as opposed to the (presumably) more moderate doses used in the stumptailed macaque study.

It's hilarious that the best you can do to challenge the accepted theory of balding is point out some minor inconsistency in a couple of studies. Man, you are REALLY scraping the bottom of the barrel in your desperate effort to keep your theory afloat. Sorry, but it's taking on water fast! ABANDON SHIP!! :wink:

Bryan

This is not about "my" theory Bryan, it is about the glaring holes in the old idea's!

Michael.

You are correct in believing that there is a lot of (in my opinion circumstantial in-vitro evidence), for direct effects of androgens on follicles.

But the simple bottom line is clearly drawn by that mouse study, as i have argued before. On top of that there is the latest body hair to scalp transplant data.

The current theory just cannot explain these real world findings, end of story.

People don't agree, and thats fine. I am not here on some kind of ego trip like some people.

Old Baldy.

I have stated many times that i agree that androgens, in particular DHT are responsible for male pattern baldness. You know this, so why do you keep trying to claim my theory doesn't cover the effect of androgens?

The only difference is, i propose an indirect more systematic action of DHT on hair growth.

These days i have better things to do than indulge in fruitless internet debates. I only respond now to direct questions, or when Bryan tries to play scientist and raises my theory :roll:

All the evidence against the old idea's is out there for anyone to consider for themselves. The track record of the treatments based on the old idea's is a matter of record on these hairloss sites. :wink:

You don't agree, fine. Just let me know when the current theory re-grows significant amounts of hair.

S Foote.











I

 

[michael barry]

Stephen wrote: "Michael.

You are correct in believing that there is a lot of (in my opinion circumstantial in-vitro evidence), for direct effects of androgens on follicles. But the simple bottom line is clearly drawn by that mouse study, as i have argued before."

Stephen, I will be the first to admit that its unbelievable that the mouse study was not followe up on. They shoudl have castrated a few immuno deficient mice, put human skin on their little immuno-deficient hides and transplanted some vellus hair from male pattern baldness men. Its hard to believe that this hasn't been done, but I know youve searched for it and found nothing or you definitely would be sticking Shelton's nose in it.


Stephen also wrote: ". On top of that there is the latest body hair to scalp transplant data."


This is where we feverently disagree. We DO HAVE lots of data from the Body hair transplants. Ive talked with Heliboy, Scientist, Sofarsogood and a few other guys who have gotten them. All of them will tell you that body hair to the scalp generally does not get as big as scalp hair did. Its finer.

Some men, however, do have very robust chest hair...............and a few of these really have had some luck when they move it to the scalp. My chest hair for example is as large as my head hair (Ive plucked them and compared), but my leg and arm hair is not. The beard follicles are the biggest on the body, and Im told there was excitement a few years back when Dr. Gary Hitzig was claiming he could transect the beard follicles and get donor and recipient regrowth, but it apparently didn't pan out. But beard and chest hair do not grow in follicular units for the most part. Some chest hairs grow in 2's and 3', but usually are ones. Beard hair grows one follicle at a time. There are some 2's and 3's on the arm and leg, but most hairs are 1's on the body. So it takes about two body hair transplants on average to equal one head hair.

You are quite right about the length issue however, the body hair usually legnthens its growth phase to the recipient sites length and gets good and long, just thinnsh.

I have seen one body hair result that looked so good as to be indistinguisable from scalp hair. He is a lucky SOB. Cole did him. He has the appearance of an utterly full hairline. His pics are here http://www.hairsite4.com/dc/dcboard.php ... 4575&page=


Im open to the possibility that Body hair can be enlarged on the body with stimulants like peptides and caffeine and then placed on the scalp. However, an anti-androgen no stronger than propecia would need to be used in the hereafter on the areas of the scalp with body hair. Certainly no receptor blockers or heavy drinking for that matter.



Stephen,

Have you seen my post about Stenn and Costarialis working for a company called FOLLICA? They are apparently splitting time between Aderans and FOLLICA now. Aderans has still not entered phase one trials. This is lousy news. ICX is only going to test a one CENTIMETER patch of hair in phase 2 cloning trials with just 20 trialees. This is of course, awful news. They are no where near offering a product for sale. Even if phase two went great and they took the step of testing more men over an entire square inch...................................................I was expecting them to be attempting to fill in whole bald spots this time around. Im dissapointed.

By the way Stephen, Follica is going to try some "novel" approach to baldness. The Almighty God of Hairloss, a guy who I really respect, very causitically made mention of this "novel, pre-publication approach to hairloss and other, namely acne, and body odor based on the biology of the hair follicle". I agree with him, what the hell does that mean?

There is also news that a gene that can turn skin cells into hair cells has been found. Ive posted the link elsewhere. It not committed to memory, but in my opinion that would have to be tested on rodents, apes, and finally in very small patches humans to test safety of something as potentially as frankenstinian as really playing with ones DNA and genes while its actually in vivo. Ten years.


Im not optomistic about anything really earthshattering in baldness coming for a while for someone trying to regrow hair thats been lost man. Hate to say it, but thats what I think. I believe the donor-exchange hair transplant idea of Cole and Poswal and Umar has potential for some guys with alot of body hair though if they have some serious money to spend (they perform a FUE and jam you best body hair back in the FUE-holes they create in the back of your head...............so in effect the add hair to you head).

Nothing new really seems on the horizon. Im testing some caffeine on one wrists and a tad of avocado oil on the back of one hand to see if one stimulates and the other suppresses body hair right now. Wont know sh*t for about 4 months.

 

[Old Baldy]

I want you to periodically repeat it Stephen. Newbies might get the wrong impression.

I think the ultimate cure will occur when we can change the scalp follicles reaction(s) to androgens. You stop that reaction early enough and male pattern baldness is cured. It will take some type of gene therapy IMHO.

The gene therapy will reverse the effects of androgens OR make scalp follicles respond to androgens the way our beard follicles respond. (I'd guess, in the future, we'll have many types of gene therapies to "cover the gambit". Just like we have dutasteride., finasteride., spironolactone., etc. currently.)

It won't have anything to do with tissue constriction is my guess.

If we could somehow manipulate our scalp follicle genes to switch to beard follicles or occipital follicles, those of us suffering from male pattern baldness would have VERY thick scalp hair by and large. And I just don't think constriction has anything to do with that.

It's our reaction to androgens that causes male pattern baldness, whether we have tight scalps or not.

There's little doubt in my mind that we will eventually be able to do that sort of thing. I'll probably be dust in the wind but it will happpen IMHO.

 

[S Foote.]

Stephen wrote: "Michael.

You are correct in believing that there is a lot of (in my opinion circumstantial in-vitro evidence), for direct effects of androgens on follicles. But the simple bottom line is clearly drawn by that mouse study, as i have argued before."

Stephen, I will be the first to admit that its unbelievable that the mouse study was not followe up on. They shoudl have castrated a few immuno deficient mice, put human skin on their little immuno-deficient hides and transplanted some vellus hair from male pattern baldness men. Its hard to believe that this hasn't been done, but I know youve searched for it and found nothing or you definitely would be sticking Shelton's nose in it.


Stephen also wrote: ". On top of that there is the latest body hair to scalp transplant data."


This is where we feverently disagree. We DO HAVE lots of data from the Body hair transplants. Ive talked with Heliboy, Scientist, Sofarsogood and a few other guys who have gotten them. All of them will tell you that body hair to the scalp generally does not get as big as scalp hair did. Its finer.

Some men, however, do have very robust chest hair...............and a few of these really have had some luck when they move it to the scalp. My chest hair for example is as large as my head hair (Ive plucked them and compared), but my leg and arm hair is not. The beard follicles are the biggest on the body, and Im told there was excitement a few years back when Dr. Gary Hitzig was claiming he could transect the beard follicles and get donor and recipient regrowth, but it apparently didn't pan out. But beard and chest hair do not grow in follicular units for the most part. Some chest hairs grow in 2's and 3', but usually are ones. Beard hair grows one follicle at a time. There are some 2's and 3's on the arm and leg, but most hairs are 1's on the body. So it takes about two body hair transplants on average to equal one head hair.

You are quite right about the length issue however, the body hair usually legnthens its growth phase to the recipient sites length and gets good and long, just thinnsh.

I have seen one body hair result that looked so good as to be indistinguisable from scalp hair. He is a lucky SOB. Cole did him. He has the appearance of an utterly full hairline. His pics are here http://www.hairsite4.com/dc/dcboard.php ... 4575&page=


Im open to the possibility that Body hair can be enlarged on the body with stimulants like peptides and caffeine and then placed on the scalp. However, an anti-androgen no stronger than propecia would need to be used in the hereafter on the areas of the scalp with body hair. Certainly no receptor blockers or heavy drinking for that matter.

Michael.

I think we would all agree there has not been enough novel research into androgen related hair growth/loss. I am sure that mouse study will be followed up, and i think the current HM research is going to help sort the truth out.

The in-vitro studies just cannot be trusted to truly reflect what happens in-vitro, even "whole" follicle cultures throw up inconsistent results.

For example this study of whole follicle cultures, "showed" that estrogen slowed follicle growth by the same degree as testosterone!

http://www.springerlink.com/content/r5kvp97365370t36/

Something that is completely contrary to what we see "in-vivo"! Where are all these bald women?

ANY in-vitro study "must" be considered in the light of what we know of the in-vivo reality!


If there was an in-vitro study that showed androgens converted healthy follicles "into" male pattern baldness follicles as the old ideas claim, i would be impressed. But there will never be such a study, only unscientific excuses from those with a vested interest in the old idea's.

Stephen,

Have you seen my post about Stenn and Costarialis working for a company called FOLLICA? They are apparently splitting time between Aderans and FOLLICA now. Aderans has still not entered phase one trials. This is lousy news. ICX is only going to test a one CENTIMETER patch of hair in phase 2 cloning trials with just 20 trialees. This is of course, awful news. They are no where near offering a product for sale. Even if phase two went great and they took the step of testing more men over an entire square inch...................................................I was expecting them to be attempting to fill in whole bald spots this time around. Im dissapointed.

I live less than 20 miles away from ICX Michael! I am just south of Manchester in the UK. My eldest son Matthew has a flat in Manchester about a mile from ICX!

However, Matthew has a full head of hair at 31 so i don't think he would be interested. He is strange in that he has next to no beard growth, and only shaves the odd facial hair he has about once a month! He has no body hair at all above the waist, but the hairiest legs you've ever seen!

I did have a brief email correspondence with ICX a few months ago, when i gave my opinions on the possible problems with HM according to my theory.

They declined to give an opinion.

Just to recap, i think it is going to be necessary to create a fibrose "shell" around HM follicles if they are to survive long term in the male pattern baldness area. I have said before i think this is why normal "small" transplants survive.

Remember that Uno stated the fibrose tissue around male pattern baldness follicles, acts as a barrier to male pattern baldness follicle enlargement?

Well the same kind of fibrose shell around large follicles would prevent the surrounding tissue from stoping follicle re- enlargement upon cycling, it's exactly the same principle.

There is more and more talk in HM research about tissue "scaffolds" being necessary as you know.

By the way Stephen, Follica is going to try some "novel" approach to baldness. The Almighty God of Hairloss, a guy who I really respect, very causitically made mention of this "novel, pre-publication approach to hairloss and other, namely acne, and body odor based on the biology of the hair follicle". I agree with him, what the hell does that mean?

Exactly!

There is also news that a gene that can turn skin cells into hair cells has been found. Ive posted the link elsewhere. It not committed to memory, but in my opinion that would have to be tested on rodents, apes, and finally in very small patches humans to test safety of something as potentially as frankenstinian as really playing with ones DNA and genes while its actually in vivo. Ten years.

I think it is important to make a distinction here.

Such studies concerning the mechanisms of follicle formation are not really relevant to male pattern baldness. We already "have" the follicles, they are just not as large as we want!

Any newly "made" follicles may not necessarily grow as large as we want in the male pattern baldness area either??

Old Baldy has faith in the development of gene therapy in male pattern baldness. With all due respect to OB, i think this is going to be a dangerous dead end in reality?

Consider this, "IF" normal contact inhibition of growth "IS" the over rulling in-vivo control of follicle size, any gene therapy to increase follicle size would have to side step this "normal" growth control.

This normal contact inhibition response exists in all normal cells. Loss of this growth control is a central feature in tumor cells. So according to my theory, any gene manipulation that would prevent normal contact inhibition would increase the risk of the cells becoming tumorous?

The only hard research to date on such follicle gene manipulation was done by Fuch's

http://www.hhmi.org/fuchs/index.html

The noted increase in follicle tumors supports a role of contact inhibition in in-vivo follicles.

Im not optomistic about anything really earthshattering in baldness coming for a while for someone trying to regrow hair thats been lost man. Hate to say it, but thats what I think. I believe the donor-exchange hair transplant idea of Cole and Poswal and Umar has potential for some guys with alot of body hair though if they have some serious money to spend (they perform a FUE and jam you best body hair back in the FUE-holes they create in the back of your head...............so in effect the add hair to you head).

Nothing new really seems on the horizon. Im testing some caffeine on one wrists and a tad of avocado oil on the back of one hand to see if one stimulates and the other suppresses body hair right now. Wont know $#iT for about 4 months.

I think what will emerge from HM research, is going to change the old assumptions and promote better research. I also think more and more professional scientists are now looking outside of the old assumptions.

The trouble is, people quite naturaly come to these forums looking for answers "now". I do see the beginings of a turn around in professional thinking as Dr Sawaya's response to my theory indicates, quote:

"It is a very complex process, but your thoughts are very organized and on the right path, similar to what others have been proposing,"

Professional scientists also thinking upon similar lines, can only mean they also are not convinced by the traditional idea's.


Progress can only come from this change in thinking in my opinion, but it will not be overnight unfortunately.

S Foote.

 

[michael barry]

Stephen,

The http://www.springerlink.com/content/r5vp97365370t36/ link article that showed estrogen slowing hair growth down in vitro is fascinating/depresssing. Have you asked Bryan for a response on this? What did he say?


I thought the article at the start of this thread however, that showed follicles from the wreath area of non-male pattern baldness men that got slathered with both DHT and testosterone would have proved that non-male pattern baldness hairs could be "turned" to male pattern baldness hairs with enough testoseterone. To be honest though........since those hairs had the alpha five type two enzyme in the root sheaths to make DHT, there was really no need to add DHT to them, it would seem that they could make it themselves if testosterone was added. I must say however, on your behalf in the contention about that experiment..........................if you added enough ketchup to hair in a test tube, you'd slow its growth. They added an awful lot of androgen to accomplish that. I wonder myself what the result would have been if they added a lot of any other normally occuring biochemical thats in dermal tissue?


Stephen, I may have mentioned it, but ICX is going to only test ONE CENTIMETER of scalp in their tests. That is awful news. I mean hell, we have waited all this time for phase two and they are only going to shoot up 20 men with stem cells over a one measly square centimeter? Im very dissapointed. I hope they know that they would have to produce a pretty nice head of hair on a rather bald man before I'd pluck down 10K. Sorry, Im a cynic. I hope they will at least try for a full sqaure inch next time. Hell, only 25 or so hairs might be on a square centimeter of scalp. Im unimpressed.

I wish I had the link handy, but an article (its on the HM forum at hairsite somewhere a bit down the line) there is an adobe acrobat article where Stenn and Costarialis mention that perhaps cloned cells would have to be CULTIVATED OUTSIDE THE BODY IN A THREE DIMENSIONAL MATRIX, and then re-implanted. I'll look for it and see if I can send it too you. My own silly-*** idea of using your thighs as a place to shoot up the stem cells in, then FUE out the growing hairs and put them back in the scalp probably does not look so stupid now does it? I still think that would have been a faster way to get this done. Direction would have been solved. If color or quality was a problem, leave the hair there or laser it out. They could have worked on consistency, hair volume, direction on thousands of willing subjects in human dermal unit that had no fibrosis, etc.


Im also dissapointed that they declined to give you an opinon. With as much feet dragging as has been going on over there, a damned paragraph or two should not be out of the question. You'd think they were both working on the f*****g manhattan project.

There has been another discovery on the "convert skin cells to hair cells front". I dont have the link handy, but its on the boards if you want to look for it. I forget which gene they have to fiddle with, but the can do it with a protien, and new hairs sprout up. This is brand new though....................so the tumor factor, or the growing teeth or bone inadvertently has not really been tested. I think thats miles out personally.


You posted Fuchs beta-catenin work and the Lef-gene.......................................and that tumors appeared between the follicles. I suppose you mean that the gene does interefere with the normal contact inhibiton instructions on the stem cells and causes these benign tumors then?



You also made mention about folks wanting a cure in the now.............................................Stephen, man, we have been led along by the nose since Gho' started talkin' hair multiplication. I suppose the excitement over Dolly the sheep that you Brits beat us to got alot of men like me thinking "hell, if they can clone a furry-*** sheep, surely they can clone some of my lost hair" and we all just went from there. Its frustrating. I already know more about hair man than I ever even wanted to have a clue about. Believe me. I wish there was some breakthrough over the horizon for suffering men.......................but Im getting pessimistic personally. Especially with Stenn and Costarialis splitting time with Aderans and Follica. That tells me a ton right there.


On your son....................................My leg hair is about what it was ten years ago when I got on propecia, but by now I should be hairier. I have a hairy chest and fairly hairy arms. I bet, however, if I did not inhibit alpha five type two (and drink a bit of green tea, and do a little saw palmetto)..............I'd be hairier. Ive begun to wonder why in the hell they cant just pluck beard hair and put it on your head. Ive plucked it before (years ago I had follicultius) and the damn roots were right there. The hairs always regenerated too. It would seem enough stem cell material would have been on those intact roots to make another hair on the head. Ive never gotten a satisfactory answer to that.


Good luck on getting your ideas formally tested again. I know its frustrating.

 

[michael barry]

Stephen,

The http://www.springerlink.com/content/r5vp97365370t36/ link article that showed estrogen slowing hair growth down in vitro is fascinating/depresssing. Have you asked Bryan for a response on this? What did he say?


I thought the article at the start of this thread however, that showed follicles from the wreath area of non-male pattern baldness men that got slathered with both DHT and testosterone would have proved that non-male pattern baldness hairs could be "turned" to male pattern baldness hairs with enough testoseterone. To be honest though........since those hairs had the alpha five type two enzyme in the root sheaths to make DHT, there was really no need to add DHT to them, it would seem that they could make it themselves if testosterone was added. I must say however, on your behalf in the contention about that experiment..........................if you added enough ketchup to hair in a test tube, you'd slow its growth. They added an awful lot of androgen to accomplish that. I wonder myself what the result would have been if they added a lot of any other normally occuring biochemical thats in dermal tissue?


Stephen, I may have mentioned it, but ICX is going to only test ONE CENTIMETER of scalp in their tests. That is awful news. I mean hell, we have waited all this time for phase two and they are only going to shoot up 20 men with stem cells over a one measly square centimeter? Im very dissapointed. I hope they know that they would have to produce a pretty nice head of hair on a rather bald man before I'd pluck down 10K. Sorry, Im a cynic. I hope they will at least try for a full sqaure inch next time. Hell, only 25 or so hairs might be on a square centimeter of scalp. Im unimpressed.

I wish I had the link handy, but an article (its on the HM forum at hairsite somewhere a bit down the line) there is an adobe acrobat article where Stenn and Costarialis mention that perhaps cloned cells would have to be CULTIVATED OUTSIDE THE BODY IN A THREE DIMENSIONAL MATRIX, and then re-implanted. I'll look for it and see if I can send it too you. My own silly-*** idea of using your thighs as a place to shoot up the stem cells in, then FUE out the growing hairs and put them back in the scalp probably does not look so stupid now does it? I still think that would have been a faster way to get this done. Direction would have been solved. If color or quality was a problem, leave the hair there or laser it out. They could have worked on consistency, hair volume, direction on thousands of willing subjects in human dermal unit that had no fibrosis, etc.


Im also dissapointed that they declined to give you an opinon. With as much feet dragging as has been going on over there, a damned paragraph or two should not be out of the question. You'd think they were both working on the f*****g manhattan project.

There has been another discovery on the "convert skin cells to hair cells front". I dont have the link handy, but its on the boards if you want to look for it. I forget which gene they have to fiddle with, but the can do it with a protien, and new hairs sprout up. This is brand new though....................so the tumor factor, or the growing teeth or bone inadvertently has not really been tested. I think thats miles out personally.


You posted Fuchs beta-catenin work and the Lef-gene.......................................and that tumors appeared between the follicles. I suppose you mean that the gene does interefere with the normal contact inhibiton instructions on the stem cells and causes these benign tumors then?



You also made mention about folks wanting a cure in the now.............................................Stephen, man, we have been led along by the nose since Gho' started talkin' hair multiplication. I suppose the excitement over Dolly the sheep that you Brits beat us to got alot of men like me thinking "hell, if they can clone a furry-*** sheep, surely they can clone some of my lost hair" and we all just went from there. Its frustrating. I already know more about hair man than I ever even wanted to have a clue about. Believe me. I wish there was some breakthrough over the horizon for suffering men.......................but Im getting pessimistic personally. Especially with Stenn and Costarialis splitting time with Aderans and Follica. That tells me a ton right there.


On your son....................................My leg hair is about what it was ten years ago when I got on propecia, but by now I should be hairier. I have a hairy chest and fairly hairy arms. I bet, however, if I did not inhibit alpha five type two (and drink a bit of green tea, and do a little saw palmetto)..............I'd be hairier. Ive begun to wonder why in the hell they cant just pluck beard hair and put it on your head. Ive plucked it before (years ago I had follicultius) and the damn roots were right there. The hairs always regenerated too. It would seem enough stem cell material would have been on those intact roots to make another hair on the head. Ive never gotten a satisfactory answer to that.


Good luck on getting your ideas formally tested again. I know its frustrating.

 

[michael barry]

Stephen,


http://www.aderansresearch.com/pdfs/10C ... _08_05.pdf

Thats the aderans article where cuturing whole follicles and implanting them is discussed (near the end of the article).
M

 

[S Foote.]

Stephen,

The http://www.springerlink.com/content/r5vp97365370t36/ link article that showed estrogen slowing hair growth down in vitro is fascinating/depresssing. Have you asked Bryan for a response on this? What did he say?


I thought the article at the start of this thread however, that showed follicles from the wreath area of non-male pattern baldness men that got slathered with both DHT and testosterone would have proved that non-male pattern baldness hairs could be "turned" to male pattern baldness hairs with enough testoseterone. To be honest though........since those hairs had the alpha five type two enzyme in the root sheaths to make DHT, there was really no need to add DHT to them, it would seem that they could make it themselves if testosterone was added. I must say however, on your behalf in the contention about that experiment..........................if you added enough ketchup to hair in a test tube, you'd slow its growth. They added an awful lot of androgen to accomplish that. I wonder myself what the result would have been if they added a lot of any other normally occuring biochemical thats in dermal tissue?

The main point about any in-vitro testing in my opinion, is there are just too many variables. They are also out of the context of the "normal" environment and the exposure levels as you say.

Again i think more novel in-vivo transplant research could answer a lot of questions?

Stephen, I may have mentioned it, but ICX is going to only test ONE CENTIMETER of scalp in their tests. That is awful news. I mean hell, we have waited all this time for phase two and they are only going to shoot up 20 men with stem cells over a one measly square centimeter? Im very dissapointed. I hope they know that they would have to produce a pretty nice head of hair on a rather bald man before I'd pluck down 10K. Sorry, Im a cynic. I hope they will at least try for a full sqaure inch next time. Hell, only 25 or so hairs might be on a square centimeter of scalp. Im unimpressed.

I wish I had the link handy, but an article (its on the HM forum at hairsite somewhere a bit down the line) there is an adobe acrobat article where Stenn and Costarialis mention that perhaps cloned cells would have to be CULTIVATED OUTSIDE THE BODY IN A THREE DIMENSIONAL MATRIX, and then re-implanted. I'll look for it and see if I can send it too you. My own silly-*** idea of using your thighs as a place to shoot up the stem cells in, then FUE out the growing hairs and put them back in the scalp probably does not look so stupid now does it? I still think that would have been a faster way to get this done. Direction would have been solved. If color or quality was a problem, leave the hair there or laser it out. They could have worked on consistency, hair volume, direction on thousands of willing subjects in human dermal unit that had no fibrosis, etc.


Im also dissapointed that they declined to give you an opinon. With as much feet dragging as has been going on over there, a damned paragraph or two should not be out of the question. You'd think they were both working on the f****ing manhattan project.

Thanks for the link to the Stenn article, i will take a look later.

I do think that at least the HM research should throw up some new insight into trying to grow hair in the male pattern baldness area. The problem like in traditional hair transplant's, is it is a commercial thing. If their particular HM procedure fails, are they just going to drop it without passing on scientific info about why it failed?

We need disclosure to the general scientific community on any failed procedures, as well as any that work long term!

My big concern as i have said before is the normal cycling of follicles produced by HM. Given the length of time of anagen (years), it's hard to predict any long term certainties with HM?

There has been another discovery on the "convert skin cells to hair cells front". I dont have the link handy, but its on the boards if you want to look for it. I forget which gene they have to fiddle with, but the can do it with a protien, and new hairs sprout up. This is brand new though....................so the tumor factor, or the growing teeth or bone inadvertently has not really been tested. I think thats miles out personally.

Is this another animal study?

The downside of my theory about the conditions in the male pattern baldness scalp causing early contact inhibition of follicle growth, is this also applies to any geneticaly induced "new" follicles. These would still have to enlarge to produce "large" hair, so you would still have the factor of resistence from the surrounding tissue.

You posted Fuchs beta-catenin work and the Lef-gene.......................................and that tumors appeared between the follicles. I suppose you mean that the gene does interefere with the normal contact inhibiton instructions on the stem cells and causes these benign tumors then?

Beta-catenin and the cadherins are known to be associated with the process of normal contact inhibition. Even VEGF that is often discussed in hair loss is linked in this.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer ... t=Abstract

Yes, i think the fact that tumors were induced along with increased hair growth, means the contact inhibition pathway is important in-vivo.

You also made mention about folks wanting a cure in the now.............................................Stephen, man, we have been led along by the nose since Gho' started talkin' hair multiplication. I suppose the excitement over Dolly the sheep that you Brits beat us to got alot of men like me thinking "hell, if they can clone a furry-*** sheep, surely they can clone some of my lost hair" and we all just went from there. Its frustrating. I already know more about hair man than I ever even wanted to have a clue about. Believe me. I wish there was some breakthrough over the horizon for suffering men.......................but Im getting pessimistic personally. Especially with Stenn and Costarialis splitting time with Aderans and Follica. That tells me a ton right there.

Yeah i know only too well Michael. In my youth there was even less to go on than we have now! At least there are these internet sites and information exchange on real world effects of treatments.

On your son....................................My leg hair is about what it was ten years ago when I got on propecia, but by now I should be hairier. I have a hairy chest and fairly hairy arms. I bet, however, if I did not inhibit alpha five type two (and drink a bit of green tea, and do a little saw palmetto)..............I'd be hairier. Ive begun to wonder why in the hell they cant just pluck beard hair and put it on your head. Ive plucked it before (years ago I had follicultius) and the damn roots were right there. The hairs always regenerated too. It would seem enough stem cell material would have been on those intact roots to make another hair on the head. Ive never gotten a satisfactory answer to that.


Good luck on getting your ideas formally tested again. I know its frustrating.

It just goes to show how tough follicles are under the right conditions! When you want to get rid of hair, it just won't go away!

Good luck Michael, one day it will happen!

S Foote.

 

[Bryan]

The http://www.springerlink.com/content/r5vp97365370t36/ link article that showed estrogen slowing hair growth down in vitro is fascinating/depresssing. Have you asked Bryan for a response on this? What did he say?

Interesting. That's only the second experiment I've ever seen claiming to show a negative effect of estrogen on human scalp hair. It contradicts the Kiesewetter study which I've cited several times which found that estrogen accelerates the growth of all scalp hair cell types.

I thought the article at the start of this thread however, that showed follicles from the wreath area of non-male pattern baldness men that got slathered with both DHT and testosterone would have proved that non-male pattern baldness hairs could be "turned" to male pattern baldness hairs with enough testoseterone.

Do you think beard follicles could be turned into male pattern baldness hairs with enough testosterone?

To be honest though........since those hairs had the alpha five type two enzyme in the root sheaths to make DHT, there was really no need to add DHT to them, it would seem that they could make it themselves if testosterone was added.

Don't forget what I've mentioned a few times, which is that scalp follicle dermal papilla cells in culture appear to lose their ability to express 5a-reductase type 2. Those are the DHT-producing cells to worry about.

Im also dissapointed that they declined to give you an opinon.

I could say something here, but I won't! :wink:

Bryan

 

[Guest]

Interesting. That's only the second experiment I've ever seen claiming to show a negative effect of estrogen on human scalp hair. It contradicts the Kiesewetter study which I've cited several times which found that estrogen accelerates the growth of all scalp hair cell types.

Maybe Sam A was right. heehee.

 

[CCS]

even if estrogen is bad, is it worse than the testosterone it use to be?

how much more estrogen do women have than what men have? bryan said they have about 5% as much testosterone as men.

 

[Guest]

im not sure.

i do know that estrogen levels in women fall with age, and estrogen levels in men rise with age. we also know that estrogen is not the cause of breast cancer for this reason- if it was the cause then more young women would be getting it than older women with the higher Est levels.

i wonder if testosterone levels in women rise with age as they fall in men.

 

[CCS]

I'm pretty sure testosterone levels do rise in women with age. that is how they get facial hair, i think. but I don't know if that affects just the older ones.

so estrogen gives them breasts but not breast cancer. and it gives them more body fat.

i heard women have more testosterone during their menstral period.

does not sound to me like estrogen is the cause of hair loss, but what is interesting is men lose hair with age even though testosterone levels drop. This could be because it turns to DHT instead, or estrogen, or just less. But i think the hair loss is cumulative over years, and not a result of the amount of testosterone at that exact time.

 

[Guest]

maybe it's just the natural thinning that comes with age that both men and women experience?

 

[HARM1]

I'm pretty sure testosterone levels do rise in women with age. that is how they get facial hair, i think. but I don't know if that affects just the older ones.

so estrogen gives them breasts but not breast cancer. and it gives them more body fat.

i heard women have more testosterone during their menstral period.

does not sound to me like estrogen is the cause of hair loss, but what is interesting is men lose hair with age even though testosterone levels drop. This could be because it turns to DHT instead, or estrogen, or just less. But i think the hair loss is cumulative over years, and not a result of the amount of testosterone at that exact time.

I read that DHT levels go up with age.
And you can't say" E goes downd with age , so it's not the cause for breast cancer". you really can't claim to know what causes cancer with such logic.

 

[Guest]

I'm pretty sure testosterone levels do rise in women with age. that is how they get facial hair, i think. but I don't know if that affects just the older ones.

so estrogen gives them breasts but not breast cancer. and it gives them more body fat.

i heard women have more testosterone during their menstral period.

does not sound to me like estrogen is the cause of hair loss, but what is interesting is men lose hair with age even though testosterone levels drop. This could be because it turns to DHT instead, or estrogen, or just less. But i think the hair loss is cumulative over years, and not a result of the amount of testosterone at that exact time.

I read that DHT levels go up with age.
And you can't say" E goes downd with age , so it's not the cause for breast cancer". you really can't claim to know what causes cancer with such logic.

actually yes i can, there have been studies, harm.

 

[HARM1]

I'm pretty sure testosterone levels do rise in women with age. that is how they get facial hair, i think. but I don't know if that affects just the older ones.

so estrogen gives them breasts but not breast cancer. and it gives them more body fat.

i heard women have more testosterone during their menstral period.

does not sound to me like estrogen is the cause of hair loss, but what is interesting is men lose hair with age even though testosterone levels drop. This could be because it turns to DHT instead, or estrogen, or just less. But i think the hair loss is cumulative over years, and not a result of the amount of testosterone at that exact time.

I read that DHT levels go up with age.
And you can't say" E goes downd with age , so it's not the cause for breast cancer". you really can't claim to know what causes cancer with such logic.

actually yes i can, there have been studies, harm.

I didn't say your claim is wrong my friend, I just said that how you got to is not a correct way. Cancer is very complecated.

 

[S Foote.]

The http://www.springerlink.com/content/r5vp97365370t36/ link article that showed estrogen slowing hair growth down in vitro is fascinating/depresssing. Have you asked Bryan for a response on this? What did he say?

Interesting. That's only the second experiment I've ever seen claiming to show a negative effect of estrogen on human scalp hair. It contradicts the Kiesewetter study which I've cited several times which found that estrogen accelerates the growth of all scalp hair cell types.

I posted that study simply because it shows what a mixed bag of pointless, scientificaly meaningless results follicle "in-vitro" studies produce.

Thats the lesson here! :wink:

Im also dissapointed that they declined to give you an opinon.

I could say something here, but I won't! :wink:

Bryan

What are you afraid of Bryan? 8)

S Foote.

 

[Bryan]

I posted that study simply because it shows what a mixed bag of pointless, scientificaly meaningless results follicle "in-vitro" studies produce.

Thats the lesson here! :wink:

Stephen, the really funny thing about you is that you are so bereft of any scientific evidence at all in support of your theory, you're reduced to searching through the available studies and hoping to find an occasional inconsistency or disagreement on some technical issue or experimental finding. Then when you do find something like that, you proudly trumpet it to anyone who will listen: "Look! Look! See, I told you so!! There are HUGE problems with the accepted theory of balding!!!" You just crack me up, Stephen!

Bryan