S Foote.
Experienced Member
- Reaction score
- 66
Bryan said:S Foote. said: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
That's really funny Bryan "YOU" trying to acuse me of cherry picking :roll:
This comes from the person who claimed a fifty year old transplantation study "proved" beyond question your personal beliefs.
http://www.hairlosstalk.com/discussions ... hp?t=17571
Then you showed your total ignorance of the now recognised common long term balding in the very same grafts, and modern evidence in transplantation in gereral :roll:
Next we had you (quite rightly for once), posting that mouse study and questioning the traditional idea's on the androgen "direct" effect.
http://www.hairlosshelp.com/forums/mess ... &forumid=1
But then as soon as you realised (slowly as usual), that this study supported "my" ideas, you tried to desperately play this down :roll:
Thats a "VERY" scientific attitude Bryan (NOT) :wink:
Now answer my question?
You said you had something to say about the non response i got from ICX, so tell us Bryan?
S Foote.