For bryan and Foote.

[Dave001]

But this is just another of the assumptions that seems to be par for the course in hair loss and related research Bryan!

The "specific" question i asked was for evidence of increasing sebaceous gland "size" in male pattern baldness, as you claimed happened!

Are you contesting the accepted agreement of sebaceous gland activity with its size?

In the study you quote above, did the controls have the tested areas shaved for a long enough period during this testing? This would have rulled out any effect of sebum pick up by the hair reducing the scalp sebum levels measured.

In the male pattern baldness subjects, the sebum is just lying there waiting to be picked up by the sebutape, so of course there is going to be a higher reading of sebum in this case.

So without even reading the study, you're questioning the competence of the authors to take sebum measurements, and assuming they lack a basic familiarity with the necessity to control for environmental variables?

This has nothing at all to do with any accurate measurement of the gland size itself does it!

Are you again saying that you reject as evidence any indirect measurements of sebaceous gland size?

The trouble is Bryan, you always just cherry pick the data to suit your arguments, and fail to judge the validity in a proper scientific way.

I'd imagine that his selection was somewhat arbitrary, as there is no shortage of studies that demonstrate a positive correlation of sebaceous gland size with male pattern baldness, and you appear to have already made up your mind prior to reading any evidence. Perhaps you should be more clear about what you want or don't want to see.

[snip remaining incoherent babble]

 

[Dave001]

What i "have" clearly shown you before as you well know, is that a cells growth response to androgens can be reversed due to the influence of another factor that alters growth gene expression within the cells.

I have recently lost all my links when my computer crashed, but this was the prostate cell type that reversed it's growth response to androgens when the cells became cancerous.

The cancerous transformation obviously alters growth gene expression. Contact inhibition also alters growth gene expression, so the prostate cell example shows that a similar "flip" in androgen response of cells could be possible because of prior changes induced by contact inhibition.

Ducks can float on water. Ducks can fly. Do you assume that the speed boat zooming past you is going to sprout wings and orbit the Earth?

 

[S Foote.]

But this is just another of the assumptions that seems to be par for the course in hair loss and related research Bryan!

The "specific" question i asked was for evidence of increasing sebaceous gland "size" in male pattern baldness, as you claimed happened!

Are you contesting the accepted agreement of sebaceous gland activity with its size?

No not at all!

I am pretty sure that sebaceous glands enlarge in response to androgens where androgens increase hair growth.

But i know of no valid evidence that the "already" large sebaceous glands in the scalp, enlarge further in the male pattern baldness area.

In the study you quote above, did the controls have the tested areas shaved for a long enough period during this testing? This would have rulled out any effect of sebum pick up by the hair reducing the scalp sebum levels measured.

In the male pattern baldness subjects, the sebum is just lying there waiting to be picked up by the sebutape, so of course there is going to be a higher reading of sebum in this case.

So without even reading the study, you're questioning the competence of the authors to take sebum measurements, and assuming they lack a basic familiarity with the necessity to control for environmental variables?

[quote="S Foote.":a6994]This has nothing at all to do with any accurate measurement of the gland size itself does it!

Are you again saying that you reject as evidence any indirect measurements of sebaceous gland size?

The trouble is Bryan, you always just cherry pick the data to suit your arguments, and fail to judge the validity in a proper scientific way.

I'd imagine that his selection was somewhat arbitrary, as there is no shortage of studies that demonstrate a positive correlation of sebaceous gland size with male pattern baldness, and you appear to have already made up your mind prior to reading any evidence. Perhaps you should be more clear about what you want or don't want to see.

[snip remaining incoherent babble][/quote:a6994]

OK, you again claim there is no shortage of studies to support your claim, but yet again you cannot cite any of these studies!

Get real Dave :roll:

S Foote.

 

[S Foote.]

What i "have" clearly shown you before as you well know, is that a cells growth response to androgens can be reversed due to the influence of another factor that alters growth gene expression within the cells.

I have recently lost all my links when my computer crashed, but this was the prostate cell type that reversed it's growth response to androgens when the cells became cancerous.

The cancerous transformation obviously alters growth gene expression. Contact inhibition also alters growth gene expression, so the prostate cell example shows that a similar "flip" in androgen response of cells could be possible because of prior changes induced by contact inhibition.

Ducks can float on water. Ducks can fly. Do you assume that the speed boat zooming past you is going to sprout wings and orbit the Earth?

What are you smoking Dave, and where can i get some?

S Foote.

 

[Bryan]

But this is just another of the assumptions that seems to be par for the course in hair loss and related research Bryan!

The "specific" question i asked was for evidence of increasing sebaceous gland "size" in male pattern baldness, as you claimed happened!

In the study you quote above, did the controls have the tested areas shaved for a long enough period during this testing? This would have rulled out any effect of sebum pick up by the hair reducing the scalp sebum levels measured.

In the male pattern baldness subjects, the sebum is just lying there waiting to be picked up by the sebutape, so of course there is going to be a higher reading of sebum in this case.

This has nothing at all to do with any accurate measurement of the gland size itself does it!

BWAHAHAHAH!!! Is that the best you could do, Stephen?? Just challenge the general competence and ability of those doctors to measure scalp sebum accurately??

Oh well, I can't say I'm terribly surprised. _I_ wouldn't have been able to think of any other way to "spin" it, either...

Despite the fact that androgens don't directly "change" follicle growth in-vitro, you still claim that androgens will directly change normal follicles into male pattern baldness follicles given time. You make this claim because male pattern baldness samples "are" directly growth restricted by androgens in-vitro.

Actually, I don't really "make that claim". I've suggested it as a POSSIBILITY. Perhaps someday, scientists will know the exact reason(s) why and how pre-puberty follicles develop a sensitivity to androgens (in the male pattern baldness sense) as time goes by.

So you have said in this thread that this is compelling evidence for a direct effect of androgens on follicle growth in-vivo.

It's not a "theory". Androgens DO have a direct effect on follicle growth. It's just that your goofy idea is that contact inhibition is what CAUSES that effect in the first place.

The mouse transplantation study you refer to here and elsewere, shows that male pattern baldness follicles can re-enlarge in the right conditions. The immuno-deficient mice are "not" androgen deficient, so there can be no "direct" effect of androgens keeping male pattern baldness follicles small can there!

Actually, I don't believe there was any data about levels of androgens in those mice.

If you are going to argue that the immunology that is missing in these mice is important, and androgens must therefore be "directly" effecting follicles via immune effects, then where was the "immunology" in the test tube Bryan?

I'm not claiming that androgens ONLY affect hair follicles via immune effects. You seem to be confusing what _I_ am saying with what _Michael_ has been saying.

Bryan

 

[2tone]

I like the idea of speed boats sprouting wings and zoominggg all over the planet .. greaat imaging .. great

I'm gonna say something and forgive me if i'm wrong .

I think Foote is representing some interesting perspectives in this discussion . Most people are not familiar with scienttiffic research what it it and what it is not . It has been said that the Devil is in the Detail , i dont thinkj any of us would deny the wisdom in that saying ..
Well its perhaps nowhere more true than in Scientiffic research .
e.g. i read this fascinating study on DHT levels in Vertex of the scalp compared to Occipital regions of the scalp.. but i dont know where abouts from the occipital and vertex the samples were taken from .. published research seems to Lack in depth when it comes to explaining quite simply what information is or is not being presented .

I agree with Foote's questioning credibility of the Sebum expression=gland size issue in male pattern baldness areas .. Some people might say its just a technical detail , but this is a reaon for dettling it once and for all . Technical details are the benchwork of research ..

 

[Bryan]

[quote="S Foote.":06d90]

LOL!!! That's not good enough, Stephen! You have to find another example in biology where contact inhibition caused a CHANGE IN THE RESPONSE OF SOME BODY TISSUE TO ANDROGENS WHICH CONSISTED OF THE UPREGULATION OF TGF BETA-1. We're not going to let you get away with a form of "guilt by association"! It's "Put-Up or Shut-Up Time" for you: either find an example of that happening somewhere else, or get your butt back to the drawing-board.

I did precisely what you ask above in a previous debate as you know Bryan, and i certainly don't have to "prove" anything to "you" do i :wink:

You have never once given me such an example, and it saddens me that you cannot bring yourself to acknowledge the truth, even on Christmas.

Bryan

What i "have" clearly shown you before as you well know, is that a cells growth response to androgens can be reversed due to the influence of another factor that alters growth gene expression within the cells.

I have recently lost all my links when my computer crashed, but this was the prostate cell type that reversed it's growth response to androgens when the cells became cancerous.[/quote:06d90]

OH MY GOD!! Stephen, you're a HYPOCRITE!! You refused to accept MY earlier example of how prostate cancer cells eventually lose their requirement for androgens, but now you've turned right around and are attempting to use that YOURSELF as an example of your own! Now THAT is what I call chutzpah! :shock:

The cancerous transformation obviously alters growth gene expression. Contact inhibition also alters growth gene expression, so the prostate cell example shows that a similar "flip" in androgen response of cells could be possible because of prior changes induced by contact inhibition.

You tried to slip-slide around the issue by providing an answer (of sorts) to something WHICH I DIDN'T ASK YOU. Let's try it one more time: give me an example in biology where contact inhibition (NOT cancer) caused a "flip" in the response of some tissue to androgens.

We're all waiting for your response, Stephen! :wink:

Bryan

 

[S Foote.]

But this is just another of the assumptions that seems to be par for the course in hair loss and related research Bryan!

The "specific" question i asked was for evidence of increasing sebaceous gland "size" in male pattern baldness, as you claimed happened!

In the study you quote above, did the controls have the tested areas shaved for a long enough period during this testing? This would have rulled out any effect of sebum pick up by the hair reducing the scalp sebum levels measured.

In the male pattern baldness subjects, the sebum is just lying there waiting to be picked up by the sebutape, so of course there is going to be a higher reading of sebum in this case.

This has nothing at all to do with any accurate measurement of the gland size itself does it!

BWAHAHAHAH!!! Is that the best you could do, Stephen?? Just challenge the general competence and ability of those doctors to measure scalp sebum accurately??

Oh well, I can't say I'm terribly surprised. _I_ wouldn't have been able to think of any other way to "spin" it, either...

[quote="S Foote.":67117]Despite the fact that androgens don't directly "change" follicle growth in-vitro, you still claim that androgens will directly change normal follicles into male pattern baldness follicles given time. You make this claim because male pattern baldness samples "are" directly growth restricted by androgens in-vitro.

Actually, I don't really "make that claim". I've suggested it as a POSSIBILITY. Perhaps someday, scientists will know the exact reason(s) why and how pre-puberty follicles develop a sensitivity to androgens (in the male pattern baldness sense) as time goes by.

So you have said in this thread that this is compelling evidence for a direct effect of androgens on follicle growth in-vivo.

It's not a "theory". Androgens DO have a direct effect on follicle growth. It's just that your goofy idea is that contact inhibition is what CAUSES that effect in the first place.

The mouse transplantation study you refer to here and elsewere, shows that male pattern baldness follicles can re-enlarge in the right conditions. The immuno-deficient mice are "not" androgen deficient, so there can be no "direct" effect of androgens keeping male pattern baldness follicles small can there!

Actually, I don't believe there was any data about levels of androgens in those mice.

If you are going to argue that the immunology that is missing in these mice is important, and androgens must therefore be "directly" effecting follicles via immune effects, then where was the "immunology" in the test tube Bryan?

I'm not claiming that androgens ONLY affect hair follicles via immune effects. You seem to be confusing what _I_ am saying with what _Michael_ has been saying.

Bryan[/quote:67117]

Bulls**t Bryan :roll:

You cannot possibly reconcile the mouse transplant study with a direct action of androgens on male pattern baldness follicles in-vivo, as you claimed the in-vitro tests "proved" :wink:

End of story sorry.

S Foote.

 

[S Foote.]

[quote="S Foote.":be6f9]

LOL!!! That's not good enough, Stephen! You have to find another example in biology where contact inhibition caused a CHANGE IN THE RESPONSE OF SOME BODY TISSUE TO ANDROGENS WHICH CONSISTED OF THE UPREGULATION OF TGF BETA-1. We're not going to let you get away with a form of "guilt by association"! It's "Put-Up or Shut-Up Time" for you: either find an example of that happening somewhere else, or get your butt back to the drawing-board.

I did precisely what you ask above in a previous debate as you know Bryan, and i certainly don't have to "prove" anything to "you" do i :wink:

You have never once given me such an example, and it saddens me that you cannot bring yourself to acknowledge the truth, even on Christmas.

Bryan

What i "have" clearly shown you before as you well know, is that a cells growth response to androgens can be reversed due to the influence of another factor that alters growth gene expression within the cells.

I have recently lost all my links when my computer crashed, but this was the prostate cell type that reversed it's growth response to androgens when the cells became cancerous.

OH MY GOD!! Stephen, you're a HYPOCRITE!! You refused to accept MY earlier example of how prostate cancer cells eventually lose their requirement for androgens, but now you've turned right around and are attempting to use that YOURSELF as an example of your own! Now THAT is what I call chutzpah! :shock:[/quote:be6f9]

You always end up lying and tring to mislead people don't you Bryan. Is some kind of internet "status" so important to you that you place it above the true science? It certainly looks like that

"YOUR" earlier example!! I posted the study on those prostate cells as you well know for God's sake!

I posted that study as the example you asked "ME" for, to explain how a cell can "flip" it's response to androgens in response to changes in the gene expression effecting growth pathways, as in contact inhibition !

Cancer also effects the expression of genes controling growth pathways in cells, simple :wink:

In your desperation to try to distort my example to fit your explaination for the androgen "flip" response in the in-vitro follicle studies, you claimed that androgens "must" be directly causing cancer in this type of prostate cell!

Which is just ridiculous because if this was so, all men would die of this kind of prostate cancer before they reached 30 or so. :roll:

The cancerous transformation obviously alters growth gene expression. Contact inhibition also alters growth gene expression, so the prostate cell example shows that a similar "flip" in androgen response of cells could be possible because of prior changes induced by contact inhibition.

You tried to slip-slide around the issue by providing an answer (of sorts) to something WHICH I DIDN'T ASK YOU. Let's try it one more time: give me an example in biology where contact inhibition (NOT cancer) caused a "flip" in the response of some tissue to androgens.

We're all waiting for your response, Stephen! :wink:

Bryan

I just did for the second time Bryan, so just stop this dancing around, pretending that i haven't because contact inhibition and cancer are not related.

It is basic knowledge that contact inhibition and cancer effect the same growth genes, as cancerous cells lose their response to contact inhibition, just do some research. :wink:

Now "YOU" give me an example to justify your notion that given long enough, a cell that dose "not" respond to a hormone, "will" be converted to one that "does" with continued exposure to that hormone?

There is no such example or precedent for this "fantasy" mechanism of yours, and the smart scientists know this :wink:

S Foote.

 

[Bryan]

We're all waiting for your response, Stephen! :wink:

I just did for the second time Bryan, so just stop this dancing around, pretending that i haven't because contact inhibition and cancer are not related.

It is basic knowledge that contact inhibition and cancer effect the same growth genes, as cancerous cells lose their response to contact inhibition, just do some research. :wink:

Nope, not good enough, Stephen! You'll have to continue your desperate search for something involving contact inhibition specifically. "Guilt by association" doesn't cut the mustard! :wink:

BTW, here's a big newsflash for you: even your pathetic example of cancer cells above doesn't really involve a FLIP in the response to androgens. I believe that prostate cancer cells go from being stimulated by androgens, to simply not requiring them. That's not the same as the difference between body hair follicles being stimulated by androgens, and scalp hair follicles being suppressed by them. Back to the drawing board for you, Stephen.

Bryan

 

[michael barry]

Were the immune deficient mice androgenic? Did they have reasonably high levels of DHT?

 

[michael barry]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFrien ... 10,00.html

L'Oreal researchers are now saying that the scalps of 2/3 of bald men simply age way too fast, and a couple of factors squeeze the hair follicle where it cant enlarge enough to produce a healthy hair. That link proboably wont sent (I tried it three times on another site), what do you gents think of it though? thoughts?

My thought is L'Oreal is usually a little nutso, but I try to keep an open mind about this stuff.

 

[Aplunk1]

Good article,
I don't doubt any of the assertions represented in the piece. I think that antioxidants play a crucial role in the healthy functioning of the scalp skin cells, and studies like this will pave the way towards healthier methods of hairloss prevention.

 

[2tone]

From the Loreal Article ..

First, two types of mark start to appear around the root of an apparently healthly follicle. Cupulae, small bulges in the scalp, grow around the follicle as ageing skin cells squeeze it and force its roots towards the surface. Later, coloured blotches or “halosâ€￾ can be seen around follicles as they become distressed and inflamed.

In the next stage, certain hair follicles become so compressed that they start to produce finer hairs with thinner diameters.

Again this indicates that Width is the governing constraint on hair growth ..

I actually like Loreal for some reason ,, i get a good feeling about the company .. I think for some reason that they have the right intentions .

The Loreal scenerio doesnt discuss DHT per-se but the describes cellular pressure forcing the follicle upwards .. is this a version of "contact inhibition"??

 

[S Foote.]

We're all waiting for your response, Stephen! :wink:

I just did for the second time Bryan, so just stop this dancing around, pretending that i haven't because contact inhibition and cancer are not related.

It is basic knowledge that contact inhibition and cancer effect the same growth genes, as cancerous cells lose their response to contact inhibition, just do some research. :wink:

Nope, not good enough, Stephen! You'll have to continue your desperate search for something involving contact inhibition specifically. "Guilt by association" doesn't cut the mustard! :wink:

BTW, here's a big newsflash for you: even your pathetic example of cancer cells above doesn't really involve a FLIP in the response to androgens. I believe that prostate cancer cells go from being stimulated by androgens, to simply not requiring them. That's not the same as the difference between body hair follicles being stimulated by androgens, and scalp hair follicles being suppressed by them. Back to the drawing board for you, Stephen.

Bryan

OK Bryan, you have shown us you can't comprehend the significance of that study to the point in hand. I am not going to waste any more of my time trying to teach you scientific deduction.

How about you showing us all some "real" science in support of "YOUR" arrogant claims Bryan? Talk is cheap. :wink:

People reading this can see that i have answered your question, even if you don't understand the answer. They can also see that you continue to refuse to answer my questions, or give any scientific support whatsoever for your "guess" that androgens are directly changing the way follicle cells respond "TO" androgens!

If you had any honour at all, you would just admit there is no science at all to back your guesswork 8)

Your just a lot of hot air Bryan.

S Foote.

 

[Dave001]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-3-723510,00.html

L'Oreal researchers are now saying that the scalps of 2/3 of bald men simply age way too fast, and a couple of factors squeeze the hair follicle where it cant enlarge enough to produce a healthy hair. That link proboably wont sent (I tried it three times on another site), what do you gents think of it though? thoughts?

My thought is L'Oreal is usually a little nutso, but I try to keep an open mind about this stuff.

Nah, that's par for popular journalism. The idiotic journalists were probably trying to describe the process of miniaturization.

 

[Dave001]

BWAHAHAHAH!!! Is that the best you could do, Stephen?? Just challenge the general competence and ability of those doctors to measure scalp sebum accurately??

Oh well, I can't say I'm terribly surprised. _I_ wouldn't have been able to think of any other way to "spin" it, either...

Bryan, can you "PROVE" that the scientists from all of the studies you cite did not accidently knock the petri dishes onto the floor, replace the cuture's fluid medium with urine, and then lie about it?

 

[S Foote.]

BWAHAHAHAH!!! Is that the best you could do, Stephen?? Just challenge the general competence and ability of those doctors to measure scalp sebum accurately??

Oh well, I can't say I'm terribly surprised. _I_ wouldn't have been able to think of any other way to "spin" it, either...

Bryan, can you "PROVE" that the scientists from all of the studies you cite did not accidently knock the petri dishes onto the floor, replace the cuture's fluid medium with urine, and then lie about it?

People reading this please note Dave's regular attempts to distract from trully scientific discussion that he just can't address, with his now predictable unjustified sarcasm :wink:

For the record, Dave001 is the sad fool who found the scientific term "Ockhams razor" during an internet search. He then thought that if he refered to this term on internet sites, people would think he was inteligent and had some scientific knowledge.

People should also note however, that when he was questioned about the details of this scientific principle, he quite rightly refused to respond. Because if he had, i would have shown him up for the "internet poser" he really is! :wink:

S Foote.

 

[michael barry]

Dave,
On the times article........The London Times is a big, important newspaper, so Ive told myslef that Mark Henderson, the corresondent, who wrote the story, has some scientific background. But we both know that may not be true. Hell, he could'a pissed off Tony Blair at a party over there and has been sent to the journalistic equivalent of purgatory by his editors for retaliation, the science beat.

All kidding aside, they seem to be trying to describe some of the early scarring of the follicle. The folks at Alpecin were stating much the same thing about premature ageing of the scalp due to androgen hormones. Im impressed that L'Oreal looked over some 5,000 subjects for this study. I hope they will publish it in a peer reviewed journal. Not holding my breath. Article made no mention of the thickeining collagen, loss of a water layer, etc. that takes place in baldness. Ive considered that L'Oreal released this info to pepper the ground and ready the market for their new baldness product. Who knows, we who have followed hairloss, have witnessed so many scams directed at us, we have a right to be cynical about it do we not?

 

[Dave001]

For the record, Dave001 is the sad fool who found the scientific term "Ockhams razor" during an internet search. He then thought that if he refered to this term on internet sites, people would think he was inteligent and had some scientific knowledge.

:laugh:

For the record? For the record, you have the habit of making up wildly absurd stories without any basis. For the record, I'd expect that intelligent persons would actually spell the word intelligent correctly (and perhaps even exceedingly complicated words such as referred, too).