For bryan and Foote.

[Boru]

Boru, post some before and after pictures and list your regimine

I just updated my profile with my regimen. I can't upload photos from our home computer yet, too tricky to do it at the library or cafe.
Appreciate your point though. Maybe I should get a scanner soon. The new hair is just beginning to look like something useful. Do you think that the five year hair cycle is realistic, or new regrowth is going to be slower than the normal cycle?
Boru

 

[S Foote.]

My original question was that you provide evidence that androgens were "directly" enlarging sebaceous glands in the balding area, as part and parcel of the balding process!!

All you can provide is studies that refer to "later" sebaceous gland enlargement. This effect has nothing whatsoever to do with any "direct" effect of androgens on sebaceous glands, and is an ageing effect known as Sebaceous hyperplasia.

ROTFLMFAO!!!! Oh, so THAT'S your explanation now, Stephen? All the observed enlargement of sebaceous glands in balding scalp by Kligman, Sawaya, and others is just due to this (relatively rare) "sebaceous hyperplasia"? You'll stoop to ANYTHING to keep your theory afloat, won't you?

http://www.regrowth.com/hair_loss_infor ... r_loss.cfm[/url]



The only citations you can come up with involve much longer term baldness, where other factors enter the equation!

Are you trying to say Uno is incompetent Bryan? Because when Uno's research was refered to on another site by a buddy of yours, you posted quote: "GREAT STUFF".

http://www.hairsite4.com/dc/dcboard.php ... ting_type=

Your blatent hypocrisy in these debates is now clear for all to see! :wink:

S Foote.

 

[Dave001]

My original point was about the comparitive "SIZE" of sebaceous glands in bald and non bald scalp! I raised this question in response to "YOUR" claim that sebaceous glands are larger in the bald scalp compared to the hairy scalp, due to a "direct" action of androgens.

The studies clearly show you were wrong in that claim Bryan, end of story! 8)

When studies demonstrating enlarged sebaceous glands in balding vs. non-balding scalp were offered, you rejected them, and changed your position so that the size of the sebaceous glands was no longer an issue. The sebaceous glands are indeed enlarged in balding scalp, you conceded, while shifting your argument to the cause of enlargement, which you claimed was not the result of androgens, but of some "later" process.

To refresh your memory, here is a direct quote from a post of yours from the other day:

Yes Michael, i think that any sebaceous gland enlargement in the male pattern baldness scalp, is a result of later processes, as is the arrector-pilli muscle changes.

I think the body of evidence supports these later changes as being mediated through the immunology in the bald scalp, and not "directly" by androgens.

How does the evidence support these "later" changes, if they do not exist, as you also claim?

How can you claim that the earth is flat from an aerial view depicting a sphere?

 

[2tone]

These "longer term " effects on sebacious gland size , what is suggested to cause them to go from being smaller smoother ducts into larger cauliflowered ducts?

it can only surely be something relatively simple like pressure build up "exploding" the duct into that new shape right ? ..

It does seem unusual if we consider the axiom that "god does not play dice with the universe" that the sebacious gland is a storage site for DHT testosterone and the converting enzyme etc as well , yet such powerful hormones do not have any significant effect of the sebacious unit itself .. why else would the body have evolutionry cause to reposit these hormones there..??

 

[michael barry]

I suppose the camps in the argument are that the enlargement/disfigurement in the sebaceous glands and the larger arrector pilli muscles are 1) a direct result of androgen influence in the male pattern baldness process or 2) a response to the immuno-attack late in the process or even after the hair is completely miniaturized.
It seems that most hairloss sites assume that enlarged sebaceous glands are present in balding scalp, but I do pubmed type searches and dont see clinicals on it, it just seems that its a "generally accepted notion" in the hairloss community...........fascinating stuff on the enlarged arrector-pilli....who knew. Also the info about the stumptails not having the immuno/inflammatory component to their balding is fascinating (Is it REALLY a curse from GOD?)

Ive never seen any of you three (Bryan, Steve, Dave) ever comment on hair multiplication (of the variety that is being pursued by Intercyclex, Anderans, etc.). Any of you guys have thoughts on its feasiblity and perhaps guesses as to when it will be available (or not) and why? Interested to hear what you guys might think here.......

 

[Bryan]

My original point was about the comparitive "SIZE" of sebaceous glands in bald and non bald scalp!

No $hit, Stephen?

I raised this question in response to "YOUR" claim that sebaceous glands are larger in the bald scalp compared to the hairy scalp, due to a "direct" action of androgens.

The studies clearly show you were wrong in that claim Bryan, end of story! 8)

What "studies" are you referring to? All you've been able to find is that one terse statement from Uno.

Dr Uno's research on the "exact" histopathology in the balding scalp, "proves" there is no androgen related sebaceous gland enlargement in male pattern baldness quote:

"Sebaceous glands generally are the same size in normal hairy skin and bald skin (Figure 19b)."

You're milking that one statement for all it's worth, aren't you? :wink:

It's not all that unusual in a field as complex as this to find conflicting statements occasionally. But contradicting that ONE thing from Uno are the more specific and elaborate ones from Sawaya and Kligman. Furthermore, Dr. Proctor has made numerous references to the same thing over the years on alt.baldspot; namely, that sebaceous glands in balding scalp tend to grow big and fat and healthy. And I can probably find other references, too, if I were to start looking for them.

So let's see what we have here: Uno with a terse, contrary statement on one hand, with Sawaya, Kligman, Proctor, and others on the other. Whom to believe, whom to believe... (making an up-and-down "weighing" motion with my hands)... :wink:

The only citations you can come up with involve much longer term baldness, where other factors enter the equation!

I am absolutely incredulous that you are so in love with your eccentric theory about an "indirect" effect of androgens, not only are you trying to get people to believe that that's the case for hair follicles, but also sebaceous glands!

This running conversation that you and I have been having over the last couple of years or so has now taken an even more entertaining turn for me: the hilarious prospect of your SERIOUSLY attempting to argue along similar lines, even for sebaceous glands! I strongly suggest that you pack a nice big lunch from now on while discussing this issue with me, 'cuz you're gonna need it! :wink:

Are you trying to say Uno is incompetent Bryan?

Are you trying to say Kligman, Sawaya, Proctor (and others?) are incompetent, Stephen?

Bryan

 

[Dave001]

I suppose the camps in the argument are that the enlargement/disfigurement in the sebaceous glands and the larger arrector pilli muscles are 1) a direct result of androgen influence in the male pattern baldness process or 2) a response to the immuno-attack late in the process or even after the hair is completely miniaturized.

These two camps can further be characterized by their number of supporters, which roughly breaks down as follows:

1) Everyone else
2) 1

 

[S Foote.]

My original point was about the comparitive "SIZE" of sebaceous glands in bald and non bald scalp! I raised this question in response to "YOUR" claim that sebaceous glands are larger in the bald scalp compared to the hairy scalp, due to a "direct" action of androgens.

The studies clearly show you were wrong in that claim Bryan, end of story! 8)

When studies demonstrating enlarged sebaceous glands in balding vs. non-balding scalp were offered, you rejected them, and changed your position so that the size of the sebaceous glands was no longer an issue. The sebaceous glands are indeed enlarged in balding scalp, you conceded, while shifting your argument to the cause of enlargement, which you claimed was not the result of androgens, but of some "later" process.

To refresh your memory, here is a direct quote from a post of yours from the other day:

http://www.hairlosstalk.com/discussions ... &start=150[/url]

Bryan posted quote:


"S Foote. wrote:
michael barry wrote:
THREE. The biggie. Sebaceous glands get BIGGER in male pattern baldness even in the front of the scalp. How can they enlarge if fluid pressure is too high to allow it?


But they don't Michael, this is a myth! Show me some hard evidence?

Bryan. wrote:
I believe I have previously shown you evidence for that, but not surprisingly, you just ignored it.

Bryan"

Now the only relevant study to this issue, is the work by Dr Uno because this involves the specific androgen induced histopathology changes in the scalp in male pattern baldness.

The studies you and Bryan try to "spin" here as relevant to the issue at hand, are clearly "not"!!

This is because they study the "later" situation in male pattern baldness that rules out any "direct" action of androgens on sebaceous gland enlargement in the male pattern baldness scalp. If you two don't understand the difference here, you should find another hobby. :wink:

You made your "genuine" knowledge of hair loss research "very" clear in your critique of the L'Oreal article Dave :wink:

Earlier in this thread you responded thus:

"S Foote. wrote:
Hi Michael.

I think the link you posted about L'Oreal's research is very telling, and "some" people around here should take a good look at what "real" scientists think!

Dave001. wrote:
Really? Specifically what research by L'Oreal do you think is very telling? The article to which you refer is just a short blurb from a popular magazine, printed a few years ago. It was not published by L'Oreal. I've seen L'Oreal's recent patents and patent applications, and none of them relate to contact inhibition."

What is "really" telling Dave, is that you are completely unaware that the principle of physical barriers to follicle growth has already been published by Dr Uno!

http://www.hairsite4.com/dc/dcboard.php ... ting_type=

Quote:

"In alopecia skin, the abnormal streamers underneath the follicles appear to be a structural barrier for the down-growth of anagen follicles. Moreover, severe inflammatory involvement in the streamers causes suppressive growth of the follicular bulb and dermal papilla cells (see Figure 8a). Dense collagenous or hyalinized scarring streamers block the growth of follicles (Figure 8b and c). These follicular structures naturally resist any therapeutic effect for follicular growth. Moreover, associations of focal perivascular and perofollicular inflammatory cell infiltrations are often seen in alopecic skin."

I'am supprised your "buddy" Bryan didn't PM you about this thread he was involved in, to stop you from embarrassing yourself here!

Do i see a crack developing in the "partnership"?

S Foote.

 

[S Foote.]

My original point was about the comparitive "SIZE" of sebaceous glands in bald and non bald scalp!

No $hit, Stephen?

[quote="S Foote.":88a36]I raised this question in response to "YOUR" claim that sebaceous glands are larger in the bald scalp compared to the hairy scalp, due to a "direct" action of androgens.

The studies clearly show you were wrong in that claim Bryan, end of story! 8)

What "studies" are you referring to? All you've been able to find is that one terse statement from Uno.

Dr Uno's research on the "exact" histopathology in the balding scalp, "proves" there is no androgen related sebaceous gland enlargement in male pattern baldness quote:

"Sebaceous glands generally are the same size in normal hairy skin and bald skin (Figure 19b)."

You're milking that one statement for all it's worth, aren't you? :wink:

It's not all that unusual in a field as complex as this to find conflicting statements occasionally. But contradicting that ONE thing from Uno are the more specific and elaborate ones from Sawaya and Kligman. Furthermore, Dr. Proctor has made numerous references to the same thing over the years on alt.baldspot; namely, that sebaceous glands in balding scalp tend to grow big and fat and healthy. And I can probably find other references, too, if I were to start looking for them.

So let's see what we have here: Uno with a terse, contrary statement on one hand, with Sawaya, Kligman, Proctor, and others on the other. Whom to believe, whom to believe... (making an up-and-down "weighing" motion with my hands)... :wink:

The only citations you can come up with involve much longer term baldness, where other factors enter the equation!

I am absolutely incredulous that you are so in love with your eccentric theory about an "indirect" effect of androgens, not only are you trying to get people to believe that that's the case for hair follicles, but also sebaceous glands!

This running conversation that you and I have been having over the last couple of years or so has now taken an even more entertaining turn for me: the hilarious prospect of your SERIOUSLY attempting to argue along similar lines, even for sebaceous glands! I strongly suggest that you pack a nice big lunch from now on while discussing this issue with me, 'cuz you're gonna need it! :wink:

Are you trying to say Uno is incompetent Bryan?

Are you trying to say Kligman, Sawaya, Proctor (and others?) are incompetent, Stephen?

Bryan[/quote:88a36]

You dog chasing it's tail act is getting very boring Bryan :roll:

Just read my last post to your "best buddy" Dave :wink:

S Foote.

 

[S Foote.]

I suppose the camps in the argument are that the enlargement/disfigurement in the sebaceous glands and the larger arrector pilli muscles are 1) a direct result of androgen influence in the male pattern baldness process or 2) a response to the immuno-attack late in the process or even after the hair is completely miniaturized.
It seems that most hairloss sites assume that enlarged sebaceous glands are present in balding scalp, but I do pubmed type searches and dont see clinicals on it, it just seems that its a "generally accepted notion" in the hairloss community...........fascinating stuff on the enlarged arrector-pilli....who knew. Also the info about the stumptails not having the immuno/inflammatory component to their balding is fascinating (Is it REALLY a curse from GOD?)

Ive never seen any of you three (Bryan, Steve, Dave) ever comment on hair multiplication (of the variety that is being pursued by Intercyclex, Anderans, etc.). Any of you guys have thoughts on its feasiblity and perhaps guesses as to when it will be available (or not) and why? Interested to hear what you guys might think here.......

Michael, i for one have posted on my thoughts on hair multiplication, on the site that seems to be more interested in this research.

The fact that both Bryan and Dave avoid commenting on up to date research like HM, is fully in line with the behavior of "psuedo scientists" as described here.

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRel ... seudo.html

Quote:

" New theories are seldom proposed, and old concepts are rarely modified or discarded in light of new "discoveries," since pseudoscience rarely makes new "discoveries." The older the idea, the more respect it receives. No natural phenomena or processes previously unknown to science have ever been discovered by pseudoscientists. Indeed, pseudoscientists almost invariably deal with phenomena well known to scientists, but little known to the general public—so that the public will swallow whatever the pseudoscientist wants to claim. "

S Foote.

 

[S Foote.]

These "longer term " effects on sebacious gland size , what is suggested to cause them to go from being smaller smoother ducts into larger cauliflowered ducts?

it can only surely be something relatively simple like pressure build up "exploding" the duct into that new shape right ? ..

It does seem unusual if we consider the axiom that "god does not play dice with the universe" that the sebacious gland is a storage site for DHT testosterone and the converting enzyme etc as well , yet such powerful hormones do not have any significant effect of the sebacious unit itself .. why else would the body have evolutionry cause to reposit these hormones there..??

The longer term effects on the general condition of the tissues in male pattern baldness, are a result of the developing edema and the recognised effects this has on tissues in the long term in my opinion. This includes the increased growth of certain cell types, as in elephantiasis.

http://www.lymphoedema.org.au/index.htm

Although in sebaceous glands, i think the long term effects of the inflammatory processes are more likely to cause this "distortion".

In my opinion, DHT in particular is largely produced in follicles and sebaceous glands, because these are in the periferal tissues. To effect the lymphatic system "equally", it would be necessary for DHT production to evolve largely in the surface tissues.

S Foote.

 

[michael barry]

Bryan, Stephen, Dave, 2tone,

".........and since inflammation generates a slew of postent hair growth inhibitiors (Il-1, TNF-alpha, TGF-beta, etc.) and since firbrosis scars the structure of the follicle itself, this explains the difference in results between humans and macaques."........."the abnormal streamers underneath the follicles appear to be a structural barrier for the down growth of anagen follicles. Moreover, severe inflammatory involvement in the streamers causes suppressive growth of the follicular bulb and the dermal papilla cells. Dense collagenous or hyalinized scarring streamers blcok the growth of follicles. These follicular structures naturally resist any theraputic effect for follicular growth......."

The collagen hardening, restricting the follicle (derm papilla) enlargement is surely what L'Oreal labs had in mind when they invented the aminexil molecule to break up the collagen around the follicle. I know that seems to support contact inhibition (Stephen), but isnt this just a result of longtime inflammation from the immune system seige on the follicle. (Im aware that you proboably will say edema and immuno attack are much the same thing, and they are), but Uno never mentions tissue fluids building up in this article (and he noticed many TINY things in it). Stephen, do you have a take on that?


Bryan's contention (along with Dr. Proctor) that immuno attack is of utmost improtance was really hammered home to me when I read that.....streamers under the follicle preventing it from migrating downward, the growth inhibitors released by the immune system. I already knew about the superoxides. I dont know if Peter Proctor can put enough in Prox-N to counteract all that chemically. Its why I sometimes shrug my shoulders and say "curse from God".


However, experimentally.......I wish someone would try to put a good topical receptor blocker with a peptide-SOD like Prox, Tricomin etc. I just wonder if the immune system might get less interested in the follicle after years of little male hormone binding with it? I know about proxiphen, but I mean a strong receptor blocker....RU or Flutamide.




Stephen, Ive seen some of your posts over at hairsite on HM. Ive read that there are some guys walking around now with some HM hair on their heads. I assume the bio-degradable tissue scaffolds that were liscenced to Anderans from Intercyclex were used. If youre right on edema, this first experiment should fail after the first rest phase of those follicles should it not? They have not made "extra space" in the skin with those have they? We should know in about 2-3 more years I would guess when the first shed happens..........

A word on cloning.....they say it wont be good for hairlines and Washenik is saying its first generation will be like an 8-track. I say you can epilaser too thick clumpy hair on the hairline or use electrolysis where needs be, and get extra injections in a thin spot. The Intercyclex scaffolds supposeldy are the answer for direction. If those sprouts re-enlarge......the $hit is really gonna happen. Washenik is saying 2009. L.Lee Bosley, the PT Barnum of hair, is saying many many years away according to a New Yorker article. I think hair transplant's are drying up as the pups are buzzing their heads, using treatments, and waiting on cloning. Any of you guys have a thought or two on that?

 

[Dave001]

[quote="S Foote.":f64bb]My original point was about the comparitive "SIZE" of sebaceous glands in bald and non bald scalp! I raised this question in response to "YOUR" claim that sebaceous glands are larger in the bald scalp compared to the hairy scalp, due to a "direct" action of androgens.

The studies clearly show you were wrong in that claim Bryan, end of story! 8)

When studies demonstrating enlarged sebaceous glands in balding vs. non-balding scalp were offered, you rejected them, and changed your position so that the size of the sebaceous glands was no longer an issue. The sebaceous glands are indeed enlarged in balding scalp, you conceded, while shifting your argument to the cause of enlargement, which you claimed was not the result of androgens, but of some "later" process.

To refresh your memory, here is a direct quote from a post of yours from the other day:

[quote="S Foote.":f64bb]Yes Michael, i think that any sebaceous gland enlargement in the male pattern baldness scalp, is a result of later processes, as is the arrector-pilli muscle changes.

I think the body of evidence supports these later changes as being mediated through the immunology in the bald scalp, and not "directly" by androgens.

How does the evidence support these "later" changes, if they do not exist, as you also claim?[/quote:f64bb]

First off, just read the posts in this thread before you open your mouth!

This whole debate about sebaceous glands, began on the issue of sebaceous gland "size".[/quote:f64bb]

Yeah, no sh*t. When are you going to learn how to read?

 

[michael barry]

Stephen,

Do arrector pilli muscles eventually get enlarged in advanced edema cases? Distortion of sebaceous glands. I know the hair gets lost eventually in advanced edema on legs, ewbows.......so the hairloss is there, what about the other two effects? Can you link this for us? thx.

 

[S Foote.]

Bryan, Stephen, Dave, 2tone,

".........and since inflammation generates a slew of postent hair growth inhibitiors (Il-1, TNF-alpha, TGF-beta, etc.) and since firbrosis scars the structure of the follicle itself, this explains the difference in results between humans and macaques."........."the abnormal streamers underneath the follicles appear to be a structural barrier for the down growth of anagen follicles. Moreover, severe inflammatory involvement in the streamers causes suppressive growth of the follicular bulb and the dermal papilla cells. Dense collagenous or hyalinized scarring streamers blcok the growth of follicles. These follicular structures naturally resist any theraputic effect for follicular growth......."

The collagen hardening, restricting the follicle (derm papilla) enlargement is surely what L'Oreal labs had in mind when they invented the aminexil molecule to break up the collagen around the follicle. I know that seems to support contact inhibition (Stephen), but isnt this just a result of longtime inflammation from the immune system seige on the follicle. (Im aware that you proboably will say edema and immuno attack are much the same thing, and they are), but Uno never mentions tissue fluids building up in this article (and he noticed many TINY things in it). Stephen, do you have a take on that?

Yes, i think like you Michael that the "hardening" of tissue or fibrosis around the follicles, is a longer term effect of the immunology. In my opinion, it is only the recognised effects of edema that account for the sequense of events in male pattern baldness, including this immunology.

I don't think any reputable hair loss scientist thinks that the immunology is causal of follicle miniaturisation in humans. The immunology that leads to fibrosis is "later" than the miniaturisation.

I think as you know that the "pressure" of rising edema causes the initial miniaturisation, and in the longer term the immunology and fibrosis that makes the situation harder to reverse.

The problem with Uno or anyone else "noticing" increased fluid levels in the male pattern baldness scalp, is that this is not going to be "obvious", particularly in biopsy as the fluid pressure dissapears! In traditional testing like Uno's, people are looking at the "hardware", that is the cells etc, and "not" the fluid environment.

It should be possible to establish the presence of edema in male pattern baldness tissue, by the level of certain protein's in the tissue samples, and this should be easy enough to test by those in a position to do such testing.

Bryan's contention (along with Dr. Proctor) that immuno attack is of utmost improtance was really hammered home to me when I read that.....streamers under the follicle preventing it from migrating downward, the growth inhibitors released by the immune system. I already knew about the superoxides. I dont know if Peter Proctor can put enough in Prox-N to counteract all that chemically. Its why I sometimes shrug my shoulders and say "curse from God".

From the treatment point of view, i agree that the consequenses of the immunology (the fibrosis), needs to be addressed.

But i think the term immune "attack" is just plain wrong in male pattern baldness. I see no evidence at all, that there is some sort of "direct auto-immune attack" against the follicles!

Direct immune attacks "destroy" cells! They dont just create a reduced sized but still functioning organ, like we have in male pattern baldness!

This is another reason why edema "fits" the bill in male pattern baldness. Edema is known to cause tissue fibrosis in the absence of any "direct" immune response.

Stephen, Ive seen some of your posts over at hairsite on HM. Ive read that there are some guys walking around now with some HM hair on their heads. I assume the bio-degradable tissue scaffolds that were liscenced to Anderans from Intercyclex were used. If youre right on edema, this first experiment should fail after the first rest phase of those follicles should it not? They have not made "extra space" in the skin with those have they? We should know in about 2-3 more years I would guess when the first shed happens..........

I do have my doubts about the ability of HM hairs to cycle and re-enlarge, because of the contact inhibition factor, unless.......?

According to my theory, you have to induce certain conditions in HM procedures, if they are going to survive long term.

Consider the "reverse" situation as described by Uno?

If fibrosis around miniaturised follicles in male pattern baldness is creating a barrier to their enlargement, the same fibrosis around a large HM follicle should act as a barrier, conserving this larger follicle space against dermal intrusion, and early contact inhibition when re-cycling!

I think the formation of such fibrose "shells" around conventionally transplanted large anagen follicles, is the reason why they survive in the male pattern baldness area.

I think the ongoing research into the various HM procedures, is going to have to take account of this in any viable procedure.

S Foote.

 

[michael barry]

Stephen,
You mentioned the concern that HM follicles wont re-enlarge. Thats what I think they are waiting on now. The hair via Trichocyte is growing on the trialist's heads as we speak. They are providing no pictures yet (but their press release informed the potential trialists that they will be pictured with their faces covered---I imagine for marketing purposes). Ive wondered by what mechanism they are going to "set" the tissue scaffolds? I know the Intercyclex press release posted by David over at hairsite claims that 50-100 injections into the scalp will be all thats needed ( so the scaffolds will obviously not be injected, JTR claims they are put ON THE SCALP and are absorbed by it) . Number is not a problem, as they can make oodles of cells (or so they claim). The scaffolds should solve the direction issue according to the company.

If your contention is right Stephen, then only some of the hair will re-enlarge after the first rest phase, some will miniaturize. I imagine the hair directly under the syringe wounds will be OK though. They will know something is wrong (or not) then.

If you are right Stephen, I would envision a procedure in which DP cells and scaffolds would have to be injected with a syringe together for EVERY SINGLE FOLLICLE they inject for the dual purpose of the syringe wound creating "space" or a little scar tissue growth, and the scaffold providing direction for the cells to grow. This would proboably take two procedures to get density up to where it needs to be.


By the way Stephen......its been my idea for a GOOD WHILE to just inject the cells in the thigh first anyway, then a Doctor could FUE them back out and re-implant in the head insuring proper direction, etc.......
The reason I believe in this is that this way a clinic could first check and see if good hair is growing (its reasonably straight and not kinky which was a problem for Dr. Ungerer's subjects), and secondly the direction issue could be solved without biodegradable scaffolds. A man could literally just get the amount he needed with surgeries over time from an unlimited supply that was tried out in vivo (his leg) beforehand and proven to be compatible with him. What do you think?

 

[jeffsss]

By the way Stephen......its been my idea for a GOOD WHILE to just inject the cells in the thigh first anyway, then a Doctor could FUE them back out and re-implant in the head insuring proper direction, etc.......
The reason I believe in this is that this way a clinic could first check and see if good hair is growing (its reasonably straight and not kinky which was a problem for Dr. Ungerer's subjects), and secondly the direction issue could be solved without biodegradable scaffolds. A man could literally just get the amount he needed with surgeries over time from an unlimited supply that was tried out in vivo (his leg) beforehand and proven to be compatible with him. What do you think?

well you'd have to put about thousands of grafts in your leg.. that's going to be really really werid.

 

[michael barry]

Jeffss,
In a way I agree with you Jeff, but if you think about it......most men only need the amount (in square inches) that could fit in your hand.....
In other words the frontal lobe that goes only will take what 6-8 square inches worth of hair? The patient would have to shave that area for 6-8 months when it really began growing thick, then a Doctor could start inserting them on his head. If he needed more, the other thigh could be used (or a lower, higher part of the same thigh----where you'd never see it, even in shorts).

The reason I say this Jeff is that in the future I imagine a terrific topical anti-androgen will be developed that can be nanosomally delievered via shampo on daily basis with no side effects and most men will not lose much beyond NW3 or 4 stage loss anyway (if that). With what we have NOW, if a guy starts on the big 3 as soon as he starts to bald, he can pretty much save what he has for many, many years.

My little idea Jeff, could also JUST BE USED ON HAIRLINES......we hear Washenik state that HM wont be good for hairlines, and a traditional hair transplant will be needed there, (I know alot of the guys at hairsite believe that is bull and is intended to keep patients coming to Bosley until HM comes out, projected 2009). But what if he is right? Why use up donor hair? People dont think about what they are losing when they hair transplant man. We are accustomed to seeing THICK hair in the back of a man's head. He looks funny if more than 3-4 thousand hairs have been removed from the wreath. Its unaturally thin and it is noticeable. Of course......I have also considered that if a HM hairline was too thick in some parts and too thin in others, one could epilaser the thick part to thin it out, and re-injcet the thinner area....eventually they'd get it right......

I believe though Jeffss, as Im sure you do, that unless there is an some huge interuption (like a big war or something) mankind will solve the frustrating riddle of baldness sometime this century dont you? Too many bald scientists pissed about being bald, there has gotta be a way

 

[Dave001]

It seems that most hairloss sites assume that enlarged sebaceous glands are present in balding scalp, but I do pubmed type searches and dont see clinicals on it, it just seems that its a "generally accepted notion" in the hairloss community...........

Try using different terms in you query, such as "hypertrophy" instead of "enlargement". Browse or search the MeSH database for ideas, and to see how things are indexed. Also search for conditions in which hypersecretion of sebum is known to be present.

New studies are generally not conducted to examine relationships that have been already conclusively demonstrated. The relationship is mentioned in many dermatologic textbooks; they have references.

Concerning HM, hair follicles transplanted using current methods maintain their original growth characteristics, including lack of susceptibility to androgens. Obviously "fluid pressure" is not restricting their growth, and there is no reason to think that it would do so in the case of HM implanted follicles, either. Ask Stephen what he thinks about that if you're in the mood for humor.

 

[S Foote.]

Stephen,
You mentioned the concern that HM follicles wont re-enlarge. Thats what I think they are waiting on now. The hair via Trichocyte is growing on the trialist's heads as we speak. They are providing no pictures yet (but their press release informed the potential trialists that they will be pictured with their faces covered---I imagine for marketing purposes). Ive wondered by what mechanism they are going to "set" the tissue scaffolds? I know the Intercyclex press release posted by David over at hairsite claims that 50-100 injections into the scalp will be all thats needed ( so the scaffolds will obviously not be injected, JTR claims they are put ON THE SCALP and are absorbed by it) . Number is not a problem, as they can make oodles of cells (or so they claim). The scaffolds should solve the direction issue according to the company.

If your contention is right Stephen, then only some of the hair will re-enlarge after the first rest phase, some will miniaturize. I imagine the hair directly under the syringe wounds will be OK though. They will know something is wrong (or not) then.

If you are right Stephen, I would envision a procedure in which DP cells and scaffolds would have to be injected with a syringe together for EVERY SINGLE FOLLICLE they inject for the dual purpose of the syringe wound creating "space" or a little scar tissue growth, and the scaffold providing direction for the cells to grow. This would proboably take two procedures to get density up to where it needs to be.

I don't think that at this time we are getting the full picture about the preliminary results of any HM procedure. It is going to be a while yet before any claims made can be really proven.

By the way Stephen......its been my idea for a GOOD WHILE to just inject the cells in the thigh first anyway, then a Doctor could FUE them back out and re-implant in the head insuring proper direction, etc.......
The reason I believe in this is that this way a clinic could first check and see if good hair is growing (its reasonably straight and not kinky which was a problem for Dr. Ungerer's subjects), and secondly the direction issue could be solved without biodegradable scaffolds. A man could literally just get the amount he needed with surgeries over time from an unlimited supply that was tried out in vivo (his leg) beforehand and proven to be compatible with him. What do you think?

I think it may come down to some similar procedure, perhaps growing "whole" follicles in the lab first then transplanting them.

I think the current HM research is at least going to point in the right direction in understanding male pattern baldness "properly".

S Foote.