For bryan and Foote.

[DonaldAnderson]

 

[Armando Jose]

The use of Mercury to provoke hair loss?
Yes, it's possible, also chemoterapics agents works fine, but the hair loss affect at all scalp hairs?

I only know a method to develop common baldness?
Tonsure

Armando

 

[Dave001]

Actually, I don't even have any real evidence that the "Twin Study" happened AT ALL. It all seems to be based on a false attribution by a certain famous doctor. Just for the sheer entertainment value, and to demonstrate that you can't ALWAYS trust even what doctors say, let me describe to you what I went through, just in an effort to find out more about the elusive "Twin Study":

You can't always trust *even* doctors? Does that mean they're more trustworthy than other professionals or nonprofessionals?

For what it's worth, I've also read several other Hamilton studies, but there's no mention of any "Twin Study" in any of them, either. So even doctors and scientists occasionally get their sources and references fouled-up.

Even doctors and scientists? Is there any reason to think a doctor or a scientist would be less likely to make a misattribution than say, a mathematician or an engineer? ;-)

 

[Dave001]

or perhaps HairLossTalk.com can devote a link/page for Bryan. Bryan can write facts about hairloss and discuss the strength and weeknesses of all the products in his view.

You mean, like which product should be used on Mondays and which product is best used on weekends, etc.?

 

[incubusor]

The point is you shouldn't have to 'trust', there should be enough detailed documenation of the study to not wonder about its legitimacy.

The twin study 'could be' real, but the documenation is minimal. No photos, specific data etc. etc. so it makes sense to question whether it happened or not.

 

[michael barry]

Dave,

This pic http://www.oprah.com/tows/slide/200509/ ... _107.jhtml showed me just how strong andgrogens are involved with baldness.


There is another pic of a woman who got testosterone injections whose hair only seemed to thin a little. But her hair aged, got drier, seemed to have thinner shafts in diameter (fineness), and greyed. Her face seemed to age a little to, and of course .....she now has a goatee.

This is why I think peptides and SOD's are great, but a topical anti-androgen needs to be employed of some kind IMO to stop the slowing of cell division that male hormones seemingly cause to happen in the first place.

 

[michael barry]

Look at this ageing on this now-male's face (and neck!) and the effects of Testosterone. There is some thinning in the hair as opposed to the twin sister too. http://www.oprah.com/tows/slide/200509/ ... _103.jhtml

Now look at the two of em' http://www.oprah.com/tows/slide/200509/ ... _102.jhtml

See the ageing in the hair.....even though she proboably doenst carry hairloss genes (as evidenced in not going bald like the other twin did) I see men who keep their hairlines, but thin and have "aged" hairs as they age beyond what their sister's have as they age. Im beginning to think testosterone may age the skin and dermal structures by themselves somewhat.

 

[Aplunk1]

Or maybe he/she/it is so stressed out from having sex changes.

Maybe that helps the ageing process.

 

[Siberian]

Im beginning to think testosterone may age the skin and dermal structures by themselves somewhat.

Perhaps not aging exactly, but it does make it rougher, more course, more male-like.

Conversely, male-to-females usually look "younger," though it's more a softening of features, skin, and hair.

 

[chuckfrasher]

I have a quick little question for you´s.

Do you think that maybe scalp hair needs a certain exposure to DHT?

?

Haha! I can't believe that you posed this question to both Bryan and S. Foote! No wonder it is such a long thread. I am thinking that maybe you are just being a little ornery, hehe!

 

[Bryan]

I didn't bother to reply to that myself because I've stated many times that scalp hair has ZERO need for androgens. It thrives in the total absence of them (which Stephen Foote has never been able to explain, BTW). But repeating myself frequently is the personal cross I have to bear, I guess... <SIGH>

Bryan

 

[S Foote.]

I didn't bother to reply to that myself because I've stated many times that scalp hair has ZERO need for androgens. It thrives in the total absence of them (which Stephen Foote has never been able to explain, BTW). But repeating myself frequently is the personal cross I have to bear, I guess... <SIGH>

Bryan

Why is it Bryan, that every now and then you feel the need to just lie about what i have said in the past?

I have clearly stated, that i don't think "ANY" hair growth "NEEDS" any "DIRECT" effect of androgens.

Do try to keep up Bryan :roll:

S Foote.

 

[Bryan]

Didn't you finally admit a while back (after I and others dragged you kicking and screaming to that admission) that androgens stimulate the growth of body hair?

Bryan

 

[S Foote.]

Didn't you finally admit a while back (after I and others dragged you kicking and screaming to that admission) that androgens stimulate the growth of body hair?

Bryan

Where the hell did you get that from Bryan? Of course androgens "stimulate" body hair growth. My point was and still is, that they don't do this "directly" as you try to claim.

Unless you want to show us all an in-vitro study that demonstrates vellous body hair pre-puberty in say the pubic area, increases growth when exposed to androgens?

I will once "again" make my position clear on this subject, but no doubt in some future thread, you will again try to claim i have not answered this point :wink:

My view is that "ALL" hair growth is ultimately controled by the local tissue resistence to anagen enlargement, through normal contact inhibition of cell growth.

This allows for the full range of hair growth from vellous to terminal depending on local resistence. Androgens effect the local tissue resistence factor in particular areas, and so create a "CHANGE" in hair growth.

I emphasise the word change, because all the in-vitro tests have proven that androgens do not "directly" change hair growth (body hair included), as you "wish" they would Bryan!

S Foote.

 

[Bryan]

Where the hell did you get that from Bryan? Of course androgens "stimulate" body hair growth. My point was and still is, that they don't do this "directly" as you try to claim.

Unless you want to show us all an in-vitro study that demonstrates vellous body hair pre-puberty in say the pubic area, increases growth when exposed to androgens?

Let me make absolutely sure I understand what you're saying, Stephen: if I show you an in vitro study where the addition of androgen stimulates the growth of body hair, you will finally recant your eccentric theory? Is that correct?

Bryan

 

[S Foote.]

Where the hell did you get that from Bryan? Of course androgens "stimulate" body hair growth. My point was and still is, that they don't do this "directly" as you try to claim.

Unless you want to show us all an in-vitro study that demonstrates vellous body hair pre-puberty in say the pubic area, increases growth when exposed to androgens?

Let me make absolutely sure I understand what you're saying, Stephen: if I show you an in vitro study where the addition of androgen stimulates the growth of body hair, you will finally recant your eccentric theory? Is that correct?

Bryan

Oh no you dont Bryan :wink:

You know what i said in my last post, so let's stick to the real point.

What you have to do is show me an in-vitro study where the addition of androgens to a "vellous" sample "changes" this, into a sample with the growth characteristics of androgen related body hair increases!

In other words, show that androgens are directly increasing the pre-existing growth rate?

This growth rate "change" is what androgens do in-vivo, so prove that this is a "direct" action as you claim by posting the in-vitro "proof"?

S Foote.

 

[Bryan]

Isn't that what said? Why are you so nervous about the exact wording? What else could "stimulate the growth" mean?

Bryan

 

[S Foote.]

Isn't that what said? Why are you so nervous about the exact wording? What else could "stimulate the growth" mean?

Bryan

:roll: :roll: :roll:

I am not nervous here Bryan, just specific to the point in question.

You are the one who keeps claiming that androgens directly "change" hair growth characteristics. So i simply ask you to show us all some hard evidence for your claim?

Obviously you can't do this. Nuff said :wink:

S Foote.

 

[Bryan]

So getting back to what I said from the beginning: if I show you an in vitro study which found a stimulation of body hair growth from the addition of androgen, you'll recant your theory? I want you to state this CLEARLY right up front, so that you can't try to deny it later.

Bryan

 

[S Foote.]

So getting back to what I said from the beginning: if I show you an in vitro study which found a stimulation of body hair growth from the addition of androgen, you'll recant your theory? I want you to state this CLEARLY right up front, so that you can't try to deny it later.

Bryan

Yawn :roll:

You seem to to be so pre-occupied with your own personal opinions, that you completely miss the basic question that everyone else who comes to these forums wants an answer to!

Let me enlighten you :wink:

People come here trying to find out "HOW" the normal scalp hair growth we have somehow gets "converted" into vellous growth in the male pattern baldness area due to androgens?

Now i know you are just bursting to quote some study that shows androgens "support" the "ALREADY" existing growth characteristics of follicles, but that says nothing at all about the conversion mechanism!!

Any number of different substances could also "support" the already existing growth characteristics of follicles, so what!!

The question is "what action of androgens is changing these growth characteristics"???????????????????????????????????????????????

All the in-vitro studies clearly show that androgens are "NOT" changing follicle growth characteristics "directly"!

Just show me one study that shows androgens are directly changing the pre-existing growth characteristics of "ANY" follicles?

You can't and you know it, hence all this "dodging" the issue! 8)

The in-vito tests clearly refute the current theory you support Bryan, simple. This is one of the reasons that the more enlightened scientists are now questioning the current assumptions, as i have referenced before.

So if you want to continue with this, just put up or shut up, because your not fooling anyone here :wink:

S Foote.