For bryan and Foote.

[Bryan]

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!

No, actually I'm interested in YOUR opinion, which is why I keep asking you a question which YOU keep refusing to answer.

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

Uh, no...there's exactly ONE such study, actually, and you always put your own personal spin on it. So it's pretty inconclusive.

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.

Yeah, right.

Ok, so getting back to the issue at hand, I'm asking you for the THIRD TIME: if I show you an in vitro study in which added androgens stimulate the growth of body hair, will you recant your theory? Such a study would put the lie to your claim that androgens have no DIRECT effect on hair follicles, wouldn't it? Stop evading this question and ANSWER IT. You're not fooling anyone here by trying to change the subject to anything EXCEPT the simple question I've been patiently asking you.

Bryan

 

[S Foote.]

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!

No, actually I'm interested in YOUR opinion, which is why I keep asking you a question which YOU keep refusing to answer.

[quote="S Foote.":3861c]All the in-vitro studies clearly show that androgens are "NOT" changing follicle growth characteristics "directly"!

Uh, no...there's exactly ONE such study, actually, and you always put your own personal spin on it. So it's pretty inconclusive.

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.

Yeah, right.

Ok, so getting back to the issue at hand, I'm asking you for the THIRD TIME: if I show you an in vitro study in which added androgens stimulate the growth of body hair, will you recant your theory? Such a study would put the lie to your claim that androgens have no DIRECT effect on hair follicles, wouldn't it? Stop evading this question and ANSWER IT. You're not fooling anyone here by trying to change the subject to anything EXCEPT the simple question I've been patiently asking you.

Bryan[/quote:3861c]

You really must think people here are stupid Bryan.

All your efforts to spin this simple point around, to try to give the impression that it's me avoiding the issue, is just insulting peoples intelligence.

The only studies you can post that show that androgens "stimulate" body hair, is when the body hair samples have "ALREADY" been changed from vellous follicles in-vivo.

Again Bryan, the in-vitro tests clearly show that androgens do "NOT" directly convert "ANY" follicle sample into a different growth rate!

The fact that androgens "then" support the pre-existing growth characteristics of follicles in-vitro, is meaningless to the question of how we get from one growth state to another!

Again, "MANY" substances could support the pre-existing growth characteristics of follicle cells in-vitro. Do we then claim these other substances "CAUSE" male pattern baldness? Of course not :roll:

Everyone else get's this point dispite your usual distractions, so post your studies to the contrary if you have them?

S Foote.

 

[michael barry]

Guys,
The last two pages remind me of two gunfighters in the old west, both with hands on their pistols, but neither one drawing. (LOL) Sorry guys, just had to say that : )


Stephen, would I be accurate if I stated that Stephen Foote believes that:

1) Scalp hair from the back of the head is genetically identical to scalp hair in the temples?

2)Body hair and scalp hair are genetically the same, but the lesser fluid tension in the scalp makes scalp hair grow longer and circumferentially thicker than body hair?


Ive seen your post on ice pack carriers cited in Dr. Razak's book, Conquering Hairloss, grew alot of back hair, and how you cited that perhaps the contraction of the back skin lessened fluids there and permitted enlargement of the back hairs. I also seen the study you posted where cancer patients undergoing chemo kept their hair about twice as often when they used ice packs on their heads once a day. I must admit, both of these are interesting to me.

For the record, Im still very inclined to believe the standard medical establishment view of baldness that during embyological development the scalp skin (and hairs therein) develop diffently, and their ensuing response to androgens prove it. However, I can see why youre coming from as so many of the things that work for baldness: SOD's, minoxidil, Proanthocyanidrins, Apple Cider Vinegar have diuretic properties as well as anti-inflammatory properties. Its the only theory of baldness that Ive seen that has an asnwer to transplantion. If youre ever PROVEN to be wrong conclusively, I dont think anyone can blame you for seeing the long line of coincidences........its been interesting.


It would be neat to see a study that turned body vellus hairs to terminal ones. Ive seen this in vivo with Tynan's picture of her beard growth after she started shooting up with testosterone. Little gal had a beard on her in a relatively short time. Can that really be scientifically replicated in a test tube though? Will the hair cells remain alive long enough to test it? Can it be done with human skin grafted on a mouse's back?

BTW, Anderans is now growing human hair on human skin grafted on a mouses back. Phase One cloning trials are set to begin this summer. ICX will enter phase Two later this year or early next year. Exciting stuff. [/u]

 

[Bryan]

The only studies you can post that show that androgens "stimulate" body hair, is when the body hair samples have "ALREADY" been changed from vellous follicles in-vivo.

Even if that's true (and I'm not saying it IS true, I'm saying IF it's true), so what?? What does that have to do with anything? You've made a claim in plain English that I think is obviously and patently FALSE, and every single person on this forum knows it. I don't care WHY androgens directly stimulate the growth of body hair follicles, the only issue here is DO THEY or DON'T THEY. And it's laughable to everyone reading this thread that it's like pulling teeth just to get you to answer such a simple question!

Again Bryan, the in-vitro tests clearly show that androgens do "NOT" directly convert "ANY" follicle sample into a different growth rate!

Sorry, Stephen, but there's only ONE little observation in ONE little study which has gotten you so worked-up. It doesn't mean much.

The fact that androgens "then" support the pre-existing growth characteristics of follicles in-vitro, is meaningless to the question of how we get from one growth state to another!

Again, "MANY" substances could support the pre-existing growth characteristics of follicle cells in-vitro. Do we then claim these other substances "CAUSE" male pattern baldness? Of course not :roll:

But I'm not talking about male pattern baldness right now, I'm challenging a claim that you made in plain English. You claimed that androgens have no direct effect on hair follicles, and this statement can be tested in a very simple and direct fashion by giving androgens to hair follicles growing in vitro, and seeing if the androgens have any effect on them (either positive or negative).

Because you know as well as I do that they sure as hell WILL have an effect on their growth, it is absolutely LAUGHABLE that you refuse to acknowledge what every other person on this board already knows. And your attempts to make excuses for that phenomenon by blaming it on something else are simply pathetic. The question isn't WHY androgens stimulate the growth of body hair follicles, the question is DO THEY or DO THEY NOT stimulate them. That's a simple YES or NO, buddy! :wink:

Bryan

 

[Bryan]

It would be neat to see a study that turned body vellus hairs to terminal ones. Ive seen this in vivo with Tynan's picture of her beard growth after she started shooting up with testosterone. Little gal had a beard on her in a relatively short time.

Who is this "Tynan" that you're referring to, Michael?

Bryan

 

[michael barry]

http://www.oprah.com/tows/slide/200509/ ... _107.jhtml There is her before and after picture. She did not, at that point, have completed the sexual reassignment surgery. Note the beard growth......

http://www.oprah.com/tows/slide/200509/ ... _109.jhtml That is her with her TWIN sister. She is still technically a woman in the pic.


Bryan, this is the pic I find MOST interesting though http://www.oprah.com/tows/slide/200509/ ... _102.jhtml . Those are female TWINS also. Note the thinning in the front of the girl whose used testosterone. The "aged" appearance of the hair. The beard. The grey. Here is a closeup of her http://www.oprah.com/tows/slide/200509/ ... _103.jhtml . Bryan, see how the neck has "aged"? The skin ageing compared with her sister (she is still a "she" also). This is the effect on tissues of testosterone and its metabolites the L'Oreal researchers were talking about. The ageing of the skin the "Big T" brings along with its extra muscle performance.


By the way..........................why do you think hair has vitamin D receptors? I knew they were in the skin, but didn't know they were in hair. Proboably the stongest reason I believe the direct theory that you do Bryan is the fact that alpha five reductase is located IN the follicle even though head hair doesnt need androgens. Its there to make us bald in my opinion. I hate to say it, but thins out the herd........wish I was wrong about that.

 

[S Foote.]

Stephen, would I be accurate if I stated that Stephen Foote believes that:

1) Scalp hair from the back of the head is genetically identical to scalp hair in the temples?

2)Body hair and scalp hair are genetically the same, but the lesser fluid tension in the scalp makes scalp hair grow longer and circumferentially thicker than body hair?

Yes to both Michael.

Ive seen your post on ice pack carriers cited in Dr. Razak's book, Conquering Hairloss, grew alot of back hair, and how you cited that perhaps the contraction of the back skin lessened fluids there and permitted enlargement of the back hairs. I also seen the study you posted where cancer patients undergoing chemo kept their hair about twice as often when they used ice packs on their heads once a day. I must admit, both of these are interesting to me.

For the record, Im still very inclined to believe the standard medical establishment view of baldness that during embyological development the scalp skin (and hairs therein) develop diffently, and their ensuing response to androgens prove it. However, I can see why youre coming from as so many of the things that work for baldness: SOD's, minoxidil, Proanthocyanidrins, Apple Cider Vinegar have diuretic properties as well as anti-inflammatory properties. Its the only theory of baldness that Ive seen that has an asnwer to transplantion. If youre ever PROVEN to be wrong conclusively, I dont think anyone can blame you for seeing the long line of coincidences........its been interesting.

I don't mind been proven to be wrong Michael, but there is nothing out there so far that can do this in the "proper" scientific way.

On the other hand, the traditional "view" that Bryan supports cannot be reconciled with with the modern body of scientific evidence.

Don't just take my word for it, people should do their own research into what is scientific and what is not. Start here:

http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/N ... node5.html

In particular read the "Ockham's razor" section and the reference to the "aliens" example.

This is what is wrong with the traditional male pattern baldness theory. Actually this doesn't even qualify as a true theory, but leave that to one side for the moment.

The current "explaination" that Bryan supports, "HAS" to have the extra baggage like the alien example above. In order to work at all, the current explaination has to rely on a proposed mechanism where androgens "convert" follicle cells from not responding, "TO" responding to androgens.

Not only that, this un-precedented mechanism "ALSO" requires that "EACH" follicle is effected by this on a different time scale to every other follicle!

On the other hand my theory is based on all ready proven biological processes, it doesn,t need any "magic" to make it work.

S Foote.

 

[S Foote.]

The only studies you can post that show that androgens "stimulate" body hair, is when the body hair samples have "ALREADY" been changed from vellous follicles in-vivo.

Even if that's true (and I'm not saying it IS true, I'm saying IF it's true), so what?? What does that have to do with anything? You've made a claim in plain English that I think is obviously and patently FALSE, and every single person on this forum knows it. I don't care WHY androgens directly stimulate the growth of body hair follicles, the only issue here is DO THEY or DON'T THEY. And it's laughable to everyone reading this thread that it's like pulling teeth just to get you to answer such a simple question!

[quote="S Foote.":5bfa4]Again Bryan, the in-vitro tests clearly show that androgens do "NOT" directly convert "ANY" follicle sample into a different growth rate!

Sorry, Stephen, but there's only ONE little observation in ONE little study which has gotten you so worked-up. It doesn't mean much.

The fact that androgens "then" support the pre-existing growth characteristics of follicles in-vitro, is meaningless to the question of how we get from one growth state to another!

Again, "MANY" substances could support the pre-existing growth characteristics of follicle cells in-vitro. Do we then claim these other substances "CAUSE" male pattern baldness? Of course not :roll:

But I'm not talking about male pattern baldness right now, I'm challenging a claim that you made in plain English. You claimed that androgens have no direct effect on hair follicles, and this statement can be tested in a very simple and direct fashion by giving androgens to hair follicles growing in vitro, and seeing if the androgens have any effect on them (either positive or negative).

Because you know as well as I do that they sure as hell WILL have an effect on their growth, it is absolutely LAUGHABLE that you refuse to acknowledge what every other person on this board already knows. And your attempts to make excuses for that phenomenon by blaming it on something else are simply pathetic. The question isn't WHY androgens stimulate the growth of body hair follicles, the question is DO THEY or DO THEY NOT stimulate them. That's a simple YES or NO, buddy! :wink:

Bryan[/quote:5bfa4]

God Bryan, you are reaching your ranting phase ever earlier in these threads. :lol:

OK, if nothing else we Brits are a sporting breed, so i will go through this again so you can't keep on fudging the issue :roll:

You posted this:

"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. "

You want me to recant my theory based on a factor that isn't even relevant to my theory! Thats very scientific Bryan (not)!

I have already accepted that androgens in-vitro "DO" apparently mirror the androgen induced growth characteristics in-vivo, but this is not the scientific point.

It is clear that androgens are "NOT" directly changing the pre-existing growth characteristics of the samples, this is the important point in terms of the current theory you try to "excuse".

Now if androgens "DID" directly stimulate pre-puberty vellous pubic follicle samples, into post puberty type pubic hair follicle cells, my theory would be in trouble! But again androgens "DO NOT" directly do this!

So just show me "ANYTHING" you have to the contrary that proves me wrong Bryan? Show me these studies you have that show androgens "CHANGE" the pre-existing growth characteristics of "ANY" follicle?

You can't, they don't, simple!



My theory explains this "changed" response to androgens (or any other substances) in-vitro. This occours by the normal cell growth potential changes induced in-vivo at the genetic level, by the growth rate allowed by contact inhibition within cells.

Scientificaly, your the one with the big problem here Bryan!

You have said many times on these boards that you believe that androgens directly "change" hair growth characteristics. But the in-vitro studies clearly prove this wrong.

Oh i know you will try to "invent" a biologicaly un-precedented excuse for this, but that isn't real science is it! :wink:

S Foote.

 

[Bryan]

On the other hand, the traditional "view" that Bryan supports cannot be reconciled with with the modern body of scientific evidence.

Don't just take my word for it, people should do their own research into what is scientific and what is not. Start here:

http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/N ... node5.html

In particular read the "Ockham's razor" section and the reference to the "aliens" example.

The fact that YOU of all people would have the unmitigated gall to cite "Okham's Razor" is the funniest irony of all! You're lucky that the ghost of William of Okham doesn't come to haunt you every night! :wink:

The current "explaination" that Bryan supports, "HAS" to have the extra baggage like the alien example above. In order to work at all, the current explaination has to rely on a proposed mechanism where androgens "convert" follicle cells from not responding, "TO" responding to androgens.

A roughly similar thing happens all the time in prostate cancer cells.

On the other hand my theory is based on all ready proven biological processes, it doesn,t need any "magic" to make it work.

"Proven processes", my foote! I've asked you REPEATEDLY to find one other biological process (just ONE) where the response to androgens "flips", because of previous exposure to contact inhibition. Despite the fact that you have undoubtedly spent many sleepless nights desperately searching for such an example to bolster your theory, you've come up completely empty. So you don't have "proven biological processes" at all, you charlatan.

Bryan

 

[Bryan]

I have already accepted that androgens in-vitro "DO" apparently mirror the androgen induced growth characteristics in-vivo, but this is not the scientific point.

It is clear that androgens are "NOT" directly changing the pre-existing growth characteristics of the samples, this is the important point in terms of the current theory you try to "excuse".

Now if androgens "DID" directly stimulate pre-puberty vellous pubic follicle samples, into post puberty type pubic hair follicle cells, my theory would be in trouble! But again androgens "DO NOT" directly do this!

So just show me "ANYTHING" you have to the contrary that proves me wrong Bryan? Show me these studies you have that show androgens "CHANGE" the pre-existing growth characteristics of "ANY" follicle?

You're dodging my question again, as you have so many times in the past, because the correct answer doesn't fit squarely with your eccentric theory. I don't CARE about whatever it is you call the "pre-existing growth characterisitcs". Answer the simple question: do androgens stimulate the growth of body hair follicles in vitro, the same way they do in vivo? That's a YES or a NO. What is your answer? The answer would appear to be "yes", based on your very first sentence above. But I want you to state it EXPLICITY, without mixing in all that other crap about "pre-existing" such-and-such.

So which is it, YES or NO? (Sounds a lot like "Deal, or no deal?", doesn't it? )

Bryan

 

[S Foote.]

On the other hand, the traditional "view" that Bryan supports cannot be reconciled with with the modern body of scientific evidence.

Don't just take my word for it, people should do their own research into what is scientific and what is not. Start here:

http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/N ... node5.html

In particular read the "Ockham's razor" section and the reference to the "aliens" example.

The fact that YOU of all people would have the unmitigated gall to cite "Okham's Razor" is the funniest irony of all! You're lucky that the ghost of William of Okham doesn't come to haunt you every night! :wink:

Seriously now Bryan, it is easy for anyone to make such unsupported statements. So if you want to be taken seriously as someone "supposedly" interested in science, you must justify these remarks. So tell us all how Ockhams razor refutes my theory and supports yours?

If you try to avoid this point as i know you will, everyone here will then see what a sham you really are :wink:

The current "explaination" that Bryan supports, "HAS" to have the extra baggage like the alien example above. In order to work at all, the current explaination has to rely on a proposed mechanism where androgens "convert" follicle cells from not responding, "TO" responding to androgens.

A roughly similar thing happens all the time in prostate cancer cells.

No it doesn't.

On the other hand my theory is based on all ready proven biological processes, it doesn,t need any "magic" to make it work.

"Proven processes", my foote! I've asked you REPEATEDLY to find one other biological process (just ONE) where the response to androgens "flips", because of previous exposure to contact inhibition. Despite the fact that you have undoubtedly spent many sleepless nights desperately searching for such an example to bolster your theory, you've come up completely empty. So you don't have "proven biological processes" at all, you charlatan.

Bryan

I have shown you the "just one" example you have asked for before Bryan!

Here it is again:

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

The brighter people here will immediately see the significance of this, but i don't hold out much hope for you Bryan. :wink:

S Foote.

 

[S Foote.]

I have already accepted that androgens in-vitro "DO" apparently mirror the androgen induced growth characteristics in-vivo, but this is not the scientific point.

It is clear that androgens are "NOT" directly changing the pre-existing growth characteristics of the samples, this is the important point in terms of the current theory you try to "excuse".

Now if androgens "DID" directly stimulate pre-puberty vellous pubic follicle samples, into post puberty type pubic hair follicle cells, my theory would be in trouble! But again androgens "DO NOT" directly do this!

So just show me "ANYTHING" you have to the contrary that proves me wrong Bryan? Show me these studies you have that show androgens "CHANGE" the pre-existing growth characteristics of "ANY" follicle?

You're dodging my question again, as you have so many times in the past, because the correct answer doesn't fit squarely with your eccentric theory. I don't CARE about whatever it is you call the "pre-existing growth characterisitcs". Answer the simple question: do androgens stimulate the growth of body hair follicles in vitro, the same way they do in vivo? That's a YES or a NO. What is your answer? The answer would appear to be "yes", based on your very first sentence above. But I want you to state it EXPLICITY, without mixing in all that other crap about "pre-existing" such-and-such.

So which is it, YES or NO? (Sounds a lot like "Deal, or no deal?", doesn't it? )

Bryan

So as i thought Bryan, you have no answer to my points just more ranting!

Either answer my questions in a "genuine" scientific way as i have answered yours, or go and play scientist somewhere else. :wink:


S Foote.

 

[michael barry]

Stephen,
Do me a favor, my last post on this thread had this picture http://www.oprah.com/tows/slide/200509/ ... _107.jhtml. I posted another picture of her and her twin. And two other sets of female twins, one of which who also shot herself up with testosterone and aged her hair's and skin's appearance dramatically (and both grew beard hair)........

I KNOW you assert that fluid build up caused the thinning of the hairs, but how do you believe that it aged the hairs in these two women? How did the androgens age the skin so obviously in the second gals picture? Do you believe the lymphatic metabolic wastes bind with the vitamin D receptors on the follicles or the androgen receptors and have that ugly effect? Ive never gotten ANYONE to comment on those photos, and they are about a clear of an example of what happens when androgens are unleashed on skin/hair that you'll ever see.

 

[michael barry]

https://www.mayoclinic.com/popupnowrap. ... splay_full

There is a pic of excessive hair growth after a cast removal.


Stephen, Im sure you wish to comment on that. Another experimental suggestion..................wear a snug fitting wrist band on the forearm at night for one year, see how growth correlates versus the other arm. Its your theory Stephen, surely you wouldnt mind trying that.

My own little wrist experiment with Crinagen vs. Revivogen has concluded. Revivogen thinned the body hair out much more than crinagen did on my wrists. I'd have to declare it the fatty acid winner. Am aiming to try this with spironolactone.

 

[S Foote.]

Stephen,
Do me a favor, my last post on this thread had this picture http://www.oprah.com/tows/slide/200509/ ... _107.jhtml. I posted another picture of her and her twin. And two other sets of female twins, one of which who also shot herself up with testosterone and aged her hair's and skin's appearance dramatically (and both grew beard hair)........

I KNOW you assert that fluid build up caused the thinning of the hairs, but how do you believe that it aged the hairs in these two women? How did the androgens age the skin so obviously in the second gals picture? Do you believe the lymphatic metabolic wastes bind with the vitamin D receptors on the follicles or the androgen receptors and have that ugly effect? Ive never gotten ANYONE to comment on those photos, and they are about a clear of an example of what happens when androgens are unleashed on skin/hair that you'll ever see.

Michael.

I am getting a "forbidden 403" message on that link?

As far as the cast effect goes, you may be interested in Dr Bazans comments and my reply here.

http://www.hairsite4.com/dc/dcboard.php ... 6165&page=

S Foote.

 

[michael barry]

Stephen,
On page 37 of this thread is the original link and post. I dont know why the link wouldnt carry when I reposted it on page 38. Give it a look-see. I assure you, seeing a woman go bald in the male pattern baldness fashion after testosterone injections is quite a sight.


Id seen Bazan's comments. Interesting stuff. Of course it IS body hair. I suppose the only way to test that on the head is if somebody wore a tight skullcap to sleep for about a year and checked their hairgrowth....

http://www.oprah.com/tows/slide/200509/ ... _107.jhtml Thats the link again.....dont know if it works, but the one on page 37 or this thread does. Check it out.

 

[S Foote.]

OK Michael i got it.

I will post on it tommorow.

S Foote.

 

[Bryan]

As far as the cast effect goes, you may be interested in Dr Bazans comments and my reply here.

http://www.hairsite4.com/dc/dcboard.php ... 6165&page=

I can't believe that now you're claiming that the APPLICATION of pressure causes a REDUCTION of pressure around the hair follicle. You have no shame whatsoever...

Bryan

 

[Bryan]

"Proven processes", my foote! I've asked you REPEATEDLY to find one other biological process (just ONE) where the response to androgens "flips", because of previous exposure to contact inhibition. Despite the fact that you have undoubtedly spent many sleepless nights desperately searching for such an example to bolster your theory, you've come up completely empty. So you don't have "proven biological processes" at all, you charlatan.

I have shown you the "just one" example you have asked for before Bryan!

Here it is again:

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

There's nothing in that link having anything to do with the challenge I posed to you, and you know that as well as I do, you charlatan.

Bryan

 

[S Foote.]

As far as the cast effect goes, you may be interested in Dr Bazans comments and my reply here.

http://www.hairsite4.com/dc/dcboard.php ... 6165&page=

I can't believe that now you're claiming that the APPLICATION of pressure causes a REDUCTION of pressure around the hair follicle. You have no shame whatsoever...

Bryan

Go and learn something about pressure differentials and fluid dynamics before you shoot your mouth off Bryan 8)

S Foote.