For bryan and Foote.

[Bryan]

You are getting pathetic here Bryan. There was certainly no immune component in the in-vitro studies, "YOU" claimed in this very thread "PROVED" the in-vivo effect of androgens! So trying to claim that now, is just showing everyone your desperation to try to rescue some personal credibility. :wink:

If only you had the wit to understand plain English, you might have a chance at understanding the subtleties at work in these various studies which I've been citing.

The Sawaya study (among many others) clearly demonstrates and PROVES that human hair follicles do indeed respond directly to androgens. However, what you can't seem to understand is that I'm not necessarily claiming that the response to androgens (weakening of the growth of the follicle) is the ONLY factor involved in male pattern baldness. The immune-compromised mouse study seems to provide some fairly convincing evidence that the IMMUNE FACTOR does indeed become an important factor, too, even though it's probably a "downstream" effect of androgens.

So the bottom-line to all this is that your efforts to discredit what I say are groundless, because you can't understand the SUBTLETIES of what I'm saying. The direct effects of androgens on hair follicles are part of the problem, and so is (apparently) an immunological factor. It's not one or the other, dumbbell.

Bryan

 

[S Foote.]

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

Quote:

"In alopecia skin, tha abnormal streamers underneath the follicles appear to be a structural barrier for the down-growth of anagen follicles. "

So what physiological factor is preventing these follicles from just "forcing" past this physical barrier Bryan?

It's called the "normal contact inhibition" of cell growth Bryan. :wink:

Yawn.

So explain to us what causes that physical barrier IN THE FIRST PLACE, Stephen! :wink:

BTW, it looks like someone I know is "to dumb" to speak the Queen's English!

Bryan[/quote:ad44a]

So the usual distraction to how someone writes, as opposed to the validity of "what" they write. I wondered how long it would take Bryan :wink:

Why don't you try asking scientists like Uno what causes the barrier in the first place Bryan? While you at it ask the scientists at Lo'real who did this research.

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

If you are trying to say how can increased tissue fluid pressure in the dermis, also present a barrier to anagen enlargement, this is basic physics.

It is also something that i have tried to explain to you many times before. You don't understand it, fine. The reality of this does not require "you" to understand it Bryan. :wink:

If you disagree thats also fine, but anyone interested in male pattern baldness can refer to the HM research and the importance placed on normal cell growth controls in-vivo. The patents for tissue scaffolds should awake people to these principles.

S Foote.

 

[S Foote.]

You are getting pathetic here Bryan. There was certainly no immune component in the in-vitro studies, "YOU" claimed in this very thread "PROVED" the in-vivo effect of androgens! So trying to claim that now, is just showing everyone your desperation to try to rescue some personal credibility. :wink:

If only you had the wit to understand plain English, you might have a chance at understanding the subtleties at work in these various studies which I've been citing.

The Sawaya study (among many others) clearly demonstrates and PROVES that human hair follicles do indeed respond directly to androgens. However, what you can't seem to understand is that I'm not necessarily claiming that the response to androgens (weakening of the growth of the follicle) is the ONLY factor involved in male pattern baldness. The immune-compromised mouse study seems to provide some fairly convincing evidence that the IMMUNE FACTOR does indeed become an important factor, too, even though it's probably a "downstream" effect of androgens.

So the bottom-line to all this is that your efforts to discredit what I say are groundless, because you can't understand the SUBTLETIES of what I'm saying. The direct effects of androgens on hair follicles are part of the problem, and so is (apparently) an immunological factor. It's not one or the other, dumbbell.

Bryan

There's nothing "subtle" in the actual claims "YOU" made "before" i posted a real in-vivo study that proved you wrong Bryan 8)

Your pathetic attempts to "NOW" do a complete U turn in this thread, doesn't impress people with your scientific integrity Bryan! :wink:

You clearly said "BEFORE" i posted the mouse study, (here it is again) Quote:


"It clearly shows that androgens DIRECTLY affect hair follicles, yeah. I can't imagine why they wouldn't affect them the same way in vivo;"

You clearly said that you can't imagine why androgens wouldn't effect follicles in-vivo in the "SAME" way as in-vitro :roll: !

Whatever your latest retractions here, you certainly agreed that there were "enough" androgens present in those mice to cause a "direct" effect in the original thread :wink:

Here's yet another of the passages you highlighted in that Thread because "YOU" agreed with it then! quote:

"The regeneration of vellus follicles occurs just as quickly on male as on female mice (data not shown); this suggests that a factor or factors other than androgen withdrawal may be involved "

Your obvious squirming now your scientific "cover" has been blown, is starting to embarrass everyone else here now Bryan :wink:

What the debate should "really" be about is what is "allowing" the regeneration of human male pattern baldness follicles in those mice?


S Foote.

 

[michael barry]

Stephen,

How would you account for the SPEED of which baldness developed in castrates who got shot up with testosterone by Hamilton?

Or that pic of Tynan weve all seen vs. her twin sister. Do you think edema forms in around one year in these circumstances? Thats what Hamilton supposedly saw, baldness in castrates who had full heads of hair in about a year after testosterone injections.................he also noted he could stop the balding by stopping the testosterone injections and a little of the lost hair would grow back. If your theory is right, it would seem to me that DHT would be the cause of edema all over the body, and doctors would prescribe finasteride at whatever dose to fight it in lymphedema patients who have water retention on knees/ewbows/ankles, etc. dont you?

 

[S Foote.]

Stephen,

How would you account for the SPEED of which baldness developed in castrates who got shot up with testosterone by Hamilton?

Or that pic of Tynan weve all seen vs. her twin sister. Do you think edema forms in around one year in these circumstances? Thats what Hamilton supposedly saw, baldness in castrates who had full heads of hair in about a year after testosterone injections.................he also noted he could stop the balding by stopping the testosterone injections and a little of the lost hair would grow back. If your theory is right, it would seem to me that DHT would be the cause of edema all over the body, and doctors would prescribe finasteride at whatever dose to fight it in lymphedema patients who have water retention on knees/ewbows/ankles, etc. dont you?

The question you should be asking Michael, is why did it take so long for those testosterone injections to cause scalp hair loss?

If the current theory is correct, those individuals should have been bald within weeks at the outside!

I don't think you understand my theory Michael?

I have said many times that i believe DHT is the most potent natural "anti-edema" substance there is. It grows hair over the larger area of the body!

My theory explains the "opposite" effect in the male pattern baldness area through normal fluid dynamics.

S Foote.

 

[Bryan]

Why don't you try asking scientists like Uno what causes the barrier in the first place Bryan? While you at it ask the scientists at Lo'real who did this research.

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

But Uno and L'Oreal aren't making the same claim that YOU are (about "edema" supposedly causing male pattern baldness), so why the hell would I ask THEM about that specific issue?? I'm asking YOU to support YOUR own theory, Stephen. Are you unable to do that? Is this more of your "guilt by association" that you're so fond of? Are you hoping that because scarring and fibrosis does seem to present a physical barrier to follicle growth (Uno's research) and aging skin does seem to possibly "squeeze" follicle growth (L'Oreal's research), are you hoping that people will assume that all that also supports YOUR screwy idea that male pattern baldness is caused by "edema"?? ROTFLMFAO!!!! It's sort of "guilt by association", and it's sad that that's all you can come up with in the way of evidence to support your theory! :wink:

Bryan

 

[S Foote.]

Why don't you try asking scientists like Uno what causes the barrier in the first place Bryan? While you at it ask the scientists at Lo'real who did this research.

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

But Uno and L'Oreal aren't making the same claim that YOU are (about "edema" supposedly causing male pattern baldness), so why the hell would I ask THEM about that specific issue?? I'm asking YOU to support YOUR own theory, Stephen. Are you unable to do that? Is this more of your "guilt by association" that you're so fond of? Are you hoping that because scarring and fibrosis does seem to present a physical barrier to follicle growth (Uno's research) and aging skin does seem to possibly "squeeze" follicle growth (L'Oreal's research), are you hoping that people will assume that all that also supports YOUR screwy idea that male pattern baldness is caused by "edema"?? ROTFLMFAO!!!! It's sort of "guilt by association", and it's sad that that's all you can come up with in the way of evidence to support your theory! :wink:

Bryan

Stop pretending i haven't explained the evidence for my claim Bryan, Both in terms of scalp conditions in male pattern baldness and the physiology of the hair cycle.

This does require some scientific skills, as it draws together a body of various scientific evidence.

As you have already shown everyone in this thread that you are not capable of such "real" scientific reasoning, i am not going to waste anymore of my time on your persuit of personal prestige on hair loss forums. :wink:

Surfice to say that i am currently talking to some "REAL" scientists about these issues, and i will post as and when there are any further developements.

Meanwhile, i suggest you look for another hobby Bryan. Perhaps internet "essay" forums, as you are so interested in how people write :wink:

S Foote.

 

[Bryan]

There's nothing "subtle" in the actual claims "YOU" made "before" i posted a real in-vivo study that proved you wrong Bryan 8)

Your pathetic attempts to "NOW" do a complete U turn in this thread, doesn't impress people with your scientific integrity Bryan! :wink:

You clearly said "BEFORE" i posted the mouse study, (here it is again) Quote:

"It clearly shows that androgens DIRECTLY affect hair follicles, yeah. I can't imagine why they wouldn't affect them the same way in vivo;"

You clearly said that you can't imagine why androgens wouldn't effect follicles in-vivo in the "SAME" way as in-vitro :roll: !

Yes, and I stand by that statement.

Whatever your latest retractions here...

I'm not making any retractions here.

...you certainly agreed that there were "enough" androgens present in those mice to cause a "direct" effect in the original thread :wink:

I did not agree that there were "enough" androgens present. Try to beat it into your head that we don't KNOW the levels of androgens in those mice.

Here's yet another of the passages you highlighted in that Thread because "YOU" agreed with it then! quote:

"The regeneration of vellus follicles occurs just as quickly on male as on female mice (data not shown); this suggests that a factor or factors other than androgen withdrawal may be involved "

That doesn't preclude the possibility that NEITHER sex had a significant enough amount of androgens to inhibit the hair growth. Note the word "SUGGESTS" in the original text.

Bryan

 

[Bryan]

The question you should be asking Michael, is why did it take so long for those testosterone injections to cause scalp hair loss?

If the current theory is correct, those individuals should have been bald within weeks at the outside!

Jesus H. Christ....you just MAKE UP sh*t whenever it suits your purpose, don't you, Stephen? Everybody on this board knows that most of the time it takes YEARS or even DECADES for hairloss to slowly advance. Occasionally it happens rapidly, but that's not the general rule.

Bryan

 

[S Foote.]

There's nothing "subtle" in the actual claims "YOU" made "before" i posted a real in-vivo study that proved you wrong Bryan 8)

Your pathetic attempts to "NOW" do a complete U turn in this thread, doesn't impress people with your scientific integrity Bryan! :wink:

You clearly said "BEFORE" i posted the mouse study, (here it is again) Quote:

"It clearly shows that androgens DIRECTLY affect hair follicles, yeah. I can't imagine why they wouldn't affect them the same way in vivo;"

You clearly said that you can't imagine why androgens wouldn't effect follicles in-vivo in the "SAME" way as in-vitro :roll: !

Yes, and I stand by that statement.

[quote="S Foote.":cad7b]Whatever your latest retractions here...

I'm not making any retractions here.

...you certainly agreed that there were "enough" androgens present in those mice to cause a "direct" effect in the original thread :wink:

I did not agree that there were "enough" androgens present. Try to beat it into your head that we don't KNOW the levels of androgens in those mice.

Here's yet another of the passages you highlighted in that Thread because "YOU" agreed with it then! quote:

"The regeneration of vellus follicles occurs just as quickly on male as on female mice (data not shown); this suggests that a factor or factors other than androgen withdrawal may be involved "

That doesn't preclude the possibility that NEITHER sex had a significant enough amount of androgens to inhibit the hair growth. Note the word "SUGGESTS" in the original text.

Bryan[/quote:cad7b]

Just more psuedo scientific Bulls**t that i, and i am sure everyone else is now sick of Bryan :roll:

Give it up for God's sake, you've been busted! Move on!!!!!

I am no longer going to respond to your crap in this thread Bryan. But remember, the next time you try to claim this same rubbish in future threads, the people you are "preaching" to will be refered to this thread OK 8)

S Foote.

 

[S Foote.]

The question you should be asking Michael, is why did it take so long for those testosterone injections to cause scalp hair loss?

If the current theory is correct, those individuals should have been bald within weeks at the outside!

Jesus H. Christ....you just MAKE UP $#iT whenever it suits your purpose, don't you, Stephen? Everybody on this board knows that most of the time it takes YEARS or even DECADES for hairloss to slowly advance. Occasionally it happens rapidly, but that's not the general rule.

Bryan

Well we all "KNOW" that Bryan. :wink:

But if there is some "genetic clock" required to run for a period before androgens cause hair loss as "YOU" claim, the twin proves this has "ALREADY" been triggered!

So injecting testosterone in the other twin should cause an "INSTANT" response (according to your theory)

But yet again your theory fails in real life :roll:

S Foote.

 

[Bryan]

I am no longer going to respond to your crap in this thread Bryan.

What's wrong, Stephen? The heat in the kitchen getting to be too much for you? :wink:

Bryan

 

[S Foote.]

What's wrong, Stephen? The heat in the kitchen getting to be too much for you? :wink:

Bryan

Yeah right :lol:

My only purpose in continuing to post in this thread, was to show the often vunerable people that read these posts, that some people who post here are only out to promote their own ego's. :wink:

Your habit of always trying to get the last word in these debates, only proves my point Bryan 8)

Bye :wink:

S Foote.

 

[Bryan]

Well we all "KNOW" that Bryan. :wink:

But if there is some "genetic clock" required to run for a period before androgens cause hair loss as "YOU" claim, the twin proves this has "ALREADY" been triggered!

So injecting testosterone in the other twin should cause an "INSTANT" response (according to your theory)

But yet again your theory fails in real life :roll:

Guess again, Junior. It can probably take years or even decades AFTER the follicles have become sensitive to androgens. The (relatively) slow part isn't necessarily the BECOMING sensitive to androgens, it's probably the male pattern baldness process itself, once the follicles ARE sensitive to androgens. I can think of some scientific evidence to support that, if you're interested, but I doubt that you are. You're not into scientific evidence! :wink:

Your desperation is painful to watch.

Bryan

 

[Bryan]

My only purpose in continuing to post in this thread, was to show the often vunerable people that read these posts, that some people who post here are only out to promote their own ego's. :wink:

I think what you said is a perfect, textbook example of Freud's concept of projection. YOU are the one who is dead-set on preserving your little pet-theory of hairloss, and you're defending it to the death against all the scientific evidence that I and others throw up against it. So your natural defense mechanism is to claim that _I_ am the one who is promoting my own ego. You are projecting onto ME what's happening within YOU.

Bryan

 

[michael barry]

Stephen,

You stated in a post that DHT is something of an "anti-edema" substance. I accept that.

But you also claim that baldness is more or less a tissue edema of the scalp. We know propecia and dutasteride (anti-DHT substances both) help with baldness, and neither seems to effect body hair much (I can attest propecia has not in the decade Ive taken it lessened my body hair).

Let me state this way, I ran an experiment with revivogen on one wrist. It very much inhibtited hair growth on that wrist vs. the other one. Hairs were fewer, shorter, and less pigmented. Revivogen (specifically the gamma linolenic free form and alpha linolenic free form fatty acids therein) acts the OPPOSITE way on the scalp, leading to a little more head hair. So Im sure you can see why practically everyone believes head hair and body hair are different.

Spironolactone is used in women with facial hair THEY WANT TO GET RID OF, and men who want more head hair. Same topical, different results.



Now, you said I dont understand your theory. I think to a point you are right. To defend your ideas with clarity................You need to post your theory in completion on how EXACTLY you think lymphatic pumps in the head and body are effected by testosterone or its metabolites. Why does more testosterone INCREASE body hair, but makes head hair dissapear.
Any visual images of what is going on would be helpful. Whether you realize it or not Stephen, most guys on the forums really dont see EXACTLY what you theorize. They understand tissue edema from the Australian web page you link, but the PRECISE mechanics you are proposing are lost on them.

By the way, for your hypotheisis to be true, THERE MUST be a difference in how DHT is effecting lymphatic pumps in the head vs. the arm skin for instance. If there wasnt, too much DHT would make your arm "bald" too.............

 

[wookster]

THERE MUST be a difference in how DHT is effecting lymphatic pumps in the head vs. the arm skin for instance. If there wasnt, too much DHT would make your arm "bald" too.............

:mrgreen:

If I understand the Foote hypothesis correctly: DHT improves lymphatic efficiency and is beneficial for hair growth, especially where the lymph vessels are more abundant in the face/beard zone. Consequently, the DHT would greatly improve the lymph action/ hair growth in the beard area and simultaneously minimize lymph action in the upper[top] scalp region because of the lack of adequate lymphatic action created by an imbalance in the pump infrastructure of the head.

Muscular movement stimulates lymphatic action so the arm hair will be increased by DHT.

So if a head hair that is ostensibly genetically programmed to minimize to vellus is transplanted to the arm, and if Mr. Foote's hypothesis is correct, that transplanted hair should continue to grow[ it takes on the growth patterns of arm hair too]

 

[Bryan]

So if a head hair that is ostensibly genetically programmed to minimize to vellus is transplanted to the arm, and if Mr. Foote's hypothesis is correct, that transplanted hair should continue to grow[ it takes on the growth patterns of arm hair too]

And since we know it doesn't, I think the proper conclusion is obvious! :wink:

Bryan

 

[wookster]

So if a head hair that is ostensibly genetically programmed to minimize to vellus is transplanted to the arm, and if Mr. Foote's hypothesis is correct, that transplanted hair should continue to grow[ it takes on the growth patterns of arm hair too]

And since we know it doesn't, so I think the proper conclusion is obvious! :wink:

Bryan

I have seen anecdotal reports that seem to conflict with respect to that arm-hair-transplant-question though.

:hairy:

:hairy:

 

[Bryan]

I have seen anecdotal reports that seem to conflict with respect to that arm-hair-transplant-question though.

???

And what would THOSE be? What "anecdotal reports" have conflicted with the solid scientific evidence demonstrating the donor dominance of transplanted hairs? Please explain what you mean.

Bryan