For bryan and Foote.

[2tone]

Comparative studies on level of androgens in hair and plasma with premature male-pattern baldness

Hyo-Jung Banga, b, Yoon Jung Yanga, Dong-Seok Lhoa, Won-Yong Leeb, Woo Young Simc and Bong Chul Chung

It is special status that male pattern baldness is started at the temporal region. Within men, results indicate approximately 30% higher levels of total androgenic receptors in frontal hair follicles than those in occipital follicles [8]. Furthermore, the level of 5α-R II increased 60% in frontal area when compared with occipital hair follicles in male baldness [8]. The other author insisted correlation association between prostate cancer and vertex baldness [9]. This association appears to be more evident for high-grade prostate cancer. Moreover, it was discovered that free testosterone in hair is strongly associated with prostate cancer risk and vertex baldness [10]. When we think collectively about the above research, we can assume that distribution of androgenic steroids is different for each region of the head. It is also possible to presume that androgenic steroids in vertex hair may be associated with male pattern baldness.

4. Discussion

In our previous study, we found that, high levels of DHT and testosterone, and an amplified ratio of the T/E are characteristics of male pattern baldness cases in the advanced-stage hair [12]. The levels of 5α-R II activity and the androgen receptor were higher in the frontal follicles of men with male pattern baldness [8]. Base upon previous findings, we collected hair samples as hair region (vertex and occipital hair of premature baldness) and investigated the differences of androgenic steroid as hormone distribution.

Our data show that the level of DHT and the T/E ratio in vertex hair from baldness were higher than in the non-baldness subjects, whereas the DHT level and the T/E ratio in occipital hair from the same baldness were not significantly different between the two groups. Therefore, we demonstrated that the distribution of androgenic steroids is different in the various regions of individual subjects. It is also possible to conclude that male pattern baldness is generated by the distribution of androgenic steroids in the vertex.

 

[S Foote.]

If circulation issues have nothing to do with male pattern baldness, how can you explain the well accepted fact of higher tissue levels of DHT in the male pattern baldness area, when the largest local producers (large anagen follicles) are absent??

The rich supply of DHT from the sebaceous glands.

[quote="S Foote.":62958]DHT produced by the type two enzyme is predominent in hair follicles, and accounts for two thirds of systematic DHT, against one third produced by type one enzyme predominent in sebaceous glands. (Merck PDR).

Correct.

So how is it possible for the male pattern baldness area to be `producing' more DHT than hairy areas of the scalp that have more production capacity?

The increase in DHT from those big, fat, healthy sebaceous glands more than makes up for the (probably) declining amounts of DHT from miniaturizing hair follicles.

It isn't possible via local production, so the only explaination for more DHT in the male pattern baldness area, is a higher tissue fluid level meaning increased levels of circulating substances including DHT!

It IS possible, as I explained above.[/quote:62958]

The `hairy' areas of the scalp `ALSO' have this supply from sebaceous glands, `PLUS' more DHT produced by the larger follicles.

You just cant justify larger tissue amounts of DHT in male pattern baldness tissue, against hairy scalp tissue by local production Bryan sorry!

As for this different `response' of follicles to DHT you keep claiming Bryan, the in-vitro tests clearly show that direct exposure of `ANY' hair follicle cell sample, does `NOT' change it's pre-existing growth characteristics.

You've said that many many times (just like a parrot), and my answer is still the same.

[quote="S Foote.":62958]Quite simply, androgens `DO NOT' directly effect the growth of follicles.

Prove it. BTW, I won't be holding my breath while I'm waiting for that! :wink:[/quote:62958]

The in-vitro studies prove that androgens dont directly `CHANGE' the pre-existing growth characteristics of hair follicle cells, there is therefore no direct `effect', simple!

Show me a study that proves otherwise?

Your previous claim that androgens `would' directly change follicle growth given enough time, just doesn't wash Bryan. Your denial of the `actual' test results and `wishing' things will change, is not science Bryan :roll:

Just constantly trying to invent excuses for actual test results that don't suit a personal opinion, is just not science Bryan :roll:

I'm not the one here who invents excuses and puts a "spin" on things.

Bryan

The facts say otherwise i'am afraid Bryan.

S Foote.

 

[S Foote.]

If circulation issues have nothing to do with male pattern baldness, how can you explain the well accepted fact of higher tissue levels of DHT in the male pattern baldness area, when the largest local producers (large anagen follicles) are absent??

Huh? A non sequitur. Are you suggesting that intrafollicular production of androgens, growth factors, or whatever, is a self-limiting system as a consequence of its own destruction?

Well yes.

DHT production in male pattern baldness follicle cells must reduce as the cells reduce due to follicle miniaturization.

S Foote.

 

[Bryan]

So how is it possible for the male pattern baldness area to be `producing' more DHT than hairy areas of the scalp that have more production capacity?

The increase in DHT from those big, fat, healthy sebaceous glands more than makes up for the (probably) declining amounts of DHT from miniaturizing hair follicles.

DHT from the sebaceous glands probably isn't very important to the process of Androgenetic Alopecia, but I suspect you may have offered that merely as an alternative counterexample.

Dave, I'm not sure what you mean by "alternative counterexample" in this context. What I said above is exactly what I mean: in my view, the higher average amounts of DHT found in sections of scalp from balding areas is probably due to lots of DHT being produced by sebaceous glands in that area. I didn't imply that DHT from that source significantly affects balding. I rather doubt that it does.

Bryan

 

[Bryan]

The `hairy' areas of the scalp `ALSO' have this supply from sebaceous glands, `PLUS' more DHT produced by the larger follicles.

Balding areas of scalp presumably have a GREATER supply from sebaceous glands, because of generally stronger androgenic activity (on average) in male pattern baldness-prone individuals.

You just cant justify larger tissue amounts of DHT in male pattern baldness tissue, against hairy scalp tissue by local production Bryan sorry!

I just did.

The in-vitro studies prove that androgens dont directly `CHANGE' the pre-existing growth characteristics of hair follicle cells, there is therefore no direct `effect', simple!

"Polly want a crackerrrrr??"

Bryan

 

[S Foote.]

The `hairy' areas of the scalp `ALSO' have this supply from sebaceous glands, `PLUS' more DHT produced by the larger follicles.

Balding areas of scalp presumably have a GREATER supply from sebaceous glands, because of generally stronger androgenic activity (on average) in male pattern baldness-prone individuals.

Presumably Bryan!!

Quote me some hard evidence `SPECIFICALY' for a greater production of DHT from sebaceous glands in the male pattern baldness area, compared with hairy scalp area's? Your just guessing as usual :roll:

You just cant justify larger tissue amounts of DHT in male pattern baldness tissue, against hairy scalp tissue by local production Bryan sorry!

I just did.

[quote="S Foote.":6fef3]The in-vitro studies prove that androgens dont directly `CHANGE' the pre-existing growth characteristics of hair follicle cells, there is therefore no direct `effect', simple!

"Polly want a crackerrrrr??"

Bryan[/quote:6fef3]

So you confirm you can't answer the point scientificaly then!

This point and the other points i have been trying to educate you on, amount to the reasons why professional scientists are now questioning the previous assumptions made about male pattern baldness, as i have referenced before.

My advice Bryan is to leave the parrot jokes to Monty Python. Your comedy skills are almost as bad as your science skills. 8)

S Foote.

 

[Dave001]

So how is it possible for the male pattern baldness area to be `producing' more DHT than hairy areas of the scalp that have more production capacity?

The increase in DHT from those big, fat, healthy sebaceous glands more than makes up for the (probably) declining amounts of DHT from miniaturizing hair follicles.

DHT from the sebaceous glands probably isn't very important to the process of Androgenetic Alopecia, but I suspect you may have offered that merely as an alternative counterexample.

Dave, I'm not sure what you mean by "alternative counterexample" in this context. What I said above is exactly what I mean: in my view, the higher average amounts of DHT found in sections of scalp from balding areas is probably due to lots of DHT being produced by sebaceous glands in that area. I didn't imply that DHT from that source significantly affects balding. I rather doubt that it does.

Alternative counterexample: a counterexample different from the prevalent model in which DHT produced locally in the hair follicle ( specifically the dermal papilla) is thought to be the predominant androgen source involved in the balding process.

But you were only referring to regional DHT variations, not their causative influence (I had considered that). So never mind. I had interpreted the "more than makes up for..." part of your comment differently from how it was intended.

 

[Dave001]

This point and the other points i have been trying to educate you on, amount to the reasons why professional scientists are now questioning the previous assumptions made about male pattern baldness, as i have referenced before.

That is not an argument. It is a drowning man grasping at straws.

 

[S Foote.]

This point and the other points i have been trying to educate you on, amount to the reasons why professional scientists are now questioning the previous assumptions made about male pattern baldness, as i have referenced before.

That is not an argument. It is a drowning man grasping at straws.

That is your opinion, but as usual to save yourself from embarrasment, you won't `actually' go on the record and say `WHY' you have that opinion will you! :wink:

S Foote.

 

[michael barry]

Kevin McElwee states on keratin.com that if a boy is castrated before puberty he will not bald later in life even if INJECTED with androgen hormones. If he is castrated during or after puberty before he starts to go bald he will have beautiful hair.......UNLESS someone shoots him up with male hormones which will see him start to go bald if he has the genetic propensity to do so. This is here http://www.keratin.com/ac/baldnesstreat ... ents.shtml

So shooting up hair cells from a pre-pubescent stumpailed macque would not and should not make those cells start to male pattern baldness or change growth characteristics in any way.

Got to be honest with ya' Stephen, Ive googled quite a few PubMed studies with "androgens, in vitro, hair cells" etc. and pretty much all of em' conclude that shooting up hair cells from typically balding areas of the scalp see the outer root sheath and some of the other cells slow cell division, etc. when androgens are added to them. This is a typical example here http://www.ehrs.org/conferenceabstracts ... -itami.htm Dr. Proctor, Dr. Pickart, and others believe somehow these androgens seem to mark the hair follicles for the immune system to attack.

So many extremely smart people studying baldness shouldnt be missing the same thing. I really think Bryan is right about the direct theory of baldness. I still seem to think the extra-numerous androgen receptors that the temporal follicles have is why we lose hair there first and why they go instead of DNA encoding on those particular hair cells telling them to go (and will continue to do so until someone conclusively disproves it), but one never knows when they look at stuff like this here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4283302.stm Thats a knockout photo......just ONE gene addded seen that bald mouse grow ALL of his hair back. Adding one gene shouldnt have any effect on a physical condition like and edema of the skin.......

I have to conclude that the direct theory that the Anderans, Intercyclex, Curis, Elaine Fuchs, Cohen Gho, Loren Pickart, Hideo Uno, Colin Jahoda, Angela Christiano, Peter Proctor, Merk, Glaxo-Smith Kline, Upjohn, and my local dermatologist believe in has to be the right one.
Bryan, I think is pretty fair in his arguments..........I think Dave is a little rude, but he is "in the right".

 

[Bryan]

Thanks for your reply, Michael! :wink:

Bryan

 

[Bryan]

Bryan, I think is pretty fair in his arguments..........I think Dave is a little rude, but he is "in the right".

I think I have a fair amount of patience; after all, look how long I've been going around and around with Stephen Foote! :wink:

My good friend Dave, on the other hand....well, let's just put it this way: as the old saying goes, Dave doesn't suffer fools gladly!

Bryan

 

[Dave001]

Bryan, I think is pretty fair in his arguments..........I think Dave is a little rude, but he is "in the right".

I think I have a fair amount of patience; after all, look how long I've been going around and around with Stephen Foote! :wink:

Yeah, Bryan, I do think your efforts and patience with Stephen are deserving of some sort of medal of honor.

 

[S Foote.]

Kevin McElwee states on keratin.com that if a boy is castrated before puberty he will not bald later in life even if INJECTED with androgen hormones. If he is castrated during or after puberty before he starts to go bald he will have beautiful hair.......UNLESS someone shoots him up with male hormones which will see him start to go bald if he has the genetic propensity to do so. This is here http://www.keratin.com/ac/baldnesstreat ... ents.shtml

So shooting up hair cells from a pre-pubescent stumpailed macque would not and should not make those cells start to male pattern baldness or change growth characteristics in any way.

I can not find any references to support this claim:

"Kevin McElwee states on keratin.com that if a boy is castrated before puberty he will not bald later in life even if INJECTED with androgen hormones."

I would be interested in just how long this was studied for? Certainly in the known cases of precocious puberty hair growth is effected in very young kids!

http://www.emedicine.com/ped/topic1882.htm

In precocious puberty, sex hormone production increases in very young children because of a medical problem. This increases body hair growth in young boys as if they had reached normal puberty, so whatever the mechanism of effect, it is ready and waiting for androgen levels to increase even in young children!

The term pre-pubescent only means that androgens have yet to reach a certain level. In castration, androgens are not going to reach the necessary level to trigger male pattern baldness in those disposed whether the disposition is a direct effect or indirect effect.

When the androgen levels are boosted by injection for long enough, male pattern baldness can start in predisposed individuals, but we are still left with the question of a direct or indirect effect of androgens?



So if the effect is `direct', pre-male pattern baldness follicles that have yet to be exposed to significant levels of androgens, should `change' into male pattern baldness follicles when exposed to high levels of androgens in-vitro.

But they don't!

The in-vitro tests clearly show that direct exposure to androgens does not CHANGE the pre-existing growth characteristics of ANY kind of follicle cell!

The important point is that direct exposure to androgens of follicle cells in-vitro, is not changing anything. So the all important in-vivo `change' has to be an `indirect' effect of androgens.

Something is happening `in-vivo' triggered by androgens. that is transforming the growth characteristics of follicle cells. Now once this transformation has happened, male pattern baldness cells may well `also' show growth restriction when exposed to androgens in-vitro, but this can be misleading.

These `already' transformed cells, may well `also' show a growth restriction when exposed to cream cheese in-vitro! Are we going to then conclude that cream cheese causes male pattern baldness?

What the in-vitro studies prove for sure, is that androgens do `NOT' directly `CAUSE' male pattern baldness!

In order to make the current theory `work' in the light of these results, an unprecedented `time delay' mechanism has to be invented, which is one of the main reasons why the more enlightened scientists now question this theory.

It's a mistake of association. We know androgens `do' change hair growth so despite the fact they dont change follicle cell growth in-vitro, is it safe to assume they would given time?

This is like me putting a silver lady mascot on my Ford expecting it to turn into a Rolls Royce, because i `KNOW' silver lady mascots are `associated' with Rolls Royces!! When it remains a Ford, i can still be sure that given time it would change because of the `known' association!

This is exactly the reasoning some use about the in-vitro follicle tests!


What people should realise about professional scientists, is the politics of professional science! I for one have had my eyes opened in my experiences suggesting my theory to professional scientists.

In all areas of science, it can be professionaly dangerous to question the existing ideas and theories. The trick is to have as much published as you can, and dont `rock the boat'.

The big problem in male pattern baldness research in my opinion has been the old donor dominance `assumption'. Long ago a conclusion was reached that the results of certain transplantation studies `MUST' mean a direct action of androgens within follicle cells. This became the `norm' and all the subsequent research has been done with this idea in mind.

So the authors of the various studies have tried to explain the results in terms of the `accepted' theory. Remember, don't rock the boat!

But as time has past it is becoming clear that assumptions have been made. Even the old donor dominance idea is now bieng proven wrong by later research as i have referenced before (body hair to scalp transplants). Even the recognised experts in transplantation now question donor dominance as it has been traditionaly thought of.

I know through my own correspondence that more and more professional scientists are not happy with the current male pattern baldness `theory'. But they won't go on the record at this time.

I would say that at least these days we are getting more original research, and i think the growing research in HM is going to blow some long standing assumptions out of the water!

Regards.

S Foote.

 

[S Foote.]

Bryan, I think is pretty fair in his arguments..........I think Dave is a little rude, but he is "in the right".

I think I have a fair amount of patience; after all, look how long I've been going around and around with Stephen Foote! :wink:

My good friend Dave, on the other hand....well, let's just put it this way: as the old saying goes, Dave doesn't suffer fools gladly!

Bryan

I will make a prediction here.

As HM research progresses and the relevant facts emerge, you and `sideshow' Dave will quietly withdraw from these foums!

Then people will see the for themselves who the `fools' are! :wink:

S Foote.

 

[Dave001]

I will make a prediction here.

As HM research progresses and the relevant facts emerge, you and `sideshow' Dave will quietly withdraw from these foums!

Then people will see the for themselves who the `fools' are! :wink:

How come your `quotations' are delimited by `different' characters? It's not accidental because you do it consistently.

 

[S Foote.]

I will make a prediction here.

As HM research progresses and the relevant facts emerge, you and `sideshow' Dave will quietly withdraw from these foums!

Then people will see the for themselves who the `fools' are! :wink:

How come your `quotations' are delimited by `different' characters? It's not accidental because you do it consistently.

This kind of completely irrelevant obsessing with "correct" grammer, gives both you and Bryan away 8)

You both relate the phrasing and spelling of a statement, with the "factual" validity of the content.

Your apparent expertise with the written word, probable beaten into you both during a repressing educational experience, has lead you both to believe that the `proper wording' and punctuation of a statement, adds validity `TO' that statement.

WRONG!!!

In `real' science circles, this is refered to as "articulate babble".

http://www.articulatebabble.org/archive ... 081439.php

This article describes the attitude of you and Bryan very well 8)

If you want to prove me wrong here Dave, the solution is very simple!

You have claimed that the scientific tool of Ockham's razor proves my theory to be wrong. Yet every time i have asked you to explain how Ockhams razor does this, you have refused to respond!

I know that you just came across the scientific term "Ockhams razor" on the net, and thought that if you refered to this on these forums people would think you had some scientific knowledge.

The mistake you made was in presuming i wouldn't call you out on the issue, and ask you to elaborate!

When i did you decided that a refusal to answer my questions was better than becoming involved in a debate that would make you look a fool :wink:

You were right to think that Dave, because i will make you look a fool if you ever find the gut's to back up these off the cuff arrogent psuedo scientific statements you are so fond of making.

But i know you will never risk that 8)

S Foote.

 

[Bryan]

This kind of completely irrelevant obsessing with "correct" grammer, gives both you and Bryan away 8)

Your apparent expertise with the written word, probable beaten into you both during a repressing educational experience, has lead you both to believe that the `proper wording' and punctuation of a statement, adds validity `TO' that statement.

No, actually Dave and I are just curious as to why you have that peculiar little foible. We've even discussed it briefly via email!

At first we thought it must be a British thing, but we haven't seen it duplicated by any other Brits. So why DO you do that, Stephen? When did you start doing it that way, and why? :?: ensativo:

Bryan

 

[S Foote.]

This kind of completely irrelevant obsessing with "correct" grammer, gives both you and Bryan away 8)

Your apparent expertise with the written word, probable beaten into you both during a repressing educational experience, has lead you both to believe that the `proper wording' and punctuation of a statement, adds validity `TO' that statement.

No, actually Dave and I are just curious as to why you have that peculiar little foible. We've even discussed it briefly via email!

At first we thought it must be a British thing, but we haven't seen it duplicated by any other Brits. So why DO you do that, Stephen? When did you start doing it that way, and why? :?: ensativo:

Bryan

Doing what exactly????

I doubt very much that the people who read these boards have the slightest interest in what you consider to be `correct' grammer Bryan. They like me are a lot more interested in content rather than presentation :roll:

I don't even know (or do i care), what particular problem you have with my writting? Am i using the wrong emphasise symbols? If so, so what!

Most people reading this would conclude that your concern here is just a distraction from the content of what i say, and they would be right!

People who use these forums are not all experts in correct English spelling or phrasiology, including me. Everyone knows this, and as long as the point is clear enough, they have the good grace to ignore typo's and other "incorrect" phrasing or usage of punctuation.

To just dwell on this issue is the last refuge of people who have nothing to say! :wink:

S Foote.

 

[Jacob]

Most people reading this would conclude that your concern here is just a distraction from the content of what i say, and they would be right!

And it's been going on for years.