Re: Doctor
blondeguy said:
docj077 said:
So, you think that a pro-fibrotic phenonemon in the integument of mankind is a healthy genetic variation? Wow, you have one scary opinion.
And you have an amusing tendency to exaggerate your vocabulary to sound authoritative.
Yes, it's a totally healthy genetic variation, or it wouldn't have evolved to occur in so many men. It's even found in the animal kingdom. There's nothing unhealthy about masculine hair thinning, no matter how much you try to scare these guys into buying drugs.
No, the variation is not healthy, nor is it normal. In the animal kingdom, hair loss is viewed as a different phenomenon and has differing social implications. In mankind, the opposite is true. The defect in the androgen receptor and defects in the androgen co-receptor are associated with other disease processes. Mutations in this receptor and its co-receptor have been identified in prostate cancer and that is scientific fact.
blondeguy said:
If the receptor can do that in the scalp, then what is to stop it from eventually evolving to doing it in the muscle, the testicles, or the lymphatic endothelial cells?
This is ludicrous. It wouldn't just magically make the genetic leap toward affecting your muscles and testicles one morning. I'm simply astonished at the scare tactics you use in front of emotionally vulnerable people who are more willing to believe it.
You'd be surprised how easily the human body can make genetic leaps. With your reasoning, there would be no reason why any genetic disease that shortens life expectency should ever occur. Unfortunately, they do, so creating drugs that deal with the future implications of genetically inherited androgen receptor mutations is a wise idea. Not only for those with a high risk of prostate cancer, but also for those with a risk of developing fibrosis secondary to organ damage or even those with some of the more aesthetically unpleasant diseases like acne, psoriasis, or scarring alopecias.
I don't tell people to do anything on this forum. I don't even give advice to people. I'm not supposed to. You have no right to deny my opinion or deny people the right to read and interpret what they choose.
blondeguy said:
All that is required are fibroblasts with the defective androgen receptor in a target tissue and you'll have the same response. To me, it would seem that doing scientific research on hair loss and developing drugs to cure it will help scientists cure pulmonary fibrosis, hepatic cirrhosis, fibrosis associated with chronic pancreatitis, and kidney fibrosis. So, who are you to say that mankind shouldn't worry about it? Preventing perifollicular fibrosis could very well be the key to curing chronic disease and organ injury.
I never said mankind shouldn't cure chronic disease and organ injury. Why would I, since that wasn't the topic of conversation? Making the grand leap to that from perifollicular fibrosis is the sort of alarmist hysteria I will always take a stand against.
That is the topic of conversation. Androgen receptor mutation allows dermal fibroblast action and collagen deposition with a corresponding fibrosis. Are merely a naturally defensive being or do you not understand the underlying biochemistry of hair loss enough to create an educated opinion?
By creating drug that work at the level of the skin to prevent the action of TGF-beta and dermal fibroblasts, you essentially remove the possibility of collagen deposition while also preventing keratinocyte apoptosis. By preventing those two processes, you prevent hair loss. By stopping the production of DHT, you stop those two processes. That is the goal of those that choose to put these drugs in their bodies. You have no say in the choices of others when it comes to what they do to themselves. You should like one of those stereotypical anti-abortion zealots with regards to attitude and education.
blondeguy said:
This statement is incorrect. DHT is not a requirement of any body process past puberty, but a reduction can affect fertility to a small degree.
DHT is a naturally produced hormone in the body; thus, it is part of the natural balance. It's interesting that you contradict yourself in one sentence, claiming it's not a requirement while acknowledging that it has a sexual effect.
You know what else is naturally produced by the body...insulin. But, wait, how much sugar do you eat everyday? You alter the normal physiology of insulin production and strain your beta-cells while producing cortisol during the time when insulin secretion outweighs glucose intake with the resulting immune suppression. Why do you do that? Why do you eat potatoes, chips, drink pop or juice, and why do you alter hormone levels in your body?
My goodness, why do you eat cholesterol and increase steroid synthesis in your body and DHT to only have those increased levels feed back and inhibit the production of GnRH at the level of the hypothalamus with a corresponding decrease in LH and FSH production. Why do you do that? You keep changing the physiologic norm?
So, you're likely no different from everyone else. You merely do it with your diet and the people that take 5AR inhibitor do the exact opposite with a pill.
blondeguy said:
No, the American Cancer society does not believe that Propecia should be taken for prostate cancer prevention. However, it will prevent the development of hormone sensitive cancers, which is quite evident in recent studies that demonstrate this fact. A recommendation is very different from an off-label indication.
There's not even a recommendation, and there is no official guarantee it will prevent all development of hormone-sensitive cancers.
Actually, studies show that it reduces the incidence of hormone sensitive cancers. Also, when a man is on propecia, doubling of the PSA value is required and a PSA of over 2.0 should be evaluated.
blondeguy said:
Merck doesn't pay me anything. In case you haven't noticed (which I doubt you have, because you seem to have tunnel vision on this forum), I've actually posted in numerous threads regarding the health effects of taking 5AR inhibitors including their possible future link to neurogenerative disease, increasing the chance of seizures, and their possible link to thyroid anomalies.
You must forgive me, but I haven't gone through the entire forum, researching every post you've ever written. Sounds to me, though, that you're contradicting your earlier claim about a return to a physiological norm. Neurogenerative disease and seizure doesn't sound physiologically normal to me.
You're forgiven.
Neurodegenerative disease has never been proven, but we discuss it anyway and the seizure problem is only a concern in those men with seizure disorders although that it still not a contraindication for propecia.
blondeguy said:
Also, if you would simply read, you'd notice that I had to quit the drugs due to health problems myself. Do you honestly think I'd even mention that if I was working for a company that sells 5AR inhibitors? Don't be such an idiot!
All part of that physiological norm of feeling like crap, I suppose.
Yes, exactly.
blondeguy said:
For many, there is simply nothing that they can do. The androgen response is too strong for even 70-94% percent 5AR inhibition.
Since this is what I've been saying all along, I'm curious why you're arguing with me.
Because, I find you to be insulting and disrespectful.
blondeguy said:
The simple fact that we don't hear from people on this forum is typical. Once people have success, they don't come back and those that do come back have maintained what they regrew.
That's a possible assumption, but hardly anything concrete to rely on when claiming that long-term treatments are successful, especially since there's a forum specifically for success stories.
Not an assumption. People do check back and they do have success.
blondeguy said:
Those that continue to go bald despite treatment usually have seborrheic dermatitis and other underlying pathologies that prevent adequate treatment of male pattern baldness. You'd probably notice that, as well, if you'd simply read instead of judge.
I wasn't aware you had personally diagnosed every balding individual who wasn't responding to treatments, so forgive me if I don't accept your assumption at face value without some more specific examples.
Again, you're forgiven. Go to the stories forum or simply read around here. If you question what I'm saying, then visit with a dermatologist or simply look it up. It would do you some good to read up on the subject.
blondeguy said:
What's the matter? Do I keep it too real for you? You might as well just stop now and get used to medical professionals that don't allow you to step all over them just because you think you deserve an opinion. You're the one that comes on here and mocks the progress of my fellow forumites. In my eyes, your opinion and your posts are worth less than the dirt that I walk upon. Keep it up, because I think you're making a lot of friends around here.
On the contrary, I believe I keep it too real for you regarding the long-term effectiveness of hair loss treatments. Apparently, you believe you are more deserving of an opinion than I am. I'm intrigued that a self-proclaimed medical professional believes feeling like crap is a physiological norm. I have never mocked anyone, and you can't cite an example where I have. I won't expect an apology for your accusations--I'll simply acknowledge that you understand you were out of line and leave it at that.
You are aware that pretty much every drug that medicine uses to correct disease processes makes a person feel like crap, I hope? Diabetes medications like lantus will make you gain weight. Lyrica for peripheral neuropathy can make you lightheaded. Beta-blockers can cause shortness of breath with activity and some can even provoke asthma. Diuretics can cause uncomfortable urinary frequency and potentially hyper- or hypo-kalemia. Calcium channel blockers can cause unsightly peripheral edema. ACE inhibitors can cause a cough associated with the prevention of the breakdown of bradykinin or even angioedema. The list goes on and on and reason that we have to do this is because these people do not exist in a physiologically normal state. We often overcorrect to merely balance and it's still not a cure.
So, when you say that these drugs have side effects, I really don't think you understand what a side effect is and how minimal these effects are with drugs compared to others. I won't even discuss the drugs used for Alzhiemers and Parkinson's Disease. Those drugs are scary, but we still use them, because that's all we have right now.
blondeguy said:
You're right! It isn't a big deal. But, for those that do care you'd demonstrate kindness and compassion to actually care about their suffering and show some freakin' empathy. Instead, you bash them, you insult their progress, and you insult their intelligence by telling them to remove drugs from their regimen that they've made the conscious decision to take months or even years ago.
Give an example of where I've:
1.) Bashed anyone.
2.) Insulted anyone's progress.
3.) Insulted their intelligence.
4.) Told them to remove drugs from their regimen.
I've stated repeatedly on these forums that if they want to do treatments, do them, but don't let them take over their lives. I've been compassionate and empathetic in everything I've written. Looks like you've got the same tunnel vision when it comes to knowing someone's position.
That's funny, because I've done the same thing. We don't see eye-to-eye, because you think that you need to win this debate. You're very stubborn and I have some free time for the next month, so it's up to you to decide. If you want to keep this going, then we can, but I can guarantee that you won't come out on top.
blondeguy said:
I recommend you either leave or say something that doesn't make you look like a total tool. It'll not only help your internet image, but it'll probably make it less likely that one of us will simply put a boot across your face if we see you walking down the street.
As concerned as I am about my "internet image" on a hair loss forum, I'm more surprised that a self-proclaimed medical professional is apparently threatening me because I disagreed with him over the long-term effectiveness of hair loss treatments. Of the two of us, you are the one who has insulted me repeatedly and called me names. What began as a simple disagreement I politely expressed has resulted in my losing total respect for you. I don't know if you're bitter over balding, or if this is how you always communicate with people who aren't already in line with your position, but I recommend changing your approach if you expect to persuade people who have a disagreement with you.
I'm not a medical professional. I'm a medical student. Apparently, you weren't aware of that. The names you've deserved, because your sarcasm and ignorance were not appreciated. I didn't have respect for you to begin with, so that didn't change anything for me.
Persuading others requires that I both desire to respect them and that I desire to have a conversation with them. Unfortunately, when it comes to this debate with you and the thread creator, neither of the above are true.
