Question for Stephen Foote, with pictures for a point

[michael barry]

http://www.hairsite4.com/dc/dcboard.php ... &mode=full



Stephen, the man above has had six thousand *very good plugs from Hasson and Wong. He has been on Proscar for six months, since the day after surgery.

Look at his hippocratic wreath and sides.

Look at how thin the hairs were before the finasteride, versus how thick they are now. There is a huge difference. And think, the two year mark is when finasteride has its biggest effect (and dutasteride's would no doubt be even bigger).

IF this guy is losing hair due to poor lymphatic drainage, then your whole cranium, sides and back included (and even upper neck) has it also. And your face and body must have none as they get hairier over time. The only interesting thing about finasteride Ive seen is that it hardly effects body hair at all. I still have a hairy chest, just as much as I ever did.

Do you have any comments, via your view on baldness, on why the above happens? He is only on finasteride. No growth stimulants. His growth is rather extrodinary to me considering he is only six months in. Are you of the opinion that that much edema exists in the scalp and cutting DHT can relieve it to that extreme extent?







Im sure Bryan would like to chime in....................

 

[Aplunk1]

Explain.

How is this man's "wreath" so thin?

 

[Solo]

Well, the lower zone of sides and back are also somehow affected by DHT, it has been commented countless times here.

If you look closely enough to NW7´s donor areas, you´ll see that they have also receeded.


Even people with no male pattern baldness, women included, have thinner hair in the upper neck and above ears. It´s not strange that male pattern baldness sufferers have it even thinner.


I see no strange factors involved here, personally.

 

[michael barry]

Solo,

The point here is as it relates to Stephen's theory. That point being that if edema is causing miniaturization, its happening in the "donor" area too. In fact all the hair on a mans head must be effected by water retention for Steve's theory to be happening in actuality. I dont know if he has accounted for this, but this pic makes an accounting for it a must for any alternate theory of baldness.


It pretty much blows Armandos theory completely away, as well as that other one thats been floating around about X-shaped downward pressure.

 

[wookster]

...as well as that other one thats been floating around about X-shaped downward pressure.

The "X-theory" might still be relevant in the respect that the inflammation in the dermis and "hypo-dermis" might also cause the galea to swell and thicken, creating a negative pressure that also increases inflammation, contributing to a self referential inflammatory "feedback loop". :freaked2: Scares the hair right out of me :freaked: :hairy: :freaked:

 

[S Foote.]

Hi Michael.

As you know, i don't think there is any such thing as DHT resistent or DHT suceptable follicles. I dont think there is any truly scientific evidence that the in-vivo effect of DHT on follicles is "direct", as i have argued many times.

Certainly there is a thinning of all scalp hair in male pattern baldness over time. What i think makes what we call the male pattern baldness area more pronounced, is this lies at the ends of the lymphatic system. I also think as i have said before, that the galea does play a part the major loss we call male pattern baldness.

This is because one of the mechanisms that naturaly reduce increases in tissue fluid pressure, is the pressure itself forces the excess fluid into the surrounding tissues. The galea is a membrane, and as such is a barrier to this natural dispersal of tissue fluid. In other words, the galea tends to retain the excess fluid.

I think the galea is responsible for the well defined male pattern baldness area, and matches this as many people point out.

The hairline at the back of the neck does receed upwards as people with male pattern baldness get older. I am 53 and i know this by my own experience. One of the best examples of the narrowing wreath you talk about, is the actor James Avery who played the father in the fresh prince series.

You will note that the receeded hairline at the back of the neck in such people, matches with a noticable band of "swelling"!!

Here's a short video where you can see this in James Avery, click the first vid.

http://www.tv.com/james-avery/person/4444/summary.html

The quality isn't that good, but if you see any fresh prince re-runs or videos, you will see what i mean.

S Foote.

 

[Solo]

Solo,

The point here is as it relates to Stephen's theory. That point being that if edema is causing miniaturization, its happening in the "donor" area too. In fact all the hair on a mans head must be effected by water retention for Steve's theory to be happening in actuality. I dont know if he has accounted for this, but this pic makes an accounting for it a must for any alternate theory of baldness.


It pretty much blows Armandos theory completely away, as well as that other one thats been floating around about X-shaped downward pressure.

Ok, Michael.

Btw, I would like to read S.Foote theory in his full form. It´has been discussed countless times, and I think I understand the overalls, but I would like to know more.

 

[powersam]

i wasn't aware anyone actually took armandos theory seriously anyway.

 

[S Foote.]

Solo,

The point here is as it relates to Stephen's theory. That point being that if edema is causing miniaturization, its happening in the "donor" area too. In fact all the hair on a mans head must be effected by water retention for Steve's theory to be happening in actuality. I dont know if he has accounted for this, but this pic makes an accounting for it a must for any alternate theory of baldness.


It pretty much blows Armandos theory completely away, as well as that other one thats been floating around about X-shaped downward pressure.

Ok, Michael.

Btw, I would like to read S.Foote theory in his full form. It´has been discussed countless times, and I think I understand the overalls, but I would like to know more.

My original paper can be read here.

http://www.hairsite2.com/library/abst-167.htm

A modified version of this was published in "Medical Hypotheses".

I came to these forums to get further imput on information that would either refute or support the theory, and i could now add much more data to support this theory.

If my personal commitments allow, i will write another paper updating the info and support.

But right now i have to concentrate on promoting further research into other areas implicated by the theory. This is necessary to inturn gain more support for testing in the male pattern baldness area.

S Foote.

 

[Solo]

Thanks, Stephen.

 

[Bryan]

I came to these forums to get further imput on information that would either refute or support the theory, and i could now add much more data to support this theory.

LOL!!! Stephen, you're a funny guy. Your theory has been completely blown out of the water on this forum, but you just keep on truckin', don't you?

If my personal commitments allow, i will write another paper updating the info and support.

Hey, don't forget to include MY contributions to your theory! :wink:

Bryan

 

[michael barry]

Stephen,

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/main. ... bald21.xml

Thats an article on acupuncture, and a few other things and hairloss. If you believe the galea is restrictive of lymph drainage, causing an edema of the entire scalp, would it stand to reason that sticking needles in it (thus creating some holes in it) would enhance lymph drainage back down? Acupuncture is used in edema of other body parts, Ive checked google on that.


Ive posted that pic all over the hairsite, hlr, HairLossTalk.com because I want men to see that there really is no "donor area" that has 'no' genetic suceptiblity to male hormone. Many men will have three inch hippocratic wreaths when they are seventy with only perhaps two/thirds or less the original density. The man in the picture with the transplants doenst realize it now, but that back bald spot will be opening back up in five years, in ten years will be very large, his sides will receed, his back will thin, and he could wind up with a real "hair island" in the front without much more surgery. That donor area might be getting extremely thin after taking ten thousand more hairs from it. Ive seen this phenomena in person. Its not a pretty sight.

 

[S Foote.]

I came to these forums to get further imput on information that would either refute or support the theory, and i could now add much more data to support this theory.

LOL!!! Stephen, you're a funny guy. Your theory has been completely blown out of the water on this forum, but you just keep on truckin', don't you?

http://www.hairlosstalk.com/discussions ... hp?t=19054[/url]

In this link, i asked you to confirm your claim that androgens effect follicles in-vivo in "exactly" the same way as the in-vitro tests you took as "gospil". You replied:

But first i want you to comfirm you opinion about Sawaya's study. You claim this in-vitro study clearly shows how androgens "directly" effect follicles in-vivo right?

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;

This was "AFTER" you clearly stated in a previous thread, that you had a "DIFFERENT" opinion for God's sake!!

http://www.hairlosshelp.com/forums/mess ... &forumid=1

In "THIS" thread, Daytona raised the same point "YOU" claimed in the first link, quote:


Originally posted by: daytona:

"Could it be that these transplanted vellous hairs recovered to terminal hairs because of the lack of DHT present and not due to an absence of an immune response? "



Bryan responded:

"You're forgetting this important line from the study: "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...

Furthermore, men with prostate cancer who undergo total androgen ablation with castration and flutamide don't experience dramatic hair regrowth.

Bryan"



Then you had the nerve to post these "words of wisdom" in yet another thread!!


http://www.hairsite4.com/dc/dcboard.php ... &mode=full

Here you said quote:

"The moral to this story is look at the SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE, when considering unusual claims by individuals who post on these sites. Don't believe everything they say.

Bryan"

What a devious individual you are Bryan :freaked:

Anyone who takes the time to compare your opinions in different threads, can see for themselves what a sad hypocrite you really are :roll:

I have to tell you Bryan that personaly i find your comments laughable. Your comments carry no weight at all in the evaluation of my theory, or any other theory for that matter. I just smile when i see your "critique's" of my theory

If you are so desperate to try to gain some kind of percieved scientific credibility on internet forums, thats fine. I have a life apart from these forums.

But if you really think you are fooling people who know about science, you are sadly mistaken, and you have been busted 8)

S Foote.

 

[Bryan]

The perfect example is in these two links, where you clearly show how you end up contradicting yourself in different threads, through your childish attempts to "win" a particular debate.

Anyone who takes the time to compare your opinions in different threads, can see for themselves what a sad hypocrite you really are :roll:

Oh, you BIG FRAUD. Quit trying to blow smoke up all our collective asses. Or do you Brits say "arses"? :wink:

I've explained to you numerous times in plain English that there are BOTH androgenic AND immune components in balding, so there is no "contradiction" in anything I've said. Quit acting like this hasn't already been explained to you over and over and over and over.

Bryan

 

[wookster]

What a devious individual you are Bryan :freaked:

Deviousness, ...not good :freaked:

 

[S Foote.]

The perfect example is in these two links, where you clearly show how you end up contradicting yourself in different threads, through your childish attempts to "win" a particular debate.

Anyone who takes the time to compare your opinions in different threads, can see for themselves what a sad hypocrite you really are :roll:

Oh, you BIG FRAUD. Quit trying to blow smoke up all our collective asses. Or do you Brits say "arses"? :wink:

I've explained to you numerous times in plain English that there are BOTH androgenic AND immune components in balding, so there is no "contradiction" in anything I've said. Quit acting like this hasn't already been explained to you over and over and over and over.

Bryan

Bullshit Bryan!

You have the arrogance to claim "YOU" have explained these factors to me!!!

Those links show people beyond any doubt, that you just "explain" to people whatever suits your attention seeking in any particular thread :wink:

I don't know how you have the nerve to claim you are genuinely interested in science, you should bury you head in shame Bryan :roll:

S Foote.

 

[Bryan]

Ok, then put on your thinking-cap and show us all SPECIFICALLY where the supposed "contradictions" are in what I said. I'm calling your bluff on this, Stephen! :wink:

Bryan

 

[S Foote.]

Ok, then put on your thinking-cap and show us all SPECIFICALLY where the supposed "contradictions" are in what I said. I'm calling your bluff on this, Stephen! :wink:

Bryan

This is getting sad now Bryan :roll:

But OK you need to have it explained to you (as with everything else), so here are the demonstrated facts.

In the last few pages of this thread, we were debating the rellevance of the published in-vitro follicle response to androgens.

http://www.hairlosstalk.com/discussions ... hp?t=19054

I was pointing out that there were reasons why this kind of in-vitro testing was not reflecting what happens in-vivo.

You were insisting that the direct action of androgens on follicles in the test tube, "proved" that this was what happens in-vivo.

You had previously posted that mouse study, and said "YOURSELF" in response to Daytona , that androgens could "NOT" be preventing the re-growth of male pattern baldness follicles in this "in-vivo" study!

http://www.hairlosshelp.com/forums/mess ... &forumid=1

You even correctly argued the reasons for this in that thread!

So in that later in-vitro debate, i asked you again to clarify your opinion on the in-vitro results, i said:

"But first i want you to comfirm you opinion about Sawaya's study. You claim this in-vitro study clearly shows how androgens "directly" effect follicles in-vivo right?"

This gave you every opportunity to modify your stance, and add the immune factors into your view.

But no, you "clearly" stated 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;"

So your hypocrisy is clear for all to see Bryan :wink:

It was only after i "reminded" you of your previous "opinions", that you started to squirm and tried to "add on" other factors :roll: Factors that clearly didn't bother you when you were so sure of the in-vitro test "proof"

So given your proven U turns, and changing opinions in different threads, how can we take you seriously in "ANY debate?

Your opinions have no scientific credibility at all Bryan, sorry :wink:

S Foote.

 

[Bryan]

You were insisting that the direct action of androgens on follicles in the test tube, "proved" that this was what happens in-vivo.

Correct.

You had previously posted that mouse study, and said "YOURSELF" in response to Daytona , that androgens could "NOT" be preventing the re-growth of male pattern baldness follicles in this "in-vivo" study!

I've already explained to you (more than once) that we don't know what the levels of androgens were in those genetically mutated mice. I've already explained to you (more than once) that there is an androgenic component AND an immune component to balding. I've already explained to you (more than once) that human hair follicles (balding or not) transplanted onto mice don't regrow to full size, anyway. The reason for that could possibly have something to do with indigenous androgens. We just don't know for sure.

So in that later in-vitro debate, i asked you again to clarify your opinion on the in-vitro results, i said:

"But first i want you to comfirm you opinion about Sawaya's study. You claim this in-vitro study clearly shows how androgens "directly" effect follicles in-vivo right?"

This gave you every opportunity to modify your stance, and add the immune factors into your view.

But no, you "clearly" stated 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;"

So your hypocrisy is clear for all to see Bryan :wink:

THAT'S IT? That's all you've got??

Sorry, but just because I didn't happen to mention the immune component to balding in the context of Sawaya's study doesn't constitute a "contradiction", you big dumbbell. You're REALLY scraping the bottom of the barrel now, Stephen. You appear to be incapable of understanding the subtleties of material this technical.

Bryan

 

[S Foote.]

You were insisting that the direct action of androgens on follicles in the test tube, "proved" that this was what happens in-vivo.

Correct.

[quote="S Foote.":c8d12]You had previously posted that mouse study, and said "YOURSELF" in response to Daytona , that androgens could "NOT" be preventing the re-growth of male pattern baldness follicles in this "in-vivo" study!

I've already explained to you (more than once) that we don't know what the levels of androgens were in those genetically mutated mice. I've already explained to you (more than once) that there is an androgenic component AND an immune component to balding. I've already explained to you (more than once) that human hair follicles (balding or not) transplanted onto mice don't regrow to full size, anyway. The reason for that could possibly have something to do with indigenous androgens. We just don't know for sure.

So in that later in-vitro debate, i asked you again to clarify your opinion on the in-vitro results, i said:

"But first i want you to comfirm you opinion about Sawaya's study. You claim this in-vitro study clearly shows how androgens "directly" effect follicles in-vivo right?"

This gave you every opportunity to modify your stance, and add the immune factors into your view.

But no, you "clearly" stated 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;"

So your hypocrisy is clear for all to see Bryan :wink:

THAT'S IT? That's all you've got??

Sorry, but just because I didn't happen to mention the immune component to balding in the context of Sawaya's study doesn't constitute a "contradiction", you big dumbbell. You're REALLY scraping the bottom of the barrel now, Stephen. You appear to be incapable of understanding the subtleties of material this technical.

Bryan[/quote:c8d12]

You see here you go again with your obvious contradictions!

You dare to acuse me of not seeing the "subtleties" in your argument, but there were "very" obviously "NO" such subtleties in your original claim were there!!

I gave you every chance to add such "subtleties" in your claim about the in-vitro tests! Yet you continued to claim androgens directly suppress male pattern baldness follicle growth, with no added "extra's"!

You have been proven here, to be a complete fraud and hypocrite in the contradictory posts you made in those two different threads.

As you pointed out "yourself" in the mouse study thread, you can lower androgen levels in humans below the level in those mice, and you still won't get the male pattern baldness follicle re-enlargement seen in those mice!

Then in a later thread, you go back to how you think the in-vitro tests prove the mechanism of in-vivo male pattern baldness for God's sake!

Yet you knew full well that there was no possible influence of immunology in the in-vitro tests you "raved" about as "proof" :roll: Plus, you are even stupid enough to repeat this claim above :freaked:

So then tell us all about the role of the immune component in Sawaya's study, you "neglected" in your original claim? Tell us all about how this in-vitro study demonstrated the immune component factor in-vivo in those mice Bryan?

Your continued attempts to distract from your proven hypocrisy in this thread now, only serves to further prove my point about how dishonest you are in these debates. :wink:

If you want to continue with this Bryan. i have more to say on your scientific "talents" based on past threads. So if you want further humiliation, just keep on ranting! 8)

S Foote.