Question for Stephen Foote, with pictures for a point

[Bryan]

3) Bryan posted an experiment by Sawaya that showed entire follicles
that were cultured for 14 days, having a direct effect to androgens
(slowed keratinocytes 23%, DNA and RNA by 12%). Alpecin's studies
at the University of Jena and Bonn cultivated 600 hairs for 6 to 10 days
from men with Androgenetic Alopecia with testoserone (not DHT though). They found that
hairs cultivated with testosterone slowed keratinocyte activity as
opposed to hairs cultivated with no testosterone...Why do you think
these experiments with WHOLE HAIR follicles are "flawed"?

My opinion is that "any" in-vitro testing of growth potential of organs including hair follicles, has to be suspect? Both the culturing itself and the potential growth in the test tube, cannot possibly reflect the more complex in-vivo situation.

Gosh, what a CONVENIENT explanation! :wink:

Bryan

 

[S Foote.]

You were pretty sure that the level of androgens in those mice, was more than enough to effect male pattern baldness follicles when you posted the study!

HUH?? I'm not sure about any such thing.

[quote="S Foote.":3230e]You said as much to daytona when "HE" raised that point you are "NOW" trying to push yourself. People can see what you said above Bryan, so there's nowhere for you to hide on this blatent contradiction you are patheticaly still trying to squirm out of!

I've addressed this point a few times already, if only you had the wit to understand. There are two extremest positions on the subject of androgens: kooks like like you and Armando who apparently don't believe that they have any direct effect at all on hair follicles (you seem to have done an about-face on that again, after having made some recent progress), and people like my pal "maneless" who think they are EVERYTHING when it comes to hairloss, that all you have to do to get back your hair is lower androgens sufficiently (if your hair hasn't COMPLETELY regrown, then you haven't lowered androgens enough! ).

For that reason, I find myself having to walk a reasonable middle-ground between the extremests on one side (you) and the extremests on the other side (maneless et al). Human balding has components of both androgen-sensitivity AND immune issues. I often find myself emphasizing the proven androgenic issues to flakes like YOU who refuse to believe them, and the things having to do with immunity to other people (like "daytona" in this case) who may be trying to suggest that it's androgens ALONE that are at play. As someone who walks that reasonable middle-ground, I have to take pot-shots from both sides! It's the cross I have to bear! :wink:

So if you consider it to be a "contradiction" just because I sometimes talk a lot about androgens on some occasions and immune issues on others, then go right ahead and feel that way. I couldn't care less.

So there was more than enough androgens to "directly" supress male pattern baldness follicle growth, as you claim happens in-vivo.

Nope. Sorry. That's sheer speculation on your part. BTW, you still haven't addressed why the growth of ALL follicles was stunted when they were transplanted onto those mice.[/quote:3230e]

Are you seriously trying to tell us that the growth of those transplanted male pattern baldness follicles was "stunted"??

I know you have serious problems understanding things Bryan, but your statement above that "the growth of ALL follicles was stunted" really is pathetic :roll:

Snip the rest of your pathetic attempts to retain some credibility Bryan :wink:

You are only digging a bigger hole for yourself in this thread Bryan! Everyone can see your hypocrisy and downright ignorance of basic science by reading this thread, and the links i provided.

Your latest blunder being your claim that androgen levels in those mice must be low, when the normal sexual differentation reported in the study, is enough for real scientists to know that claim is sheer garbage :lol:

I will add this latest scientific blunder to your growing list!

I will make a deal with you Bryan?

Many people now question the validity of the old idea's, and like to throw idea's around, which was the original intent of this particular thread.

But now and then you come along in this kind of thread, with your usual self rightous arogant ranting about your personal notions of "science".

The debates that then happen between you and me, just bore people, me included! They also predictable end up with me having to embarrass you by pointing out your blunders in scientific interpretation, and your inevitable hypocrisy in various threads.

You will also note that i only respond to you in threads, if you make derisory statements about me or my theory.

So if you stop making these unqualified comments of yours about my theory, and avoid posting in threads about original idea's and thinking, i will not embarrass you anymore by pointing out your basic scientific ignorance!

Deal?

S Foote.

 

[S Foote.]

3) Bryan posted an experiment by Sawaya that showed entire follicles
that were cultured for 14 days, having a direct effect to androgens
(slowed keratinocytes 23%, DNA and RNA by 12%). Alpecin's studies
at the University of Jena and Bonn cultivated 600 hairs for 6 to 10 days
from men with Androgenetic Alopecia with testoserone (not DHT though). They found that
hairs cultivated with testosterone slowed keratinocyte activity as
opposed to hairs cultivated with no testosterone...Why do you think
these experiments with WHOLE HAIR follicles are "flawed"?

My opinion is that "any" in-vitro testing of growth potential of organs including hair follicles, has to be suspect? Both the culturing itself and the potential growth in the test tube, cannot possibly reflect the more complex in-vivo situation.

Gosh, what a CONVENIENT explanation! :wink:

Bryan

Yeah, almost as convenient as your changing opinions in different threads. :roll:

S Foote.

 

[S Foote.]

I don't think the fact these mice had no immunology, was the reason for male pattern baldness follicle re-growth. I also think the fact that the male pattern baldness follicles enlarged, whilst already enlarged follicles didn't and actualy shrank, can be explained.

And that explanation is...?

Bryan

You first this time Bryan, or are we going to hear your usual "get out" of "scientists will find out sooner or later". :roll:

Just for once in your life, try to have an original idea Bryan. :wink:

S Foote.

 

[S Foote.]

Thanks for the info Wookiewannabe.

Michael, i agree with you!

male pattern baldness is not life threatening, and the money is to be made in repetitive treatments. Add the in-built politics in medical research, and it is hard to see any incentive for spending on original research.

Not going have chance to read any more posts till weekend.

Regards.

S Foote.

 

[Bryan]

Are you seriously trying to tell us that the growth of those transplanted male pattern baldness follicles was "stunted"??

Yes. Those follicles don't grow to full size. You need to read the whole study, not just the abstract.

Your latest blunder being your claim that androgen levels in those mice must be low, when the normal sexual differentation reported in the study, is enough for real scientists to know that claim is sheer garbage :lol:

Do they have reading comprehension classes in England designed for adults? Maybe you could take one of those as a refresher course, since you plainly are having difficulty in that area.

I have told you REPEATEDLY that we don't know what the true levels of androgens were in that study, so what they were doing to the hair follicles (if anything) is sheer speculation.

Bryan

 

[Armando Jose]

Mr. Bryan wrote:
"There are two extremest positions on the subject of androgens: kooks like like you and Armando who apparently don't believe that they have any direct effect at all on hair follicles "

Please, can you say when I made this statement??

My theory is exactly the contrary. If you read carefully or I can express it better in english, androgens affect always to the pilosebaceous unit (The same in prepubertal kids in scalp hairs), but my real interest is looking for the initial cause, in my opinion: problems in sebum flow. After this, there is a lot of harmful mechanism to deterioarte the hair growth, including androgens, inmunological, fibrosis issues, etc

And please, dont be so angry with the pals. It is bad for life expectancy.

Armando

 

[Bryan]

Do you believe that androgens directly affect the growth of hair, ASIDE FROM their effect on sebum and sebaceous glands?

Bryan

 

[Armando Jose]

Of course.
Hair follicle cycle is hormone dependent.
A good review:
Hirsutism and the Variable Response of the Pilosebaceous
Unit to Androgen
Robert L. Rosenfield
J Investig Dermatol Symp Proc 10:205 –208, 2005

Armando

 

[Bryan]

Ok, I'm glad to see that you don't accept Stephen Foote's extreme position on androgens and hair growth. But neither is there any serious scientific evidence for YOUR theory of sebum and male pattern baldness.

Bryan

 

[wookster]

Ok, I'm glad to see that you don't accept Stephen Foote's extreme position on androgens and hair growth. But neither is there any serious scientific evidence for YOUR theory of sebum and male pattern baldness.

Bryan

:hairy:

http://www.pjstar.com/stories/060406/RE ... .030.shtml

Bloomington man's hair-growth products are gaining a following

[...]

For men, the product line helps eliminate a testosterone hormone buildup within the hair follicle, the primary cause of baldness, Gasperson said.

"It's not unusual to have more hair than when you were 16," Gasperson said. "But for some men it may take up to a year to remove the layers of testosterone."

 

[Bryan]

Wookie, was there any particular reason why you posted something I said, and followed it with a clip about the Bloomington man? A lot of times I can't make much sense out of your postings.

Bryan

 

[michael barry]

Wookie,

Ive never read anything about "layers of testosterone" being built up in the scalp. However, I will say that the Bloomington man's use of blueberries is intriquing to me.

Blueberry proanthocyanidins are called anthocyanidns. They have been noted now scientifically to help protect against prostate problems. Ive wanted to use a mixer and make a concentrated juice out of them and put them on a section of body hair and see if they have an anti-androgenic effect, but am so busy (life gets in the way of everything doesn't it?). Some of the other stuff he may be having success with like redwine, soy isoflavones should not suprise us who follow hairloss sites. Reservatol and proanthocyanidins from grapes are in red wine, isoflavones speak for themselves. The old essential oils like rosemary and thyme have been used in hair concoctions for hundreds of years. I think rosemary has a wee bit of beta sitosterol in it.

I'd like to see some before and after pictures of this guys products effects. I wish hairlosstalk.com would get a bunch of the new users who arent on anything to post before and afters like SEfreak did (he used the big three and scalp excercises.......to good obvious results). Like always, men deserve to know the truth about products and hair so they dont get tricked out of their money. Neat article by the way. You seem to find some interesting stuff.

 

[michael barry]

resthairation.com has some before and after pics on this http://www.resthairation.com/test.html page. Some regrowth, but this is about on par with what Id expect from minoxidil alone. The big three outdoes these few pics in my opinon.

 

[wookster]

Wookie, was there any particular reason why you posted something I said, and followed it with a clip about the Bloomington man? A lot of times I can't make much sense out of your postings.

Bryan

Just wondering about the concept of "sebum/DHT buildup" as it relates to the progressive balding scenario. But there is probably more damage caused by UV radiation on the scalp - due to short hair, than the mysterious sebum effect. :hairy:

 

[S Foote.]

Are you seriously trying to tell us that the growth of those transplanted male pattern baldness follicles was "stunted"??

Yes. Those follicles don't grow to full size. You need to read the whole study, not just the abstract.

I know that the follicles didn't reach "full size" and as you know Bryan i said i could explain this through my theory. But i also said i wanted you to explain this first by "your" theory, and you have declined as usual.

Your latest blunder being your claim that androgen levels in those mice must be low, when the normal sexual differentation reported in the study, is enough for real scientists to know that claim is sheer garbage :lol:

Do they have reading comprehension classes in England designed for adults? Maybe you could take one of those as a refresher course, since you plainly are having difficulty in that area.

I have told you REPEATEDLY that we don't know what the true levels of androgens were in that study, so what they were doing to the hair follicles (if anything) is sheer speculation.

Bryan

But this is "NOT" what you said when "YOU" originaly posted that mouse study. What you said "THEN" you continue to contradict now, and then you expect people to take you seriously :roll:

You clearly stated in your reply to Daytona quote:


"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."

So your ongoing attempts to now claim that we don't know if the levels of androgens was significant, is just ridiculous.

You own posting history proves how your opinions change depending on the arguments in a particular thread Bryan!

First you claim the immunology is more relevant in follicle miniaturisation than androgens, then you revert back to the in-vitro tests as "proving" that androgens are directly miniaturising follicles in-vivo!!

Now in a post you made just a couple of days ago, you change your mind yet "AGAIN" :freaked:

In this post.

http://www.hairlosshelp.com/forums/mess ... adid=59822

You said quote:

"Dr. Proctor would say that copper-peptides work by their ability to destroy the superoxide radical, which he says signals the hair follicle to stop growing. I have no particular reason to doubt what he says.

Bryan"

So now you think it is superoxide radicals that are miniaturising follicles!

Tell us then Bryan, where were these superoxide radicals in the in-vitro studies "YOU" claimed proved androgens directly miniaturised follicles?

Where was the immunology in those in-vitro tests you claimed "proved" the mechanism of follicle miniaturisation?

Remember when you said 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 are a complete fake Bryan!

S Foote.

 

[S Foote.]

3) Bryan posted an experiment by Sawaya that showed entire follicles
that were cultured for 14 days, having a direct effect to androgens
(slowed keratinocytes 23%, DNA and RNA by 12%). Alpecin's studies
at the University of Jena and Bonn cultivated 600 hairs for 6 to 10 days
from men with Androgenetic Alopecia with testoserone (not DHT though). They found that
hairs cultivated with testosterone slowed keratinocyte activity as
opposed to hairs cultivated with no testosterone...Why do you think
these experiments with WHOLE HAIR follicles are "flawed"?

My opinion is that "any" in-vitro testing of growth potential of organs including hair follicles, has to be suspect? Both the culturing itself and the potential growth in the test tube, cannot possibly reflect the more complex in-vivo situation.

Gosh, what a CONVENIENT explanation! :wink:

Bryan

Just a few posts back, you tried to accuse me of not understanding the "subtleties" involved in male pattern baldness.

The mouse study you did a complete and embarrasing U turn on, used 100% "genuine" human male pattern baldness follicles. Not these cultured mutant follicles that have never been tested for androgen responses in the "real" mamalian dermal system?

When "real deal" human male pattern baldness follicles were tested in those mice, you got exactly the opposite response to your "proven" in-vitro mechanism Bryan!

This is a pretty obvious "subtlety" you seem incapable of grasping Bryan :wink:

S Foote.

 

[michael barry]

Stephen,

Dont you think its harsh to call Bryan "a complete fake"? He's not trying to sell anyone anything. He believes in the standard medical establishment theory of baldness. He has posted excerpts from Sawaya's 14 day cultivation of entire hair follicles showing androgens had a direct effect on DNA/RNA activity and keratinocyte activity as measured. He admits that the direct effect of androgens is proboably not what does a follicle in, but immunology does (like Proctor, Pickart, Graftcyte, McElwee, etc.) . You think the immunology is an unrecognized edema of the scalp and that surgically extracting entire hair follicles and introducing male hormones to them are somehow an invalid experiment.

Let me ask you this........if we extracted HIV cells and experimented with them outside the body and found some chemcial found in a South American root kept them from functioning, would you be against testing the same root in the body because these out-of-body-direct test "didnt reflect the in vivo situation"? Of course not. It may be invalid, but we'd be mistaken not to try it on some monkey or another.

I want you to be able to test your theory, and hope you can find a Doctor in a position to help. However, Bryan doesnt have anything to do with that. In fact, I'd bet Bryan hopes you can get your idea scientifically tested in a controlled manner, even if he hopes its wrong (tell me if Im wrong here Byran). If I had a stumptailed pre-pubescent macaque, whatever those phucking things cost, Id send it to you so you could perform the scalp surgery that you believe would result in him not balding. Pictures could be taken, foundations notified, more experiments would follow, ...................if the critter kept his mane.


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

Proctor notes on his site that cyclosporin sees more hair regrowth than castration. I thought flutamide worked about as well in male to female transexuals as castration. This indicates to me that blood DHT might not be very important in baldness. Bryan seems to be a "topicals kind of guy", and in this respect..................I agree with him. Propecia is a lazy man's way to fight it on the anti-androgen front. But since Im lazy........I pop a pill every day.


Does cyclosporin have a postive effect on edema as well as baldness? I cant remember that being asked by the way.............



My own little dirty thought on baldness is becoming that androgens get transcripted and antigens are released by the dermal papilla to the rest of the follicle, and the presense of these antigens, which are associated with inflammation all over the body (a little time with google confirms this) is what gets the immune sytsem a little extra interested in the follicle. The smaller the follicle gets from attack over time, the less antigens the now tiny papilla can release, actually lessening the attack. But the skin damage and apoptosis is done by then. Locking the hair in a miniaturized state. But thats my own WAG (Wild-Assed-Guess--Assesment).


By the way gents, do macaques or other apes grow signifigant amounts of hair back AFTER castration relative to humans? Any of you three know?

 

[Bryan]

Proctor notes on his site that cyclosporin sees more hair regrowth than castration.

I'm not so sure of that, myself. I've previously posted on alt.baldspot and HLH the entire case study of a man with male pattern baldness who was taking large quantities of cyclosporin for another medical problem. The drug had no apparent effect at all on his balding.

I thought flutamide worked about as well in male to female transexuals as castration. This indicates to me that blood DHT might not be very important in baldness.

Michael, I don't understand how you come to that conclusion about blood DHT. Did you really mean androgens in general?

By the way gents, do macaques or other apes grow signifigant amounts of hair back AFTER castration relative to humans? Any of you three know?

Several years ago when I was arguing bitterly with maneless over the effectiveness of androgen ablation for hair regrowth, I looked all over Creation to see if stumptailed macaques had ever been castrated to see how that affected their regrowth. That has apparently never been done. I believe I even got Dr. Uno to confirm that.

My own guess is that macaques would get better regrowth from castration than humans, simply because they have a greater propensity in general for that.

Bryan

 

[S Foote.]

Stephen,

Dont you think its harsh to call Bryan "a complete fake"? He's not trying to sell anyone anything. He believes in the standard medical establishment theory of baldness. He has posted excerpts from Sawaya's 14 day cultivation of entire hair follicles showing androgens had a direct effect on DNA/RNA activity and keratinocyte activity as measured. He admits that the direct effect of androgens is proboably not what does a follicle in, but immunology does (like Proctor, Pickart, Graftcyte, McElwee, etc.) . You think the immunology is an unrecognized edema of the scalp and that surgically extracting entire hair follicles and introducing male hormones to them are somehow an invalid experiment.

Certainly i think in-vitro studies are scientificaly valid, but the results always have to considered in the wider context of medical knowledge.

Particulary in area's of the study of cell growth and tissue building, it is dangerous to just assume that what happens in-vitro is proving what happens in the more complex multi-cellular living system.

I call Bryan a fake here, because he claims to be interested in true science. True scientific debate requires some consistency in your claims, and a degree of honesty and acceptance of evidence against your personal opinions.

But Bryan just cherry picks studies to support his argument of the "day", whilst ignoring the context, and any significant evidence against him.

For example, Bryan claimed those in-vitro tests should be taken as proof of the current direct theory.

But the claim that androgens "directly" effect the growth of follicle cells, is only "one" part of the current theory!

The most significant claim made by the current theory, is that follicles have a different internal "programing", and it is this that makes them change their growth in different ways when exposed to androgens.

All the in-vitro tests clearly show that androgens do "not" directly change the pre-existing growth rates of "any" follicles!

Whilst Bryan was keen to promote the validity of those in-vitro tests as far as they supported his argument, he was also keen to play down their validity when the results didn't suit him!

This is not real science!

The excuse made by Bryan being that a period of exposure to androgens is necessary, before follicles would respond "directly". But there is no precedent in medicine or recognised biology for such a mechanism, and it is untestable!

Think about it, you could say the same thing about any experimental result that didn't suit your own opinion! Just claim if you were to run the experiment for long enough, the results would reverse!!

That is not science it is pure fantasy speculation :wink:

Let me ask you this........if we extracted HIV cells and experimented with them outside the body and found some chemcial found in a South American root kept them from functioning, would you be against testing the same root in the body because these out-of-body-direct test "didnt reflect the in vivo situation"? Of course not. It may be invalid, but we'd be mistaken not to try it on some monkey or another.

Yes i fully agree Michael. In the example you make, it would certainly be valid to then persue the test tube results in-vivo in experimental animals.

This is exactly what the scientists did with male pattern baldness follicles in those mice!

I want you to be able to test your theory, and hope you can find a Doctor in a position to help. However, Bryan doesnt have anything to do with that. In fact, I'd bet Bryan hopes you can get your idea scientifically tested in a controlled manner, even if he hopes its wrong (tell me if Im wrong here Byran). If I had a stumptailed pre-pubescent macaque, whatever those phucking things cost, Id send it to you so you could perform the scalp surgery that you believe would result in him not balding. Pictures could be taken, foundations notified, more experiments would follow, ...................if the critter kept his mane.

It will be properly tested sooner or later Michael, but it is most likely interest will come first from another area it relates to.

Meanwhile, it is important to be able to explain the mouse study results, and i am still waiting for Bryan to explain this????

Regards.

S Foote.