Shampoo DOES NOT CAUSE BALDNESS

[Guest]

Re: re:

Newbies, please look at these posts.

A few points:
No one has answered Pondles questions about shampoo because they have no answer. I have read this entire discussion and reviewed Getitback.us and none of these questions are answered. Not sure who Diamond is trying to fool or whether he just enjoys useless arguments, but those questions remain unanswered and IMO will remain unanswered because they destroy the theory that shampoo is bad for us. Not to mention the mountain of evidence that Mr. Barry has posted.
There is no accepted scientific studies that correlate shampoo use with evening increasing hairloss rates never mind it causing baldness. In fact, there are many studies that show how anti dandruff shampoos actually improve hair counts for men with male pattern baldness.
The bickering on this discussion has been a bit childish at times.
The internet population, like all of society, includes people who can be convinced of anything regardless of any real facts, science or evidence as in the case of diamond dave and Cutsinger. This is an open forum and they have a right to make any claims (as long as they are not selling anything), if people are so stupid that they believe these claims then let them waste their time, money and hair follicle....IMO of course.
In closing, I'd just like to point out that baby wash contains SLS. Pretty remarkable that Johnson's and Johnson's would take a such a gamble to include a harmful chemical in the product that they basically make all of their money on........
http://www.johnsonsbaby.com/product.do? ... filterID=0

After this post, Diamond dave still had no response to the hard questions.

Mmmmm....Davey Boy still avoid answering the questions.
Actually people have been aware of SLS and other additives like phthalates for some time.

Here we go..........
I repeat, if Lawrence's theory is true, and shampoo is the cause of hair loss, then:
a. why did men go bald before the advent of shampoo use?
b. why don't all men who use shampoo eventually go bald?
c. why don't all women who use shampoo go bald?
d. why don't men who use shampoo lose all of their hair, including hair at the back and sides of the head which is not typically affected by male pattern baldness?
e. how do you explain the proven influence of androgens on scalp hair?
f. how do you explain the proven effectiveness of anti-androgen drugs in regrowing hair?

 

[Bryan]

It's highly amusing to me that there are some old posts on alt.baldspot suggesting that SLS might actually be beneficial for hair growth! Here's one from Kevin Davis:

-------------------------------------------
> Plus SLS raises HSP 27(found in hair follicles):

Cool. In addition, SLS may accelerate hair growth by altering PKC levels -
see below (sodium dodecyl sulphate = sodium lauryl sulfate).

Kevin Davis

"Induction of hair growth by skin irritants and its relation to skin protein
kinase C isoforms."

Br J Dermatol 1999 Apr;140(4):616-23.

Induction of hair growth by skin irritants and its relation to skin protein kinase C (PKC) isoforms were evaluated. Dorsal skin of BALB/c mice was shaved and anthralin (0.1% in corn oil) was applied on one side of the shaved backs in 20 mice daily for 5 days. The corresponding opposite side treated with corn oil served as a control. In another 20 mice, sodium dodecyl sulphate (SDS, 10% in water) was applied on one side of the shaved backs for 5 days by the same procedure as above and the corresponding opposite side treated with water served as control. Visible acceleration of hair growth on anthralin-treated skin was observed as early as 14 days after the application of anthralin and significant hair growth was observed at about 17-20 days. Enhancement of hair growth on SDS-treated skin was observed at about 3 weeks from the beginning of the treatment. None of the mice showed remarkable hair growth on the control side in either group. Mouse skin PKC isoforms levels detected by Western blot showed a similar pattern in both treatment groups. PKC alpha was downregulated initially, and was then elevated from 3 days after anthralin treatment and 14 days after SDS application. PKC beta was unchanged initially, decreased at 8 and 14 days after anthralin and SDS treatment, respectively, and reverted to the control level at 25 days after anthralin treatment, when it was still lower than the control in SDS-treated skin. PKC delta was also unchanged at first, but was elevated from 3 days after anthralin treatment and 14 days after SDS application. These results suggest that involvement of PKC may be a general phenomenon in irritant-induced hair growth in mice. Considering the stimulatory effect of PKC alpha and inhibitory effect of PKC delta on cell growth, we postulate that PKC alpha may be responsible for enhancement of hair growth while PKC delta may inhibit hair growth to keep the hair growth in balance.

 

[Diamond Dave]

I have answered all these questions several times due to different members asking them and you guys know that.
That's why you are trying to discredit me and get the attention of Newbies before they read my posts.

Go ahead...have at it. They'll come around shortly. I'm not going anywhere. :wink:

 

[Guest]

I have answered all these questions several times due to different members asking them and you guys know that.
That's why you are trying to discredit me and get the attention of Newbies before they read my posts.

Go ahead...have at it. They'll come around shortly. I'm not going anywhere. :wink:

You are lying. Please make a thread in which you answer all the answers in the first post. Also note Bryan's post above you too. It was written on the internet so it must be true!

 

[Bryan]

And another post on that subject by Kevin Davis (it's beginning to look like we need to start searching for shampoos that contain the HIGHEST levels of SLS! ):

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
While we're at it, as this study notes, SLS also produces effects in the
skin that are nearly identical to Retin-A, which is a hair growth treatment
many use (full abstract below):

"...The histologic alterations induced by sodium lauryl sulfate were found
to be indistinguishable from those induced by retinoic acid."

Kevin Davis

"Cellular, immunologic and biochemical characterization of topical retinoic
acid-treated human skin."

J Invest Dermatol 1991 May;96(5):699-707.

Histologic and clinical improvement of sun-exposed skin following topical treatment with retinoic acid has been reported. Daily application of retinoic acid typically results within 2-5 d in an erythematous scaling reaction, which lessens with continued usage. The cellular, immunologic, and biochemical basis of this retinoid reaction and its role in the repair of photodamaged skin are not known. To investigate the retinoid reaction in man, we have treated non-sun-exposed skin with 0.1% retinoic acid cream (Retin-A, Ortho Pharmaceutical Corporation, Raritan, NJ) under occlusion for 4 d to induce erythema and then examined changes in 1) histology, 2) expression of cell-surface molecules, 3) the enzymes and second messengers of the phospholipase C/protein kinase C signal-transduction system, 4) levels of eicosanoids, and 5) levels of interleukin-1 protein and mRNA. These parameters were chosen for measurement both because they are indicators of epidermal function and previous studies suggest they may be responsive to retinoic acid treatment. Epidermal cell growth as judged by increased epidermal thickness and mitotic figures was significantly increased in retinoic acid-treated skin compared to vehicle-treated controls. Increased numbers of CD4+ T cells accompanied by prominence of dermal dendrocytes in the papillary dermis and focal keratinocyte expression of intercellular adhesion molecule-1 were observed in retinoic acid-treated biopsies. Phosphoinositide-specific phospholipase C activity and 1,2-diacylglycerol content were also elevated in retinoic acid-treated epidermis. Protein kinase C activity was reduced by one third in both the soluble and membrane fraction, suggesting down-regulation. Surprisingly, in view of the inflammatory nature of the retinoid reaction, no increases were observed in arachidonic acid, its metabolites, interleukin-1 alpha, or interleukin-1 beta. To examine the specificity of the retinoid reaction, subjects were treated with the irritant sodium lauryl sulfate, under conditions that resulted in a reaction clinically similar to that observed with retinoic acid. The histologic alterations induced by sodium lauryl sulfate were found to be indistinguishable from those induced by retinoic acid. These data indicate that, although a wide range of cellular and molecular alterations occur in retinoic acid-treated skin, these changes may not be necessarily specific or unique for retinoic acid.

 

[Diamond Dave]

You are lying. Please make a thread in which you answer all the answers in the first post. Also note Bryan's post above you too. It was written on the internet so it must be true!

Very good tactic Mr.BadHairForLife....
You keep asking the same questions over and over again until I get tired of answering them, then you claim I am lying and won't answer your questions (for the 10th time).
Not bad for an amateur. You have potential.

Now your next post will say that I am avoiding your questions.
See how good I am.

Hint: Newbies can see right through you

 

[Pondle]

You are lying. Please make a thread in which you answer all the answers in the first post. Also note Bryan's post above you too. It was written on the internet so it must be true!

Very good tactic Mr.BadHairForLife....
You keep asking the same questions over and over again until I get tired of answering them, then you claim I am lying and won't answer your questions (for the 10th time).
Not bad for an amateur. You have potential.

Now your next post will say that I am avoiding your questions.
See how good I am.

Hint: Newbies can see right through you

Diamond Dave, we're going keep asking you the same questions until you provide satisfactory point-by-point answers, which you have hitherto been unable to do.

I repeat, if Lawrence's theory is true, and shampoo is the cause of hair loss, then:
a. why did men go bald before the advent of shampoo use?
b. why don't all men who use shampoo eventually go bald?
c. why don't all women who use shampoo go bald?
d. why don't men who use shampoo lose all of their hair, including hair at the back and sides of the head which is not typically affected by male pattern baldness?
e. how do you explain the proven influence of androgens on scalp hair?
f. how do you explain the proven effectiveness of anti-androgen drugs in regrowing hair?

 

[Guest]

Please answer those questions point by point in your next post. Otherwise just stop posting your fake shampoo theory.

If you can provide me with point by point answers, I will leave you alone. Until then, I believe your claims are complete and utter bullshit.

 

[Cutsinger is God]

You are lying. Please make a thread in which you answer all the answers in the first post. Also note Bryan's post above you too. It was written on the internet so it must be true!

Very good tactic Mr.BadHairForLife....
You keep asking the same questions over and over again until I get tired of answering them, then you claim I am lying and won't answer your questions (for the 10th time).
Not bad for an amateur. You have potential.

Now your next post will say that I am avoiding your questions.
See how good I am.

Hint: Newbies can see right through you

Diamond Dave, we're going keep asking you the same questions until you provide satisfactory point-by-point answers, which you have hitherto been unable to do.

I repeat, if Lawrence's theory is true, and shampoo is the cause of hair loss, then:
a. why did men go bald before the advent of shampoo use?
b. why don't all men who use shampoo eventually go bald?
c. why don't all women who use shampoo go bald?
d. why don't men who use shampoo lose all of their hair, including hair at the back and sides of the head which is not typically affected by male pattern baldness?
e. how do you explain the proven influence of androgens on scalp hair?
f. how do you explain the proven effectiveness of anti-androgen drugs in regrowing hair?

I'll try answering them.

a. Men went bald in the old days and I said this many times. There were other causes of baldness and the main thing was malnutrition. Back then people had to search for their own food. Bad diets, no food, starvation. You name it people suffered hairloss. I believe the average age of death was in the 30's and younger for cavemen. Speaking of cavemen, I am sure insects and mites also contributed to baldness before shampoo was invented. It was a entirely different time back then.

b. all men who use shampoo eventually do go bald. The problem with this is people die at all different ages. Some men probaby would of went bald from shampooing, they just didn't live long enough to experienc the baldness. Car accidents, cancer, etc.

c. regarding women, see b.

d. All men apply shampoo pretty much the same way. They apply it to the front or the top of the heads and according to Cutsinger, this is "ground zero" for the hairloss to occur. Years and years of acid burns will eventually cause a bald spot and once it starts, it spreads, you will get the horseshoe pattern and that's the area where the shampoo is concentrated the most and for the longest periods of time. The back and the sides get very little because of gravity. The horseshoe top is where the shampoo sits flat until water washes it away. You see now.

e. I can't explain the use of androgen on scalp hair just like you can't explain why Lawrence, Diamond Dave, Widowspeak, and FirestormUK are regrowing huge amounts of hair by cutting out the suds.

f. There is no proven effectivness except for some peach fuzz and great marketing by the chemical companies to young 20 somethings who don't know any better and are only worried about getting laid so they all get on drugs in order to have sex or to find a mate before they bald. Follow the money trail and you will find a pile a crap at the end of your chemical rainbow.

There, now Shut up about your stupid questions. I'll never answer these again. I am sick of this harrassment.

 

[Guest]

Thank you for your answers, however I find them unsatisfactory because they are based on opinions rather than fact. But its okay.

To all the other posters, we shouldn't give these guys such a hard time. Let them believe what they want to believe. Its not like they are trying to sell us some scam product.

End.

 

[Guest]

b. all men who use shampoo eventually do go bald. The problem with this is people die at all different ages. Some men probaby would of went bald from shampooing, they just didn't live long enough to experienc the baldness. Car accidents, cancer, etc.

Prove it.

d. All men apply shampoo pretty much the same way. They apply it to the front or the top of the heads and according to Cutsinger, this is "ground zero" for the hairloss to occur. Years and years of acid burns will eventually cause a bald spot and once it starts, it spreads, you will get the horseshoe pattern and that's the area where the shampoo is concentrated the most and for the longest periods of time. The back and the sides get very little because of gravity. The horseshoe top is where the shampoo sits flat until water washes it away. You see now.

Prove it. You can't. I for one always shampoo the back and sides of my hair just as well as I shampoo the front and top.

 

[Cutsinger is God]

b. all men who use shampoo eventually do go bald. The problem with this is people die at all different ages. Some men probaby would of went bald from shampooing, they just didn't live long enough to experienc the baldness. Car accidents, cancer, etc.

Prove it.

d. All men apply shampoo pretty much the same way. They apply it to the front or the top of the heads and according to Cutsinger, this is "ground zero" for the hairloss to occur. Years and years of acid burns will eventually cause a bald spot and once it starts, it spreads, you will get the horseshoe pattern and that's the area where the shampoo is concentrated the most and for the longest periods of time. The back and the sides get very little because of gravity. The horseshoe top is where the shampoo sits flat until water washes it away. You see now.

Prove it. You can't. I for one always shampoo the back and sides of my hair just as well as I shampoo the front and top.

You are an idiot JayMan. Can't you read. I also have shampooed my sides and my back when I used to shampoo back in the day. I am talking about the initial application ALWAYS GOES ON THE TOP OF THE HEAD FIRST and then it is spread to the backs and the sides last. Duh? Stick to your humping Jayman. That's about the only thing you are good at apparently.

 

[Guest]

CIG,

Then why is it that my temples receded a lot at first? I put my shampoo on the top of my head, not the corners of my temples. Also I find that the top of my head stopped diffusing and I thickened up a bit with finasteride. My temples responded to rogaine. Weird huh?

 

[Cutsinger is God]

CIG,

Then why is it that my temples receded a lot at first? I put my shampoo on the top of my head, not the corners of my temples. Also I find that the top of my head stopped diffusing and I thickened up a bit with finasteride. My temples responded to rogaine. Weird huh?

Yeah that is weird. I am sure the shampoo in heavy concentration dripped down by your temples. Even if shampoo is only on your head for 30 seconds, it can do damage in the long term. Multiply 30 seconds times years of shampoo applications and it adds up. The thing is I am being conservative. Most guys leave shampoo on much longer. I used Head and Shoulders for years and applied it initially on the top of my head EVERYTIME. Guess where I started balding. Yep, on the top.

I honestly can't answer you on Rogaine or finasteride because where I come from this is a definate no no and results in severe punishment. I don't even like to spell out or say the "R" and "F" word. Good luck badasshairday.

For everyone's information. I would like to make an announcement. Badasshairday was man enough and the first guy to apologize to me and Dave for wanting to have us banned over a flat out lie by The Gardener who was claiming and "fairly" confident that we were only one guy. I thank you badasshairday. You are a great American.

 

[Guest]

Just because I'm nice doesn't mean I believe your theory.

 

[docj077]

CIG,

Then why is it that my temples receded a lot at first? I put my shampoo on the top of my head, not the corners of my temples. Also I find that the top of my head stopped diffusing and I thickened up a bit with finasteride. My temples responded to rogaine. Weird huh?

Yeah that is weird. I am sure the shampoo in heavy concentration dripped down by your temples. Even if shampoo is only on your head for 30 seconds, it can do damage in the long term. Multiply 30 seconds times years of shampoo applications and it adds up. The thing is I am being conservative. Most guys leave shampoo on much longer. I used Head and Shoulders for years and applied it initially on the top of my head EVERYTIME. Guess where I started balding. Yep, on the top.

Hmm...so, you honestly think that having shampoo on your scalp for five minutes or less followed by washing gives the chemicals in that shampoo enough time to absorb through the skin and into the hair follicle itself? Not only that, but you think that constant exposure to these compounds will cause a cumulative effect that will lead to higher concentrations of these compound in the scalp? That is something that has never been proven. Also, you think that the damage is prolonged and severe enough to cause hair loss even though there are no clear signs of inflammation, folliculitis, or perifollicular immune responses at the level of the epidermis (which is exposed to shampoo the most) with prolonged shampoo use in men without male pattern baldness?

I don't know. That's stretching facts pretty far to form an opinion. Personally, I don't buy into it.

 

[Beethoven]

Nice answers CIG, but where are your proofs?
Without proofs you can write anything.
Do you have any kind of paper describing a research that prove your claims?

 

[Diamond Dave]

Hmm...so, you honestly think that having shampoo on your scalp for five minutes or less followed by washing gives the chemicals in that shampoo enough time to absorb through the skin and into the hair follicle itself? Not only that, but you think that constant exposure to these compounds will cause a cumulative effect that will lead to higher concentrations of these compound in the scalp?

This is the first step to recovery.

Absolutely correct. Remember Doctor...we're talking about a process that has taken years and years of shampoo abuse to finally manifest itself as hair loss. This is exactly how shampoo gets you and you have no clue its coming.

Thanks to CIG for answering the list of questions and doing an excellent job of it. Its great to have a brilliant mind on my team.

 

[docj077]

Hmm...so, you honestly think that having shampoo on your scalp for five minutes or less followed by washing gives the chemicals in that shampoo enough time to absorb through the skin and into the hair follicle itself? Not only that, but you think that constant exposure to these compounds will cause a cumulative effect that will lead to higher concentrations of these compound in the scalp?

This is the first step to recovery.

Absolutely correct. Remember Doctor...we're talking about a process that has taken years and years of shampoo abuse to finally manifest itself as hair loss. This is exactly how shampoo gets you and you have no clue its coming.

Thanks to CIG for answering the list of questions and doing an excellent job of it. Its great to have a brilliant mind on my team.

Yes, but years and years of cumulative damage typically equals dysplasia or at the minimum metaplasia. At worst, these shampoos should cause cancer if the problem is significant enough to alter cellular growth, proliferation, and differentiation, which must be affected in order to prevent hair growth.

Shampoo is obviously an unnecessary evil in society like so many other things that people do for the sake of personal hygeine, but I do not believe that there is any evidence for follicular damage secondary to prolonged shampoo use in the medical literature.

 

[Diamond Dave]

Yes, but years and years of cumulative damage typically equals dysplasia or at the minimum metaplasia. At worst, these shampoos should cause cancer if the problem is significant enough to alter cellular growth, proliferation, and differentiation, which must be affected in order to prevent hair growth.

Excellent points Doctor...maybe this will help.
I posted it before but maybe you missed it....

http://www.rense.com/general63/nerv.htm