Thoughts on Lasercomb

viperfish

Senior Member
Reaction score
2
21gone said:
I know a few months before I joined HairLossTalk.com I emailed them and asked them a few questions. I will have to see if I still have it. I distinctly remember them saying however, when I questioned them about DHT and how the comb removes it, they responded by saying since it increases blood circulation that it allows the DHT to be carried away.
From all logic learned about male pattern baldness this statement is def not accurate. Increasing circulation will do nothing to cure male pattern baldness and that circulation is not the culprit for male pattern baldness.

That is just plain stupid if they told you that. If you visit the website now they say it does nothing aganist DHT as far as they know. It is supposed to act like a growth stimulant kinda like minoxidil, although NOT FDA approved. It is supposed to also make the hair healthier, thicker, & improve scalp condition.
 

S Foote.

Experienced Member
Reaction score
66
Bismarck said:
S Foote. said:
According to my theory http://www.hairsite2.com/library/abst-167.htm

This is an advanced (very expensive) version of the laser comb. http://lymphatichealth.com/products1.htm

S Foote.

We already discussed your theory and concluded that it is wrong :(

Thats OK, i have no problem with anyone who `politely' disagrees with my theory, everyone is entitled to their opinions.

But i am curious about what people object to in `particular' about the theory, if you woudn't mind elaborating?

To recap, this is a copy of a letter i have sent to recognised experts for comments. HairLossTalk.com was kind enough to get Dr Sawaya's response to this, posted below. It seems more researchers are now thinking along similar lines!

___________________________________________________


Dear ---------

I would welcome your opinion on a factor that must, given accepted physiology, have the `final say' in the size of the in vivo anagen follicle. This factor is the basic mechanism in multi-cellular biology of contact inhibition.

My opinion on the role of contact inhibition in anagen follicle size, and the advantages of this in the evolution and function of hair, can be seen here http://www.hairsite2.com/library/abst-167.htm A slightly modified version of this paper was published in Medical Hypotheses (2002) 59 (5), 522-526. doi:10.1016/S0306-9877(02)00259-1, available on line at http://www.idealibrary.com


The basic reasoning goes like this.

The amount of hair produced is directly related to the period of anagen, and the size achived by the anagen follicle. In male pattern baldness, the anagen period is shortened, resulting in miniaturised follicles.

In multi-cellular biology, any organ `building' is subject to the ultimate control of normal contact inhibition. Contact inhibition ensures that organs can only be as large as the available space allows. This prevents biological structures from interfering with each other.

As the anagen follicle starts to enlarge, it has to push the surrounding dermal tissue aside. The greater the resistence to movement of the dermal tissue, the earlier normal contact inhibition will `kick in'. If the resistence is high, the anagen enlargement period will be turned off early by contact inhibition, resulting in miniaturised follicles. If the resistence is low, anagen enlargement can continue for longer, resulting in larger follicles and increased hair growth.

The only factor that could `modify' the resistence to movement of the dermal tissue, is the fluid pressure within it. If the fluid pressure is high, the tissue rigidity is increased, and therefore its resistence to movement. Likewise, if the fluid pressure is low, so is the resistence to movement.

This mechanism makes a link with high fluid pressure and reduced hair growth, and low fluid pressure and increased hair growth. In my opinion, hair follicles evolved to `read' the fluid pressure in surrounding tissue to adjust hair production in line with other temperature controls in evolving mammals. Please see "The hydraulic dermal model" section of my paper.

A role of contact inhibition mediated through hydraulic changes in male pattern baldness, does not conflict with in-vitro observations, or the donor dominance observed in transplanted grafts. Sample follicle cells `switched off' by contact inhibition, have been fundamentally altered compared to cells that continue to multiply. EG: samples from terminal hair producing follicles. Any different in-vitro response of such samples to androgens, or other substances is to be expected! The observed Hypoxia in follicle grafts demonstrates no `active' circulation within these grafts. No active circulation means no hydraulic changes! The grafts will remain in the `as transplanted state', demonstrating donor dominance.

In male pattern baldness we have hair loss, immune infiltrate and immune sensitivity, ultimate fibrosis, and tissue thickening. These are all recognised factors in edemous tissue. http://www.lymphoedema.org.au/lymphoed.htm

One way to increase hair growth according to this mechanism, is to increase the resistence of follicle cells to contact inhibition? The danger here is that these cells would then be far more likely to become tumorous. In my opinion, the results of Fuchs in manipulating the Wnt pathway, confirms a central role of contact inhibition in follicle developement. http://www.hhmi.org/fuchs/index.html

If you look at other cases of hair loss, the common factor in these conditions is an increase in tissue fluid pressure for one reason or another!

As far as HM like procedures are concerned, i think the implantation itself could create `one off' conditions? There is bound to be some kind of healing process here, and this could very likely allow increased cell multiplication initially, and the developement of a large anagen follicle. We know that an `over production' of cells can occour during the healing process, scar tissue for example?

This predicts a potential problem with follicles generated by HM? If these follicles cycle normally, come the next anagen phase, these would then also come under the influence of normal contact inhibition. If the scalp conditions have not changed, large HM generated follicles could only last for one cycle?

I would welcome your comments on this proposal.

Best Regards,

Stephen Foote.

______________________________________________


"Alot of good points are brought up regarding the hair follicle growth and the fact that anagen is a bit predetermined by the previous hair cycle and the "clock" that is set or how long the matrix cells can grow and divide, making a big, anagen follicle, or a smaller and smaller follicle with each hair cycle. The idea of pressure changes from localized factors is interesting as the problem with male pattern hair loss is the fibrosis/scarring that takes place so that the follicles and surrounding tissues are damaged and cannot regenerate.
Male pattern hair loss is not supposed to be a scarring, cicatricial process, but it is a mixed inflammatory process in that many people do have inflammatory changes but usually in the middle follicle, and not as much in the lower follicle, as in alopecia areata.

Overall, these are interesting arguments to stimulate anagen follicles, keeping in mind that there are many substages of anagen, each similar to the cell cycle in carrying out a specific function for a certain period of time.
Many researchers are working on similar concepts with use of growth factors to see if there is any certain one or mix of them that can effect the process.

It is a very complex process, but your thoughts are very organized and on the right path, similar to what others have been proposing, and in some ways yours are more straightforward. I think you've done a good job in thinking this through......
Hope this helps...
regards
Marty Sawaya"
 

HairlossTalk

Senior Member
Reaction score
6
Dr. Marty Sawaya said:
the problem with male pattern hair loss is the fibrosis/scarring that takes place so that the follicles and surrounding tissues are damaged and cannot regenerate.
Hmmmm......... interesting.

HairLossTalk.com
 

Bismarck

Senior Member
Reaction score
3
OK. hmmm hmmmm

So you say that there is no difference in the occipital and frontal follicles? Only the "environment" of the follicles is different, leading to the typical pattern baldness ?
So occipital and frontal follicles should behave in the same way in vitro. But this isn't true.
 

Cassin

Senior Member
Reaction score
78
HairlossTalk said:
Dr. Marty Sawaya said:
the problem with male pattern hair loss is the fibrosis/scarring that takes place so that the follicles and surrounding tissues are damaged and cannot regenerate.
Hmmmm......... interesting.

HairLossTalk.com

Perhaps amplifying the need for Copper-Peptides?

I think it does.

And perhaps the quote should be

"One of the problems............"
 

S Foote.

Experienced Member
Reaction score
66
Bismarck said:
OK. hmmm hmmmm

So you say that there is no difference in the occipital and frontal follicles? Only the "environment" of the follicles is different, leading to the typical pattern baldness ?
So occipital and frontal follicles should behave in the same way in vitro. But this isn't true.

Could you clarify what you mean by `a' different behaviour?

In my opinion, the most important aspect of this macaque study http://endo.endojournals.org/cgi/content/full/138/1/356 is that the pre-existing growth characteristics of follicle cells, are not `CHANGED' by androgens in-vitro. Follicle cells known to be `future' male pattern baldness cells, are not `switched' into this mode by direct exposure to androgens in-vitro.

So these are not showing any `different' response to the other samples!

In order to try to justify this in terms of the current `direct' theory, people including Bryan, `guess' that some prolonged exposure is required to `switch' these cells from non androgen responsive, `into' androgen responsive cells.

But this is unheard of in accepted physiology? Cells are either directly hormone reactive, or their not!! There is no precident for this assumption of hormones `directly converting' cells to `directly' react with this hormone, this is just a wild guess!

This `guess work' comes from the current interpretation of the donor dominance issue. It is believed that hair follicles `must' be different at the genetic level because of results of `ONE' type of transplantation. So every experimental result gets manipulated to try to `fit' this baseline `FACT'!!

The trouble is that the actual observations and the poor theroputic experience based on the existing theory, just doesn't fit with the `direct' theory!

I just wish that people in a position to properly re-test the current theory on donor dominance, would do so! This might go a long way towards explaining the theroputic `dead end' we are in now!

Regards.

S Foote.
 
Top