Trying to be layperson freindly about science.

[S Foote.]

It is false to suggest that scientists think we are no closer to understanding the process of male pattern baldness. I'm glad you chose the Garza et al., 2012 study as an example. You quote the first sentence from the abstract. If you read as far as the end of the abstract you will also find: "These results define PGD2 as an inhibitor of hair growth in Androgenetic Alopecia and suggest the PGD2-GPR44 pathway as a potential target for treatment."

If these are so-called "honest" scientists, how could you possibly interpret this as being "no closer to a genuine understanding"?



There is some irony to this statement.

Well there is a lot of understanding of the host of molecular factors involved, but no consensus on the cause and effect pathway. That would be the genuine understanding.

- - - Updated - - -

is your theory only applied to scalp hair or all hairs over the skin,...., I am refering to body hair.
These hairs needs androgens to growth, cite in a lot of peer review studies. what do you think?

It applies to all hair Armando, it makes no distinction.

Of course increased body hair is related to androgens, but that doesn't mean the action is direct within the follicles.

- - - Updated - - -

Seems there is a way of determining lymph flow.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17853615

Thanks for that.

I refer to a similar study in my Node article here.

http://thenode.biologists.com/a-consideration-of-mammalian-dermal-evolution/discussion/

This study actually found some significant differences in male/female lymphatic function. According to my proposal, it should be DHT that is making this difference.

People should remember, I don't expect anyone to take my word for this, it can be tested. If DHT is proven not to effect lymphatic efficiency, I am proven wrong simple.

 

[Armando Jose]

Thank you Mr. Foote for your answer, I am with you that hair is hair, scalp or body hair......, his biology is similar

 

[Armando Jose]

Maybe interesting Mr. Foote......

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...es-affect-cell-development-and-disease-video/
In his October 2014 Scientific American article “Twists Of Fate,” biologist Stefano Piccolo explains how physical forces outside of a cell affect genes that control that cell’s behavior. Donald E. Ingber, one of the founders of this area of research, called mechanobiology, says in this video that “mechanical forces are as important for the control of cell and tissue and organ development as are chemicals and genes.” Ingber, founding director of the Wyss Institute at Harvard University, says that you can squish undifferentiated cells between two pieces of rubber, and it prompts those cells to develop into specialized, complex types that form different parts of an organ. And when such physical forces are perturbed, he notes, it can produce disease.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...s-genes-determine-its-fate-in-the-human-body/
The human cells in our laboratory looked mild-mannered. They were normal cells, not cancer cells, which are able to proliferate rampantly, invade nearby tissues, and ultimately can kill.
But something disturbingly malignant occurred when we forced these cells to change their shape, stretching them by pulling on their edges. This maneuver, flattening out their rounded mounds, increased the activity of two proteins within the cells, YAP and TAZ. As the proteins peaked, our benign cells began acting cancerous, replicating uncontrollably. It was stunning to see how these changes were triggered not by gene modifications but by a physical force.

 

[S Foote.]

Maybe interesting Mr. Foote......

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...es-affect-cell-development-and-disease-video/
In his October 2014 Scientific American article “Twists Of Fate,â€￾ biologist Stefano Piccolo explains how physical forces outside of a cell affect genes that control that cell’s behavior. Donald E. Ingber, one of the founders of this area of research, called mechanobiology, says in this video that “mechanical forces are as important for the control of cell and tissue and organ development as are chemicals and genes.â€￾ Ingber, founding director of the Wyss Institute at Harvard University, says that you can squish undifferentiated cells between two pieces of rubber, and it prompts those cells to develop into specialized, complex types that form different parts of an organ. And when such physical forces are perturbed, he notes, it can produce disease.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...s-genes-determine-its-fate-in-the-human-body/
The human cells in our laboratory looked mild-mannered. They were normal cells, not cancer cells, which are able to proliferate rampantly, invade nearby tissues, and ultimately can kill.
But something disturbingly malignant occurred when we forced these cells to change their shape, stretching them by pulling on their edges. This maneuver, flattening out their rounded mounds, increased the activity of two proteins within the cells, YAP and TAZ. As the proteins peaked, our benign cells began acting cancerous, replicating uncontrollably. It was stunning to see how these changes were triggered not by gene modifications but by a physical force.

Thanks for that Armando.