Zinc
- Thread starter ganyuehan
- Start date
DHTHater
Established Member
- Reaction score
- 2
47thin said:
What you "think" is irrelevant in the face of what we know. I'm far more inclined to believe the Dermatology professor than what you think. Sorry.
As timbo pointed out the quote isn;t talking about male pattern baldness, but certainly it would matter if more sebum was accompanied by itching. That can always lead to more shedding. Also it matters enough for your buddy Bryan to have it in his signature. Ask him why.
Why would I drop finasteride? Especially after saying this:
"Whether or not someone has male pattern baldness or not, beta sitosterol will still indirectly lower their DHT. To what degree wholly varies from person to person, and most certainly it would never be profound enough in someone with male pattern baldness to rely on solely."
Your reading comprehension woes are acting up again.
timbo said:
I'm being obtuse because I'm supposed to blindly accept Bryan's word that he has magical writings no one can see that fly in the face of what we DO know about overshampooing and sebum production? So If I said I have a study offline that conveniently no one else could see, that said that people with red hair have lower IQ's on average, you would accept that as truth despite an actual link to a medical professional saying otherwise? You'd be "obtuse" for being skeptical there? Really? :dunno:
47thin
Established Member
- Reaction score
- 2
Offline? There were these things, back in the horse and buggy days, called Library's and Universities. I think that is what he is talking about. Michael Crichton ( a former MD) once said that all of our knowledge and opinions would be melded and controlled, as everyone would see the same stuff, right or wrong on the web.
http://www.baldingblog.com/2010/01/21/d ... roduction/
Dr. Dr. William Rassman's CV suggests that he should me more credible then DHThater's hot Dr in his signature.
But again Rassman doesn't have her looks.
Dr. Dr. William Rassman's CV suggests that he should me more credible then DHThater's hot Dr in his signature.
But again Rassman doesn't have her looks.
http://www.baldingblog.com/2010/01/21/d ... roduction/
Dr. Dr. William Rassman's CV suggests that he should me more credible then DHThater's hot Dr in his signature.
But again Rassman doesn't have her looks.
please delete this double post. there are problems with the forums of late.
frequently I am logged out, and it is getting very slow.
Dr. Dr. William Rassman's CV suggests that he should me more credible then DHThater's hot Dr in his signature.
But again Rassman doesn't have her looks.
please delete this double post. there are problems with the forums of late.
frequently I am logged out, and it is getting very slow.
- Reaction score
- 42
One thing I disagree with Dr. Rassman about is the following statement:
"Too much oil is best treated with more frequent washing and using shampoos that are specifically designed for oily hair (see labels)."
In another excellent study by Kligman and his colleagues from the 1980's, they did an investigation of how thoroughly different commercial shampoos removed sebum from the hair and scalp. Rather surprisingly, they found that ALL the shampoos they tested removed the same amount of sebum, regardless of how they were marketed ("For Normal Hair", "For Oily Hair", "For Dry Hair", etc.).
By the way, I'll mention here just for DHTHater's benefit that this was the same study which found that shampooing made no difference in the amount of sebum production in the scalp! I know, I know... Mr. Troll is just going to tell me that I'm "making up" this study!
:laugh:
"Too much oil is best treated with more frequent washing and using shampoos that are specifically designed for oily hair (see labels)."
In another excellent study by Kligman and his colleagues from the 1980's, they did an investigation of how thoroughly different commercial shampoos removed sebum from the hair and scalp. Rather surprisingly, they found that ALL the shampoos they tested removed the same amount of sebum, regardless of how they were marketed ("For Normal Hair", "For Oily Hair", "For Dry Hair", etc.).
By the way, I'll mention here just for DHTHater's benefit that this was the same study which found that shampooing made no difference in the amount of sebum production in the scalp! I know, I know... Mr. Troll is just going to tell me that I'm "making up" this study!
:laugh:
DHTHater
Established Member
- Reaction score
- 2
Bryan said:Guys, I think you should just ignore the troll DHTHater when he says that I have "magical writings no one else can see" or that I'm just "making up" the studies I cite. Don't give him the attention he craves. Don't feed the trolls!
There's no shortage of irony that you're hoping to sell that I'm somehow a "troll" because I want someone to provide credible substantiation for their claims. The irony being because I've long thought you were a troll for making assertions and claims that no one else can corroborate, and pretending it's okay.
If you were editing a Wikipedia entry about sebum production and its relation to shampoo, you wouldn't even be allowed to leave the claims in your signature because you can't provide reliable links. I however can provide credible links that say the opposite of what you're peddling as truth.
Bryan, your inability to provide reliable sources for all to readily access for your claims may be blindly adhered to by your mindless forum cronies, but they wouldn't stick in any official capacity in something published online, Techprof's bizarre issues with women doctors included.
DHTHater said:
Wikipedia is your example of "official capacity?"
Listen DHTHater. I just want you to know how annoying everyone thinks you are. Do you wonder why nobody on this thread is backing you up on your sebum/hair washing tangent? Let me tell you, even if you are right (which you aren't), you sound so incredibly retarded that nobody even wants to associate themselves with you. You would literally have to be diagnosed with down's syndrome to believe that every credible source is published online and every user must offer a clickable link to make it valid in discussion. I feel like participating in this discussion might actually lower my IQ, but a possible chance at making you look stupid is well worth the risk.
DHTHater
Established Member
- Reaction score
- 2
timbo said:
No offense, but I've yet to encounter anyone in this exchange about sebum that I would trust with petsitting my dog, nevermind to make credible arguments with regard to medical research. I honestly don't care what any of Bryan's "magical writings no one can see" adherent zealots think of what the rest of the medical world says. Wikipedia has nothing to do with the quote in my signature.
As for your inability to control your emotions, your quick sinking to personal insults, and overt display of frustration, I can only assume you were embarrassed by the last response I left to you. Had I known your reaction would have been so childish, I would have dumbed it down a little. Brass tacks, is no one here has been able to refute the quote in my signature, and frankly, I don't know why they would want to, save for maybe saving lost face in this argument. I can only lead a horse to water, I can't make it drink.
Objectively speaking, there's a handful of you mostly disgruntled, embarrassed, emotionally immature armchair experts in this forum thread convinced of one thing floated by Bryan and his writings conveniently no one can see, and then there's the mainstream, and quotes by actual medical professionals like the one in my signature. Again, I'll stick with the mainstream medical opinions, not the word of unqualified, obsessed, combative thread posters.
- Reaction score
- 42
Hey, DHTHater! I've got an idea for how we can make this discussion a lot more interesting! Let's make a friendly little wager of...I dunno...let's say $500, to see who is telling the truth, okay? We'll both send Postal money orders of that sum (made out to each other) to someone we can both trust (like the Admin of HairLossTalk.com). The Admin can then go to one of the medical libraries in the San Diego area, to see if the "magical studies nobody else can see" DO IN FACT exist. If you are correct (they don't exist), he mails both money orders back to YOU. If they _do_ exist, he mails them to ME.
Whaddaya say, pal? Do you agree to that little wager?
Whaddaya say, pal? Do you agree to that little wager?
DHTHater
Established Member
- Reaction score
- 2
Bryan said:Hey, DHTHater! I've got an idea for how we can make this discussion a lot more interesting! Let's make a friendly little wager of...I dunno...let's say $500, to see who is telling the truth, okay? We'll both send Postal money orders of that sum (made out to each other) to someone we can both trust (like the Admin of HairLossTalk.com). The Admin can then go to one of the medical libraries in the San Diego area, to see if the "magical studies nobody else can see" DO IN FACT exist. If you are correct (they don't exist), he mails both money orders back to YOU. If they _do_ exist, he mails them to ME.
Whaddaya say, pal? Do you agree to that little wager?
I didn't say they didn't exist. I said conveniently no one can see them now, like all of your outmoded information. It's as if nothing you say is being discussed in contemporary medical research. Whereas with mine, I can easily provide link sources to valid, modern medical doctor quotes that corroborate my argument (ie: the one in my signature). My sources are accessible, and readily available mainstream sources, not arcane or dated theories in obsolete locations.
- Reaction score
- 42
DHTHater said:
Anybody can see them, if he has access to a medical library. The fact that YOU don't have immediate access to a medical library isn't my problem. It's YOUR problem. And "convenience" doesn't have anything to do with it, that's just your own excuse for your ignorance.
DHTHater said:
"Doctor quotes" (as opposed to medical studies)! LOL!!
DHTHater said:
Yeah, "obsolete locations", like the Journal of Investigative Dermatology.
DHTHater
Established Member
- Reaction score
- 2
Bryan said:
lol And you tried to call me dumb, somehow...
Obviously Michelle Hanjani, M.D. Professor of Clinical Dermatology Columbia University got her information from a study/formed an educated opinion based on the results of a study/contemporary medical research.
Bryan said:
"If he has access to a medical library" That's like saying anyone can play the song if they know how to play the piano. That's a big if. And you're still full of excuses why you can't make links happen. The only ignorant one here is you. The guy clinging obstinately to outdated studies.
No, it's YOUR problem, and from all of your posts to date, it seems it is your problem a little too often to be a coincidence. Your excuses for not having studies others can corroborate readily accessible goes beyond suspicious, it diminishes your credibility. Because even if said information does exist, it's so outdated, and unpopular that the entire medical field, and industry concerned with scalps says the opposite of what you're saying.
I'll stick with the credible quotes of medical professionals that obviously derived their information from much newer studies, thanks. Bryan you aren't a doctor, but the woman in my quote very much is. You're a snake oil salesman. And you've managed to fleece at least 2 or 3 that I can see into buying your outmoded, possibly falsified rubbish.
- Reaction score
- 42
DHTHater said:
That shows how little YOU know. I'm about 99% sure that she didn't get it from any study at all. It's a common myth that, sadly, even some doctors and dermatologists still believe.
DHTHater said:
ROTFLMAO!! Oh, so you think it's my job to "make links happen" for you? Maybe you also think I should come to your place and help wipe your *** for you?
DHTHater said:
How the hell would YOU know what kind of studies I cling to, and whether or not they're outdated? You haven't even READ the ones I've already cited for you. Furthermore, I offered to tell you about some other evidence against the "feedback theory" (besides the two studies by Kligman et al I've already mentioned), but you declined to hear about it.
DHTHater said:
What the hell does THAT mean?
DHTHater said:
You don't have a clue what you're talking about, and I'm starting to get very bored with you again. I'm about to start tuning you out again, Mr. Troll.
DHTHater said:
LOL!! Why don't you cite some of those "much newer studies" for us?
DHTHater said:
If it's just "falsified rubbish", why don't you have the balls to make that wager with me?
DHTHater
Established Member
- Reaction score
- 2
Bryan said:
You're 99% sure a dermatology professor from Columbia University says things for publication based on myth? You are showing all signs of being the very definition of a moron again, Bryan. Did you get that "99%" figure from the same place you get your other "information"? Because that would explain a lot.
Bryan said:ROTFLMAO!! Oh, so you think it's my job to "make links happen" for you? Maybe you also think I should come to your place and help wipe your *** for you?
Incessant smiley faces and the childlike, obnoxious use of all caps and exclamation marks do nothing but make you look more like the emotionally immature, pseudo-scientific armchair quack you've proven yourself to be thus far.
That book & glasses avatar you sport looks like a desperate, contrived attempt to appear intellectual, which tells me that's what you're most insecure about. Given your sources come from books now circulating the antique show circuit, or magical trees, I'm not surprised.
Bryan, I have data that shows martians landed on earth back in 1916 and they now reside in Topeka, Kansas. The data is available for you to see, but it's at a rare library you may or may not have access to. Sounds credible right?
Bryan said:
It seems your memory is as bad as your inability to provide reliable, modern mainstream sources for your magical claims. I can't say I'm too surprised. You must have forgotten we've been over this before in this very thread where you claim a study proves your argument right, but that it was conducted
"more than 50 years ago" (actual quote).
Bryan said:
Since I'm not concerned with entertaining you, my care cup is empty again.
Work on getting up to speed with the 21'st century Bryan, or you're still devoid any semblance of credibility. ie: don't send people on treasure hunts for 50 year old studies when I have modern links to medical professionals that say exactly the opposite right here.
