Alopecia in CAIS

[Bryan]

So you cannot explain, let alone prove the mechanism that you often use to claim other people are wrong. :whistle:

I'm telling you for the umpteenth time that no, I can't explain all the biochemical mecahanisms of how scalp hair follicle cells gradually become sensitive to the negative effects of androgens (not yet, anyway...eventually scientists will figure all this stuff out, and THEN they'll explain the details to the rest of us, after which I _will_ be able to explain it to you; provided, of course, that you'll have the snap to understand it! ).

The simple bottom line is this Bryan. You try to put down other ideas about male pattern baldness, based on the claim that the evidence for a direct effect of androgens on certain follicles is overwhelming and irrefutable. You always try to skirt around any evidence that would cast doubt upon your claim. Female pattern hair loss has been quoted as supporting this "direct androgen effect", because of the pattern and the "alledged" involvement of androgens.

This study and it's references clearly do not go along with that claim, and demomstrate that FPHH cannot be used to support the "direct androgen action" idea in male pattern baldness.

People can read this study and see this for themselves.

I'm telling you again for the THIRD TIME that I don't believe the woman in this study has androgenetic alopecia.

Hey, let ME ask YOU a question: you laughably claimed that contact inhibition could change the way that a cell responds to androgens. Please give me some specific examples of that?

Yet again you cannot support your arguments in a proper scientific manner, and just answer my question with a question. :thumbdown2:

OK Bryan i will give you an example of my claim (unlike your avoidence of my questions).

When follicle cells are tested in culture, it has been claimed (and i dont argue with this in-vitro observation), that pre-existing male pattern baldness cells are continued to be growth resticted by androgen inducable TGF-beta1.

Contact inhibition study:
http://ajplung.physiology.org/cgi/conte ... 270/5/L879

Quote:

"Thus suppression of p45, cyclin D2/Cdk-4, and cyclin B1/Cdc-2 expression and/or activities is targeted both by contact inhibition and by TGF-beta 1 and may define common mechanisms through which these negative growth signals are integrated. "

This is called scientific reasoning Bryan, you should try it sometime.

You haven't given me what I asked for, Stephen. I asked you to give me some examples of cells in which their response to androgens was changed by contact inhibition. You haven't done that. Instead, you posted a study which speculated about ways in which contact inhibition harms cells. The word "androgen" doesn't even APPEAR in that abstract!

I asked for oranges, and you gave me apples. NOW GIVE ME WHAT I ASKED FOR. This is called scientific reasoning, Stephen, you should try it sometime.

 

[armandein]

S Foote. wrote:
So you cannot explain, let alone prove the mechanism that you often use to claim other people are wrong.

Bryan wrote:
I'm telling you for the umpteenth time that no, I can't explain all the biochemical mecahanisms of how scalp hair follicle cells gradually become sensitive to the negative effects of androgens (not yet, anyway...eventually scientists will figure all this stuff out, and THEN they'll explain the details to the rest of us, after which I _will_ be able to explain it to you; provided, of course, that you'll have the snap to understand it! ).

Armando write:
It is good, again two giants cut and thrust,…..,, if the problem is to know why gradually hair follicle cells become sensitive to the negative effects of androgens, ….,
It is easy for me. I don´t think as a genetic issue because all scalp healthy hairs have the same phenotype, It is possible the action of oxidized sebum in pilosebaceous unit over years can wake up the “sensibilityâ€￾ of hairs to result damaged. Common hair loss is the same in women and men.
Why your hostility to consider the sebaceous gland and sebum are implicated in the process? Maybe due at its simplicity? Where is common sense? Where is Occam's razor?


On the other hand, It is easy to see that the woman in the study suffer from common hair loss.
Armando
P.S. Bryan, What is biochemical mecahanisms?

 

[Bryan]

Why your hostility to consider the sebaceous gland and sebum are implicated in the process? Maybe due at its simplicity? Where is common sense? Where is Occam's razor?

Because there's no evidence to support such a hypothesis. THERE is Occam's razor!

On the other hand, It is easy to see that the woman in the study suffer from common hair loss.

She may be suffering from a kind of common hair loss, but I don't think it's androgenetic alopecia.

 

[armandein]

Why your hostility to consider the sebaceous gland and sebum are implicated in the process? Maybe due at its simplicity? Where is common sense? Where is Occam's razor?

Because there's no evidence to support such a hypothesis. THERE is Occam's razor!

Have you read any forums in hairloss? A lot of times, there is words regarding sebum in this issue....., but It could be no real evidence

Armando

 

[Bryan]

Have you read any forums in hairloss? A lot of times, there is words regarding sebum in this issue....., but It could be no real evidence

Sure, there are sometimes WORDS about sebum in such forums, because sebaceous glands are a natural part of the pilosebaceous unit. But there is no evidence that they have anything to do with androgenetic alopecia. Armando, why are you so damned fascinated with sebum?? :dunno:

 

[Bryan]

By the way, Armando, I appreciate that email you sent me several months ago about the Sebutape experiment you did with your young daughter, but you didn't describe to me the step-by-step details of how you performed it. Can you do that now?

 

[armandein]

By the way, Armando, I appreciate that email you sent me several months ago about the Sebutape experiment you did with your young daughter, but you didn't describe to me the step-by-step details of how you performed it. Can you do that now?

Please Bryan, give me a few days in order to find the protocol used. It was in last april

BTW, This is a response from a MD.

Fecha: Sat, 19 Apr 2008 16:49:15 -0400
> De: "Diane M. Thiboutot M.D." <*****@hmc.psu.edu>
> Para: *****@yahoo.es
> Asunto: Re: Sebaceous gland Question
> Dear Armando,
>
> THere is sebum on the skin and hair of prepubertal children. It is of
> a lesser quantity than in pubertal children. The increase in sebum on
> the skin with puberty is paralleled by that on the scalp. THey
> increase together. Our laboratory was the one that identified the
> type 1 5a-reductase in skin as well as actiivty of cholesterol side
> chain cleaveage and CYP17. Hope this helps.
>
> Diane Thiboutot, MD
> Professor and Vice Chair of Dermatology Research Co-Director, MD/PhD
> Program Assoc. Program Director, GCRC Penn State University College of
> Medicine 500 University Drive Hershey, PA 17033
> Phone: 717-***-7437
> Fax: 717-***-4821
> *****@psu.edu




BR
Armando

 

[Bryan]

Please Bryan, give me a few days in order to find the protocol used. It was in last april

Thanks, Armando. I'll be waiting with great interest to hear about the exact procedure you used when performing that test. Give me the results of that test again, too!

BTW, This is a response from a MD.

Fecha: Sat, 19 Apr 2008 16:49:15 -0400
> De: "Diane M. Thiboutot M.D." <*****@hmc.psu.edu>
> Asunto: Re: Sebaceous gland Question
> Dear Armando,
>
> THere is sebum on the skin and hair of prepubertal children. It is of
> a lesser quantity than in pubertal children. The increase in sebum on
> the skin with puberty is paralleled by that on the scalp. THey
> increase together.

Unfortunately, Dr. Thiboutot doesn't say anything about the relative LEVELS of sebum production in young children (sebum level on the scalp, compared to sebum level on the face). That's the critical piece of information that we need. She does seem to imply that they're the same, but we need to know that for sure, before we can dismiss your theory that sebum is required for hair to grow!

 

[S Foote.]

Hey, let ME ask YOU a question: you laughably claimed that contact inhibition could change the way that a cell responds to androgens. Please give me some specific examples of that?

Yet again you cannot support your arguments in a proper scientific manner, and just answer my question with a question. :thumbdown2:

OK Bryan i will give you an example of my claim (unlike your avoidence of my questions).

When follicle cells are tested in culture, it has been claimed (and i dont argue with this in-vitro observation), that pre-existing male pattern baldness cells are continued to be growth resticted by androgen inducable TGF-beta1.

Contact inhibition study:
http://ajplung.physiology.org/cgi/conte ... 270/5/L879

Quote:

"Thus suppression of p45, cyclin D2/Cdk-4, and cyclin B1/Cdc-2 expression and/or activities is targeted both by contact inhibition and by TGF-beta 1 and may define common mechanisms through which these negative growth signals are integrated. "

This is called scientific reasoning Bryan, you should try it sometime.

You haven't given me what I asked for, Stephen. I asked you to give me some examples of cells in which their response to androgens was changed by contact inhibition. You haven't done that. Instead, you posted a study which speculated about ways in which contact inhibition harms cells. The word "androgen" doesn't even APPEAR in that abstract!

I asked for oranges, and you gave me apples. NOW GIVE ME WHAT I ASKED FOR. This is called scientific reasoning, Stephen, you should try it sometime.

So yet again it's one rule for Bryan on these forums. and another rule for everyone else!! I have to prove everthing i say beyond question. Yet you can get away with ignoring my questions, and just saying "scientists will figure it out one day" :whistle:

If you can't even come to terms with your own theory, you are not in any position to properly criticise other theorys in a genuine scientific manner Bryan. :thumbdown2:

Your question was based on the in-vitro action of androgens upon already tranformed DP cells, in which it is claimed that androgens restrict the growth of these cells via the TGF-beta 1 pathway. You are well aware of the threads.

The study i quoted was also in-vitro, and shows how contact inhibition also effects the TGF-beta 1 pathway. It "MAY" then be feasable that prior contact inhibition has effected this pathway to then allow other substances, including androgens to also induce TGF-beta 1. Of course this is at this time hypothetical, but you are not even prepared to hypothesise on your own claims about the in-vitro studies are you! :whistle:

More meaningful are the in-vivo studies of Fuch's on the Wnt's, beta-catanine pathways where modification of these produced increased hair growth. I'll leave it to you to search and see how contact inhibition also involves these very same things. As you very well know, i have posted about this before.

Let's just get back on topic here.

You claim this Womens hair loss is not androgenic, and you dont want to speculate upon the cause of pattern loss in this case. So answer this question Bryan?

Do you believe that Female androgenic alopecia exists at all? In this study the author points out other cases and studies where an anti-androgen regime makes no difference at all (unlike in male male pattern baldness).

So if you believe androgen dependent female hair loss is real, have you got any studies to prove this?

S Foote.

 

[Bryan]

So yet again it's one rule for Bryan on these forums. and another rule for everyone else!! I have to prove everthing i say beyond question.

I didn't really ask you to "prove" anything, I just asked you to give me some evidence that contact inhibition could change the way cells respond to androgens. You utterly FAILED at that. You couldn't do it. I shot you down in flames over that one!

Yet you can get away with ignoring my questions, and just saying "scientists will figure it out one day" :whistle:

I believe scientists _will_ figure it out one day. Are you also going to criticize me for saying that I don't know how to cure all cancer, but scientists will figure it out one day? Why are you being so obnoxious about all this?

Your question was based on the in-vitro action of androgens upon already tranformed DP cells, in which it is claimed that androgens restrict the growth of these cells via the TGF-beta 1 pathway. You are well aware of the threads.

The study i quoted was also in-vitro, and shows how contact inhibition also effects the TGF-beta 1 pathway. It "MAY" then be feasable that prior contact inhibition has effected this pathway to then allow other substances, including androgens to also induce TGF-beta 1. Of course this is at this time hypothetical...

LOL!! No sh*t it's hypothetical!! Sorry, Stephen, but you have to do a LOT better than that! Do you really think I'm going to let you off the hook by letting you try to slip-slide around the DIRECT QUESTION that I asked you? Did you really think you had a reasonable chance of success by trying a silly stunt like that? :smack:

Let's just get back on topic here.

You claim this Womens hair loss is not androgenic, and you dont want to speculate upon the cause of pattern loss in this case.

I _did_ speculate a little bit about a possible cause of her hair loss. Go back and re-read what I posted earlier about it. You're starting to remind me of misterE, because I have to repeat things to YOU over and over, just like I have to do with him.

So answer this question Bryan?

Do you believe that Female androgenic alopecia exists at all?

Yeah, probably.

In this study the author points out other cases and studies where an anti-androgen regime makes no difference at all (unlike in male male pattern baldness).

Are you talking about the finasteride study in women? I remember a few years ago when a woman on one of these forums told me that she knew of other women who _did_ receive benefit from finasteride, despite that study. She roundly criticized it.

I personally can't comment on it, though, because I haven't read it. It may be that finasteride was effective in the women to a smaller degree than in men, and the authors of the study didn't consider it to be statistically significant enough to be a success. Something along those lines.

So if you believe androgen dependent female hair loss is real, have you got any studies to prove this?

I don't have any studies at all that are specific to women's hair loss. Sorry.

 

[S Foote.]

So yet again it's one rule for Bryan on these forums. and another rule for everyone else!! I have to prove everthing i say beyond question.

I didn't really ask you to "prove" anything, I just asked you to give me some evidence that contact inhibition could change the way cells respond to androgens. You utterly FAILED at that. You couldn't do it. I shot you down in flames over that one!

[quote="S Foote.":3ben7ftb]Yet you can get away with ignoring my questions, and just saying "scientists will figure it out one day" :whistle:

I believe scientists _will_ figure it out one day. Are you also going to criticize me for saying that I don't know how to cure all cancer, but scientists will figure it out one day? Why are you being so obnoxious about all this?

Your question was based on the in-vitro action of androgens upon already tranformed DP cells, in which it is claimed that androgens restrict the growth of these cells via the TGF-beta 1 pathway. You are well aware of the threads.

The study i quoted was also in-vitro, and shows how contact inhibition also effects the TGF-beta 1 pathway. It "MAY" then be feasable that prior contact inhibition has effected this pathway to then allow other substances, including androgens to also induce TGF-beta 1. Of course this is at this time hypothetical...

LOL!! No sh*t it's hypothetical!! Sorry, Stephen, but you have to do a LOT better than that! Do you really think I'm going to let you off the hook by letting you try to slip-slide around the DIRECT QUESTION that I asked you? Did you really think you had a reasonable chance of success by trying a silly stunt like that? :smack:

Let's just get back on topic here.

You claim this Womens hair loss is not androgenic, and you dont want to speculate upon the cause of pattern loss in this case.

I _did_ speculate a little bit about a possible cause of her hair loss. Go back and re-read what I posted earlier about it. You're starting to remind me of misterE, because I have to repeat things to YOU over and over, just like I have to do with him.

So answer this question Bryan?

Do you believe that Female androgenic alopecia exists at all?

Yeah, probably.

In this study the author points out other cases and studies where an anti-androgen regime makes no difference at all (unlike in male male pattern baldness).

Are you talking about the finasteride study in women? I remember a few years ago when a woman on one of these forums told me that she knew of other women who _did_ receive benefit from finasteride, despite that study. She roundly criticized it.

I personally can't comment on it, though, because I haven't read it. It may be that finasteride was effective in the women to a smaller degree than in men, and the authors of the study didn't consider it to be statistically significant enough to be a success. Something along those lines.

So if you believe androgen dependent female hair loss is real, have you got any studies to prove this?

I don't have any studies at all that are specific to women's hair loss. Sorry.[/quote:3ben7ftb]


People can see the reality's of who's addressed questions here and who hasn't. Your hypocrisy is well recognised on these forums. and the reason why others avoid getting into debates with you, is because they just get this kind of verbal abuse from you.

Your scientific credibility is perfectly demonstrated above.

Despite a large scientific study on Finasteride in FPHL, a women on these forums contradicted the results and thats OK. Her comments suit you so thats a sound "scientific" judgement in your opinion.

Everyone here knows damm well what you would say if anyone else dared to try that :woot:

It's a waste of time trying to reason with you Bryan, i think you should try a job in the circus. All you need now is a red nose and a pair of long shoes :whistle:

I'am outa here.

S Foote.

 

[Armando Jose]

Bump.

Armandein is my other nick, but only i used it when I lost the password of the other.
BTW interesting disscusions in past years.....