- Reaction score
- 106
Should the focused on this forum or in general always be on androgenetic alopecia related hair loss? Is it just me or does it seem like the second somebody says they are losing hair everybody recommends decreasing DHT and dousing their head in minoxidil or Ru58841? This isn’t just HairLossTalk but also doctors and dermatologists. I’m not trying to knock anyone but it seems very ridiculous to just instantaneously assume you have male pattern hair loss because somebody just told you so or because everyone else has male pattern hair loss. There are many other forms of hair loss that exist. For example, I had to go to four different doctors for one of them to correctly diagnose me with folliculitis. If I wouldn’t have suspected something other than male pattern hair loss, I would still have a nasty infection going on.
There are many forms of hair loss and skin conditions that can cause hair loss. I don’t think posting pictures of a bald spot from a foot away that is increasing in size does any good. I don’t think going to the doctor and having them toss your hair around for two seconds to get a male pattern hair loss diagnosis is always worth it. What if you were a person that though you had diffuse androgenetic alopecia but actually had alopecia areata incognita? What if it was actually just telogen effluvium? What if it was a diffuse scarring alopecia?
My point is that everyone seems like an expert on male pattern hair loss, how finasteride/dutasteride works, what percentage of minoxidil to use but nobody talks about trichoscopy. A person might find an obvious alternative treatment(corticosteroids) if they are trying to stop alopecia areata ophiasis with dutasteride and it’s not working. Can you imagine wasting all your time with male pattern hair loss drugs only to find out you got a wrong diagnosis or you developed a secondary hair disorder and never realized it.
A lot of users on this forum also try to attempt recreating results of clinical studies on hair loss. This is usually where people will recreate a topical like peppermint oil, rosemary oil, caffeine, etc to see if it actually will have a positive impact on hair growth or retention to some extent. A microscope would be able to show if something is actually working and should be paired with another treatment or technique.
Found this expensive book but it seems like it would be useful for the knowledge and there are probably more affordable ways of getting it.
Otherwise there are up close examples all over the internet. One website that has up close examples of lichen planopilaris, alopecia areata, folliculitis decalvans, etc. You just have to do some searching around.
donovanmedical.com
For all I know this could be obvious to every single user on this forum. It just seems strange that dermoscopy and or trichoscopy isn’t discussed more. A lot of doctors don’t even perform the technique when the equipment isn’t even that expensive. A closer look might speak volumes for some. I think the skin and/or hair structures condition and follicle is worth being investigated if your hair is pouring out.
There are many forms of hair loss and skin conditions that can cause hair loss. I don’t think posting pictures of a bald spot from a foot away that is increasing in size does any good. I don’t think going to the doctor and having them toss your hair around for two seconds to get a male pattern hair loss diagnosis is always worth it. What if you were a person that though you had diffuse androgenetic alopecia but actually had alopecia areata incognita? What if it was actually just telogen effluvium? What if it was a diffuse scarring alopecia?
My point is that everyone seems like an expert on male pattern hair loss, how finasteride/dutasteride works, what percentage of minoxidil to use but nobody talks about trichoscopy. A person might find an obvious alternative treatment(corticosteroids) if they are trying to stop alopecia areata ophiasis with dutasteride and it’s not working. Can you imagine wasting all your time with male pattern hair loss drugs only to find out you got a wrong diagnosis or you developed a secondary hair disorder and never realized it.
A lot of users on this forum also try to attempt recreating results of clinical studies on hair loss. This is usually where people will recreate a topical like peppermint oil, rosemary oil, caffeine, etc to see if it actually will have a positive impact on hair growth or retention to some extent. A microscope would be able to show if something is actually working and should be paired with another treatment or technique.
Found this expensive book but it seems like it would be useful for the knowledge and there are probably more affordable ways of getting it.
Atlas of Trichoscopy - Dermoscopy in Hair and Scalp Disease | Lidia Rudnicka | Springer
The aim of this atlas is to provide detailed and comprehensive, easy-to-use information, sufficient to perform trichoscopy in clinical practice. From basics to advanced knowledge, everything in one book. In this sense it is rather an “illustrated textbook” than solely an atlas. It includes...
www.springer.com
Otherwise there are up close examples all over the internet. One website that has up close examples of lichen planopilaris, alopecia areata, folliculitis decalvans, etc. You just have to do some searching around.
Donovan Hair Clinic
At the Donovan Hair Clinic, we specialize is some of the most complex types of hair loss. Call our Whistler office (604) 283.1887
donovanmedical.com
For all I know this could be obvious to every single user on this forum. It just seems strange that dermoscopy and or trichoscopy isn’t discussed more. A lot of doctors don’t even perform the technique when the equipment isn’t even that expensive. A closer look might speak volumes for some. I think the skin and/or hair structures condition and follicle is worth being investigated if your hair is pouring out.
Last edited:
