Another nail in the coffin for Stephen Foote's theory!
- Thread starter Bryan
- Start date
OverMachoGrande
Senior Member
- Reaction score
- 43
optimus prime said:Bryan said:Will he be man enough to admit that his own theory of balding is wrong?
There is nothing to be ashamed of if he is wrong. Science is made up of many theories and beliefs and scientists continuously contradict and prove each other wrong.
Nobody likes a smart ***.
But they like to kiss one for some reason.
OverMachoGrande
Senior Member
- Reaction score
- 43
elvis123 said:optimus prime said:Bryan said:Will he be man enough to admit that his own theory of balding is wrong?
There is nothing to be ashamed of if he is wrong. Science is made up of many theories and beliefs and scientists continuously contradict and prove each other wrong.
Nobody likes a smart ***.
Will Bryan be man enough to admit that he is a mega tool/douche?
Probably not...But he might admit he works for Merck or Upjohn.
S Foote. said:
Stephen;
I like your theory, it explain the pattern of common hair loss due at the position in scalp, but ¿how explain the higher incidence in men? Exist different hair for women and men? Are genetically differrent?
Have a nice day
Armando
S Foote.
Experienced Member
- Reaction score
- 67
armandein said:
There is a higher incidence in men, because it is related to the action of male hormones (androgens), in particular DHT.
My theory does not contradict the recognised influences of androgens , but rather proposes an indirect effect of androgens rather than the idea of androgens causing direct effects in follicles due to in-built genetic differences.
I think in women the situation is more complex, and also involves other hormonal factors.
I have said there is no study "YET" that could rule my theory out, Bryan claims there is, so i am waiting to read the study in question as refered to in this thread.
S Foote.
- Reaction score
- 43
S Foote. said:Still waiting for your package Bryan!
10 days now, you did put a stamp on it did you?
I did get those copies off to you this afternoon, Stephen! I've had company for the last several days, so I've been dragging my feet a little on that. Sorry.
I sent you not only the one I referred to above about the stumptailed macaques, but also the Nordstrom study, since probably all you've seen about that one is what I've quoted in the past. I want you to start LEARNING about hairgrowth science!
S Foote.
Experienced Member
- Reaction score
- 67
Just to bump this and keep people who may be interested in the picture.
I'am sorry to drag my response to Bryan out, but i have been very busy of late and also i am just getting over an illness.
I have now read the studies Bryan makes "claims" about, and as usual it seems Bryan has fallen into the trap of just seeing what he wants to see!
I will respond in more detail as soon as i can. Meanwhile Bryan i suggest you go back and read Uno's macaque studies. You are on the record as stating these prove your point, yet these contradict the claims you "NOW" make about the study you recently sent me?
Think about it :thumbdown2:
S Foote.
I'am sorry to drag my response to Bryan out, but i have been very busy of late and also i am just getting over an illness.
I have now read the studies Bryan makes "claims" about, and as usual it seems Bryan has fallen into the trap of just seeing what he wants to see!
I will respond in more detail as soon as i can. Meanwhile Bryan i suggest you go back and read Uno's macaque studies. You are on the record as stating these prove your point, yet these contradict the claims you "NOW" make about the study you recently sent me?
Think about it :thumbdown2:
S Foote.
S Foote.
Experienced Member
- Reaction score
- 67
OK, let's just recap on the issue here.
Bryan is always claiming that the available evidence "proves" that in androgen related hair growth/loss, the action is "directly" upon follicle cells. If anyone suggests the effect is around the follicle Bryan shouts them down with these old studies he claims proves his own conclusions.
I have said that in order to really prove his opinion, there has to be studies that use follicle samples from the "future" balding area "before" androgens come into the equation. This would be at a time "long enough" to rule out any external influence of increasing androgen levels, and when "all" scalp follicle samples are physicaly the same size. Transplantation of individual follicles using very small grafts to eliminate as much as possible any surrounding tissue differences, may then when exposed to androgens test this "internal/external question.
This old chaotic macaque study you sent me certainly doesn't meet the criteria Bryan.
For a start, they used both flap grafts and large old type plug grafts in the same animals. The flap grafts themselves are significantly changing the micro circulation of the entire scalp. This disqualifies this study as proving a "direct" action on follicle cells.
If anything, this study clearly shows an "external" growth restricting effect.
Why, because the grafts transplanted from the balding area to the back of the head, showed a more rapid rate of balding than follicles in the balding area they came from! So how can this be an "internal" effect? According to the internal theory the rate of balding is locked into the follicle cells direct response to androgens. So why do transplanted follicles change this rate if it is an internal control?
You seem to have a problem with the scientific evaluation of a body of evidence Bryan. You see something in a study that you think supports you and you grab it like a dog with a bone. Often these studies raise more questions than they answer, but you just ignore these questions.
You claim this macaque study shows the direct effect of androgens in converting pre-balding follicles into balding follicles. Yet you yourself quoted a macacque study by Uno, that clearly showed this direct conversion of follicle cells does not happen in the age group that would qualify, as i describe above.
http://www.hair*******p.com/forums/mess ... erthread=y
Bryan said quote:
"I think the answer to that question is fairly obvious: it's because scalp hair follicles don't just IMMEDIATELY become sensitive to androgens overnight. It takes a while (years?) for that to happen. See the excellent in vitro study of cultured stumptailed macaque hair follicles by Uno et al. The growth of hair follicles from young, pre-pubertal monkeys wasn't adversely affected by testosterone, but the growth of hair follicles from older, mature monkeys _was_ suppressed by testosterone. I don't doubt that the very same thing is true in humans, too."
So according to your own reasoning Bryan, the results of this macaque transplantation study don't support the direct action you "now" try to claim!
I would also add here that the author of the second study you sent me Bryan, actually says that the transplantation results he got could be because of an external effect close to the follicles!! End of debate!!
It is always good practice to consider your conclusions about studies in the light of the wider body of knowledge, to see where it leads. If your conclusions are correct, other known facts will fit in.
So, lets go along with Bryan's notion above that follicle cells need a significant exposure time to androgens before they are "directly" effected. This seems to fit in with the common observation that male pattern baldness can start up to years after maximum levels of androgens in the body.
The "BIG" problem with this is what happens in the normal hair cycle. We know that the new anagen hair follicle developes from stem cells. The cells produced are all "NEW" and so androgen naive. So if it takes a long time of exposure for follicle cells to react "directly" to androgens, why don't we get regrowth of male pattern baldness follicles every new hair cycle, at least for a while?
Would you like to explain that little glitch in your argument Bryan?
The other thing here of course is how do follicle cells become "different" as the direct theory claims? All follicles are the same in respect of their cells all derive from stem cells. Stem cell are just that, there is no "difference" between them, so where along the line does this "difference" in follicle cells come from?
Finally, you always try to claim that the non respose in-vitro of "future" male pattern baldness follicles to androgens doesn't matter, because male pattern baldness follicle cells "do". Well so what? These are "already" growth restricted cells for "some" reason, and the fact that androgens don't "cause" any change shows it is not directly causal by androgens! The fact that once "converted" male pattern baldness cells do respond negatively to androgens, could be just incidental. Many other substances could have the same effect, so would you claim these were responsable for male pattern baldness?
The point is we know androgens are "causal" in male pattern baldness. The in-vitro tests show they do "NOT" directly "cause" male pattern baldness!
I have explained my arguments many times, and people can take it or leave it. I am not going to get drawn into another long debate about these issues. If my theory is on the right lines, it doesn't mean there is an easy fix unfortunately.
I think if people like Bryan are going to keep on stating there is no question that the direct theory is correct, they should answer the points above about the holes in it? Never mind the other theories , please answer my questions about "yours" Bryan?
S Foote.
Bryan is always claiming that the available evidence "proves" that in androgen related hair growth/loss, the action is "directly" upon follicle cells. If anyone suggests the effect is around the follicle Bryan shouts them down with these old studies he claims proves his own conclusions.
I have said that in order to really prove his opinion, there has to be studies that use follicle samples from the "future" balding area "before" androgens come into the equation. This would be at a time "long enough" to rule out any external influence of increasing androgen levels, and when "all" scalp follicle samples are physicaly the same size. Transplantation of individual follicles using very small grafts to eliminate as much as possible any surrounding tissue differences, may then when exposed to androgens test this "internal/external question.
This old chaotic macaque study you sent me certainly doesn't meet the criteria Bryan.
For a start, they used both flap grafts and large old type plug grafts in the same animals. The flap grafts themselves are significantly changing the micro circulation of the entire scalp. This disqualifies this study as proving a "direct" action on follicle cells.
If anything, this study clearly shows an "external" growth restricting effect.
Why, because the grafts transplanted from the balding area to the back of the head, showed a more rapid rate of balding than follicles in the balding area they came from! So how can this be an "internal" effect? According to the internal theory the rate of balding is locked into the follicle cells direct response to androgens. So why do transplanted follicles change this rate if it is an internal control?
You seem to have a problem with the scientific evaluation of a body of evidence Bryan. You see something in a study that you think supports you and you grab it like a dog with a bone. Often these studies raise more questions than they answer, but you just ignore these questions.
You claim this macaque study shows the direct effect of androgens in converting pre-balding follicles into balding follicles. Yet you yourself quoted a macacque study by Uno, that clearly showed this direct conversion of follicle cells does not happen in the age group that would qualify, as i describe above.
http://www.hair*******p.com/forums/mess ... erthread=y
Bryan said quote:
"I think the answer to that question is fairly obvious: it's because scalp hair follicles don't just IMMEDIATELY become sensitive to androgens overnight. It takes a while (years?) for that to happen. See the excellent in vitro study of cultured stumptailed macaque hair follicles by Uno et al. The growth of hair follicles from young, pre-pubertal monkeys wasn't adversely affected by testosterone, but the growth of hair follicles from older, mature monkeys _was_ suppressed by testosterone. I don't doubt that the very same thing is true in humans, too."
So according to your own reasoning Bryan, the results of this macaque transplantation study don't support the direct action you "now" try to claim!
I would also add here that the author of the second study you sent me Bryan, actually says that the transplantation results he got could be because of an external effect close to the follicles!! End of debate!!
It is always good practice to consider your conclusions about studies in the light of the wider body of knowledge, to see where it leads. If your conclusions are correct, other known facts will fit in.
So, lets go along with Bryan's notion above that follicle cells need a significant exposure time to androgens before they are "directly" effected. This seems to fit in with the common observation that male pattern baldness can start up to years after maximum levels of androgens in the body.
The "BIG" problem with this is what happens in the normal hair cycle. We know that the new anagen hair follicle developes from stem cells. The cells produced are all "NEW" and so androgen naive. So if it takes a long time of exposure for follicle cells to react "directly" to androgens, why don't we get regrowth of male pattern baldness follicles every new hair cycle, at least for a while?
Would you like to explain that little glitch in your argument Bryan?
The other thing here of course is how do follicle cells become "different" as the direct theory claims? All follicles are the same in respect of their cells all derive from stem cells. Stem cell are just that, there is no "difference" between them, so where along the line does this "difference" in follicle cells come from?
Finally, you always try to claim that the non respose in-vitro of "future" male pattern baldness follicles to androgens doesn't matter, because male pattern baldness follicle cells "do". Well so what? These are "already" growth restricted cells for "some" reason, and the fact that androgens don't "cause" any change shows it is not directly causal by androgens! The fact that once "converted" male pattern baldness cells do respond negatively to androgens, could be just incidental. Many other substances could have the same effect, so would you claim these were responsable for male pattern baldness?
The point is we know androgens are "causal" in male pattern baldness. The in-vitro tests show they do "NOT" directly "cause" male pattern baldness!
I have explained my arguments many times, and people can take it or leave it. I am not going to get drawn into another long debate about these issues. If my theory is on the right lines, it doesn't mean there is an easy fix unfortunately.
I think if people like Bryan are going to keep on stating there is no question that the direct theory is correct, they should answer the points above about the holes in it? Never mind the other theories , please answer my questions about "yours" Bryan?
S Foote.
optimus prime
Experienced Member
- Reaction score
- 12
Where is Oni when you need a translation...
optimus prime
Experienced Member
- Reaction score
- 12
S Foote,
I don't know your theory, do you have a link to a previous thread or website explaining it. (Simple terms/Quick summary)
I don't know your theory, do you have a link to a previous thread or website explaining it. (Simple terms/Quick summary)
S Foote.
Experienced Member
- Reaction score
- 67
optimus prime said:
This was a basic write up here:
http://www.hairsite2.com/library/abst-167.htm
Basicaly it proposes that because the hair follicle is a "hollow" pocket, its size can be controled by external pressure through normal contact inhibition of growth. I argue the advantages of such a control in evolution.
S Foote.