Bryan: about Hirsutism

[S Foote.]

[quote="S Foote.":03cd8]Let's quite simply cut all the diversionary rubbish here :roll:

Firstly, there is absolutely `NO' scientific basis for trying to claim that there is any penetration `problem', that would not allow topical anti-androgens to get into follicle DP cells.

Just search for transdermal drug delivery, relating to the size of substance

Clearly, you don't understand the meaning of the word transdermal.

[quote="S Foote.":03cd8]
we are talking about here. Apart from that, the study abstract about spironolactone and sebaceous glands shows a significant local anti-androgen effect. It just doesn't work in hair growth does it! :wink:

Second and most importantly, the simple truth of the efficacy of topical anti-androgens is here for all to see on hair loss forums!

Just read the posts, topical anti-androgens do squat for male pattern baldness!!!

Sure, if you're willing to skate over all of the usual problems inherent in drawing conclusions from non-controlled personal anecdotes. Not to mention, there is no reason to think your sample population is representative of most people.

I agree that it's a good idea to get rid of the "diversionary rubbish." Goodbye.

So Dave, yet again you can't explain how my theory is flawed in your opinion, using `real' science. There's a supprise! :roll:

You know, i don't really mind the internet pretend scientists like you, that feel the need to try to impress people with scientific sounding phrases.

To me you are just a pathetic source of a good laugh :lol:

The danger is however that some vunerable people looking for answers here, could fall for your scientist `act', and take you seriously.

For that reason, you and the other pretend `experts' should be ashamed![/quote:03cd8]

Ah, your usual response: attempt to detract attention from your logical fallacy by repeating nonsensical allegations of practicing "pretend science" (whatever that means) or using "scientific sounding phrases."

How noble of you to take refuge from logic under the protective guise of altruism. Here's a thought: if you could convincingly point out the "pretend science", the "pretend scientists" would become obvious. Why not give that a try?

[/quote:03cd8]

The `pretend science' is quite clear to everyone here, and you are have been outed Dave :roll:

You posted that Ockhams razor refutes my theory. I asked you how it did that (four times). You keep refusing to qualify your initial statement!

You can not back up your statement about Ockhams razor, because you simply don't understand this scientific tool. If you did understand this methodology, you would answer my challenge. But you continue to try to avoid the issue.

So you are therefore pretending to be a scientist on internet forums, ie you are a pretend scientist 8)

Now just go away and `pose' on Farrels censored site!

S Foote.

 

[Dave001]

Ah, your usual response: attempt to detract attention from your logical fallacy by repeating nonsensical allegations of practicing "pretend science" (whatever that means) or using "scientific sounding phrases."

How noble of you to take refuge from logic under the protective guise of altruism. Here's a thought: if you could convincingly point out the "pretend science", the "pretend scientists" would become obvious. Why not give that a try?

The `pretend science' is quite clear to everyone here, and you are have been outed Dave :roll:

OK. Considering the level of acceptance your theory has gained, I'd say that the first part of that statement is true.

You posted that Ockhams razor refutes my theory. I asked you how it did that (four times). You keep refusing to qualify your initial statement!

Yes, you have brought up Occam's razor numerous times, and I have responded. It was the most irrelevant piece of discussion that you could latch onto in your attempt to divert attention from your mistakes. What were you expecting? An algebraic equation? It's a basic principle of logic, you dolt. Of course you don't get it.

Your idiotic theory has never been of interest. Believe what you want.

 

[S Foote.]

You say:

"Yes, you have brought up Occam's razor numerous times, and I have responded. "

But everyone can see that you are just lying Dave :wink:

You have not responded at all!

You opened our big mouth to say my theory is flawed, yet every time i ask you to explain `WHY' it is flawed in a proper scientific debate, we just get your unrelated babble :roll:

I am sure that every one reading this thread, is now as bored with your ignorant attention seeking as i am. :roll:

At least Bryan `actually' responds to the points in these debates, and doesn't just expect people to believe what he says without some kind of explaination based on science. :wink:

You are just the sadest case i have yet to find on these forums!

S Foote.

 

[Dave001]

You say:

"Yes, you have brought up Occam's razor numerous times, and I have responded. "

But everyone can see that you are just lying Dave :wink:

You have not responded at all!

You opened our big mouth to say my theory is flawed, yet every time i ask you to explain `WHY' it is flawed in a proper scientific debate, we just get your unrelated babble :roll:

I am sure that every one reading this thread, is now as bored with your ignorant attention seeking as i am. :roll:

At least Bryan `actually' responds to the points in these debates, and doesn't just expect people to believe what he says without some kind of explaination based on science. :wink:

You are just the sadest case i have yet to find on these forums!

You have an interesting way of interpreting things. Let's look at what happened. I wrote "To begin with, your argument is centered around the presumption that the in vivo antiandrogenic activity of spironolactone and Crinagen, when topically applied to humans, is known and has been quantified with a reasonable level of confidence. It hasn't. And please forgive us if we don't accept your personal testimony of an alleged, unpublished and non-controlled 'experiment' on a single subject (you, n = 1) as convincing evidence of the fact. "

... to which you responded by bringing up a comment I made about Occam's razor in a past thread, in addition to the typical barrage of emoticons to distract from the content.

It is pathetic that I'm bothering to respond to your nonsense at all. Everyone else was smart enough to ignore you long ago. Enjoy basking in your ignorance, and now solitude as well.

 

[S Foote.]

You say:

"Yes, you have brought up Occam's razor numerous times, and I have responded. "

But everyone can see that you are just lying Dave :wink:

You have not responded at all!

You opened our big mouth to say my theory is flawed, yet every time i ask you to explain `WHY' it is flawed in a proper scientific debate, we just get your unrelated babble :roll:

I am sure that every one reading this thread, is now as bored with your ignorant attention seeking as i am. :roll:

At least Bryan `actually' responds to the points in these debates, and doesn't just expect people to believe what he says without some kind of explaination based on science. :wink:

You are just the sadest case i have yet to find on these forums!

You have an interesting way of interpreting things. Let's look at what happened. I wrote "To begin with, your argument is centered around the presumption that the in vivo antiandrogenic activity of spironolactone and Crinagen, when topically applied to humans, is known and has been quantified with a reasonable level of confidence. It hasn't. And please forgive us if we don't accept your personal testimony of an alleged, unpublished and non-controlled 'experiment' on a single subject (you, n = 1) as convincing evidence of the fact. "

That is not what i said at all, as people who read the topic can see. I even quoted a study `YOU' had posted on a previous site, that supports what i `HAD' said about topical spironolactone!

This study confirmed topical spironolactone had an anti-androgenic action in the sebaceous glands, so i said there was no reason to suspect it was not having the same effect in hair follicles.

The fact that the other studies about topical spironolactone in male pattern baldness, showed a significant difference in performance based on the vehicle used, suggests that the penetration into tissues lower than the follicle itself is important.

This body of evidence clearly suggests that the androgen activity within the follicles themselves , is not what matters in hair growth! :wink:

... to which you responded by bringing up a comment I made about Occam's razor in a past thread, in addition to the typical barrage of emoticons to distract from the content.

It is pathetic that I'm bothering to respond to your nonsense at all. Everyone else was smart enough to ignore you long ago. Enjoy basking in your ignorance, and now solitude as well.

I posted the links to your lie here for all to see, so this further bulls**t isn't impressing people 8)

You quite clearly said Ockhams razor rufutes my theory. I asked how, and you have refused to explain how, and are still refusing to elaborate on your arogant `off the cuff' remark.

It's clear you just cannot mount any kind of science based critique of my theory, so you are just wasting everyone's time here by adding nothing constructive to these debates.

Go and attention seek somewhere else, and do us all a favour :wink:

S Foote.

 

[michael barry]

Since Ive found you guys a' arguin'. Answer me this someone....

Are tranplants inplanted deeper, shallower, or at the same level as the hair around and in between them?

 

[S Foote.]

Since Ive found you guys a' arguin'. Answer me this someone....

Are tranplants inplanted deeper, shallower, or at the same level as the hair around and in between them?

At the same level Michael.

S Foote.

 

[Dave001]

The fact that the other studies about topical spironolactone in male pattern baldness, showed a significant difference in performance based on the vehicle used, suggests that the penetration into tissues lower than the follicle itself is important.

It is against my better judgment to respond, but this thread was bumped up and I couldn't help but notice your statement above, "that the the other studies about topical spironolactone in male pattern baldness, showed a significant difference in performance based on the vehicle used."

It's pretty obvious from that statement that you don't know the first thing about topical spironolactone, because there was only _one_ study of topical spironolactone in male pattern baldness, at least that anyone around here is aware of. There was brief commentary in the JEADV about a small trial of topical spironolactone in FPB that I posted about recently, which you're welcome to include in your "other studies about topical spironolactone in male pattern baldness", but it won't make your statement any less incorrect. Here's the citation:

Dill-Muller, D. and H. Zaun (1997). "Topical treatment of androgenetic alopecia with spironolactone." Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology 9(Supplement 1): S31.

 

[S Foote.]

The fact that the other studies about topical spironolactone in male pattern baldness, showed a significant difference in performance based on the vehicle used, suggests that the penetration into tissues lower than the follicle itself is important.

It is against my better judgment to respond, but this thread was bumped up and I couldn't help but notice your statement above, "that the the other studies about topical spironolactone in male pattern baldness, showed a significant difference in performance based on the vehicle used."

It's pretty obvious from that statement that you don't know the first thing about topical spironolactone, because there was only _one_ study of topical spironolactone in male pattern baldness, at least that anyone around here is aware of. There was brief commentary in the JEADV about a small trial of topical spironolactone in FPB that I posted about recently, which you're welcome to include in your "other studies about topical spironolactone in male pattern baldness", but it won't make your statement any less incorrect. Here's the citation:

Dill-Muller, D. and H. Zaun (1997). "Topical treatment of androgenetic alopecia with spironolactone." Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology 9(Supplement 1): S31.

Now everyone here can be sure of your unscientific ramblings Dave. :roll:

The theory you are so sure about, makes no distinction between `ANY' kind of androgen related `CHANGE' in hair growth!!

Both male pattern baldness and female hirsutism, are according to the theory `YOU' support, mediated `DIRECTLY' through androgen receptors in the follicles, end of story!!

You can't have it both ways here! If the theory you support is correct, the vehicle of topical application should make little or no difference :wink:

The very fact that the vehicle `DOES' make these sigificant differences in the effect of topical spironolactone, in `ANY' androgen related change in hair growth, proves the current theory wrong 8)

This is the second post in this thread from your best buddy Bryan, quote:

------------------------------------------------------------

"Here's an interesting little study by Rittmaster in which he tested topical spironolactone for hirsutism, and found that a cream vehicle worked better than an alcoholic solution:

http://www.geocities.com/bryan50001/spironolactone.txt

Bryan."
-----------------------------------------------------------

So Dave, for your further education in scientific reasoning! :wink:

This means, as everyone except you seems to know already, that this reported `DIFFERENCE' in the effect depending on vehicle, means a penetration issue! This means that the androgen effect of changes in hair growth, lies `outside' of the follicles, simple :wink:


Have you got that now moron, or are you going to embarass yourself even more here?

S Foote.

 

[Dave001]

[quote="S Foote.":6750a]
The fact that the other studies about topical spironolactone in male pattern baldness, showed a significant difference in performance based on the vehicle used, suggests that the penetration into tissues lower than the follicle itself is important.

It is against my better judgment to respond, but this thread was bumped up and I couldn't help but notice your statement above, "that the the other studies about topical spironolactone in male pattern baldness, showed a significant difference in performance based on the vehicle used."

It's pretty obvious from that statement that you don't know the first thing about topical spironolactone, because there was only _one_ study of topical spironolactone in male pattern baldness, at least that anyone around here is aware of. There was brief commentary in the JEADV about a small trial of topical spironolactone in FPB that I posted about recently, which you're welcome to include in your "other studies about topical spironolactone in male pattern baldness", but it won't make your statement any less incorrect. Here's the citation:

Dill-Muller, D. and H. Zaun (1997). "Topical treatment of androgenetic alopecia with spironolactone." Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology 9(Supplement 1): S31.

Now everyone here can be sure of your unscientific ramblings Dave. :roll:

The theory you are so sure about, makes no distinction between `ANY' kind of androgen related `CHANGE' in hair growth!!

Both male pattern baldness and female hirsutism, are according to the theory `YOU' support, mediated `DIRECTLY' through androgen receptors in the follicles, end of story!!

You can't have it both ways here! If the theory you support is correct, the vehicle of topical application should make little or no difference :wink:

The very fact that the vehicle `DOES' make these sigificant differences in the effect of topical spironolactone, in `ANY' androgen related change in hair growth, proves the current theory wrong 8)

[snip comical attempt to save face][/quote:6750a]

Can you read? Apparently not, because you had said that "the other studies about topical spironolactone in male pattern baldness, showed a significant difference in performance based on the vehicle used," to which I responded by pointing out that there has been only _one_ study of topical spironolactone in male pattern baldness. Nowhere in your diatribe did you address that point.

BTW, I'm not sure what "theory" it is that you accuse Bryan and me of subscribing to. I wasn't aware that there was a male pattern baldness "theory." Some things are known; others aren't. There's not a lot of room for "theories".

 

[S Foote.]

[quote="S Foote.":191f3]
The fact that the other studies about topical spironolactone in male pattern baldness, showed a significant difference in performance based on the vehicle used, suggests that the penetration into tissues lower than the follicle itself is important.

It is against my better judgment to respond, but this thread was bumped up and I couldn't help but notice your statement above, "that the the other studies about topical spironolactone in male pattern baldness, showed a significant difference in performance based on the vehicle used."

It's pretty obvious from that statement that you don't know the first thing about topical spironolactone, because there was only _one_ study of topical spironolactone in male pattern baldness, at least that anyone around here is aware of. There was brief commentary in the JEADV about a small trial of topical spironolactone in FPB that I posted about recently, which you're welcome to include in your "other studies about topical spironolactone in male pattern baldness", but it won't make your statement any less incorrect. Here's the citation:

Dill-Muller, D. and H. Zaun (1997). "Topical treatment of androgenetic alopecia with spironolactone." Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology 9(Supplement 1): S31.

Now everyone here can be sure of your unscientific ramblings Dave. :roll:

The theory you are so sure about, makes no distinction between `ANY' kind of androgen related `CHANGE' in hair growth!!

Both male pattern baldness and female hirsutism, are according to the theory `YOU' support, mediated `DIRECTLY' through androgen receptors in the follicles, end of story!!

You can't have it both ways here! If the theory you support is correct, the vehicle of topical application should make little or no difference :wink:

The very fact that the vehicle `DOES' make these sigificant differences in the effect of topical spironolactone, in `ANY' androgen related change in hair growth, proves the current theory wrong 8)

[snip comical attempt to save face]

Can you read? Apparently not, because you had said that "the other studies about topical spironolactone in male pattern baldness, showed a significant difference in performance based on the vehicle used," to which I responded by pointing out that there has been only _one_ study of topical spironolactone in male pattern baldness. Nowhere in your diatribe did you address that point.

BTW, I'm not sure what "theory" it is that you accuse Bryan and me of subscribing to. I wasn't aware that there was a male pattern baldness "theory." Some things are known; others aren't. There's not a lot of room for "theories".[/quote:191f3]

Absolute bulls**t!!!

Any scientific studies have to be considered in terms of a `theory', or at least a hypothesis, or whats the point?

I just refered to male pattern baldness instead of androgen related hair growth in general, and the best your pathetic little mind can come up with is just male pattern baldness related studies of spironolactone!

The point you can't reconcile with the theory you support remains. If you had any interest in the `science' of the issue, you would recognise the flaws in the current theory, simple.

But people like you are just too pre-occupied with your sad attention seeking on these forums, that you give yourselves away with your avoidence of the scientific issues :wink:

The current theory or `notion' you support, cannot under any true scientific inspection, explain the whole body of evidence available, simple.

You can try to avoid the point, or cherry pick all you like, but the actual science speaks for itself 8)

S Foote.

 

[Dave001]

Absolute bulls**t!!!

Any scientific studies have to be considered in terms of a `theory', or at least a hypothesis, or whats the point?

I just refered to male pattern baldness instead of androgen related hair growth in general, and the best your pathetic little mind can come up with is just male pattern baldness related studies of spironolactone!

The point you can't reconcile with the theory you support remains. If you had any interest in the `science' of the issue, you would recognise the flaws in the current theory, simple.

But people like you are just too pre-occupied with your sad attention seeking on these forums, that you give yourselves away with your avoidence of the scientific issues :wink:

The current theory or `notion' you support, cannot under any true scientific inspection, explain the whole body of evidence available, simple.

You can try to avoid the point, or cherry pick all you like, but the actual science speaks for itself 8)

:stupid:
I'm almost fell out of my chair laughing when I read your latest response. You are at least entertaining; there's no arguing that!

 

[S Foote.]

Absolute bulls**t!!!

Any scientific studies have to be considered in terms of a `theory', or at least a hypothesis, or whats the point?

I just refered to male pattern baldness instead of androgen related hair growth in general, and the best your pathetic little mind can come up with is just male pattern baldness related studies of spironolactone!

The point you can't reconcile with the theory you support remains. If you had any interest in the `science' of the issue, you would recognise the flaws in the current theory, simple.

But people like you are just too pre-occupied with your sad attention seeking on these forums, that you give yourselves away with your avoidence of the scientific issues :wink:

The current theory or `notion' you support, cannot under any true scientific inspection, explain the whole body of evidence available, simple.

You can try to avoid the point, or cherry pick all you like, but the actual science speaks for itself 8)

:stupid:
I'm almost fell out of my chair laughing when I read your latest response. You are at least entertaining; there's no arguing that!

So Dave as usual with you, you have no `actual' scientific argument :roll:

These unsubstantiated and childish sarcastic remarks, are the only response you ever have. Then you wonder why you are not taken seriously :wink:

S Foote.

 

[michael barry]

Stephen, Bryan, Dave.....Oxygen's effect on hair and a new study...

I read about a new study via the Associated press and thought you guys would be interested as Ive heard you argue about oxygen and its effect on hair growth.

Im giving a general summary. Sodium Nitrite, a hot dog preservative that is present in the body and its effect on oxygen levels in the blood have been discovered. Tests suggests that when there are low levels of oxygen in the body as seen in sickle-cell anemia, heart attacks, brain aneurysms, and pulmonary hypertension that by injecting sodium nitrite into test subjects can almost triple blood flow to an area. When people excercise, nitirte levels plummet in the muscles being worked because the body is using it. This astonished researchers at NIH because for about 100 years, scientists thought nitrite had little signifigance.

When oxygen levels drop, the body's natural stores of nitirite convert to nitric oxide, in turn dilating vessels so that more blood---and more oxygen---gets through. Thats step 1. Then there is tissue preservation. Even after docs clear a blocked artery to end a heart attack, heart muscle continues to die for a little while. Nitrite appaers to end this chain reaction, caused by when harmful proteins spewed from dying cells take out their neighbors, says David Lefer of Lousiana State University Health Sciences Center. The heart's nitrite levels and stores deplete very quickly.
So Dr. Lefer bred mice with low nitrite levels and clipped the rodent's main heart artery for 30 minutes, and infused nitrite BEFORE sewing them back up. Results were that the salt cute 67% of the amount of heart muscle that died as opposed to the saline solution given the controls.

Ive seen you guys argue about why oxygen starved follicles (hypoxia) seem to prosper. Perhaps the body just produces more sodium nitirite, converts it to nitric oxide which like minoxidil dialatets the blood vessels bringing the hemoglobin oxygen containing blood cells to the follicle base.


By the way Stephen, the reason I asked about the tranplant plugs depth was that a hygenist at Hair Club for Men (I used to do that EXT thing) told me that the reason that I had so much inflammation AROUND THE PLUGS, but not the rest of the miniaturizing hair around them, was the the plugs were planted BENEATH the level of the miniaturizing hair. The worst inflammation was around the plug hair, bright pink, unnaffecting them. I had supposed that this was because the keratin h shafts above the papilla was not hurt by the inflammatory-immune response. Im flummoxed now though. Come to think of it, the techs that performed the placement of my old grafts were so inept, there is no telling where my plug depth actually lies....too low or high.

 

[S Foote.]

Stephen, Bryan, Dave.....Oxygen's effect on hair and a new study...

I read about a new study via the Associated press and thought you guys would be interested as Ive heard you argue about oxygen and its effect on hair growth.

Im giving a general summary. Sodium Nitrite, a hot dog preservative that is present in the body and its effect on oxygen levels in the blood have been discovered. Tests suggests that when there are low levels of oxygen in the body as seen in sickle-cell anemia, heart attacks, brain aneurysms, and pulmonary hypertension that by injecting sodium nitrite into test subjects can almost triple blood flow to an area. When people excercise, nitirte levels plummet in the muscles being worked because the body is using it. This astonished researchers at NIH because for about 100 years, scientists thought nitrite had little signifigance.

When oxygen levels drop, the body's natural stores of nitirite convert to nitric oxide, in turn dilating vessels so that more blood---and more oxygen---gets through. Thats step 1. Then there is tissue preservation. Even after docs clear a blocked artery to end a heart attack, heart muscle continues to die for a little while. Nitrite appaers to end this chain reaction, caused by when harmful proteins spewed from dying cells take out their neighbors, says David Lefer of Lousiana State University Health Sciences Center. The heart's nitrite levels and stores deplete very quickly.
So Dr. Lefer bred mice with low nitrite levels and clipped the rodent's main heart artery for 30 minutes, and infused nitrite BEFORE sewing them back up. Results were that the salt cute 67% of the amount of heart muscle that died as opposed to the saline solution given the controls.

Ive seen you guys argue about why oxygen starved follicles (hypoxia) seem to prosper. Perhaps the body just produces more sodium nitirite, converts it to nitric oxide which like minoxidil dialatets the blood vessels bringing the hemoglobin oxygen containing blood cells to the follicle base.


By the way Stephen, the reason I asked about the tranplant plugs depth was that a hygenist at Hair Club for Men (I used to do that EXT thing) told me that the reason that I had so much inflammation AROUND THE PLUGS, but not the rest of the miniaturizing hair around them, was the the plugs were planted BENEATH the level of the miniaturizing hair. The worst inflammation was around the plug hair, bright pink, unnaffecting them. I had supposed that this was because the keratin h shafts above the papilla was not hurt by the inflammatory-immune response. Im flummoxed now though. Come to think of it, the techs that performed the placement of my old grafts were so inept, there is no telling where my plug depth actually lies....too low or high.

Thanks for posting this Michael, i will post on this tommorow when i have more time.

S Foote.