Bryan: about Hirsutism

[Dice_Has_Hair]

Hey...............I just thought of something. Why can't you crush spironolactone tabs to a very fine powder and throw it in a 2oz bottle of pure emu oil? The emu oil could be used as the vehicle since it has very good penetration properties.

Now if one were going to conduct a study on hirtuism using spironolactone with the emu oil being the vehicle..................it may make the hirtuism worse or perhaps not do anything at all since emu oil is supposed to have good "hair growth" properties, which in hirtuism you don't want that, you want the growth to be stunted and the hair to become smaller. But in male pattern baldness, it may do a very fine job. Just a thought. Not a bad idea huh.

 

[Dice_Has_Hair]

Just don't use DMSO..................may not be a good idea. TOO MUCH penetration properties there.

 

[Dave001]

Hey Dave.

Are you ready to tells us all how Ockhams razor refutes my theory?????

Or do you still need more time?

Wait all you want. I don't recall promising an explanation.

Besides, it's not so much that it *refutes* your "theory," but prevents its creation in the first place. Sadly, the only person to whom it needs explaining is incapable of understanding because he genuinely does believe his theory is the most logical explanation.

 

[Dave001]

Enough of the poor penetration excuse here. Both vehicles have enough research behind them for us to know the medication would at least be getting into the follicle cells, where you claim it matters!!

Yeah, everyone knows that you can put any molecule into ethanol or a generic oil-in-water emulsion (e.g., vanishing cream) regardless of its mass, melting point, partition coefficient, etc., and then watch it head straight for the dermal papilla like a heat-seeking missile. You can't undershoot or overshoot, and the drug will remain fully concentrated at its target destination, which it has saturated.

Drug companies waste millions of dollars because they're ignorant of this simple fact, despite it being obvious to lay persons such as yourself. Come to think of it, why the hell did they even conduct the study??

 

[S Foote.]

http://www.hairsite2.com/library/abst-167.htm[/url]

As i reported in that thread, i had been using topical Crinagen in this experiment as a 5ARI (to reduce DHT production in the follicles and sebaceous glands).

The twice daily use of Crinagen over around three months, reduced my beard growth to around half of what it was. I switched to 5% spironolactone just to see what would happen, and my beard growth returned to normal!

According to the current theory, topical anti-androgens like spironolactone should stop male pattern baldness in it's tracks. They would simply block the androgen process within the follicle that is `claimed' to cause male pattern baldness.

The profits, particularly in the prevention of male pattern baldness would be huge. The add's would go something like this:

"Does male balding run in your family?. Avoid balding by using our simple topical products, that have no systematic side effects".

What people here ought to realise, is that given the huge amounts of money involved, the drug companies have `ALREADY' researched this possibility. These would be unpublished `in house' studies to evaluate the efficacy of such products.

So where are these licensed commercial topical anti-androgens, for the prevention and treatment of male pattern baldness?

The other important thing to remember, is that to be `approved' by the FDA and other drug control agencies, a treatment has to show `efficacy'. That is a decent treatment effect!

So the only possible reason that there are no `approved' topical anti-androgens for male pattern baldness, is that these don't `work' in the accepted context of a `treatment', simple. :wink:

In my opinion the androgen effect in male pattern baldness happens `outside' of the follicle in deeper tissues (the local lymphatics). The reason topical 5ARI's have `some' effect, is because they are reducing the androgen amount that reaches the lower tissues.

The very poor result of topical anti-androgens like spironolactone, is simply because they are not getting to where it `matters'. This is why the vehicle makes a difference as reported here. It's just a case of if the vehicle allows a deeper penetration, the results are better.

There is certainly no reason in accepted science to think that these topicals are not getting into the follicle cells. It's just that this is `NOT' where it matters!

S Foote.

 

[S Foote.]

Hey Dave.

Are you ready to tells us all how Ockhams razor refutes my theory?????

Or do you still need more time?

Wait all you want. I don't recall promising an explanation.

Besides, it's not so much that it *refutes* your "theory," but prevents its creation in the first place. Sadly, the only person to whom it needs explaining is incapable of understanding because he genuinely does believe his theory is the most logical explanation.

Yea right :roll:

I know the secrets of creation Dave, but i won't explain them here, because you just wouldn't understand 8)

You just haven't got a clue about what Ockhams razor means have you Dave, in spite of the fact that i have referenced this for you, and here it is again.

http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/N ... 0000000000

I am calling you out here! You claim Ockhams razor refutes my theory. For the fourth time now, tell us `HOW' Ockhams razor does this Dave?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Just put up or shut up :roll: :roll:

You are just the worst kind of pretend scientist there is in these forums :wink:

S Foote.

 

[The Gardener]

The profits, particularly in the prevention of male pattern baldness would be huge. The add's would go something like this:

"Does male balding run in your family?. Avoid balding by using our simple topical products, that have no systematic side effects".

What people here ought to realise, is that given the huge amounts of money involved, the drug companies have `ALREADY' researched this possibility. These would be unpublished `in house' studies to evaluate the efficacy of such products.

Well, one factor to consider in this is that spironolactone is a pre-existing medication, and thus un-patentable, which reduces the profit motive of pharmas to invest in it.

 

[S Foote.]

Enough of the poor penetration excuse here. Both vehicles have enough research behind them for us to know the medication would at least be getting into the follicle cells, where you claim it matters!!

Yeah, everyone knows that you can put any molecule into ethanol or a generic oil-in-water emulsion (e.g., vanishing cream) regardless of its mass, melting point, partition coefficient, etc., and then watch it head straight for the dermal papilla like a heat-seeking missile. You can't undershoot or overshoot, and the drug will remain fully concentrated at its target destination, which it has saturated.

Drug companies waste millions of dollars because they're ignorant of this simple fact, despite it being obvious to lay persons such as yourself. Come to think of it, why the hell did they even conduct the study??

You are quite clearly showing your total lack of scientific judgement here, yet again :roll:

The basic physics of topical anti-androgens is very simple, and i will explain it to you :wink:

In order to be a competitive agonist of the androgen receptor, any anti-androgen will be of the same physical size as the hormone it is competing with.

Steroid sex hormones do not demonstrate significant differences in size, and these are known to be easily passed through the skin and into the local tissue fluid, as in regular transdermal sex hormone patches.

So there is no possible excuse you can come up with that would prevent the penetration of topical anti-androgens into the tissue fluid around DP cells, which is where you and Bryan claim is important.

The anti-androgens clearly get to where you say they are needed in male pattern baldness, but they just don't `WORK' as they should according to the theory you support, simple :wink:

Make all the excuses you and Bryan like, quite simply the fact that topical anti-androgens have not been approved for male pattern baldness tells the real story 8)

You seriously need to get a life Dave!

S Foote.

 

[S Foote.]

[quote="S Foote.":3c92c]The profits, particularly in the prevention of male pattern baldness would be huge. The add's would go something like this:

"Does male balding run in your family?. Avoid balding by using our simple topical products, that have no systematic side effects".

What people here ought to realise, is that given the huge amounts of money involved, the drug companies have `ALREADY' researched this possibility. These would be unpublished `in house' studies to evaluate the efficacy of such products.

Well, one factor to consider in this is that spironolactone is a pre-existing medication, and thus un-patentable, which reduces the profit motive of pharmas to invest in it.[/quote:3c92c]

Agreed.

But then the drug company that held the rights to RU, a topical that showed major promise in macaque balding, decided to sell these rights on!Why?

Despite all the buzz about RU on these forums, the commercial companies have just let this go. The only possible reason for this, is because it just doesn't live up to the `theory'.

S Foote.

 

[1derphull]

Wrong, Foote...check Proskelia.

 

[Bryan]

Wrong, Foote...check Proskelia.

Excellent point. And Proskelia is saying that in their in-house testing, topical RU was at least as effective as Propecia! :wink:

Bryan

 

[Bryan]

Well, one factor to consider in this is that spironolactone is a pre-existing medication, and thus un-patentable, which reduces the profit motive of pharmas to invest in it.

Exactly. And they'd STILL have to pay hundreds of millions of $$$ to get FDA approval for that extra indication for a drug whose patent expired long long ago. Ain't gonna happen.

Bryan

 

[Bryan]

The basic physics of topical anti-androgens is very simple, and i will explain it to you :wink:

In order to be a competitive agonist of the androgen receptor, any anti-androgen will be of the same physical size as the hormone it is competing with.

Steroid sex hormones do not demonstrate significant differences in size, and these are known to be easily passed through the skin and into the local tissue fluid, as in regular transdermal sex hormone patches.

So there is no possible excuse you can come up with that would prevent the penetration of topical anti-androgens into the tissue fluid around DP cells, which is where you and Bryan claim is important.

You don't have a clue what you're talking about, and it's obvious to anyone who has done even a casual amount of reading and studying in this area. In addition to STEROIDAL antiandrogens, there are also NON-STEROIDAL antiandrogens, and their penetration into and through the skin can depend on a vast array of complicated factors, not just their physical size. If you bother to research the medical literature, you'll find plenty of studies which attempted to measure and analyze the percutaneous absorption of such substances, and the results have been all over the map. This is a QUITE complicated area of medicine and biochemistry, not something just to be casually brushed-aside by someone like YOU who has an agenda in promoting some stupid, eccentric theory of hairloss.

Bryan

 

[Dave001]

<snip garbage...>

I am calling you out here! You claim Ockhams razor refutes my theory. For the fourth time now, tell us `HOW' Ockhams razor does this Dave?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Just put up or shut up :roll: :roll:

:?:

"Put up or shut up"? You're the one who raised the issue. It would be fantastic if something you said were to make sense. I guess your remaining neuron is now running off of battery backup.

Write me a twenty-page essay explaining the relationship of the expression "put up or shut up" to this thread. "Come on, now! We're waiting!"
:moon:

 

[Dave001]

I have actually tried the 5% spironolactone cream on my beard area some time ago, as part of a personal experiment.

http://www.hairsite2.com/library/abst-167.htm

As i reported in that thread, i had been using topical Crinagen in this experiment as a 5ARI (to reduce DHT production in the follicles and sebaceous glands).

The twice daily use of Crinagen over around three months, reduced my beard growth to around half of what it was. I switched to 5% spironolactone just to see what would happen, and my beard growth returned to normal!

According to the current theory, topical anti-androgens like spironolactone should stop male pattern baldness in it's tracks. They would simply block the androgen process within the follicle that is `claimed' to cause male pattern baldness.

Your logic has more holes in it than a block of Swiss cheese under heavy fire from an M16. 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.

The profits, particularly in the prevention of male pattern baldness would be huge. The add's would go something like this:

"Does male balding run in your family?. Avoid balding by using our simple topical products, that have no systematic side effects".

What people here ought to realise, is that given the huge amounts of money involved, the drug companies have `ALREADY' researched this possibility. These would be unpublished `in house' studies to evaluate the efficacy of such products.

So where are these licensed commercial topical anti-androgens, for the prevention and treatment of male pattern baldness?

That issue has been discussed ad nauseam. Please search for your answer.

 

[S Foote.]

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 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!!!

The only time anyone claims some success with these, they are using other things like Propecia as well. 8)

Every now and then, there is some `buzz' about a new topical anti-androgen. This happened a couple of years ago with RU, and now it seems we have another one.

So far, and in my opinion inevitably, all these fail to make any impression in male pattern baldness. If you want to give me a link to this Proskelia `hype' Bryan, i will check if anything has changed. But i seriously doubt it :wink:

S Foote.

 

[S Foote.]

<snip garbage...>

I am calling you out here! You claim Ockhams razor refutes my theory. For the fourth time now, tell us `HOW' Ockhams razor does this Dave?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Just put up or shut up :roll: :roll:

:?:

"Put up or shut up"? You're the one who raised the issue. It would be fantastic if something you said were to make sense. I guess your remaining neuron is now running off of battery backup.

Write me a twenty-page essay explaining the relationship of the expression "put up or shut up" to this thread. "Come on, now! We're waiting!"
:moon:

Oh no you don't moron 8)

`YOU are the one who raised the `issue'!

You jumped into a previous thread to call my theory `rubbish', and claim Ockhams razor refuted it.

This is on the record in the posts here, so your lies here now are clear for all to see 8)

http://www.hairlosstalk.com/discussions ... c&start=70

You say quote:

"The problem is that you don't have a theory. It is readily dispensed of by Occam's razor."

So go on then Dave, show us all what a good scientist you are, and tell us how Ockhams razor `readily dispenses with my theory'?

Put up or shut up moron :roll:

S Foote.

 

[Dave001]

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.

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.

 

[S Foote.]

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.":286d8]
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.[/quote:286d8]

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!

S Foote.

 

[Dave001]

[quote="S Foote.":1d236]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.":1d236]
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.[/quote:1d236]

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:1d236]

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?