BRyaN: more q's about ARs

[S Foote.]

S. Foote....sorry to interrupt u guys (u can add a reply to me in your next one with bryan) ...but u said that topical anti androgens won't work unless if they are applied to the greater area of your dermal... so if they are applied properly would this answer your problem with anti androgens?

Hi Jimmy, sorry for not responding earlier.

As i said, in my `opinion', the topical anti-androgens only work because of a more `systematic' absorbtion, and not by directly effecting the balding follicles.

Even Bryan's `pal' Dr Proctor seems to be of this opinion. This is from one of Dr Proctors question and answer sessions at HLH Quote:

"Dr Peter H. Proctor, PhD MD answered: "Fluridl is a very potn antiandrogen that has the same side-effects as propecia, only at a significantly higher incidence. To my knowledge, it has not been looked at to treat pattern loss (too many side-effects). However studies on women indicate that the antiandrogenic effects of topical treatment are most likely purely due to systemic absorbtion. So what's the point ? Dr Proctor"

According to my theory also, topical anti-androgens would need to have a more systematic `penetration' to have any `real' effect. So i don't rate these `expensive' topical anti-androgens for that reason alone!

If you just want to consider topicals, it `should' be better (according to my theory), to use a cheap topical 5ARI like Zix.

Only use this over `all' the scalp and beard area! (All the areas in the cranial tissue that produce DHT).

I think the only topicals that are of any real use on the balding area itself, are those recomended for treating the inflammatory conditions in the balding scalp.

Search these sites for peoples experiences with the topical anti-inflammatories.

Good luck.

S Foote.

 

[Bryan]

As i said, in my `opinion', the topical anti-androgens only work because of a more `systematic' absorbtion, and not by directly effecting the balding follicles.

OH REALLY?? It's been shown in study after study that topical RU58841 is devoid of systemic effects. Please explain the results in stumptailed macaque studies in which topical RU was described as being the most effective agent for hairloss yet tested in those animals. After that, you can explain the results of the human topical 11a-hydroxyprogesterone trial. Then after that, you can explain the topical fluridil results. We're waiting, Stephen.

Are you going to keep stonewalling this?

Even Bryan's `pal' Dr Proctor seems to be of this opinion. This is from one of Dr Proctors question and answer sessions at HLH Quote:

"Dr Peter H. Proctor, PhD MD answered: "Fluridl is a very potn antiandrogen that has the same side-effects as propecia, only at a significantly higher incidence. To my knowledge, it has not been looked at to treat pattern loss (too many side-effects). However studies on women indicate that the antiandrogenic effects of topical treatment are most likely purely due to systemic absorbtion. So what's the point ? Dr Proctor"

According to my theory also, topical anti-androgens would need to have a more systematic `penetration' to have any `real' effect. So i don't rate these `expensive' topical anti-androgens for that reason alone!

You are MISREPRESENTING what Dr. Proctor said in that statement above! You're trying to make it sound like he's saying that antiandrogens NEED to be absorbed systemically for them to work, but that is NOT what he's saying! He was referring to the fact that studies have shown that topical flutamide (which is what he was referring to, not fluridil) is indeed absorbed systemically, so he's saying that there's really no point to applying it topically.

This is a new low-point for you, Stephen! I'll thank you not to twist things around that other people say, just in a futile attempt to bolster your theory! :evil:

Bryan

 

[viperfish]

Bryan is right! Dr. P is talking about flutamide and not fluridil. Dr. P must have been confused there. Fluridil is not absorbed systematically and has still been shown to work.


S. Foote:


M. Sovak, M.D., A.L. Seligson, Ph.D., R. Kucerova, M.D., M. Bienova, M.D. et al.: Fluridil, a Rationally Designed Topical Agent for Androgenetic Alopecia: First Clinical Experience. Dermatologic Surgery, Vol. 28, Issue 8, August 2002.

A.L. Seligson, et al. Development of Fluridil, A topical suppressor of the androgen receptor in androgenetic alopecia. Drug Development Research 59 : 292-306 (2003).

 

[S Foote.]

As i said, in my `opinion', the topical anti-androgens only work because of a more `systematic' absorbtion, and not by directly effecting the balding follicles.

OH REALLY?? It's been shown in study after study that topical RU58841 is devoid of systemic effects. Please explain the results in stumptailed macaque studies in which topical RU was described as being the most effective agent for hairloss yet tested in those animals. After that, you can explain the results of the human topical 11a-hydroxyprogesterone trial. Then after that, you can explain the topical fluridil results. We're waiting, Stephen.

Are you going to keep stonewalling this?

http://www.pharmahg.co.uk/m343hm12/_dis ... 000150.htm[/url]

You make yourself more and more ridiculous in these debates Bryan!

As for your recent rantings about that topical 11a-hydroxyprogesterone `claim'. Let's see, this improved hair growth by 6%!!!! Well whoopy doo!!

According to the theory `YOU' support Bryan, any decent topical anti-androgen should `CURE' male pattern baldness! At the very least, they should prevent male pattern baldness in those with a family history?

Such a preventative treatment would be worth a fortune to the drug companies, and you would be `VERY' naive to think that this has not been `VERY THOROUGHLY' researched by them!

So where are these preventitive topicals Bryan????

Why did the company that first developed RU58841, drop this as a treatment for hair loss?????

Why won't you explain to us your complete `U' turn in your opinions from your debate with Maneless, and this debate????????????

By the way Bryan, Dr Proctor was quite clear that systematic absorbtion of flutamide was `NECESSARY' for the treatment effect, however much you like to wish it wasn't!

Quote (AGAIN!!):

" studies on women indicate that the antiandrogenic effects of topical treatment are most likely purely due to systemic absorbtion."

Note the words "PURELY DUE TO SYSTEMATIC ABSORBTION"

You can read can't you Bryan?

Squirm as you like Bryan, this is very clear!!

Above all else Bryan, if you expect the people reading these posts to take you seriously, just tell us why you state one opinion in the `Maneless thread', and the opposite opinion here??????????

Quote (AGAIN):

"Maneless, you've GOT to be putting me on!! You seriously think that drug companies believe that whatever happens with a macaque, will automatically be true for humans?? Find me a medical citation for this remarkable claim! "

Just answer the question Bryan, like i answer yours, (time and bloody time again!).


S Foote.

 

[Bryan]

Complete bulls**t Bryan!!

You answered all these points yourself in that thread started by Maneless i quoted above! People will note how you have avoided commenting on your obvious hypocrisy here!!

I ignored that rubbish before because it was so ridiculous I didn't even want to dignify it with an answer.

In that thread you made it `VERY' clear that you agreed with me when it came to the interpretation of macaque studies compared to humans!

You said that the results in macaques didn't mean `ANYTHING' relating to human male pattern baldness!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Which is just what i have said in this thread!

No, Stephen. If only you had the wit to understand the SUBTLETIES of what I say to both you and maneless (BTW, he chooses not to capitalize his handle, for some reason or other). What I said to maneless is that just because stumptailed macaques get DENSE REGROWTH from antiandrogenic treatment, that doesn't mean that humans will, too. I've been telling people for the last 10 years that you do NOT get full regrowth just by removing androgens. That's in no way inconsistent or incompatible with what I've been beating into YOUR head, which is that androgens DO directly affect hair follicles, and topical antiandrogens DO help maintain and provide benefit to human hair follicles, although not to the exceptional degree that they do in macaques.

Here's yet another example of your hypocrisy!

Maneless claimed in that thread that the RU58841 macaque hair loss study, was a good model of human hair loss, and you replied quote:

"No, this is the stuff that regrows a fair amount of hair in *stumptail macaques*, not humans.

Bryan"

Exactly. What I said to BOTH of you is correct. Let me explain it to you in a slightly different way: you and maneless both have weird, extremist views on hairloss that are at completely OPPOSITE ends of a spectrum. YOU think that androgens have no direct effect at all on hair follicles, while maneless was convinced that if you reduce androgens enough inside the hair follicle, every last missing strand of your hair will grow back completely.

BOTH of you are completely nuts! :lol: However, _I_ am the one who has the CORRECT position, and it's a reasonable middle ground: androgens definitely have a direct effect on hair, but even removing them completely from a scalp that's been balding for a while rarely ever completely regrows all the missing hair. It's mostly a one-way street. And it's sad and pathetic if the best you can do is point to something I said to maneless in the past about HIS extreme position, and try to twist that into sounding like I support YOUR extreme position. Stephen, there's an old saying that "the Devil is in the details". You need to start paying attention to the details, the nuances, and the subtleties.

As for your recent rantings about that topical 11a-hydroxyprogesterone `claim'. Let's see, this improved hair growth by 6%!!!! Well whoopy doo!!

As usual, you're once again evading the point, for the simple reason that you have no way to account for the results with your own eccentric theory.

The point is NOT the 6% per se. The point is that THE RESULTS WERE SIMILAR WITH BOTH TOPICAL 11-OHP AND PROPECIA, contradicting and refuting your claim that systemic antiandrogens easily beat out purely topical ones.

According to the theory `YOU' support Bryan, any decent topical anti-androgen should `CURE' male pattern baldness! At the very least, they should prevent male pattern baldness in those with a family history?

I don't think you should try to speak for the "standard theory", Stephen! You don't seem to know much about what hairloss researchers say on that matter. It's increasingly common knowledge nowadays that hairloss is that one-way street. But yes, I agree that an effective topical antiandrogen should at least prevent male pattern baldness in those with a family history of it.

I recommend the following short review article for you: "Male pattern hair loss: prevention rather than regrowth", Marcia Ramos-e-Silva, MD, PhD, International Journal of Dermatology 2000, 39, 728-731. Here's a brief excerpt: "The likelihood is that the modulation of androgen metabolism will prevent further hair loss in the majority of patients, and induce hair growth in a smaller proportion, depending on the extent of their condition and their genetic background."

Why did the company that first developed RU58841, drop this as a treatment for hair loss?????

I don't know. Why are you asking ME? Who don't you call them and ask them, yourself?

I suspect the reason might be the very poor sales of Propecia over the years. They probably thought a messy and expensive topical for hairloss was a losing proposition in the marketplace.

Why won't you explain to us your complete `U' turn in your opinions from your debate with Maneless, and this debate????????????

I already have. It's not a U-turn at all. It's a reasonable and accurate middle-ground between two extreme and untenable positions.

By the way Bryan, Dr Proctor was quite clear that systematic absorbtion of flutamide was `NECESSARY' for the treatment effect, however much you like to wish it wasn't!

Quote (AGAIN!!):

" studies on women indicate that the antiandrogenic effects of topical treatment are most likely purely due to systemic absorbtion."

Note the words "PURELY DUE TO SYSTEMATIC ABSORBTION"

ROTFLMAO!! He's saying that the results from THAT ONE SPECIFIC TREATMENT (topical flutamide) have been shown to occur because that drug is bad about being absorbed systemically when you apply it to skin/scalp. So he's saying there's no point in even applying it topically at all, if it's just going to be absorbed systemically anyway. This is a perfect textbook example of how you try to twist things around to make them fit your theory.

And have you completely forgotten that Dr. Proctor himself uses TOPICAL spironolactone in Proxiphen, which isn't absorbed systemically AT ALL?? Are you really going to try to convince us with a straight face that Dr. Proctor thinks only SYSTEMIC antiandrogens are effective?? Are you THAT intellectually bankrupt??

Bryan

 

[S Foote.]

Complete bulls**t Bryan!!

You answered all these points yourself in that thread started by Maneless i quoted above! People will note how you have avoided commenting on your obvious hypocrisy here!!

I ignored that rubbish before because it was so ridiculous I didn't even want to dignify it with an answer.

[quote="S Foote.":84dcf]In that thread you made it `VERY' clear that you agreed with me when it came to the interpretation of macaque studies compared to humans!

You said that the results in macaques didn't mean `ANYTHING' relating to human male pattern baldness!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Which is just what i have said in this thread!

No, Stephen. If only you had the wit to understand the SUBTLETIES of what I say to both you and maneless (BTW, he chooses not to capitalize his handle, for some reason or other). What I said to maneless is that just because stumptailed macaques get DENSE REGROWTH from antiandrogenic treatment, that doesn't mean that humans will, too. I've been telling people for the last 10 years that you do NOT get full regrowth just by removing androgens. That's in no way inconsistent or incompatible with what I've been beating into YOUR head, which is that androgens DO directly affect hair follicles, and topical antiandrogens DO help maintain and provide benefit to human hair follicles, although not to the exceptional degree that they do in macaques.

Here's yet another example of your hypocrisy!

Maneless claimed in that thread that the RU58841 macaque hair loss study, was a good model of human hair loss, and you replied quote:

"No, this is the stuff that regrows a fair amount of hair in *stumptail macaques*, not humans.

Bryan"

Exactly. What I said to BOTH of you is correct. Let me explain it to you in a slightly different way: you and maneless both have weird, extremist views on hairloss that are at completely OPPOSITE ends of a spectrum. YOU think that androgens have no direct effect at all on hair follicles, while maneless was convinced that if you reduce androgens enough inside the hair follicle, every last missing strand of your hair will grow back completely.

BOTH of you are completely nuts! :lol: However, _I_ am the one who has the CORRECT position, and it's a reasonable middle ground: androgens definitely have a direct effect on hair, but even removing them completely from a scalp that's been balding for a while rarely ever completely regrows all the missing hair. It's mostly a one-way street. And it's sad and pathetic if the best you can do is point to something I said to maneless in the past about HIS extreme position, and try to twist that into sounding like I support YOUR extreme position. Stephen, there's an old saying that "the Devil is in the details". You need to start paying attention to the details, the nuances, and the subtleties.[/quote:84dcf]

Sorry Bryan, but your word `games' can't cover up your blatent hypocrisy , and deliberate distortions. You are just insulting the intelligence of the forum members if you expect them to believe you haven't done a complete `U' turn here!!

There are no `nuances' or `subtleties' in the written record Bryan, so just own up to what everyone here can read for themselves!! To re-cap:

In this thread in response to the quoted macaque studies, i said:

"S Foote. wrote:
Just in case you haven't noticed Bryan, `WE' are `humans', well some of us anyway."

You said:
"ROTFLMAO!! Is that all you're going to say, Stephen? Just imply that stumptailed macaques are completely different in the way that they bald, compared to humans? Despite the fact that they respond the same way to drugs like minoxidil, diazoxide, and finasteride, and that that's why they are widely used as an animal model for human balding?"

In the `Maneless' thread, Maneless said:

"Also, the macaque is the univerally accepted animal model for human male baldness. The macaques are the animals that the drug companies test their drugs on to determine what will happen in male human bladness. But I guess Bryan knows more than the drug companies."

`YOU' replied:

"Maneless, you've GOT to be putting me on!! You seriously think that drug companies believe that whatever happens with a macaque, will automatically be true for humans?? Find me a medical citation for this remarkable claim! "

Which is the complete opposite of your response to me above!!

Just admit that you have been caught out Bryan, and that your `scientific principles' change depending on how much attention you think you can get in particular debates!

That's pretty sad by most peoples standards.

I have stated my opinion on why topical anti-androgens can have `some' local effect. This is because of a `wider' penetration into the tissue. According to my theory these need to get into the local lymphatic system, which is a perfectly reasonable proposition.

Dr Proctor was quite clear that in that quoted instance, that the `topical' anti-androgen achieved its effects by a `systematic' action.

You can think whatever you like Bryan, but your word `games' don't fool people on these forums like you think they do :wink:

S Foote.

 

[fritz96]

Stephen, you've already made an *** of yourself by misrepresenting Dr. Proctor's words. Why don't you quit now?

 

[jimmystanley]

sorry s.foote...but i'm on bryan's side (mostly cause i'm in favor of topical anti-androgens)

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Oh c'mon. S. Foote bitchslapped Bryan. Ouch!

 

[Bryan]

Dr Proctor was quite clear that in that quoted instance, that the `topical' anti-androgen achieved its effects by a `systematic' action.

Yes, Stephen, you are correct: Dr. Proctor was quite clear that topical flutamide achieves its effects by being absorbed systemically. I am quite clear about that, too. So is anybody who bothers to read the topical flutamide studies.

But that isn't the issue here. We aren't TALKING about flutamide in the context of fighting hairloss (or at least, most reasonable people wouldn't consider using it for that purpose). We're talking about other antiandrogens which are NOT absorbed systemically, like spironolactone, RU58841, fluridil, etc. I have no idea whether you truly don't understand the distinction, or whether you're just "playing dumb".

As for your continuing diatribe about what I said to maneless...I've already explained it to you in considerable detail. I'm not going to keep wasting my time on it.

Bryan