BRyaN: more q's about ARs

[S Foote.]

bryan...

follicles destined to become male pattern baldness follicles, do `NOT' `directly' RESPOND' to exposure of androgens by turning into male pattern baldness follicles!

S Foote.

so this means at the time we get androgen activity in our scalp it does not trigger certain follicles to become male pattern baldness follicles? if so is it because they are already male pattern baldness follicles?

I think what the studies show, is an in-direct effect of androgens in-vivo as the `converting' factor.

The in-vitro tests show that the exposure to androgens of `any' kind of follicle sample, does `NOT' change their pre-existing growth characteristics. We know that androgens `DO' change the growth characteristics of hair follicles, normal terminal scalp follicles to male pattern baldness follicles for example. But the in-vitro tests clearly show that the `CHANGE' is not caused by a `direct' effect of androgens.

So, knowing androgens are the cause of the `change' in male pattern baldness follicles, this just leaves some kind of `in-direct in-vivo' action of androgens!

In this thread, people are talking about the `up-regulation', or increased production of androgen receptors within follicle cells in response to finasteride/dutasteride.

Everyone seems to accept that this is a `design' reaction by these cells to maintain the androgen effect within the follicle cells in the face of falling DHT levels.

There is no reason to suspect that this is not a succesful, `well evolved' tactic. So it seems that this up-regulation of receptors in follicle cells `must' cancel out the major effect of finasteride/dutasteride in the follicle cells `THEMSELVES'!

So knowing that these drugs `work' at all, `MUST' support a more important `in-direct' action of DHT in-vivo, and that any `direct' androgen effect within follicles is not that rellevant in-vivo!

S Foote.

 

[S Foote.]

I take issue here with your comment quote:
{snip}
The in-vito studies clearly show that follicles destined to become male pattern baldness follicles, do `NOT' `directly' RESPOND' to exposure of androgens by turning into male pattern baldness follicles!

No, not while sitting overnight in a petri dish. But they _may_ do it gradually over a period of YEARS, just as certain cancer cells slowly change their response to androgens, once they've been deprived of them for several generations...

Oh no you don't Bryan :roll:

You insist on claiming the cancer cell example i quoted in a previous debate, supports `your' argument, and it just doesn't as i have pointed out to you many times!

In that example, the `cancer' is the converting factor. Prior to the cancer, those cells respond to androgens in `one' way. After the cancer, the cells respond to androgens in a different way!!

You are trying to claim that the androgens `THEMSELVES' are converting follicle cells from one response to another! That is waaaaaaay different 8)

You keep on trying to claim that they do in threads like this, but i have asked you time and time again to show us some evidence for this, and you can't!!

To keep on preaching this doctrine on these forums without any evidence, is just misleading people!

I have told you REPEATEDLY that I don't claim to have any proof of what causes that change, but you keep parroting that same silly statement. At the moment, I don't care all that much WHY they eventually become androgen-sensitive, I only care that they DO become androgen-sensitive, for whatever reason(s). You need to stop harping on what is essentially a moot point. It doesn't behoove you in any way. It only makes you appear shrill and strident.

Bryan

The last thing this is Bryan is a `moot' point!!

I keep on `parroting' this point because it is of paramount importance to the `whole' validity of the theory you support Bryan!

Anybody can come up with a theory that `only' works by `MAGIC' steps, but `REAL' science requires a lot more than that Bryan! 8)

The currect direct theory of androgens upon hair growth `REQUIRES' that follicle cells are `directly' converted from being non androgen responsive. `to' being androgen responsive, by a `direct' action of androgens `THEMSELVES'!!!!

If this was a `possible' mechanism in physiology, there would be `some' way to demonstrate it?

But such a mechanism is `NOT' possible in physiological reallity, and it will `never' be demonstrated in my opinion because it is just wishfull thinking on your part!

The more informed scientists are now questioning the current theory of androgen related hair growth, as demonstrated in Dr Sawaya's response to my theory i have posted previously. If you want to continue to go along with the current theory Bryan, thats fine, but don't talk like it is `not' questionable!!

If professional hair loss scientists thought the current theory was sound, why would they be questioning it now Bryan?

S Foote.

 

[Fallout Boy]

ha S foote and Bryan i dont know what you guys are arguing about ..

But, S Foote / Bryan Do you think Topical anti - androges lets say A Fluridil/spironolactone Combo on their own is enough to halt hairloss. Im saying if you are NOT using Finasteride.??

And if you dont think so then why not??

thanks for your repsonses

 

[chewbaca]

i cant fully understand aaaabout the vivo thing in the cells ect ect...and the androgen induced hair growth/loss.....can someone pls explain..

 

[S Foote.]

ha S foote and Bryan i dont know what you guys are arguing about ..

But, S Foote / Bryan Do you think Topical anti - androges lets say A Fluridil/spironolactone Combo on their own is enough to halt hairloss. Im saying if you are NOT using Finasteride.??

And if you dont think so then why not??

thanks for your repsonses

I personaly don't think that topical anti-androgens can have much of an effect, unless they are absorbed at least over the larger area of the dermal tissue of the head. I just don't think it is a local `problem', in the balding area itself, as i have argued before.

I think that is why the systematic drugs show better results that topical 5ARI's or anti-androgens!

The problem is then of course the systematic side effects we don't want!

I do strongly recommend topicals that fight the inflammatory effects in the male pattern baldness scalp however. Peoples experiences of these are posted on these forums.

Good luck.

S Foote.

 

[S Foote.]

i cant fully understand aaaabout the vivo thing in the cells ect ect...and the androgen induced hair growth/loss.....can someone pls explain..

It's really all about the validity of any `particular' experiment.

If you get a certain thing happening in a `test tube', this `may' be valid, but the test tube is not the same as in the `whole' body system! In the body system (in-vivo), other actions from other tissues `could' make a difference!

So the test tube results (in-vitro), have to be very carefully considered in terms of `ALL' the other observations.

I am arguing that the `test tube' experiments, can't explain the actual `body' experience, without `making up' impossible explainations!

S Foote.

 

[jimmystanley]

[quote="fallout boy":0f973]

I personaly don't think that topical anti-androgens can have much of an effect, unless they are absorbed at least over the larger area of the dermal tissue of the head


S Foote.

[/quote:0f973]

hmmm...topical anti androgens don't work unless if they are applied to the larger area of the dermal tissue of the head.....

larger area of the dermal tissue of the head = (in normal guy talk) your friggin noggin....

so...you're logic is...topical anti androgens won't work unless if they are applied on your friggin noggin. hmm....i didn't think they would do much good just sitting in the bottle either...good thing i'm applying it to the larger area of the dermal tissue of my head.


ps...sorry for the sarcasim...i'm just angry cause i'm starting to use topical anti androgens and hate the idea of educated opinions saying that it won't work.

 

[Bryan]

I personaly don't think that topical anti-androgens can have much of an effect, unless they are absorbed at least over the larger area of the dermal tissue of the head. I just don't think it is a local `problem', in the balding area itself, as i have argued before.

OH REALLY?? Then how do you explain the successful use of topical RU58841 in the stumptailed macaque model? I've been asking you that for a long time, Stephen, and you've been dodging the question from the very beginning. And well you should, because it provides clear and unequivocal proof of a direct action of antiandrogens on hair follicles in the treatment of androgenetic alopecia, something that your eccentric theory can't explain! :wink:

I think that is why the systematic drugs show better results that topical 5ARI's or anti-androgens!

Another of your Artful Dodges. Topical RU58841 was more effective in macaques than even HUGE doses of oral finasteride (1 mg/kg/day). As long as you keep trying to dodge these issues, _I_ will be here to remind you of them! :wink:

Bryan

 

[Fallout Boy]

why is RU58841 so hard to get?? and is it expensive or what?? you would think if it works so good i would be able to buy it!! haha but nooo i cant get a break..

propecia isnt working for me so topical anti androgens is my only hope i guess

 

[Bryan]

It's expensive because you have to pay a lab to synthesize it from scratch. From Faith Eagle in China, it costs $30/gram + shipping. Recent testing in humans by a licensed company has shown RU58841 to be about as effective as Propecia, according to a poster over on hairsite who talked to a manager in the company a while back.

Bryan

 

[jimmystanley]

it's just too bad that we couldn't say "worked way better on those humans tested" instead of some retarded squirels.

 

[S Foote.]

I personaly don't think that topical anti-androgens can have much of an effect, unless they are absorbed at least over the larger area of the dermal tissue of the head. I just don't think it is a local `problem', in the balding area itself, as i have argued before.

OH REALLY?? Then how do you explain the successful use of topical RU58841 in the stumptailed macaque model? I've been asking you that for a long time, Stephen, and you've been dodging the question from the very beginning. And well you should, because it provides clear and unequivocal proof of a direct action of antiandrogens on hair follicles in the treatment of androgenetic alopecia, something that your eccentric theory can't explain! :wink:

[quote="S Foote.":d0364]I think that is why the systematic drugs show better results that topical 5ARI's or anti-androgens!

Another of your Artful Dodges. Topical RU58841 was more effective in macaques than even HUGE doses of oral finasteride (1 mg/kg/day). As long as you keep trying to dodge these issues, _I_ will be here to remind you of them! :wink:

Bryan[/quote:d0364]

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

Your just `cherry picking' studies again Bryan! I have never tried to dodge anything that is relevant to the argument Bryan!

Show us the same kind of scientific studies in `HUMANS'. Then we can all compare the various studies and reach a more educated conclusion!

The only `real world' evidence we have of topical anti-androgens in `human' male pattern baldness so far, seems to be the reports on these forums. These seem to go through a cycle of exitement with a new topical, followed by a big dissapointment!!

The very fact that things found to work in macaques, don't work well in humans, supports the idea of an indirect action of androgens in male pattern baldness, and the different `wider' physiology comming into play!

So can you refer us all to `any' evidence at all, that the topical anti-androgens work better in `humans' than finasteride/dutasteride?

I don't think so! 8)

S Foote.

 

[Bryan]

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

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?

You are totally transparent. You cannot explain the macaque results by way of your eccentric theory, so what do you do? You simply ignore them. You know it, I know it, and everybody reading this forum knows it.

Your just `cherry picking' studies again Bryan! I have never tried to dodge anything that is relevant to the argument Bryan!

Bullshit. You have ALWAYS ignored the macaque studies. You stonewall it every time I bring them up (including RIGHT NOW).

Show us the same kind of scientific studies in `HUMANS'. Then we can all compare the various studies and reach a more educated conclusion!

Err...excuse me, but in my post just prior to THIS one, I explained to you that the company that's currently testing RU58841 has gotten results IN HUMANS that are very similar to Propecia.

The very fact that things found to work in macaques, don't work well in humans, supports the idea of an indirect action of androgens in male pattern baldness, and the different `wider' physiology comming into play!

See above. Read it and weep.

Bryan

 

[Bryan]

BTW, I should mention here that by comparing a couple of different studies, even topical 11a-hydroxyprogesterone seemed to have a similar effect in HUMANS as finasteride, and 11a-OHP certainly isn't as effective as RU58841.

See the Propecia study: "Finasteride Increases Anagen Hair in Men With Androgenetic Alopecia", Van Neste et al, British Journal of Dermatology 2000;143:804-810. After 48 weeks, Propecia increased the percentage of anagen hairs by six points, from 62% to 68%; at the same time, the placebo group lost two percentage points by dropping from 60% to 58%.


Now check out the topical 11a-OHP study: "A Preliminary Study of the Effect of 11a-Hydroxyprogesterone on the Hair Growth in Men Suffering from Androgenetic Alopecia", van der Willigen et al, Acta Derm Venereol 1987;67(1):82-5. After one year, 11alpha-hydroxyprogesterone also increased the percentage of anagen hairs by six points, from 45% to 51%, while their untreated control group lost seven percentage points by dropping from 53% to 46%.

Bryan

 

[Fallout Boy]

I have one more question for you guys . If I'm a non responder to Finasteride whats my next step ??

Is it possible that a topical anti androgen such as fluridil + Finasteride will do better?

Or am i totally screwed if finasteride doesnt work for me??

thanks for all your responses up untill this point!!

 

[S Foote.]

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

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?

You are totally transparent. You cannot explain the macaque results by way of your eccentric theory, so what do you do? You simply ignore them. You know it, I know it, and everybody reading this forum knows it.


[quote="S Foote.":a5226]Your just `cherry picking' studies again Bryan! I have never tried to dodge anything that is relevant to the argument Bryan!

Bullshit. You have ALWAYS ignored the macaque studies. You stonewall it every time I bring them up (including RIGHT NOW).[/quote:a5226]

You should be more careful in your rants Bryan, you give yourself away!!

It was `ME' who first quoted, and continued to quote macaque studies, as showing that pre-balding follicles are `NOT' converted into balding follicles by `direct' exposure to androgens!! So how have i ignored the macaque studies? This is clear in my previous posts, and anyone can see that for themselves!!

Are you now getting so desperate that you have to resort to outright lie's!!

I have said this many times before in our debates Bryan. If you are going to claim that my theory is `eccentric', show people the evidence for your claim!!!!!!! Show us some evidence for your `eccentric' genetic `clock' mechanism Bryan?????????????????????????????????????????

The macaque studies both in themselves, and when compared with the human experience, support an indirect action of androgens. So they add more support to my theory than your `genetic clock' fantasy Bryan!

Show us the same kind of scientific studies in `HUMANS'. Then we can all compare the various studies and reach a more educated conclusion!

Err...excuse me, but in my post just prior to THIS one, I explained to you that the company that's currently testing RU58841 has gotten results IN HUMANS that are very similar to Propecia.

Now you are really letting your complete lack of any scientific integrity show Bryan!

I suggest people take a careful note of what you have said above when considering the actual `scientific' content of your opinions Bryan!

Anyone can see from your arguments with me in these threads, that you constantly demand that i must `prove' every last detail of my proposals!

But when it comes to supporting your own claims, you expect everyone to just go along with what someone told you on a hair loss forum, about a conversation they had with an individual who works for a company with a vested interest in RU58841!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thats just great Bryan, thats reeeeeeeeeeeeally scientific :?

Just what `joke shop' did you buy your copy of the scientific method from Bryan?

You tell me to read it and weep! Well i must admit i am crying from laughing :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Your increasingly desperate attempts to try to defend your personal obsession with anti-androgen topicals, just doesn't impress anyone who has read these forums for any length of time 8)

Your `recommended topicals', don't do squat compared to the systematic versions! This is now common knowledge on hair loss forums, despite your constant sales pitch!!

By the way Bryan, there is at least one important difference in the macaque `model' of human balding, and `actual' human balding! If you are `really' interested in the science, you should know what this is!

So tell us all about it??

S Foote.

 

[jimmystanley]

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?

 

[Bryan]

Your `recommended topicals', don't do squat compared to the systematic versions! This is now common knowledge on hair loss forums, despite your constant sales pitch!!

My god, I must be psychic! Didn't I predict that you would CONTINUE to stonewall the success of topical RU58841 in macaques?? And no comment about the 11a-OHP study in humans, either. Stephen, I can read you like a book!

Bryan

 

[jimmystanley]

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?

don't forget about this question Foote!!!

 

[S Foote.]

Your `recommended topicals', don't do squat compared to the systematic versions! This is now common knowledge on hair loss forums, despite your constant sales pitch!!

My god, I must be psychic! Didn't I predict that you would CONTINUE to stonewall the success of topical RU58841 in macaques?? And no comment about the 11a-OHP study in humans, either. Stephen, I can read you like a book!

Bryan

Bryan, here's a clear example of how you `change' your opinions simply to try to `win' debates on hair loss forums!

You say above:

"My god, I must be psychic! Didn't I predict that you would CONTINUE to stonewall the success of topical RU58841 in macaques?? "

Yet in a previous debate with Maneless on `EXACTLY' the same subject (the validity of RU58841 macaque results in relation to humans), you respond Thus:

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.

Bryan said:
"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!"

http://www.pharmahg.co.uk/m343hm12/_dis ... 000183.htm

You have just lost the last shread of any scientific validity you `may' have had here Bryan!!

S Foote.