Danny Roddy Is Still At It.. What Do You Make Of Him

[plisk]

I really never know what to make of him. It would be too easy to call Roddy a scam artist or charlatan, but he's clearly not. He has a coaching service yes, but he doesn't sell products and even his book is free now from what I can tell.

and no charlatan puts this much effort into research. I dont get it. I appreciate outside the box thinking, but I kind of despise peat and his cult like followers (this is a man who has false teeth in his head because his real ones fell out as a result of all that thyroid magic, apparently a picture of health and longevity according to his followers ).

but there are other concerning things about Roddy. Despite claiming to have reversed his hair loss with the help of Peat inspired self medicine, he has ZERO photographic evidence of him ever have been balding and ZERO photos of any of his clients having had success. Peat himself had/has a pretty clearly receded hairline, although to be fair, he is like 70 f*****g years old.

Roddy seems confused on several topics despite his extensive research, and I can't help but feel its because his cult like devotion to Peat doesn't allow him to throw out things that break from the peat paradigms/positions. For example, if I'm interpreting him correctly, he seems to think finasteride works not because of its 5AR inhibition, but rather perhaps because it kind of sort of maybe resembles progesterone (I'm not a chemist, but I remember the basics and I'm pretty sure even a slight change in the structure of a compound can dramatically change its effects, so this really doesnt mean much IMO)..... and Peat-ian thinking lays the blame for a multitude of disease at the feet of estrogens.... yet Roddy acknowledges the massive hair loss reversal in the cases of MTF transgenders, who surprise surprise, use copious amounts of synthetic estrogens.

 

[Nadester]

Lol you don't know what real dangerous is, unless you have attended those Ayurvedic ailment cure seminars.

It has a cult like following in india, supported by elderlies and parents and it WILL take you in.
I survived when i told them id like to go bald. Srs

 

[Marky]

Danny seems to have a new idea every month on how to cure baldness. The rule of thumb I use is if he has something that gets dramatic and undeniable results the whole world would know about it.

And he would patent it before sharing it for free on youtube.

 

[Dante92]

There's nothing worse than ignorant, hypocritical assholes misleading people who REALLY suffer from Androgenetic Alopecia and who need solid advice and support.

 

[Armando Jose]

IMHO,
There's nothing wrong with trying to understand common hair loss,
What he did not know was that he had cured himself of alopecia. As young as it is, I'm sure it was not the one that suffers more than 80% of people with hair loss,
BTW Ayurveda is not a dangerous medicine.... altought Peat can use it. I see a resembling with mediterrans's people, similar herbs
Good for Danny

 

[Giiizmo]

IMHO,
There's nothing wrong with trying to understand common hair loss,
What he did not know was that he had cured himself of alopecia. As young as it is, I'm sure it was not the one that suffers more than 80% of people with hair loss,
BTW Ayurveda is not a dangerous medicine.... altought Peat can use it. I see a resembling with mediterrans's people, similar herbs
Good for Danny

I'm a big fan of phytotherapy and lament the fact that so little research is done about it. The synergistic effect from dozens of molecules derived from plants has the potential to deliver effective treatments with less side-effects than classic "mono-molecular" treatments.

Unfortunately, much of the "research" done around it, including alternative medicines such as ayurveda, amounts to little more than false hopes at best, dangerous so-called "treatments" at worst.

Research into ayurveda has been characterized as pseudoscience. Both the lack of scientific soundness in the theoretical foundations of ayurveda and the quality of research have been criticized.[81][85][86][87]

Rasa shastra, the practice of adding metals, minerals or gems to herbal preparations, may include toxic heavy metals such as lead, mercury and arsenic.[15] The public health implications of metals in rasa shastra in India is unknown.[15] Adverse reactions to herbs are described in traditional Ayurvedic texts, but practitioners are reluctant to admit that herbs could be toxic and that reliable information on herbal toxicity is not readily available. There is a communication gap between practitioners of modern medicine and Ayurveda.[88]

Heavy metals are thought of as active ingredients by advocates of Indian herbal medicinal products.[89] Ayurvedic proponents believe that the toxicity of these materials is reduced through purification processes such as samskaras or shodhanas (for metals). These are similar to the Chinese pao zhi, although the Ayurvedic techniques are more complex and may involve prayers as well as physical pharmacy techniques. However, these products have nonetheless caused severe lead poisoning and other toxic effects.[91]

Mmmm, arsenic...

 

[Agustin Araujo]

Trying to understand common hair loss is by studying the science of it, not making harmful unproven assumptions.

There's nothing worse than ignorant, hypocritical assholes misleading people who REALLY suffer from Androgenetic Alopecia and who need solid advice and support.

Yep! We're all seriously so tired of suffering from perhaps the most misunderstood genetic disorder ever.

 

[plisk]

don't know where the ayuverda stuff came in, just want to point out its not fair to lump Roddy in with those guys as that is not his angle.

I'm trying to be fair - Roddy's stuff is extensively cited from scientific literature so its not like hes a voodoo hoodoo kook. I just think he has blinders on and an inability to break from Peat's ideas.

 

[Armando Jose]

I am with you plisk, maybe passing yhe time could be more independient.
Also,in my opinion he dont suffer ccommon hairloss, afortunately he have good gentics with a thick and densee scaal hair

 

[InBeforeTheCure]

For example, if I'm interpreting him correctly, he seems to think finasteride works not because of its 5AR inhibition, but rather perhaps because it kind of sort of maybe resembles progesterone (I'm not a chemist, but I remember the basics and I'm pretty sure even a slight change in the structure of a compound can dramatically change its effects, so this really doesnt mean much IMO).....

In what way exactly? Finasteride has that steroidal four-ring structure, so of course it looks similar to progesterone in that sense, and to other steroid hormones including testosterone.

Finasteride:

Progesterone:

Testosterone:

That explanation is bad enough already, but when you consider that topical AR antagonists are effective against A.G.A., it's even more insane.

 

[plisk]

/

In what way exactly? Finasteride has that steroidal four-ring structure, so of course it looks similar to progesterone in that sense, and to other steroid hormones including testosterone.

Finasteride:


Progesterone:


Testosterone:



That explanation is bad enough already, but when you consider that topical AR antagonists are effective against A.G.A., it's even more insane.

I actually asked him point blank on his latest video about why he is so blind on finasteride and minoxidil and got a response linking me to a bunch of studies that suggest finasteride isn't as effective as merck claims (Ive seen these before they were nothing mindblowing it just shows that finasteride is better at stopping hair loss than it is at regrowth of which it is poor for the majority of patients, and i dont think anyone has ever said otherwise)

on the topic of why finasteride works, well he said this:

► In the case of finasteride, when it is effective it might be due to an alternative mechanism:

Yoo, H.G., et al. Perifollicular fibrosis: pathogenetic role in androgenetic alopecia. Biol Pharm Bull. 2006 Jun;29(6):1246-50. "Pretreatment of finasteride decreased the expression of TGF-beta1 protein induced by an average of T (30.4%). The type I procollagen expression after pretreatment of neutralizing TGF-beta1 antibody (10 microg/ml) was inhibited by an average of 54.3%. Our findings suggest that T-induced TGF-beta1 and type I procollagen expression may contribute to the development of perifollicular fibrosis in the Androgenetic Alopecia, and the inhibitory effects on T-induced procollagen and TGF-beta1 expression may explain another possible mechanism how finasteride works in Androgenetic Alopecia."

Tang, L., et al. The expression of insulin-like growth factor 1 in follicular dermal papillae correlates with therapeutic efficacy of finasteride in androgenetic alopecia. "IGF-1 was up-regulated by finasteride treatment in 4 of 9 patients. Among the patients with increased IGF-1 expression, 3 of them showed moderate clinical improvement after 12 months of treatment and another patient remained unchanged. In contrast, 3 patients with decreased IGF-1 expression in the balding scalp showed clinical worsening after 12 months.” “In a small uncontrolled study of 9 patients with Androgenetic Alopecia, an increased expression of IGF-1 messenger RNA levels in the DP was associated with patient response to finasteride."

I really dont get what hes trying to convey.

 

[InBeforeTheCure]

I really dont get what hes trying to convey.

Me neither lol. Reducing AR activity will affect the expression of at least hundreds of genes, some directly and some indirectly.

The mechanism in the first study -- androgens induce TGF-beta1, finasteride blocks the androgen-mediated induction of TGF-beta1. This is totally expected if TGF-beta1 expression is mostly due to the more potent androgen DHT. Although they didn't explicitly test whether finasteride's effects were dependent on 5ar inhibition, we should assume a known and expected mechanism is likely responsible unless we can rule it out.

And for the second one, again, do we have reason to believe this is due to some unknown mechanism other than downstream effects of 5ar inhibition? Not that I can tell. Correlation != causation, so we can't even say for sure whether the improvement is due to IGF1 upregulation or due to some other factor or factors that are correlated with its expression (or both). It's a small sample size anyway.

 

[plisk]

Me neither lol. Reducing AR activity will affect the expression of at least hundreds of genes, some directly and some indirectly.

The mechanism in the first study -- androgens induce TGF-beta1, finasteride blocks the androgen-mediated induction of TGF-beta1. This is totally expected if TGF-beta1 expression is mostly due to the more potent androgen DHT. Although they didn't explicitly test whether finasteride's effects were dependent on 5ar inhibition, we should assume a known and expected mechanism is likely responsible unless we can rule it out.

And for the second one, again, do we have reason to believe this is due to some unknown mechanism other than downstream effects of 5ar inhibition? Not that I can tell. Correlation != causation, so we can't even say for sure whether the improvement is due to IGF1 upregulation or due to some other factor or factors that are correlated with its expression (or both). It's a small sample size anyway.

The reason i dont want to trashcan this angle entirely is i have seen many steroid users maintain their hair with finasteride..... that may seem a "duh" moment to you, but consider that many of these guys are using androgens that do not go under 5AR conversion whatsoever, and are sometimes more potent androgens than DHT.

I suspect there could indeed be some other mechanism by which finasteride is helping that is not related to 5AR inhibition.

 

[InBeforeTheCure]

The reason i dont want to trashcan this angle entirely is i have seen many steroid users maintain their hair with finasteride..... that may seem a "duh" moment to you, but consider that many of these guys are using androgens that do not go under 5AR conversion whatsoever, and are sometimes more potent androgens than DHT.

I suspect there could indeed be some other mechanism by which finasteride is helping that is not related to 5AR inhibition.

Maybe there is, maybe there isn't.

Not much to say about vague references to "many steroid users" obviously, but if there's anything definite that would be really interesting.

 

[REAL_TRUTH]

He used to have blog articles where people called him out when he didn't provide good/any evidence, misread studies, ... Unfortunately he removed the comment sections there. Now he mostly posts on his Patreon where you have to pay. It's a convenient way to avoid any confrontation. The guy has no credentials, no lab experience and peruses Ray Peat's work to the point where it becomes laughable. He's unusually vile to people who stand in his way too.

 

[REAL_TRUTH]

Lol he's everything but vile, you're exaggerating.

In my experience he's incredibly passive-aggressive and vile. What's your experience? You're a potential client and he was nice to you?

 

[infinitepain]

He is f*****g annoying and deluded by denniying DHT plays a major role in balding, and how DHT inhibitors are the main tools that can work.

 

[REAL_TRUTH]

No, he just comes off as a guy whom continuously gets his observations shot down by anxious bald guys. So if anything, it's more out of frustration repeating the same thing over & over again. This is whether the Ray Peat theory work or not. Any pursuit people may be in to help solve an issue not immediate to them is commendable in my eyes.

I'm a fullhead that finds him annoying for other reasons. Apparently it is commendable to spread some other person's work that probably doesn't even work and ask loads for it. Not to mention the smug attitude.

 

[Cue Bald]

lol what a load of shite. proof or gtfo. there are many many clowns like this guy all with their own pet theories.
remember the guy who said that body hair was taking all the nutrients away from head hair, which is why bald guys get body hair - so to cure male pattern baldness, you have to pluck out every single body hair ?

 

[REAL_TRUTH]

Did you purchase your sarcasm out of a simple step kit? If so, send it back. Alot of guys on here seem to feel they've tapped into a new paridigm of comedic value.

Just talk straight forward, you speak like finasteride has sterilized whatever man is left in you.

"Probably" isn't good enough when you go around writing the way you do.

Again, if he was money grabbing, he would be directing every YouTube commenter into purchasing his product. Also his videos would've been all monetized.

He takes the time out to answer any commenter comment. Baldies just try to come off combative with the theory itself, rather taking it as insighful, whether it works or not.

He links to his Patreon in his vid description you twat. What point would there be in monetizing videos that barely get any views? Citing Peat or copy-pasting his work is not insightful.