Dispensing with old-fashioned male pattern baldness theories, and one NEW one!

Bryan

Senior Member
Staff member
Reaction score
40
Nowadays we have overwhelming evidence for what causes male pattern balding: the direct, suppressive influence of androgens on human scalp follicles is a prime factor in this condition. But in past decades, there were a few rather unusual alternative theories which were popular for a while. They include the following supposed explanations for thinning (I won't elaborate on any of them, I'll just mention them briefly):

1) The "galea theory" and its ramifications.
2) A decreased blood supply to the scalp (tight-fitting hats, for example).
3) An increased tension of scalp muscles.

Last but not least, the most recent of these alternative theories would be the notorious one associated with my friend Stephen Foote:

4) Contact inhibition from scalp edema stunting the growth of follicles.


All of these oddball theories were soundly refuted with the advent of modern hair transplantation, which proved that hair follicles continue to grow (or go bald, for that matter), even if they are moved to other locations around the body. In other words, they display "donor dominance", regardless of whether or not they're located in an area of edema, tension, poor blood supply, etc. I recently came across a study which examined and proved this phenomenon even more thoroughly and convincingly than Orentreich did in his original hair transplantation experiments in 1959. This would be: "Synchronous Balding of Scalp and Hair-bearing Grafts of Scalp Transplanted to the Skin of the Arm in Male Pattern Baldness", Rolf E. A. Nordstrom, Acta Derm Venereol 1979; 59: 266-268. I'm now going to type out part of this important study right here, so that everyone can judge the plausibility of these alternative theories for themselves. Certain very important sentences I have placed in bold text:

Abstract. The author transplanted composite skin grafts from balding, non-balding, and bald areas of the scalp, to the skin of the arm. The galea aponeurotica was trimmed away from the grafts. The patient was a 29-year-old male with progressive male pattern baldness (male pattern baldness).

The transplants from the balding area became bald at the same rate as the balding donor site in the receding frontal hairline, whereas the transplants taken from the non-balding in the occiput continued to grow the same amount and quality of terminal hairs. Bald grafts taken in front of the receding hairline remained bald. This shows that the cause of male pattern baldness lies in the follicle itself or in its very close surrounding and does not depend on the galea aponeurotica, the increased tension of the scalp or of its muscles; the diminished vascular supply to the scalp or any other regional factor localized to the head area. It also shows that the "balding clock" keeps time even when the follicle is transplanted to another region of the body.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Hair transplantation with the punch graft method was performed on a 29-year-old male with a receding hairline due to progressive male pattern baldness. 1 cm behind the receding hairline, two tattoo marks were placed and between these a 4-mm diameter hair-bearing composite punch skin graft with subdermal fat and hair follicles was taken following the procedure described by the author. In the same way, two additional grafts were taken; one 1 cm in front of the receding hairline (which since the 20th year of life had already receded about 4 cm), and one from the occipital region, unaffected by male pattern baldness. The galea aponeurotica and excess fat under the follicles were trimmed away. These grafts were transplanted to the forearm.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

RESULTS

The hairs in the hair-bearing grafts gradually fell off over a couple of weeks and started to grow again after about 3 months as is normally seen in punch hair grafting.

5, 10 and 21 months after transplantation the numbers of hairs in the transplants were counted. The grafts were then excised for histological examination. In the graft taken from the occipital region the number and macroscopical quality of the hairs remained unchanged, whereas in the graft taken from between the tattoo marks placed 1 cm behind the receding hairline, the number of hairs diminished rapidly and the hairs grew macroscopically much thinner. The hair at the level of the tattoo marks in the receding hairline became much more sparse and the distance to the hairline had diminished to about 2 mm. The graft from the denuded area...remained bald.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

DISCUSSION

In the receding hairline and in the graft taken from it the loss of hairs remains synchronous even though the latter is translplanted to a remote skin area. In male pattern baldness the "balding clock" in the follicle or in its very close surrounding keeps time even when the follicle is transplanted to the skin of the forearm. The presence or absence of the galea aponeurotica does not influence the balding process in male pattern baldness. Nor does any supposed increased tension of the scalp or its muscles or a diminished vascular supply to the scalp have an effect on balding. Neither do any other factors localized to the head cause balding. The cause seems to lie in the follicle itself or its very close surrounding. The graft taken from the denuded area did not grow new hairs, and so the male pattern baldness process of the hair follicle is not reversed by a change in its location on the human body.


Graft #1: from non-balding occipital scalp
Graft #2: from bald follicles 1 cm in front of hairline
Graft #3: from thinning follicles 1 cm behind hairline

Table 1. Number of hairs in each transplant
-------------------------------------------------------------
Graft number................................... 1 .. 2 .... 3
-------------------------------------------------------------
5 months after transplantation..... 13 .. 0 ... 12
10 months after transplantation... 13 .. 0 ... 10
21 months after transplantation... 14 .. 0 ..... 4
 

S Foote.

Experienced Member
Reaction score
66
Re: Dispensing with old-fashioned male pattern baldness theories, and one NEW

Bryan said:
Nowadays we have overwhelming evidence for what causes male pattern balding: the direct, suppressive influence of androgens on human scalp follicles is a prime factor in this condition. But in past decades, there were a few rather unusual alternative theories which were popular for a while. They include the following supposed explanations for thinning (I won't elaborate on any of them, I'll just mention them briefly):

1) The "galea theory" and its ramifications.
2) A decreased blood supply to the scalp (tight-fitting hats, for example).
3) An increased tension of scalp muscles.

Last but not least, the most recent of these alternative theories would be the notorious one associated with my friend Stephen Foote:

4) Contact inhibition from scalp edema stunting the growth of follicles.

"Notorious" Bryan! Billy the Kid was `notorious', please explain what you are trying to say `exactly'??

Bryan said:
All of these oddball theories were soundly refuted with the advent of modern hair transplantation, which proved that hair follicles continue to grow (or go bald, for that matter), even if they are moved to other locations around the body. In other words, they display "donor dominance", regardless of whether or not they're located in an area of edema, tension, poor blood supply, etc. I recently came across a study which examined and proved this phenomenon even more thoroughly and convincingly than Orentreich did in his original hair transplantation experiments in 1959. This would be: "Synchronous Balding of Scalp and Hair-bearing Grafts of Scalp Transplanted to the Skin of the Arm in Male Pattern Baldness", Rolf E. A. Nordstrom, Acta Derm Venereol 1979; 59: 266-268. I'm now going to type out part of this important study right here, so that everyone can judge the plausibility of these alternative theories for themselves. Certain very important sentences I have placed in bold text



Abstract. The author transplanted composite skin grafts from balding, non-balding, and bald areas of the scalp, to the skin of the arm. The galea aponeurotica was trimmed away from the grafts. The patient was a 29-year-old male with progressive male pattern baldness (male pattern baldness).

The transplants from the balding area became bald at the same rate as the balding donor site in the receding frontal hairline, whereas the transplants taken from the non-balding in the occiput continued to grow the same amount and quality of terminal hairs. Bald grafts taken in front of the receding hairline remained bald. This shows that the cause of male pattern baldness lies in the follicle itself or in its very close surrounding and does not depend on the galea aponeurotica, the increased tension of the scalp or of its muscles; the diminished vascular supply to the scalp or any other regional factor localized to the head area. It also shows that the "balding clock" keeps time even when the follicle is transplanted to another region of the body.


Bryan,you are not helping your argument by continuing to `cherry pick' particular points from `old' studies, that clearly have gaping holes in them based on what we `ACTUALLY KNOW' today! This study is from 79!!

First let me say that i have no problem with the authors basic conclusion as you highlight above quote:

"This shows that the cause of male pattern baldness lies in the follicle itself or in its very close surrounding"

If you remember Bryan, my argument is based on the conditions in the `VERY CLOSE SURROUNDING' of the follicle! I have explained my own thoughts on this influence in previous threads, however there is something here you just `CANNOT' explain by your notion of the `mechanism' involved being `in' the follicles themselves!!

Again as in the last `old' study you posted, the graft size used was `large', that is 4mm plugs. Again, no mention was made of cental hair loss in the alledged `DHT resistent' plugs over the period of the hair counts (21 months).

But we now know that in 4mm grafts, a `balding' proccess `DOES' happen over time, the doughnutting effect as it is called is well documented, as i have referenced before.

So from `ALL' the available data, we can conclude that the hairloss in these large grafts is `NOT' because of any factor induced by the grafting process itself. If this was due to hypoxia for example, as is claimed in `doughnutting', the follicles would die before 21 months so this would have been noted!

The combined studies are telling us that in larger grafts, a `slow' balding process is happening over a period of a few years. Does this ring a bell here????????????????????????

What is `ACTUALLY' happening in these grafts, is `EXACTLY' the same thing as is happening in the rest of the balding scalp. Hair is lost over a period of a few years!!!

You just cannot explain why `male pattern baldness' is obviously `STILL' going on in these larger grafts Bryan! You are trying to claim these `large graft' studies `support' the `internal' theory. So how come male pattern baldness is still going on in these grafts? Explain that??

These old studies combined with `modern' knowledge, are actually `DISPROVING' your argument Bryan 8)

I would ask a favour Bryan. I noticed you also posted this on Farrels site!

In case it slipped your mind, Farrel banned me from posting there after i had a heated debate with him. It is clear that Farrel censors opinions that don't agree with his own, and i would not post there even if i was allowed too!

I don't mind critism as everone knows, but it isn't fair to post something about my theory on a site where i don't have any right of reply!

If you are going to post on my theory on Farrels site, i don't mind Bryan, but could you just mention in your posts that i cannot respond there? Just so people don't think i am ignoring any critism!

Thanks.

S Foote.
 

Armando Jose

Senior Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
889
The importance of sebum

Thank you Bryan for type out part of this important study. You have placed important sentences in bold text:
This show that the cause of male pattern baldness lies in the follicle itself or in its very close surrounding.
It also show that the “balding clockâ€￾ keeps time even when the follicle is transplanted to another region of the body.
Neither do any factors localized to the head cause balding. The cause seems to lie in the follicle itself or its very close surrounding.

Theses supposed facts fit perfectly in my own theory. The detention of sebum flow inward the dermal papilla could be the initial biological cause of common baldness, or premature baldness, or male/female pattern baldness, or androgenetic alopecia or whatever you want to say it. Clearly, sebum is part of the very close surrounding area of the follicle. And then:

If you transplant a non-balding occipital hair scalp to the arm, I can suppose that there is no problem with the inward sebum flow and then, its survival is ensure.

But, on the other hand, if a thinning follicle is transplanted to a “safeâ€￾ area, possibly the “balding clockâ€￾ started to walk a few time ago. The author transplanted composite skin grafts and then, moved also the sebum in the vicinity of hair follicle. If this sebum has problems as hardening, detention of its movement and oxidation, the author also transferred theses problems or better said the “balding clockâ€￾ at the new area. Naturally this hair tends to loss, because the transplantation technical don’t solve the problem with the sebum and the baldness process continue with other problems like hormonal homeostasis, and other events as inflammatory, fibrosis, etc. that concur in the practical irreversibility of hair loss (Graft # 2).

This is my honest opinion.

Armando
http://www.againstalopeciaandbaldness.com
 

Bryan

Senior Member
Staff member
Reaction score
40
Re: Dispensing with old-fashioned male pattern baldness theories, and one NEW

S Foote. said:
Bryan,you are not helping your argument by continuing to `cherry pick' particular points from `old' studies, that clearly have gaping holes in them based on what we `ACTUALLY KNOW' today! This study is from 79!!

Oh my goodness! I didn't know there was a "Statute of Limitations" on scientific research!! :D What exactly is the period of time in which studies remain valid, Stephen? Is it 5 years? How about 10 years? Maybe as long 15 years before they pass their "expiration date", like a loaf of stale bread sitting on a supermarket shelf?? :wink:

S Foote. said:
If you remember Bryan, my argument is based on the conditions in the `VERY CLOSE SURROUNDING' of the follicle! I have explained my own thoughts on this influence in previous threads, however there is something here you just `CANNOT' explain by your notion of the `mechanism' involved being `in' the follicles themselves!!

Again as in the last `old' study you posted, the graft size used was `large', that is 4mm plugs. Again, no mention was made of cental hair loss in the alledged `DHT resistent' plugs over the period of the hair counts (21 months).

Of course not. Because there WASN'T any.

S Foote. said:
But we now know that in 4mm grafts, a `balding' proccess `DOES' happen over time, the doughnutting effect as it is called is well documented, as i have referenced before.

Please cite some references for it. It must be an uncommon phenomenon, if it didn't happen to either Orentreich or Nordstrom.

S Foote. said:
So from `ALL' the available data, we can conclude that the hairloss in these large grafts is `NOT' because of any factor induced by the grafting process itself. If this was due to hypoxia for example, as is claimed in `doughnutting', the follicles would die before 21 months so this would have been noted!

You're now at the point where all you can do is deny the results of these researchers. I suppose it was inevitable that it would eventually come to this. The experimental results are SO cut-and-dried, there's just no way around it. Why don't you just come right out and accuse Orentreich and Nordstrom of falsifying their results? I _know_ that's what you really want to do...

S Foote. said:
The combined studies are telling us that in larger grafts, a `slow' balding process is happening over a period of a few years. Does this ring a bell here????????????????????????

What is `ACTUALLY' happening in these grafts, is `EXACTLY' the same thing as is happening in the rest of the balding scalp. Hair is lost over a period of a few years!!!

Yeah. Orentreich and Nordstrom are either LIARS, or they're INCOMPETENT. Right, Stephen?

S Foote. said:
I would ask a favour Bryan. I noticed you also posted this on Farrels site!

In case it slipped your mind, Farrel banned me from posting there after i had a heated debate with him. It is clear that Farrel censors opinions that don't agree with his own, and i would not post there even if i was allowed too!

If you are going to post on my theory on Farrels site, i don't mind Bryan, but could you just mention in your posts that i cannot respond there? Just so people don't think i am ignoring any critism!

I will make a note to that effect over there.

Bryan
 

S Foote.

Experienced Member
Reaction score
66
Re: Dispensing with old-fashioned male pattern baldness theories, and one NEW

Bryan said:
S Foote. said:
Bryan,you are not helping your argument by continuing to `cherry pick' particular points from `old' studies, that clearly have gaping holes in them based on what we `ACTUALLY KNOW' today! This study is from 79!!

Oh my goodness! I didn't know there was a "Statute of Limitations" on scientific research!! :D What exactly is the period of time in which studies remain valid, Stephen? Is it 5 years? How about 10 years? Maybe as long 15 years before they pass their "expiration date", like a loaf of stale bread sitting on a supermarket shelf?? :wink:

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hair loss=en&ie ... arch&meta=[/url]

All your quoted study shows, is that the `RATE' of continued hair loss, is dependent on the prior conditions. The transplanted bald follicles remain bald, and the `balding' follicles continue to bald.

`MODERN' accepted knowledge shows us that transplanted follicles yet to start the balding process, `DO' bald in these grafts given time, which completely disproves what you are saying!

Your theory `CANNOT' explain why the balding process continues over time in this kind of graft, when you `CLAIM' that these follicles are resistent `TO' balding, simple!

If you are `REALLY' interested in wanting to understand why follicles around the edges of these grafts `DO' survive long term, you should start to consider the `WHOLE' body of evidence to date Bryan :wink:

Thank you for putting the record straight on Farrels site Bryan, although i note you couldn't resist an element of sarcasm :roll:

S Foote.
 

Bryan

Senior Member
Staff member
Reaction score
40
Re: Dispensing with old-fashioned male pattern baldness theories, and one NEW

S Foote. said:
I find it ironic Bryan that you start by saying quote:

"Nowadays we have overwhelming evidence for what causes male pattern balding"

Then you go on to quote a 26 year old study!! If thats your idea of `nowadays' Bryan, there is just no hope for you!

LOL!! Sorry, Stephen, I wasn't just referring to Orentreich's and Nordstom's older studies, I was ALSO referring to up-to-the-minute studies that are being conducted and published as we speak...for example, the ones showing how androgens affect hair follicles by altering the production of growth factors/inhibitors in the dermal papillae.

S Foote. said:
Just read what i have said Bryan! I am not calling these `old time' researchers liars, i am saying they just didn't run the studies for long enough!

Really? How long is "long enough"?

S Foote. said:
The very fact that they did `NOT' report the balding process in larger grafts that is recognised today, supports what i am saying!

There IS no balding process (in the sense of androgenetic alopecia) in larger grafts, as long as they're taken from androgen-resistant areas of scalp. And contrary to that presumptuous statement you just made, it sure as hell isn't "recognized today".

S Foote. said:
That is that given time, the majority of follicles transplanted in these grafts `BALD' in `EXACTLY' the same way as the original follicles in the male pattern baldness area!!!!!!

You're in a state of denial.

S Foote. said:
If they had run the studies for long enough, they would have seen the continued balding process, we `NOW' know happens in the larger plug grafts!

There are men walking around today with hair transplants that have survived for MANY MANY YEARS. You're talking complete gibberish.

S Foote. said:
Are you trying to deny what is accepted in modern transplantation knowledge Bryan? Are you trying to claim that hair loss in the greater central area of larger grafts is just a `myth'?

Here's a Google search on hair transplant doughnutting, take your pick!

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hair loss=en&ie ... arch&meta=

That's not the normal "balding process", Stephen. It appears that the explanation they give for "doughnutting" (when it occurs) is probably quite accurate: it's caused by a lack of oxygen diffusing into the larger grafts.

S Foote. said:
All your quoted study shows, is that the `RATE' of continued hair loss, is dependent on the prior conditions. The transplanted bald follicles remain bald, and the `balding' follicles continue to bald.

EXACTLY! Now we're getting somewhere! And contrary to your theory, that balding (in follicles taken from just behind the hairline) continues at the VERY SAME RATE, even after they're transplanted to areas that are free of the alleged "edema" and "contact inhibition"! :wink: What's your explanation for that, Stephen??

S Foote. said:
`MODERN' accepted knowledge shows us that transplanted follicles yet to start the balding process, `DO' bald in these grafts given time, which completely disproves what you are saying!

I have to give you a little bit of credit for your perseverence in trying to twist the facts into supporting your theory! The "doughnutting" isn't balding from androgenetic alopecia. It's a separate phenomenon. And you're unable to explain why there's such a CLEAR difference in the growth of those sets of hair follicles, even after both are transplanted to the SAME site free of any alleged "edema" and "contact inhibition".

Bryan
 

Bryan

Senior Member
Staff member
Reaction score
40
Is someone holding a gun to you guys' heads, forcing you to read this thread in this out-of-the-way corner of the forum? :wink:

Bryan
 
G

Guest

Guest
No not really. It's just a complete pain in the arse to come into a thread that shows promise only find that it has turned into a slanging match.

It's very boring and makes me want to go to sleep.

Sorry...
 

Bryan

Senior Member
Staff member
Reaction score
40
I see. Well, sorry about that.

While I've got you two fellers here, what's your opinion on this issue? Which side do you believe?

Bryan
 
G

Guest

Guest
Ok, no probs Bryan.

It's a very interesting study. I'm no scientist so sometimes I find the studies difficult to understand. But the jist is that if you take a follicle from the balding part of the head and then transfer that to another part of the body, the hair still dies. So it proves that the balding process is within the hair itself to a cerain degree.

This then opens another can of worms.
 

oni

Senior Member
Reaction score
0
I just can't stand to see "another" Bryan Vs S Foote. thread maybe your both right! but till someone can show me a cure for all male pattern baldness! AND SHOW WHY AND HOW IT WORKS, can you both till then just agree to disagree!!!!!!!!!!! :shock:
 

Bryan

Senior Member
Staff member
Reaction score
40
...::traxdata::... said:
This then opens another can of worms.

And that would be....? :)
 

Bryan

Senior Member
Staff member
Reaction score
40
oni said:
I just can't stand to see "another" Bryan Vs S Foote. thread

I _deliberately_ started this thread in this relatively little-used forum, just to be less conspicuous. I really did want this to be just between me and Stephen.

Bryan
 
G

Guest

Guest
Bryan said:
...::traxdata::... said:
This then opens another can of worms.

And that would be....? :)

Gawd knows.....

Could it be that the hair in the balding areas is just programmed to fall out. No matter what you do it will fall out in the end. Is it really DHT causing the problem.
 

Bryan

Senior Member
Staff member
Reaction score
40
Well, we've known for more than 40 years that androgens are REQUIRED for hair to fall out. If you reduce them enough (like with castration), further balding will be halted.

Bryan
 

S Foote.

Experienced Member
Reaction score
66
oni said:
I just can't stand to see "another" Bryan Vs S Foote. thread maybe your both right! but till someone can show me a cure for all male pattern baldness! AND SHOW WHY AND HOW IT WORKS, can you both till then just agree to disagree!!!!!!!!!!! :shock:

I do agree that these debates can get repetitive and boring, but when i see Bryan trying to mislead people upon what studies `actually' mean, i have to respond. I think it is clear to everyone that Bryan and i are never going to agree, but then what are these forums for if not such debates?

I think people should educate `THEMSELVES' about the issues in male pattern baldness, and not just take anyone's word for what is a valid argument, and what is not!

If the people here just want to go along with the `claimed' science in hair loss, and buy the products that are indicated by it, thats their decision. But as you say, where's the cure? The current `direct' theory has been around for 60 odd years! So where's the cure?

The `REAL' cure you and everyone else wants, will `ONLY' come about when we move away from the assumptions and pre-conceptions of what people with something to sell, would have us believe!


In this thread, Bryan has decided to post an old study `claiming' that this disproves my theory, saying that the study `PROVES' a direct action within the follicles themselves. Bryan is also trying to claim that this and other studies disprove `any' role of contact inhibition in male pattern baldness and transplantation.

Let's cut the crap here!

Even the `AUTHOR' of that study suggests the results could be due to an effect `VERY CLOSE' to the follicles. This is exactly what my theory says, so where is my theory `disproved'????

Secondly, Bryan claims that contact inhibition has no part in male pattern baldness or transplantation. OK let's see what a `REAL' expert in transplantation say's about my theory?

This was Dr Bazans response.


"Dear Stephen:
Your note is very interesting. I have been following your work on the hydraulics of tissue (regarding mostly on scalp physiology).
I find your work is brilliant and it must be continued since it may open one of the gates we need for solving the problem.
Our research deals with some of the proposed ideas. We find contact inhibition is a true factor in the dermal model. In respect to HM, and particularly my own method that is called SIT (scalp impregnation therapy) the life expectancy and normal cycling of the follicular complex is of utmost importance. We expect an anagen telogen catagen cycle to be repetitive and self adjusting to the environment while conserving donor dominance. We have so much to do. Keep it up.
Best of luck (and hard work),

Dr. Carl
http://www.itzan.com
(Mexico)"

I will respond to Bryans latest `opinions' a bit later.

S Foote.
 

S Foote.

Experienced Member
Reaction score
66
Re: Dispensing with old-fashioned male pattern baldness theories, and one NEW

Bryan said:
S Foote. said:
I find it ironic Bryan that you start by saying quote:

"Nowadays we have overwhelming evidence for what causes male pattern balding"

Then you go on to quote a 26 year old study!! If thats your idea of `nowadays' Bryan, there is just no hope for you!

LOL!! Sorry, Stephen, I wasn't just referring to Orentreich's and Nordstom's older studies, I was ALSO referring to up-to-the-minute studies that are being conducted and published as we speak...for example, the ones showing how androgens affect hair follicles by altering the production of growth factors/inhibitors in the dermal papillae.

Oh yeah Bryan? I would be `VERY' interested in any studies you can cite that show androgens `ALTER' follicle growth `DIRECTLY'? The in-vitro studies show they don't!

But you are deliberately distracting again Bryan. You are trying to claim that the study you first cited here on transplantation `DISPROVES' my theory! So lets stick to the point shall we!

Bryan said:
S Foote. said:
Just read what i have said Bryan! I am not calling these `old time' researchers liars, i am saying they just didn't run the studies for long enough!

Really? How long is "long enough"?

Well quite obviously Bryan, for long enough to `notice' what we know today, that is that 4mm grafts as used in that study undergo a `balding process'!!

Bryan said:
S Foote. said:
The very fact that they did `NOT' report the balding process in larger grafts that is recognised today, supports what i am saying!

There IS no balding process (in the sense of androgenetic alopecia) in larger grafts, as long as they're taken from androgen-resistant areas of scalp. And contrary to that presumptuous statement you just made, it sure as hell isn't "recognized today".

Of `COURSE' a balding process is recognised in these grafts `today'! Just read the links i provided! I'am sorry the facts don't suit you Bryan. but thats science 8)

Bryan said:
S Foote. said:
That is that given time, the majority of follicles transplanted in these grafts `BALD' in `EXACTLY' the same way as the original follicles in the male pattern baldness area!!!!!!

You're in a state of denial.

http://www.hairtransplantmedical.com/ha ... repair.htm[/url]

"the follicles in the central portion of the grafts fail to survive. This results in hair growing only in the periphery of the grafts. This was a common phenomenon in 4- and 5-mm plugs, but can also be noted in grafts 3-mm in size."

You can `fantasize' all you like, the facts speak for themselves Bryan!

Bryan said:
S Foote. said:
Are you trying to deny what is accepted in modern transplantation knowledge Bryan? Are you trying to claim that hair loss in the greater central area of larger grafts is just a `myth'?

Here's a Google search on hair transplant doughnutting, take your pick!

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hair loss=en&ie ... arch&meta=

That's not the normal "balding process", Stephen. It appears that the explanation they give for "doughnutting" (when it occurs) is probably quite accurate: it's caused by a lack of oxygen diffusing into the larger grafts.

This is a perfect example of how you change your opinions in different threads, just to try to `win' a particular debate Bryan! Not a very scientific stance :roll:

You know damm well that experiments that `do' induce hypoxia in tissue, actually `IMPROVE' hair follicle condition and size!! You have such an article on your own site. and have quoted it before to `support' your anti-circulation effect stance in male pattern baldness! You just cant have it both ways Bryan 8)
http://www.geocities.com/bryan50001/artery_ligature.htm

The claim that hair loss in the centre of these grafts is due to hypoxia, is just an un-researched `assumption', that is typical of the second class `science' that seems to be common in the backwater of male pattern baldness.

The body of evidence, `INCLUDING' the study you posted, refutes this as the `mechanism' of hair loss in these grafts. Figure it out for yourself Bryan!

Bryan said:
S Foote. said:
All your quoted study shows, is that the `RATE' of continued hair loss, is dependent on the prior conditions. The transplanted bald follicles remain bald, and the `balding' follicles continue to bald.

EXACTLY! Now we're getting somewhere! And contrary to your theory, that balding (in follicles taken from just behind the hairline) continues at the VERY SAME RATE, even after they're transplanted to areas that are free of the alleged "edema" and "contact inhibition"! :wink: What's your explanation for that, Stephen??

Yawn :( The study involves hair `LOSS'. Of course this continues in these large grafts! It even happens in the grafts `YOU' claim are resistent to balding in a way fully consistent with male pattern baldness!!!!


Bryan said:
S Foote. said:
`MODERN' accepted knowledge shows us that transplanted follicles yet to start the balding process, `DO' bald in these grafts given time, which completely disproves what you are saying!

I have to give you a little bit of credit for your perseverence in trying to twist the facts into supporting your theory! The "doughnutting" isn't balding from androgenetic alopecia. It's a separate phenomenon. And you're unable to explain why there's such a CLEAR difference in the growth of those sets of hair follicles, even after both are transplanted to the SAME site free of any alleged "edema" and "contact inhibition".

You have some nerve to try to accuse me of twisting facts Bryan!

The samples `ALL' bald Bryan! The rate of the balding depends on there prior state, that just continues when transplanted! The only follicles that survive long term are those anagen follicles around the edges of the grafts. This shouldn't happen according to `YOUR' theory, simple!

Show me some evidence for `WHY' these large grafts continue to bald apart from hypoxia, which isn't supported scientificaly!

Defend `YOUR' theory Bryan! Explain why (with evidence), that what we are seeing in these grafts over the long term is `NOT' male pattern baldness????

Also explain, if you still try to claim that androgen related hair growth is dictated within the follicle, why androgen `dependent' body hair `changes' when transplanted to the scalp?

But most of all Bryan, if you are going to persist with this ill-informed tirade about hair transplantation, explain why the `experts' are now begining to accept that the surrounding tissue has an effect on transplantation?

This was refered to in an interview with Dr Limmer on this site.

http://www.hairlosstalk.com/newsletter/article181.htm

Quote:
" We've always believed that the recipient area where you plant the hair has very little or nothing to do with how the hair grows. There is some new information out of the Oriental research group that indicates more of an influence by the recipient area than we'd first thought. "

But `YOU' know better than the experts don't you Bryan! :roll:

S Foote.
 

Old Baldy

Senior Member
Reaction score
1
...::traxdata::... said:
No not really. It's just a complete pain in the arse to come into a thread that shows promise only find that it has turned into a slanging match.

It's very boring and makes me want to go to sleep.

Sorry...

Why does it make you want to go to sleep. Don't you think it's interesting that the male pattern baldness follicles remain male pattern baldness follicles where ever they are placed?

I think it is fascinating. I mean is that little follicle a "being" in and of itself? There's just so much I don't really know. Pisses me off but that's reality for me.

I mean, come on Trax., you take a male pattern baldness follicle and graft it into the arm and it STAYS a male pattern baldness follicle. That's fascinating to me. I guess I get excited very easily! :lol:

My wild, wild, wild guess is that there is something in the genes, DNA, etc., that got implanted into that follicle when created that says "you will become a male pattern baldness follicle someday"?!

Another thing that confuses me is that I've read many, many times that our bodies cycle (i.e., "replace") ALL our cells every 7 years on average. Does that male pattern baldness follicle just keep cycling with that same balding "DNA" message forever? I guess so? WHY!!?? (Well, WHY not?!)

I mean, you think about it, by the time you're 21 years old, that follicle has cycled 3 times "cellularly" (sp?). All three times it kept that same stupid male pattern baldness characteristic?! Must be? Someday we'll know that encoding sequence but I'll be dust in the wind IMHO.

Just plain fascinating Trax.!!

(Sorry Bryan and Stephen! Carry on guys.)
 
Top