S Foote.
Experienced Member
- Reaction score
- 66
The current donor dominance theory of the results in hair transplantation, is very clear in what it claims. This is that the hair follicles at the back and sides of the head are basicaly `different' to those in the male pattern baldness area. Because of this, when they are transplanted to the male pattern baldness area they survive the balding process that goes on in the male pattern baldness area.
This notion of `different' follicles, came about because of early experiments involving hair transplantation by respected scientists like Orentreich and Nordstrom. These studies have recently been discussed here.
Nordstrom used grafts of 4mm in diameter, and studied these for 21 months. Orentreich reportedly used 4 to 6mm diameter grafts, and studied these for around 2 to 2 1/2 years.
Both these reputable scientists reported no significant loss of hair in these grafts when transplanted from the back of the head into the balding area, over the time period of the studies. This is a `VERY' important observation!
The problem over the period since these early experiments is that further more longer term observations concerning transplantation, have been limited within the transplantation industry. Any potential `problem' with the current `donor dominance' theory they are `selling', would likely be dismissed as not related to the basic theory of what they are selling!
Even so, some hard `FACTS' have emerged since the early studies on transplantation, that completely disprove the current notion of `differently' programed hair follicles.
Modern day knowledge now recognises that a `balding' process happens in grafts transplanted into the male pattern baldness area, from the alledged `resistent' area at the back of the head!!
This is described as`doughnutting'. This loss of the transplanted hair starts in the middle of the larger grafts, as used in the early studies, and continues to receed outwards in these grafts. This effects grafts of 3mm in diameter upwards, and is a consistent factor in these larger grafts. Over time, the only hair that remains in these grafts is around the edges!
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hair loss=en&ie ... arch&meta=
The transplantation industry tries to explain this through hypoxia, (a lack of oxygen in the centre of these large grafts}.
However, recognised physiology rejects the `hypoxia hypothesis' completely!.
If hypoxia is going to have an adverse effect on cell growth, it has this effect very quickly. This study shows that hypoxia induces a nine fold increase in production of TGF beta-1, from dermal fibroblasts in tissue culture within 72 hours!!
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer ... t=Abstract
The role of TGF beta-1 in reducing hair follicle growth is claimed as a central factor in male pattern baldness.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer ... query_hl=3
So if hypoxia `was' going to reduce hair growth in these large grafts, it would do so within weeks at the outside. Follicles in these grafts would certainly `NOT' survive the periods as reported in the early studies of around 2 years!
Most significantly, deliberately induced hypoxia in the male pattern baldness scalp, has been shown to `improve' hair follicle condition considerably!
http://www.geocities.com/bryan50001/artery_ligature.htm
To recap then, the `hard' evidence shows a slow loss of follicles starting from the centre and receeding outwards, in the very graft types that were claimed to `prove' the current donor dominance theory. Hypoxia can be ruled out as the cause of this balding process, because of the timeframe, and the quoted studies.
So what we are left with is that these grafts when transplanted into the male pattern baldness area, `ALSO' suffer from male pattern baldness!!
This body of evidence, conclusively `disproves' the current donor doninance theory, as it is currently presented!
The only transplanted follicles that are not effected by male pattern baldness long term, are those transplanted anagen follicles that have had a healing process occour directly adjacent to, or around them.
This is a consistent factor in grafts of any size, and because of this, the transplantation industry has reached the conclusion that `small' is better.
This evidence strongly suggests that the protection of transplanted follicles from miniaturization in the male pattern baldness area, is related to changes induced by the healing process in the tissue `around' the follicles, and not to any `difference' in the follicles themselves!
S Foote.
This notion of `different' follicles, came about because of early experiments involving hair transplantation by respected scientists like Orentreich and Nordstrom. These studies have recently been discussed here.
Nordstrom used grafts of 4mm in diameter, and studied these for 21 months. Orentreich reportedly used 4 to 6mm diameter grafts, and studied these for around 2 to 2 1/2 years.
Both these reputable scientists reported no significant loss of hair in these grafts when transplanted from the back of the head into the balding area, over the time period of the studies. This is a `VERY' important observation!
The problem over the period since these early experiments is that further more longer term observations concerning transplantation, have been limited within the transplantation industry. Any potential `problem' with the current `donor dominance' theory they are `selling', would likely be dismissed as not related to the basic theory of what they are selling!
Even so, some hard `FACTS' have emerged since the early studies on transplantation, that completely disprove the current notion of `differently' programed hair follicles.
Modern day knowledge now recognises that a `balding' process happens in grafts transplanted into the male pattern baldness area, from the alledged `resistent' area at the back of the head!!
This is described as`doughnutting'. This loss of the transplanted hair starts in the middle of the larger grafts, as used in the early studies, and continues to receed outwards in these grafts. This effects grafts of 3mm in diameter upwards, and is a consistent factor in these larger grafts. Over time, the only hair that remains in these grafts is around the edges!
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hair loss=en&ie ... arch&meta=
The transplantation industry tries to explain this through hypoxia, (a lack of oxygen in the centre of these large grafts}.
However, recognised physiology rejects the `hypoxia hypothesis' completely!.
If hypoxia is going to have an adverse effect on cell growth, it has this effect very quickly. This study shows that hypoxia induces a nine fold increase in production of TGF beta-1, from dermal fibroblasts in tissue culture within 72 hours!!
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer ... t=Abstract
The role of TGF beta-1 in reducing hair follicle growth is claimed as a central factor in male pattern baldness.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer ... query_hl=3
So if hypoxia `was' going to reduce hair growth in these large grafts, it would do so within weeks at the outside. Follicles in these grafts would certainly `NOT' survive the periods as reported in the early studies of around 2 years!
Most significantly, deliberately induced hypoxia in the male pattern baldness scalp, has been shown to `improve' hair follicle condition considerably!
http://www.geocities.com/bryan50001/artery_ligature.htm
To recap then, the `hard' evidence shows a slow loss of follicles starting from the centre and receeding outwards, in the very graft types that were claimed to `prove' the current donor dominance theory. Hypoxia can be ruled out as the cause of this balding process, because of the timeframe, and the quoted studies.
So what we are left with is that these grafts when transplanted into the male pattern baldness area, `ALSO' suffer from male pattern baldness!!
This body of evidence, conclusively `disproves' the current donor doninance theory, as it is currently presented!
The only transplanted follicles that are not effected by male pattern baldness long term, are those transplanted anagen follicles that have had a healing process occour directly adjacent to, or around them.
This is a consistent factor in grafts of any size, and because of this, the transplantation industry has reached the conclusion that `small' is better.
This evidence strongly suggests that the protection of transplanted follicles from miniaturization in the male pattern baldness area, is related to changes induced by the healing process in the tissue `around' the follicles, and not to any `difference' in the follicles themselves!
S Foote.