moxsom said:
Bryan,
Could you please provide full citation information for that Rushton and Ramsay study? I would like to read it.
I read it as one of the chapters in a medical book, and I'm not sure if it's been published separately as a study in a medical journal. But here are the particulars: Rushton DH, Norris MJ, Ramsay ID. 1996. "Topical 0.05% finasteride significantly reduces serum DHT concentrations, but had no effect in preventing the expression of genetic hair loss in men." In: D. Van Neste and V. Randall.
Hair Research for the Next Millenium, Amsterdam: Elsevier. p. 359-362.
Here's a copy of a post I made a few years ago about this very same study, over on HLH:
We have to keep in mind that doctors and scientists are regular people just like the rest of us, and sometimes jump to conclusions and make errors, also just like the rest of us. I was amused by something written in the following study from 1996, which certainly doesn't seem that long ago: "Topical 0.05% finasteride significantly reduced serum DHT concentrations, but had no effect in preventing the expression of genetic hair loss in men", D.H. Rushton, M.J. Norris, and I.D. Ramsay. From the book "Hair Research for the Next Millenium", 1996.
I don't recall the names Norris and Ramsay, but Rushton is DEFINITELY well-known as a hairloss researcher. I've seen him and his articles/studies referenced many times. However, in the one above, they unsuccessfully tried topical finasteride (the title pretty much says it all), and they made the following amusing statement at the very end of their paper (added emphasis is my own):
"...These findings suggest that in individuals in whom hair follicles have little or no type-II 5a-reductase activity, topically applied inhibitors like finasteride are unlikely to be effective.
Oral Proscar (5 mg finasteride) is also unlikely to be effective unless metabolites with different specificity to 5a-reductase isozymes are produced. We therefore eagerly await the arrival of a type-I or mixed 5a-reductase inhibitor."
Ok, now I know that hindsight is always 20-20, and it's not nice to poke fun at what was said a few years ago when there was less information available than there is today. But I think those guys deserve at least a LITTLE ribbing, because there was a study with stumptailed macaques published as early as 1992 (four years BEFORE this one) which successfully tested finasteride for hairloss. I find it amusing that just because of the failure of their little topical experiment, they conclude that Proscar isn't going to work for male pattern baldness, and they're "eagerly awaiting" the arrival of a type 1 inhibitor, which they think is going to do a slam-bam job against hairloss!
