- Reaction score
Bryan said:S Foote. said:Well then Bryan, we agree that hair doesn't `need' androgens, and follicle size has some `independent' control influence.
Here's some free advice for you: in a specific context like this, you should always specify WHAT KIND OF HAIR you're referring to. That's because there's a considerable variation in the response to androgens, from one type of follicle to another.
Occipital scalp hair follicles have very little or no response to androgens, but BEARD hair follicles, on the other hand...
[quote="S Foote.":d2011]But adrogens clearly do `NOT' show the same effects in-vitro as they do in-vivo!
They sure as hell DO, Stephen.[/quote:d2011]
No they don't Bryan, people can read the studies for themselves! Your just trying to save face here, and failing miserably :wink:
Now are you going to provide links or specific quotes from the study you refered to or not?
What's up Bryan, chicken? :roll:
Bryan said:S Foote. said:We all know that androgens in some way `change' terminal scalp follicles into male pattern baldness follicles in-vivo.
But they do `NOT' `change the same terminal follicle cells into male pattern baldness follicle cells in-vitro!!
Not overnight in a petri dish, no. It takes longer than that...
NO, NO, NO, Bryan!!
`WHAT' takes longer than that??????????
`WHAT' time related mechanism are you refering to??????????
Just trying to claim that some `magic' mystery mechanism `will' eventually change the results of an experiment to suit your argument, is plainly ridiculous.
Thats not science Bryan, it's just your wishfull thinking :roll: