For bryan and Foote.

[Bryan]

OK Bryan, you have shown us you can't comprehend the significance of that study to the point in hand. I am not going to waste any more of my time trying to teach you scientific deduction.

People reading this can see that i have answered your question, even if you don't understand the answer.

Oh, my goodness...ending our little discussion with a whimper, Stephen?

Let the record show, for posterity, that no matter how hard he's looked (and there's no doubt at all in my mind that he's searched REALLY hard), Mr. Stephen Foote has never been able to find a single example in biology where contact inhibition causes a "flip" in the way that a given tissue reacts to androgens. He has utterly FAILED at that task. That's a pity, because if he could find such an example, it might lend a tiny bit of credibility to his unusual theory. But alas, it looks like it simply is not to be...

Bryan

 

[S Foote.]

For the record, Dave001 is the sad fool who found the scientific term "Ockhams razor" during an internet search. He then thought that if he refered to this term on internet sites, people would think he was inteligent and had some scientific knowledge.

:laugh:

For the record? For the record, you have the habit of making up wildly absurd stories without any basis. For the record, I'd expect that intelligent persons would actually spell the word intelligent correctly (and perhaps even exceedingly complicated words such as referred, too).

I like most people here are not to concerned with the odd typo or spelling error. We are a lot more interested in the scientific content, something that yet again you try to distract from.

My reference to your past claim about Ockham's razor "IS" a matter of record here, as is your consistant refusal to justify your statement in any meaningfull scientific way.

If you are so concerned with spelling and correct punctuation etc, you should try English or essay forums for a hobby. You would at least have some credibility there, instead of making yourself look ridiculous here trying to talk about science. :wink:

S Foote.

 

[S Foote.]

OK Bryan, you have shown us you can't comprehend the significance of that study to the point in hand. I am not going to waste any more of my time trying to teach you scientific deduction.

People reading this can see that i have answered your question, even if you don't understand the answer.

Oh, my goodness...ending our little discussion with a whimper, Stephen?

Let the record show, for posterity, that no matter how hard he's looked (and there's no doubt at all in my mind that he's searched REALLY hard), Mr. Stephen Foote has never been able to find a single example in biology where contact inhibition causes a "flip" in the way that a given tissue reacts to androgens. He has utterly FAILED at that task. That's a pity, because if he could find such an example, it might lend a tiny bit of credibility to his unusual theory. But alas, it looks like it simply is not to be...

Bryan

Pretty pathetic response, even by your standards Bryan :roll:

If you had any true scientific aptitude, you would easily see the validity of my argument in the context of the in-vitro issue.

I have also referenced a study that showed prior contact inhibition and the activity of TGF Beta-1, the growth factor active in the in-vitro follicle studies, are linked. This is the abstract:

__________________________________

Cell cycle arrest in G0/G1 phase by contact inhibition and TGF-beta 1 in mink Mv1Lu lung epithelial cells.

Wu F, Buckley S, Bui KC, Yee A, Wu HY, Liu J, Warburton D.

Department of Surgery, Children's Hospital of Los Angeles, California, USA.

We postulated that contact inhibition and transforming growth factor (TGF)-beta 1 may target the same molecules to negatively regulate the Mv1Lu cell cycle in G0/G1. Both contact inhibition and TGF-beta 1 suppressed the expression of a 45-kDa protein (p45); cyclins D2 and B1; cyclin-dependent protein kinase (Cdk)-4, Cdc-2, and Cdc-2-associated activity; and the phosphorylation of retinoblastoma tumor-suppressor protein (pRb) but did not affect the expression of cyclins D1, E, and A or the expression of Cdk-2 and Cdk-5. Expression of p45 reappeared 12 h after release from contact inhibition and 6-8 h after release from TGF-beta 1, while TGF-beta 1 prevented release from contact inhibition and maintained suppression of both p45 and cyclin D2. Additionally, cyclin D2 phosphorylation and its associated kinase activity were strongly inhibited by contact inhibition and TGF-beta 1. Thus suppression of p45, cyclin D2/Cdk-4, and cyclin B1/Cdc-2 expression and/or activities is targeted both by contact inhibition and by TGF-beta 1 and may define common mechanisms through which these negative growth signals are integrated.

_______________________________________

But again you just can't comprehend the significance of this can you Bryan :wink:

People will again note that you don't even attempt to give us any references for "your" explaination Bryan 8) So i will borrow your phrasing from above!

Let the record show, for posterity, that no matter how hard he's looked (and there's no doubt at all in my mind that he's searched REALLY hard), Mr. Bryan Shelton has never been able to find a single example in biology where contact with androgens over time, causes a "flip" in the way that a given tissue reacts to androgens. He has utterly FAILED at that task.


S Foote.

 

[Bryan]

I have also referenced a study that showed prior contact inhibition and the activity of TGF Beta-1, the growth factor active in the in-vitro follicle studies, are linked.

Thanks. Now give me what I asked for: an example in biology of contact inhibition causing a "flip" in the way that a cell or tissue responds to androgens.

Bryan

 

[Dave001]

[quote="S Foote.":156a9]For the record, Dave001 is the sad fool who found the scientific term "Ockhams razor" during an internet search. He then thought that if he refered to this term on internet sites, people would think he was inteligent and had some scientific knowledge.

:laugh:

For the record? For the record, you have the habit of making up wildly absurd stories without any basis. For the record, I'd expect that intelligent persons would actually spell the word intelligent correctly (and perhaps even exceedingly complicated words such as referred, too).

I like most people here are not to concerned with the odd typo or spelling error.[/quote:156a9]

Even when they occur at excessive frequencies -- I noticed. BTW, why would I care whether you like most people here? :wink:

We are a lot more interested in the scientific content, something that yet again you try to distract from.

Some might feel that fictitious claims concerning a several-month-old reference to Ockham's razor falls into the category of detracting.

My reference to your past claim about Ockham's razor "IS" a matter of record here,

It "IS"? Then perhaps you can tell us where I mentioned when I'd first heard about Ockham's razor, because even I haven't the faintest clue of when that was, or how it is relevant. What a bewildering claim. When did you learn about the Spanish Inquisition (probably when pursuing defensive strategies for your theory)?

as is your consistant refusal to justify your statement in any meaningfull scientific way.

Maybe the problem is not that Bryan or I refuse to substantiate our arguments, but that your basic illiteracy consistently prevents you from understanding them in a meaningful way.

 

[S Foote.]

I have also referenced a study that showed prior contact inhibition and the activity of TGF Beta-1, the growth factor active in the in-vitro follicle studies, are linked.

Thanks. Now give me what I asked for: an example in biology of contact inhibition causing a "flip" in the way that a cell or tissue responds to androgens.

Bryan

I have given a scientific answer to your question Bryan, it is not my fault if you cannot grasp it!

After all i would not expect someone who posted a thread claiming an old study about transplantation "proved" a direct action of androgens on follicles, when even the author said the results could be because of an effect "AROUND" the follicles, to have any real grasp of science!!!

http://www.hairlosstalk.com/discussions ... highlight=

Not only that, but you failed completely to recognise what is "NOW" common knowledge. That is that the very graft size you claimed proved your point, are now known to continue balding for God's sake!

I notice that yet again you try to divert my question to you, into a critique of my theory. The recognised tactic of a "psuedo scientist".

Quotes from an article on people like you Bryan:

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRel ... seudo.html


"Pseudoscience does not progress.
There are fads, and a pseudoscientist may switch from one fad to another (from ghosts to ESP research, from flying saucers to psychic studies, from ESP research to looking for Bigfoot). But within a given topic, no progress is made. Little or no new information is uncovered. New theories are seldom proposed, and old concepts are rarely modified or discarded in light of new "discoveries," since pseudoscience rarely makes new "discoveries." The older the idea, the more respect it receives. No natural phenomena or processes previously unknown to science have ever been discovered by pseudoscientists. Indeed, pseudoscientists almost invariably deal with phenomena well known to scientists, but little known to the general public—so that the public will swallow whatever the pseudoscientist wants to claim. Examples include firewalking and "Kirlian" photography."

If you want to retain any credibility at all in these forums Bryan, you will answer my question to you?

Your continued efforts to avoid answering my question, are just confirming to people here that you are just "pretending" to be a scientist here Bryan :wink:

S Foote.

 

[S Foote.]

http://www.hairlosstalk.com/discussions ... c&start=70[/url]

Quote:

_____________________________________________


Footy wrote:
Dave, listen up.

The problem is, you have yet to raise any specific points regarding my theory you have a problem with?

Dave001 wrote:
The problem is that you don't have a theory. It is readily dispensed of by Occam's razor.

_______________________________________________


So everyone can now see just what a sad pathetic liar you really are Dave :wink:

S Foote.

 

[Bryan]

I have given a scientific answer to your question Bryan, it is not my fault if you cannot grasp it!

If you're just going to keep stonewalling me, then this conversation is over.

 

[michael barry]

Stephen,
I read your post concerning contact inhibtion acknowledged in changing the expression of genes in lung epithlieal cells. So you have in fact been able to demonstrate that "pressure" can indeed change how certain tissues are told to behave.

However, did you ever get around to getting someone tested for rising fluid/pressure levels in their balding SCALP? Youve put a good deal of time in your theory. It would seem you would be anxious to have a doctor "check it out" on some balding guy to see if any edema of the scalp is in fact happening.

Stephen, did you see this http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFrien ... 10,00.html
Here is an excerpt from that, it 'sorta' has a few ideas in common with your theory, what do you think of this?


The L'Oreal research, that used 8000 men concluded that "two types of mark start to appear around the root of an apparently healthy follicle. Cupulae, small bulges in the scalp, grow around the follicle as ageing skin cells SQUEEZE IT AND FORCE ITS ROOTS TOWARD THE SURFACE. Later, coloured blotches or "halos" can be seen around the follicles as they become distressed or inlfamed.

"In the next stage, certain hair follicles become so compressed that they start to produce finer hairs with thinner diameters. A high-level "hair diameter diversity"--with some thick and some thin hairs on the scalp--is a good indicator of incipient alopecia. Eventually, the follicles lose their healthy roots altogether, and produce only fine, downy hairs that are all that remain on a bald head."

 

[Dave001]

Your pathetic lie's are exposed in this very thread!

http://www.hairlosstalk.com/discussions ... c&start=70

Quote:

_____________________________________________


Footy wrote:
Dave, listen up.

The problem is, you have yet to raise any specific points regarding my theory you have a problem with?

Dave001 wrote:
The problem is that you don't have a theory. It is readily dispensed of by Occam's razor.

_______________________________________________


So everyone can now see just what a sad pathetic liar you really are Dave :wink:

Really? Where? Maybe you ought to go back and read the dialogue more closely.

 

[Dave001]

Stephen,
I read your post concerning contact inhibtion acknowledged in changing the expression of genes in lung epithlieal cells. So you have in fact been able to demonstrate that "pressure" can indeed change how certain tissues are told to behave.

However, did you ever get around to getting someone tested for rising fluid/pressure levels in their balding SCALP? Youve put a good deal of time in your theory. It would seem you would be anxious to have a doctor "check it out" on some balding guy to see if any edema of the scalp is in fact happening.

Michael, you've just touched upon the central comedy of his theory. It's based upon physical phenomena that are amenable to empircal validation by simple means. But ask him about fluid pressure and he'll run for cover.

 

[S Foote.]

I have given a scientific answer to your question Bryan, it is not my fault if you cannot grasp it!

If you're just going to keep stonewalling me, then this conversation is over.

Me stonewalling!!!

Your double standards are clear for all to see Bryan :roll:

Seldom in science is there absolute "proof" of proccesses. I have argued the case for the "possibility" of prior contact inhibition of cell growth, changing the expression of growth genes in follicle cells , that then respond differently to androgens in-vitro.

I have presented my logic using precedents in known physiology, in the proper scientific way.

Other people here understand the relevance, even if you don't :wink:

I have asked you to argue your view of androgens "directly" causing a flipped resonse to androgens in the same way. Unlike you Bryan i have not demanded absolute "proof" of your contention, just some proper scientific precedent for it in the literature.

Everyone can now see that you just cannot support your guess work in a scientific manner, so there is no point going on with this.

It's funny that when people question the science behind Dr Proctors products, you always play down the need for any absolute "proof" then!!

Funny that 8)

S Foote.

 

[S Foote.]

Stephen,
I read your post concerning contact inhibtion acknowledged in changing the expression of genes in lung epithlieal cells. So you have in fact been able to demonstrate that "pressure" can indeed change how certain tissues are told to behave.

However, did you ever get around to getting someone tested for rising fluid/pressure levels in their balding SCALP? Youve put a good deal of time in your theory. It would seem you would be anxious to have a doctor "check it out" on some balding guy to see if any edema of the scalp is in fact happening.

Stephen, did you see this http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFrien ... 10,00.html
Here is an excerpt from that, it 'sorta' has a few ideas in common with your theory, what do you think of this?


The L'Oreal research, that used 8000 men concluded that "two types of mark start to appear around the root of an apparently healthy follicle. Cupulae, small bulges in the scalp, grow around the follicle as ageing skin cells SQUEEZE IT AND FORCE ITS ROOTS TOWARD THE SURFACE. Later, coloured blotches or "halos" can be seen around the follicles as they become distressed or inlfamed.

"In the next stage, certain hair follicles become so compressed that they start to produce finer hairs with thinner diameters. A high-level "hair diameter diversity"--with some thick and some thin hairs on the scalp--is a good indicator of incipient alopecia. Eventually, the follicles lose their healthy roots altogether, and produce only fine, downy hairs that are all that remain on a bald head."

Thanks for the link Michael, i will check it out.

The pressure differences i am talking about are quite small, and so hard to accurately measure directly.

I contend that the sweating differences measured in this study clearly demonstrate the fluid pressure differences in male pattern baldness tissue. This has been posted before:

"Beards, baldness, and sweat secretion.

Cabanac M, Brinnel H.

Universite Laval, Faculte de Medicine, Department de Physiologie, Quebec, Canada.

The hypothesis according to which male common baldness has developed in the human species as a compensation for the growth of a beard in order to achieve heat loss has been tested. In 100 clean-shaven men direct measurement of the area of glabrous skin on the forehead and calvaria was found to be proportional to that of the hairy skin on the lips, cheeks, chin and neck. During light hyperthermia the evaporation rate on the bald scalp was 2 to 3 times higher than on the hairy scalp. Conversely the evaporation rate was practically equal on the foreheads and chins of women and unbearded young men, while in adult clean-shaven bearded men it was 40% less on the chin than the forehead. These results support the hypothesis that male baldness is a thermoregulatory compensation for the growth of a beard in adults.

PMID: 3203673 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] "

Regards.

S Foote.

 

[S Foote.]

Your pathetic lie's are exposed in this very thread!

http://www.hairlosstalk.com/discussions ... c&start=70

Quote:

_____________________________________________


Footy wrote:
Dave, listen up.

The problem is, you have yet to raise any specific points regarding my theory you have a problem with?

Dave001 wrote:
The problem is that you don't have a theory. It is readily dispensed of by Occam's razor.

_______________________________________________


So everyone can now see just what a sad pathetic liar you really are Dave :wink:

Really? Where? Maybe you ought to go back and read the dialogue more closely.

So you can't even read now, what a supprise :roll:

S Foote.

 

[S Foote.]

Stephen,
I read your post concerning contact inhibtion acknowledged in changing the expression of genes in lung epithlieal cells. So you have in fact been able to demonstrate that "pressure" can indeed change how certain tissues are told to behave.

However, did you ever get around to getting someone tested for rising fluid/pressure levels in their balding SCALP? Youve put a good deal of time in your theory. It would seem you would be anxious to have a doctor "check it out" on some balding guy to see if any edema of the scalp is in fact happening.

Michael, you've just touched upon the central comedy of his theory. It's based upon physical phenomena that are amenable to empircal validation by simple means. But ask him about fluid pressure and he'll run for cover.

Many people have asked me about fluid pressure, and i have always responded as every one knows. Lying is just second nature to you Dave.

The sweating study i refer to here "IS" empircal validation by simple means of my theory, so are you happy now?

S Foote.

 

[Dave001]

[quote="michael barry":52063]Stephen,
I read your post concerning contact inhibtion acknowledged in changing the expression of genes in lung epithlieal cells. So you have in fact been able to demonstrate that "pressure" can indeed change how certain tissues are told to behave.

However, did you ever get around to getting someone tested for rising fluid/pressure levels in their balding SCALP? Youve put a good deal of time in your theory. It would seem you would be anxious to have a doctor "check it out" on some balding guy to see if any edema of the scalp is in fact happening.

Michael, you've just touched upon the central comedy of his theory. It's based upon physical phenomena that are amenable to empircal validation by simple means. But ask him about fluid pressure and he'll run for cover.

Many people have asked me about fluid pressure, and i have always responded as every one knows. Lying is just second nature to you Dave.

The sweating study i refer to here "IS" empircal validation by simple means of my theory, so are you happy now?

S Foote.[/quote:52063]no

 

[michael barry]

Stephen,
I can see how increased sweating from a bald area versus sweating from a hairy area might be interpreted to mean that there is more water in the bald area.

However in adult bearded men who were clean shaven, 40% less sweating on the hairy beard area versus the foreheads just shows me that the difference in sweating on the bald versus not bald scalp is the hair follicles themselves acting like shade trees with puddles of water underneath them versus puddles of water out in a open field on the same sunny day.

Get it? Pre puberty when a boy has no hair on his chin, his chin and forehead SWEAT THE SAME. POST puberty, when he has a beard and keeps it shaven......the big new beard follicles allow for 40% less evaporation (than the forehead evap. rate it used to be equal to) because much of the skin's water content is underneath the big follicles, shielded from the light like a puddle of water under a big ol' shade tree.

From that may we not all infer that the increased sweating on a bald scalp is much more from not having the hair "shade it" from the light also?

I do this realising that sweating 2 to 3 times more sweating in balding vs. non balding scalp is MORE than 40% however. I must state that there is alot of water bearing baby fat under the chin and more in the scalp than the tightly stretched skin of the forehead and this could (I think we'd all admit) skew things a little.

Thats another way to interpret those results than the study author's I know, but male pattern baldness has stumped so many that Id rather overanalyse then under. Also, if baldness is JUST A THERMOREGULATORY compensation......then folks who evolved in hot areas should be the ones going bald, correct? I mean why should their be baldness in Northern Europe, where you need your hair to stay warm, happen if thats all it was?

 

[michael barry]

On Peter Proctor,
Why doesnt that guy update his website with more pictures of before and afters? I wish he'd put up pics of Prox-N's performance (note, one hudred bucks a month is too much to spend on hair...that rules out Proxiphen for me personally).
I emailed the Doctor and asked if he put any anti-androgen at all in Prox-N, which Im interested in), he stated "NO" and that the only proven topical anti-androgen was spironolactone. I know from Byran's posts on hamster flanks that fatty acids lowered DHT levels spledidly......so Im all for ALA and GLA, and was hoping Proctor included that in Prox-N (I was mislead into believing he did by yet-another mistake on hairloss-research.org).
I, like a buncha guys, would like to take a "all-in-one topical". I wish someone would put ALA or GLA with a copper peptide, add a few SOD's and catalese, with some bsix in a topical, with a nitric oxide releaser or just plain ol' 2% minoxidil. ALL IN ONE, for about 25 bucks a month. That would be SOOO nice.

 

[Aplunk1]

I want that, too!

 

[2tone]

The study didnt prove that there was a direct causal relationship between male pattern baldness and body temp .. it drew a very strong relationship between the mechanism of thermoregulation and hair growth . The DHT erffect may vector into any link .
Wherever it vectors in its similarity to the sweat cycle it has to be 'from' somewhere where the DHT is present .. DHT is basically there in the Follicle and to a very high affinity the Sebum also .