Hair Loss Cure Versus Cure For Entire Aging Process

[That Guy]

David and That_Guy check this out:

These darn scientists (in the below article) are working on an anti-aging treatment. They say their anti-aging treatment might reverse human hair loss. But hey who needs scientists when some guys at a website called Hair Loss Talk have already established with certainty that the hair loss has nothing to do with the aging process, even though aged mice recover their lost hair after scientists reverse their hair loss.

You guys should call the scientists referenced in the study below and inform them of your certainty that the aging process has nothing to do with hair loss. When you call them to enlighten them make sure you tell them about all of your scientific credentials and all of the practical scientific research you all have done regarding the issues of aging and hair loss.

http://www.menshealth.com/health/new-hair-loss-and-aging-treatment-peptide-therapy

This Men's Health article is uninformed and drawing their own conclusion on the study based on their own misunderstanding of male pattern baldness as "aging'. The mice that regrew hair did not have Androgenetic Alopecia.

Nameless, all that is needed to debunk your line of thinking in this entire thread is going back to when scientists coined the term Androgenetic Alopecia.

Here's the relevant information:

"In the 50’s experiments were done by Dr. James Hamilton. He was also the first one who created the term “androgenetic alopecia”. He saw that men who had been castrated before puberty never went bald. Interestingly when he injected testosterone into these castrated men, some suddenly started balding but some did not. Most notably the ones with a family history of baldness started balding.
Why were his experiments so important? Well he showed that baldness is androgen dependent, because castrated men before puberty showed no signs of balding. He also showed that there is a genetic side to the story because when he injected some with testosterone, not everyone started balding. This is also why we call it “androgenetic” alopecia. Because for baldness to occur as we know it you need both androgens + genetics."

If anyone is suggesting that the injection of testosterone into these eunuchs caused SOME of them to "age" faster, then they are simply out of their minds as that is undoubtedly not the case. As such, a reversal of aging is not going to bring that hair back. Why?

Because as I keep demonstrating, Androgenetic Alopecia is a completely separate, hereditary, degenerative condition.

 

[nameless]

This Men's Health article is uninformed and drawing their own conclusion on the study based on their own misunderstanding of male pattern baldness as "aging'. The mice that regrew hair did not have Androgenetic Alopecia.

Nameless, all that is needed to debunk your line of thinking in this entire thread is going back to when scientists coined the term Androgenetic Alopecia.

Here's the relevant information:

"In the 50’s experiments were done by Dr. James Hamilton. He was also the first one who created the term “androgenetic alopecia”. He saw that men who had been castrated before puberty never went bald. Interestingly when he injected testosterone into these castrated men, some suddenly started balding but some did not. Most notably the ones with a family history of baldness started balding.
Why were his experiments so important? Well he showed that baldness is androgen dependent, because castrated men before puberty showed no signs of balding. He also showed that there is a genetic side to the story because when he injected some with testosterone, not everyone started balding. This is also why we call it “androgenetic” alopecia. Because for baldness to occur as we know it you need both androgens + genetics."

If anyone is suggesting that the injection of testosterone into these eunuchs caused SOME of them to "age" faster, then they are simply out of their minds as that is undoubtedly not the case. As such, a reversal of aging is not going to bring that hair back. Why?

Because as I keep demonstrating, Androgenetic Alopecia is a completely separate, hereditary, degenerative condition.

First, thanks for posting this study. I hadn't seen it in awhile and I've been looking for it.

Secondly, the vulnerable men started balding suddenly after exposure to androgen because their follicles had reached/passed the point IN TIME that they would be vulnerable to androgen. In other words, without the passage of time those men would not have started to lose their hair when they were exposed to androgen. Hence, their follicles had to age in order to become vulnerable to androgen.

 

[H]

@nameless If you are 70 to 80 years old you betcha your gonna have more hair by effectively reversing your aging and resetting the Hayflick limit of the cells in your body no doubt about that. If you have male pattern baldness and get the cure for aging your going to get younger aaaaaand your gonna have male pattern baldness still. Check out pictures of kids with progeria their bodies are unfortunately biologically in their 70's although they are only maybe 10 years old yes they have extremely thin hair or none at all do any of them have a widows peak? Nope, this is because most of them don't get old enough sadly to experience puberty as the average lifespan of progeria is 13 years old. If you want to reverse hairloss find a way to reverse puberty in its entirety but please make haste.

 

[tele]

This thread makes me question the general sanity of interacting on forums such as this.

 

[Trichosan]

This thread makes me question the general sanity of interacting on forums such as this.

Such awareness occasionally creeps through to us in the matrix.

 

[lemoncloak]

Secondly, the vulnerable men started balding suddenly after exposure to androgen because their follicles had reached/passed the point IN TIME that they would be vulnerable to androgen. In other words, without the passage of time those men would not have started to lose their hair when they were exposed to androgen. Hence, their follicles had to age in order to become vulnerable to androgen.

Aging and Androgenetic Alopecia both end up in cell senescence and apoptosis.
They both get worse with time.
Aging is mostly caused by our faulty dna replication mechanism that shortens the telomeres, as well as the cascade of senescence inducing factors the cell produces after the telomere gets too short.
Androgenetic Alopecia is caused by variants of the AR gene that have shorter CAG sequences, causing demethylation of the AR gene in the follicles (DNA unwinds at that point making transcription of the gene possible) as well as the cascade of senescence inducing factors the cell produces when AR is upregulated. Obviously these factors are regulated differently in different people, so Androgenetic Alopecia is multifactorial, but as far as I've seen, and someone correct me if they know better, an overactive AR gene is the only reason for Androgenetic Alopecia - have a good AR gene and you won't go bald no matter what other Androgenetic Alopecia related genes you have.

I guess he was aging too fast.

 

[That Guy]

Aging and Androgenetic Alopecia both end up in cell senescence and apoptosis.
They both get worse with time.
Aging is mostly caused by our faulty dna replication mechanism that shortens the telomeres, as well as the cascade of senescence inducing factors the cell produces after the telomere gets too short.
Androgenetic Alopecia is caused by variants of the AR gene that have shorter CAG sequences, causing demethylation of the AR gene in the follicles (DNA unwinds at that point making transcription of the gene possible) as well as the cascade of senescence inducing factors the cell produces when AR is upregulated. Obviously these factors are regulated differently in different people, so Androgenetic Alopecia is multifactorial, but as far as I've seen, and someone correct me if they know better, an overactive AR gene is the only reason for Androgenetic Alopecia - have a good AR gene and you won't go bald no matter what other Androgenetic Alopecia related genes you have.

View attachment 52017View attachment 52017
View attachment 52019
I guess he was aging too fast.

 

[nameless]

wrong again.

and re-editing every of your post because you're insecure doesn't make it better. you rethink and rewrite almost every of your posts because you don't want to look foolish but it exposes your continuous nonsense even more. you should really get a break. you spend hours on this and other forums every day, and most of the time you're fighting and defending yourself. you need to get off the forums for some weeks, months, or even years. it's harmful to you.

Sorry I didn't get back to you yesterday. I was busy eating Easter Dinner with a few friends and a gal I know while you were getting yourself all worked up over my use of the edit feature.

The edit feature is here for us to use so I don't understand why you get your panties all bunched up over some guy using the edit feature. At any rate, please keep getting upset about it because it's entertaining to see you get yourself all worked up over it. I'm happy that it disturbs you.

 

[infinitepain]

There are also grandpas out there without wrinkles. What we see as aging is just the accumulation of cell damage. What do you think Androgenetic Alopecia is if it's not cell damage? Everyone ages differently.


In that case, it would be smarter to get your hair fixed ASAP, since aging won't be cured in your lifetime.

You don't get it. Lossing your hair on your early 20's while 60 year olds have this hair while claiming lossing hair is a natural process of aging is simply insane:

Lossing your hair on your early 20's = sh*t genetics. Untolerable.
Aging and male pattern baldness are separated from the concept of "aging".
You are just a coping autist like Ray Kurzweil that thinks we'll hit singularity and we can finally be young and have NW0 forever.

 

[pegasus2]

You don't get it. Lossing your hair on your early 20's while 60 year olds have this hair while claiming lossing hair is a natural process of aging is simply insane:

Lossing your hair on your early 20's = sh*t genetics. Untolerable.
Aging and male pattern baldness are separated from the concept of "aging".
You are just a coping autist like Ray Kurzweil that thinks we'll hit singularity and we can finally be young and have NW0 forever.

How seriously retarded if you can't understand that people agree differently. Some people lose their hair, some people get liver spots, some people get wrinkles. Some people get gray hair in their early 20s, while others never do. So that's not a sign of aging too. The very fact that people think you're older than you are when they see you bald prkves that it is a sign of aging. Aging is what we perceive it to be. You just don't see many 20 year olds who are bald and gray. It's something you see me the older people get, therefore it's a sign of aging. The more signs of aging you have, the older you look.

 

[pegasus2]

You don't get it. Lossing your hair on your early 20's while 60 year olds have this hair while claiming lossing hair is a natural process of aging is simply insane:

Lossing your hair on your early 20's = sh*t genetics. Untolerable.
Aging and male pattern baldness are separated from the concept of "aging".
You are just a coping autist like Ray Kurzweil that thinks we'll hit singularity and we can finally be young and have NW0 forever.

How seriously retarded if you can't understand that people agree differently. Some people lose their hair, some people get liver spots, some people get wrinkles. Some people get gray hair in their early 20s, while others never do. So that's not a sign of aging too. The very fact that people think you're older than you are when they see you bald prkves that it is a sign of aging. Aging is what we perceive it to be. You just don't see many 20 year olds who are bald and gray. It's something you see me the older people get, therefore it's a sign of aging. The more signs of aging you have, the older you look.

Sorry I didn't get back to you yesterday. I was busy eating Easter Dinner with a few friends and a gal I know while you were getting yourself all worked up over my use of editing.

The edit feature is here for us to use so I don't understand why you get your panties all bunched up over some guy using the edit feature. At any rate, please keep getting upset about it because it's entertaining seeing you get yourself all worked up about it. I'm happy that it disturbs you.

I don't why you edit. I know I have to edit a lot because I'll swype the wrong word, and don't notice until afterwards, and it's not clear what I meant.

 

[infinitepain]

How seriously retarded if you can't understand that people agree differently. Some people lose their hair, some people get liver spots, some people get wrinkles. Some people get gray hair in their early 20s, while others never do. So that's not a sign of aging too. The very fact that people think you're older than you are when they see you bald prkves that it is a sign of aging. Aging is what we perceive it to be. You just don't see many 20 year olds who are bald and gray. It's something you see me the older people get, therefore it's a sign of aging. The more signs of aging you have, the older you look.


I don't why you edit. I know I have to edit a lot because I'll swype the wrong word, and don't notice until afterwards, and it's not clear what I meant.

WROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG.

When people see a babysmoothed 20 year old with a NW3 they think there's something abnormal, because YOUR FACE DOES NOT MATCH THE ABNORMAL HAIRLOSS.

You need to attack the hairloss problem, not some delusional global anti aging solution.

 

[pegasus2]

WROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG.

When people see a babysmoothed 20 year old with a NW3 they think there's something abnormal, because YOUR FACE DOES NOT MATCH THE ABNORMAL HAIRLOSS.

You need to attack the hairloss problem, not some delusional global anti aging solution.

Of course you do, when did I say otherwise? You have me confused with nameless.