im booked to have my galea removed in Belgium in September

[sneakyp]

i had to give my 2 cents after reading another psychotic post by this dude.

2 cents=ur a demented sick f*** :shock:

 

[Bryan]

more important would be "is there any evidence that attempting to manipulate scalp edema/ pressure effects hair growth.."

There's not a WHIT of evidence to that effect. On the contrary, there's plenty of evidence that "edema" doesn't have squat to do with male pattern baldness: normal follicles transplanted into such an area of "edema" grow just fine, and balding follicles transplanted to other areas lacking "edema" continue to bald, right on schedule. It's a no-brainer, isn't it?

Bryan

 

[S Foote.]

W

When there is edema in an area of tissue, this is reduced somewhat by dispersion of fluid through the surrounding tissues. The galea membrane would restrict this passage of fluid, and would encourage the fluid retention in the male pattern baldness area.

It is `ONLY' scalp edema that makes sense of the factors being debated here!

S Foote.

S. Foote

What known effective treatments are there to treat this scalp edema?

Thanks

In my opinion most of the treatments discussed on these forums that have positive effects in male pattern baldness, are reducing scalp edema.

Minoxidil reduces periferal edema (around hair follicles), by creating a shift in the fluid balance in tissues.

http://www.hairsite4.com/dc/dcboard.php ... 051&page=2

Quote:
"Treatment of normotensive or hypertensive humans or rats with arterial vasodilators such as hydralazine or minoxidil results in marked haemodynamic changes, which can be described as a 'hyperdynamic circulation'. Acutely, these changes are a consequence of vagal withdrawal, reflex-mediated increases in sympathetic activity and renin release and a shift of blood to the central blood volume"

The anti-inflamatories discussed on these forums and shown to have some effect in male pattern baldness, reduce edema.

Tom's scalp exercises described here will reduce scalp edema.
http://www.hairloss-reversible.com/

Changing the levels of DHT creates significant changes in the fluid balance in various tissues. finasteride or dutasteride creates reduced ejaculate (fluid effect), breast `swelling' (fluid effect), reduced erection (fluid effect).

Once established edema is a difficult thing to reduce for a number of reasons. I do think that the arterial ligiture and galeotomy will help, and make the response to other current treatments greater.

But the individual should always make their own decisions about treatments.

S Foote.

 

[S Foote.]

more important would be "is there any evidence that attempting to manipulate scalp edema/ pressure effects hair growth.."

There's not a WHIT of evidence to that effect. On the contrary, there's plenty of evidence that "edema" doesn't have squat to do with male pattern baldness: normal follicles transplanted into such an area of "edema" grow just fine, and balding follicles transplanted to other areas lacking "edema" continue to bald, right on schedule. It's a no-brainer, isn't it?

Bryan

Do you `REALLY' want to do this again Bryan?

Every once in a while, you post this crap based on very old studies that `MISSED' alot of what we know today!!

When i point this out to you, you always end up running away from the debate, only to surface somewhere else to post this rubbish again!

So do you want to go through this again, or are you just going to cut and run as usual?

S Foote.

 

[Bryan]

OH REALLY? Please tell us all exactly what it is that Rolf E. A. Nordstrom supposedly "missed"! :wink:

Bryan

 

[S Foote.]

OH REALLY? Please tell us all exactly what it is that Rolf E. A. Nordstrom supposedly "missed"! :wink:

Bryan

Go on then Bryan, supprise me with Rolf's revelations!!!

Although i was thinking primarily about the Orentreich study you quoted as `gospil' the last time we had this debate. This was when i shot you down before remember!

Oh and please don't try your normal tactic of not responding untill the thread is `dead', and then in the next thread claim i haven't responded to your previous `reply'. That's pretty sad by anyones standards. :roll:

S Foote.

 

[Gilgamesh]

bryan

someone on alt.baldspot years ago said something to the effect of donor dominance not being the homerun it's made out to be because when you transplant a follicle you're also moving it's surrounding structure?

also, it's not transplanted as deep?

i dont know

 

[The Gardener]

And he saaaaid, "Do you come from a land down under?"

Oh yeah yeah! Where women glow and men plunder...

 

[dead]

And he saaaaid, "Do you come from a land down under?"

Oh yeah yeah! Where women glow and men plunder...

cut off his eyes

 

[Bryan]

OH REALLY? Please tell us all exactly what it is that Rolf E. A. Nordstrom supposedly "missed"! :wink:

Go on then Bryan, supprise me with Rolf's revelations!!!

I already have. Nordstrom is the doctor who wrote that study I've been posting about on the hairloss sites, the one where he transplanted balding follicles to the arm, and they continued balding at the same rate. You know, the experiment for which you STILL haven't been able to come up with even a LAME explanation for? :wink: :lol:

"Synchronous Balding of Scalp and Hair-bearing Grafts of Scalp Transplanted to the Skin of the Arm in Male Pattern Baldness", Rolf E. A. Nordstrom, Acta Derm Venereol 1979; 59: 266-268.

Bryan

 

[Bryan]

bryan

someone on alt.baldspot years ago said something to the effect of donor dominance not being the homerun it's made out to be because when you transplant a follicle you're also moving it's surrounding structure?

Yes, and notice that Nordstrom (being a serious scientist) was very careful to acknowledge that. He wrote: "This shows that the cause of male pattern baldness lies in the follicle itself or in its very close surrounding and does not depend on...any other regional factor localized to the head area." (Added emphasis is my own.) But even that more cautious statement of the facts is sufficient to refute Stephen's theory.

also, it's not transplanted as deep?

Correct, but it still demonstrates "donor dominance".

BTW, Gilgamesh, did you used to post on alt.baldspot? Just curious...

Bryan

 

[Gilgamesh]

bryan - i used to read alt.baldspot religiously when I was a freshman in college and not even sure I was balding yet (but suspected it)

i jumped on finasteride and freaked out because every post on alt.baldspot was about reflex hyper (and i seemed to have it)

i never posted though (Except twice to ask dr.proctor about reflex hyper). but i lurked..lurked i did good..hours a day

 

[S Foote.]

OH REALLY? Please tell us all exactly what it is that Rolf E. A. Nordstrom supposedly "missed"! :wink:

Go on then Bryan, supprise me with Rolf's revelations!!!

I already have. Nordstrom is the doctor who wrote that study I've been posting about on the hairloss sites, the one where he transplanted balding follicles to the arm, and they continued balding at the same rate. You know, the experiment for which you STILL haven't been able to come up with even a LAME explanation for? :wink: :lol:

"Synchronous Balding of Scalp and Hair-bearing Grafts of Scalp Transplanted to the Skin of the Arm in Male Pattern Baldness", Rolf E. A. Nordstrom, Acta Derm Venereol 1979; 59: 266-268.

Bryan

I would like people to take careful note of Bryans post here, as it proves just how he distorts the facts to try to suit his arguments.

You claim above Bryan that i have not responded to this study, quote:


"I already have. Nordstrom is the doctor who wrote that study I've been posting about on the hairloss sites, the one where he transplanted balding follicles to the arm, and they continued balding at the same rate. You know, the experiment for which you STILL haven't been able to come up with even a LAME explanation for?"

Yet you know damm well that i have, and people can see this for themselves!

http://www.hairlosstalk.com/discussions ... 71&start=0

Are you now so desperate to save face that you are resorting to outright lie's?

People can also see in that thread that when i presented evidence for a continuation of male pattern baldness in the larger grafts that are `supposed' to be male pattern baldness resistent, you didn't respond!

You really ought to do some wider research into transplantation results, or you will continue to make a fool of yourself.

Tommorow, i will post a point i raised before about the transplantation issue. This time i would like a straight answer from you Bryan!

S Foote.

 

[S Foote.]

I haven't got much time tonight, so i'll get straight to the point about Bryans comments here.

The big mistake you make in these debates Bryan, is that you are so desperate to try to put me down, you forget about the `science' :roll:

You quite arrogantly posted a thread on hair loss forums entitled:

"Dispensing with old-fashioned male pattern baldness theories, and one NEW one!"

http://www.hairlosstalk.com/discussions ... hp?t=17571

In this thread you posted an `old' transplantation study by Nordstrom, claiming that this in particular, disproved my theory regarding the effects of changes in the tissue close to hair follicles on normal contact inhibition . You said quote:

"Nowadays we have overwhelming evidence for what causes male pattern balding: the direct, suppressive influence of androgens on human scalp follicles is a prime factor in this condition."

You claim that this particular study `proves'beyond question that the androgen effect is `direct' as you say above, that is within the follicle cells themselves.

Nordstrom himself said in the discussion section of this study, quote:

" The cause seems to lie in the follicle itself or its very close surrounding."

So the author, the guy who `actually' performed the study, conceeds that the cause of these observations `could' be in the very close surroundings of the follicles, which is `exactly' what my theory suggests!

But oh no, the great hair loss guru Bryan Shelton knows better than the scientists who `actually' do these studies!

Nuff said! 8)

Here's a `free' lesson for you in the role of studies in the process of science Bryan.

Individual studies are rarely definitive, and the authors acknowledge this by not making `definitive' or `gospil' claims (unlike you!).

The most important role of studies in general, is to enable better targeting and `design' of further studies based on the results of the previous ones. This is a principle that has been sadly missing in hair transplantation studies until recent times.

Studies can `disprove' something a lot easier than they can `prove' something, and often it is the information gained by a number of studies and recognised physiology that can `definitively disprove' something.

It just so happens, that there is now enough information to completely disprove the current donor dominance theory in hair transplantation!

We have discussed all the various factors involved in this already, can you put it together Bryan? :wink:

I will post on this in detail in the experimental forum, when i have more time tommorow.

S Foote.

 

[Armando Jose]

Hi Gilgamesh;

If you regimen is:


"ORAL FLUTAMIDE, ORAL spironolactone, hardcore stuff (as well as the typicals)"



In my opinion, possibly this meds only get worse the problem.

Armando

 

[jambri]

S Foote, and Bryan - surely you can agree to disagree? Who cares what the other thinks? Only a fool subscribes to one sole idea to the detriment of learning anything new.

 

[alfonso2501]

Gilgamesh, please don’t do this. It’s an unnecessary surgical procedure, and IMO the risks outweigh the benefits buddy! Pardon me for saying this, but it’s only your hair! Your health isn’t worth putting in jeopardy!