I was fascinated by the concept of botox to the scalp years ago when I saw this study. I was surprised that nothing came of it. I personally believe that if a few dermatologists started doing botox to the scalp, that it would become popular just like prp. From what I understand, the botox arrests the sebum glands etc hormone receptors in the scalp. Would have to get repeat injections obviously.
Is The Cure For This Disease Anywhere Close?
- Thread starter Jonnyyy
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 1,709
No doubt that mechanical conditions have an influence, but to me, a couple of things are missing.
1) Mechanical stress may pattern regions of higher/lower oxygenation and/or otherwise show an unfavorable growth condition gradient. But this to me doesn't mean that the stress causes the loss. It could instead show the order in which the hair is lost or the way in which the pattern develops. Vertex first? Receding hairline? Diffuse thinning?
Or other words, some regions are less fertile than others, and in the face of Androgenetic Alopecia, those regions go first. How come in some individuals, hairloss starts, stops and restarts? How come the pace of loss can vary?
2) DHT sensitivity is not addressed. Why do transplanted hairs survive and thrive? And the reverse also, how come follicles undergoing miniaturization continue to miniaturize when they are transplanted elsewhere? Why do the hairs in the donor region remain unaffected? Due to lack of mechanical stress alone? But what about our bodybuilding friends, who blast androgens much more potent than DHT for many years and still retain their donor hair? And how about those lucky few bodybuilders like Jay Cutler who show NO signs of baldness despite years of AAS use as a world class bodybuilder? Surely the hair on top of his head is under more tension than the sides and back, just like everyone else. And how come beard/body hair are often, but not always, negatively correlated? Mechanical stress alone cannot account for various parts of the body simultaneously.
And another thing, how come the very same logic won't apply to scalp hair's next door neighbor, beard hair. One could argue that since it forms on looser tissue. It should be stress free. If hair up top is tight, it seems to me that hair down below is loose. But then how come everyone does't grow beards? Hair growth conditions, stress wise, may be more favorable on the face and chin, but many folks have very sparse facial hair.
Also, mechanical stress alone doesn't explain retrograde alopecia (really common to some degree), but this condition is known to be DHT responsive.
3) Addressing the disease and addressing the symptoms are very different things. And we should be careful to note the difference. Androgenetic Alopecia is a progressive disease, a treatment would halt the progression. A cure would remove the condition; i.e. stop the mechanism and restore hair. A protocol that does not halt the mechanism is not very useful.
The following scenario hopefully shows this:
A) My hairloss has stabilized, but after applying X product or technique, my hair is more robust.
Or
B) My hairloss has not stabilized, but after applying X product or technique, my hair is now more robust, albeit still gradually worsening. (This is the same as a minoxidil-only treatment).
Neither of those constitute evidence of a cure, only a stimulatory procedure. The simply tell me that all else constant, better circulation/nutrients = more hair growth. But not defense against Androgenetic Alopecia. Especially in consideration of case B), we see that the study results we are looking for cannot be improved hair growth alone; that is not a sufficient condition. We need to see balding stop and stabilize.
And given that, the next question would be - what then, about Replicel's results? Hairloss stabilized up top for 5 years after a single injection. Mechanical stress can be assumed to be constant.
And as per tradition, I will throw in an anecdote. I have a scar on my head from a swimming pool accident (it is in the vertex region, off center). I first noticed the hairloss as the scar became more prominent. Upon inspection under a microscope, I saw that hair in the scar region had greatly miniaturized (most of the secondary hair follicles were gone), compared to the surrounding hair, which showed some signs of miniaturization but not nearly as bad. The scar region was clearly a shitty place to grow hair. Prior to noticing hairloss, my hair was dense enough that the scar was not visible; I have other such scars on my body on which hair does indeed grow.
That's my take anyway. Of course this is just discussion, @BaldyBalderBald.
Last edited:
- Reaction score
- 1,531
I know right
Actually, there's correlation that botox on long term can actually cause hair loss because of somehow related things you mentionned, that's why it never came out as a treatment for hair loss.
There has been some hype a few years ago, and just like many other hypes, well, you know...
"While in androgenetic alopecia the rationale for the use of BTXA is its effect to loose the scalp, allowing a better vascularization that could promote hair follicle growth, in the treatment of alopecia areata, BTXA injections have been tried with the idea of inducing changes in neurotransmitter levels, influencing the production of cytokines responsible for hair growth arrest."
"Alopecia is never mentioned as a possible side effect of BTXA injections, and its occurrence is difficult to explain. Possible explanations include changes in the levels of molecules that may be involved in regulating the hair cycle, i.e. substance P and calcitonin gene-related peptide and other signaling molecules and receptors [11], and/or decreased neurological stimulation of hair follicle function due to blockage of the function of autosomic fibers [12]."
I don't know if Follica or Tsuji overcome this, maybe since they are pretty confident (Well Follica is confident for 10 years now...)
DHT androgens receptors extrem sensitivity of the cell cytoplasms in this particular region of the Norwood area triggers fibrosis and calcifications of the tissue, this is a fact.
I know this is just a discussion, what bothers me is that when someone tries to express his theories and have a constructive discussion, in particular when his theories make sense, he gets this disdain response "it's like arguing with flat eathers", well you got your photographic evidence on how important is this mechanical process on Androgenetic Alopecia now.Some people don't even get those results under the Big 3 + wounding, yet just with botox some cases get a decent amount of regrowth.
Last edited:
- Reaction score
- 1,709
No I just meant I wasn't criticizing your post in my response, I was just having a discussion with you. I wasn't speaking to your demeanor or conversations with other people. I just wrote that because I strongly disagreed with mechanical stress causing Androgenetic Alopecia. I can totally see though that it can have an effect on growth conditions. I just didn't think it was part of the mechanism of miniaturization. So I just wanted to clarify that I was criticizing the theory, not you personally.