Minoxidil and Insulin

[S Foote.]

I don't really have any problem with your points 1 and 2, and I have no comment on them. Continuing on with point 3:

Point three:

When hair follicle cells are cultured for in-vitro experiments, they reduce their ability to produce androgen receptors. They are then `seeded' with `artificial' androgen receptors. http://www.fasebj.org/cgi/content/full/16/14/1967

Leaving apart the fact that this is a very basic `cheat', that cannot possibly reflect the cells androgen receptor production in-vivo, there is a larger problem!!

In changing the expression of androgen receptors in culture, it is clear that the culturing process `ITSELF' is changing the expression of the genes relating to AR production. So what other gene expression is being changed in culture?

Here's another possibility that you've overlooked: human hair follicles apparently start to lose their ability to express 5a-reductase type 2 when they're cultured in vitro (that's from a recent Japanese study which I've cited a few times lately). I'm surprised you missed THAT one! :wink:

BTW, it's important to keep in mind that your cited study above was only in mouse follicles. It would be interesting to know to what extent (if any) that it's also true of HUMAN hair follicles.

http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/N ... node5.html[/url]

If `one' experiment suggests a particular conclusion, how this conclusion fits in with all the other evidence and observations is important. If the conclusion can't explain `all' the other factors, it has to be questioned?? The direct theory just can't explain the other factors according to the scientific method.

Let me say this Bryan.

I really wish you were right, and the current theory was right! Because then the treatment of male pattern baldness would be very simple and straightforward!!

But the very fact that we are still discussing male pattern baldness on these forums, along with the demonstrated poor performance of current treatments, tells a different story doesn't it!

S Foote.