New clinical trial intended to prove the Androgenetic Alopecia theory.

[Bryan]

Well I don't know...but that is what the abstract says!

We describe female pattern hair loss occurring in a patient with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome

I wouldn't read too much into their wording. As I've already said, they could well be referring to no real "pattern" at all.

I know...our androgen sensitive follicles are soooooo much different then females androgen sensitive follicles. :thumbdown2:

Our androgen sensitive follicles may well be pretty similar to those of females. As you've pointed out yourself, one major difference between them (females) and us is that _we_ have much higher levels of androgens.

What the Dr.s are saying is that just because it looks like a duck, doesn't mean it's a duck. In this case....just because it looks like Androgenetic Alopecia...it doesn't mean Androgenetic Alopecia is causing it! unk:

Quaintly stated, but undeniably true.

 

[hairhoper]

You guys are totally missing the point.

The androgen factor of male pattern baldness is undeniable. Freakout, idontwanttobebaldingg & Bryan all agree it's a factor (in fact we can think of it as the bullet because if we stop it using Propecia/dutasteride/RU/Castration... male pattern baldness stops, we know that).

The difference of opinion is that Freakout and idontwanttobebalding would like to believe the root cause is some kind of herbal/galea/bullshit thing, whereas most of us accept the GENETIC park of androGENETIC in that our genes are the key factor in pulling the trigger.

Now this study is set out to prove the genetic part of the androgenetic theory and look at mutations to the androgen receptors, which could very well be the trigger to our androgen bullet, which nobody here can possibly have any knowledge to disprove without doing such a study yourselves, so I ask precisely what the f*** are you guys arguing about?

Genetic variants in the human androgen receptor gene (AR) have been reported to be associated with Androgenetic Alopecia in Caucasians. Other genes involved with hair loss also have been found. One of them being a gene on chromosome 3 (3q26). A recent genome-wide association study in 296 individuals with male-pattern baldness and 347 controls had carried out and five SNPs on chromosome 20p11 were found to be highly significant association for Androgenetic Alopecia (rs2180439 combined P = 2.7 x 10(-15)).

 

[freakout]

Hello forumers. Good news Bryan does not want you to know.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20128792
"mechanisms other than direct androgen action contribute to this common form of hair loss".

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12734505
"Therefore, the existence of an inhibitor factor other than androgens".

 

[Bryan]

The question here is whether androgens directly affect hair follicles. DIRECT being the key word.

Why have you so egregiously failed to discuss or even mention those studies I cited for you earlier by Happle and Hoffmann and Sawaya which demonstrated that human scalp hair follicles were directly affected (suppressed) by androgens? Are you too embarrassed to admit that your silly previous claim has been completely and thoroughly debunked by the in vitro experiments of numerous doctors and scientists? :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

 

[freakout]

Why have you so egregiously failed to discuss ... Are you too embarrassed to admit that your silly in vitro experiments of numerous doctors and scientists?

Excuse me. Asking me to 'discuss' would be as futile as talking to a tree.

I just have to cite NEW FINDINGS which have been discussed in detail by the true experts who conducted them.

You're presenting yourself as an 'expert' with your avatar. Why don't you explain NEW FINDINGS that contradict OLD THEORIES.

Let me make it simple so you can understand: NEW PUBLISHED SCIENTIFIC FINDINGS INDICATE ANDROGENS DO NOT DIRECTLY ADVERSLY AFFECT SCALP HAIR FOLLICLES.

'Experts' are suppose to do the explaining - NOT DENY NOR AVOID THEM, Mr. Bryan, PhD.

Aren't you glad that these new findings are good news to men because it indicates they are NOT hostage by their own hormones? ARE YOU NOT GLAD???

 

[armandein]

The question here is whether androgens directly affect hair follicles. DIRECT being the key word.

Why have you so egregiously failed to discuss or even mention those studies I cited for you earlier by Happle and Hoffmann and Sawaya which demonstrated that human scalp hair follicles were directly affected (suppressed) by androgens? Are you too embarrassed to admit that your silly previous claim has been completely and thoroughly debunked by the in vitro experiments of numerous doctors and scientists? :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1693 ... stractPlus
Skin Pharmacol Physiol. 2006;19(6):311-21. Epub 2006 Aug 23.
Effect of 5alpha-dihydrotestosterone and testosterone on apoptosis in human dermal papilla cells.

Winiarska A, Mandt N, Kamp H, Hossini A, Seltmann H, Zouboulis CC, Blume-Peytavi U.

Department of Dermatology and Allergy, Charité-Universitatsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Abstract

Pathogenetic mechanisms in androgenetic alopecia are not yet fully understood; however, it is commonly accepted that androgens like testosterone (T) and 5alpha-dihydrotestosterone (5alpha-DHT) inhibit hair follicle activity with early induction of the catagen. Thus, we investigated the influence of T and 5alpha-DHT on proliferation, cell death and bcl-2/bax expression in cultured dermal papilla cells (DPC) from nonbalding scalp regions of healthy volunteers. T and 5alpha-DHT induced apoptosis in DPC in a dose-dependent and time-related manner; in addition a necrotic effect due to T at 10(-5) M was found. Interestingly, bcl-2 protein expression was decreased in T- and 5alpha-DHT-treated cells, leading to an increase in the bax/bcl-2 ratio. In addition, T and 5alpha-DHT induced proteolytic cleavage of caspase 8 and inhibited proliferation of DPC at 10(-5) M. High concentrations of T and 5alpha-DHT were needed to induce apoptotic effects in DPC. These data suggest that DPC from nonbalding scalp regions do have the capacity to undergo apoptosis, but need a high androgen stimulus. The present study provides an interesting new pathogenetic approach in androgenetic alopecia.

PMID: 16931898 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

What about it?

 

[Bryan]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16931898?dopt=AbstractPlus
Skin Pharmacol Physiol. 2006;19(6):311-21. Epub 2006 Aug 23.
"Effect of 5alpha-dihydrotestosterone and testosterone on apoptosis in human dermal papilla cells."

What about it?

That's what _I_ will have to ask YOU: what about it? That study makes perfect sense, doesn't it? :dunno:

 

[freakout]

I Broke the Mystery of Male Pattern Baldness

If the FDA were to choose between contradicting results on in vitro tests and live subjects, in vitro results won't make it.

I only cite studies made on live subjects where in the researchers explicitly state that ANDROGENS ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR BALDNESS.

Results on live subjects makes THE perfect sense. Why would MY OWN HORMONES turn against me??

 

[Bryan]

Re: I Broke the Mystery of Male Pattern Baldness

If the FDA were to choose between contradicting results on in vitro tests and live subjects, in vitro results won't make it.

I only cite studies made on live subjects where in the researchers explicitly state that ANDROGENS ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR BALDNESS.

OH REALLY?? Is that what you say nowadays, after I gave you examples of studies by famous doctors and scientists who found that androgens DO IN FACT affect hair follicles in vitro?

By the way, where is one of those studies on "live subjects" where the researchers "explicitly state" that androgens are not responsible for baldness? :laugh:

Results on live subjects makes THE perfect sense. Why would MY OWN HORMONES turn against me??

Because your body wants to get rid of your scalp hair. We've already discussed the posssible reasons and theories for why it wants to do that.

 

[freakout]

I said. between two contradicting studies, FDA would choose results on live subjects.

Talk to the hand, Bryan. I already posted/reposted two studies on this thread.

Your "Brain Cooling" theory gave you away.

 

[Bryan]

I said. between two contradicting studies, FDA would choose results on live subjects.

Talk to the hand, Bryan. I already posted/reposted two studies on this thread.

Oh, you mean the study where the person with CAIS had developed hairloss of some sort, and the study where there was unexpected regrowth of some hair that had been transplanted onto genetically mutated MICE?? You think those "live subjects" (a person with CAIS, and some genetically mutated mice) are strongly correlated somehow with guys out there who are balding?? ROTFLMAO!! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

 

[freakout]

Hello forumers. Studies Bryan and Merck do not want you to know.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20128792
"mechanisms other than direct androgen action contribute to this common form of hair loss".

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12734505
"Therefore, the existence of an inhibitor factor other than androgens".

 

[Vox]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20128792
"mechanisms other than direct androgen action contribute to this common form of hair loss".

Good. This is for FPB. What about male pattern baldness?

 

[freakout]

This http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20128792 is still good news to men because they claim that FPB is also 'androgenetic'

The other, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12734505, is for both men and women. "Therefore, the existence of an inhibitor factor other than androgens"

 

[Vox]

The other is for both men and women.

It is for what the study does, which is quite interesting, but not concerning development of baldness according to a pattern under conditions of androgen insensitivity of the subject.

When they observe male pattern baldness to men with proven androgen insensitivity then we will have the same result for men.

 

[freakout]

All the subjects in this experiment, 28 men and 11 women initially and a repeat of 2 more male subjects, were all supposedly adversely sensitive to androgens.

The initial purpose of the experiment was for more efficient transplant procedures - not to develop male pattern baldness treatments. The team subscribed to the androgenetic theory which is why they were surprised that all transplants regrew hair.

So they had to repeat the experiment of two males with a few changes in variables to verify the results.

 

[Vox]

I don't quite get it. Please elaborate. tnx.

What you don't understand? The former study talks about FPB on women with androgen insensitivity syndrome, the latter one about regeneration of human hair follicles transplanted to mice.

So, the former talks explicitly about the role of androgens in women and it states a clear result concering women alone. The latter is about the destiny of hair once it is removed from human scalp to be transplanted to mice. The result of this may be related to androgens, may be not.

You cannot draw the same conclusion from them.

 

[Vox]

Oh, you edited in the meantime your post. Do you have access to the complete papers, not just the abstracts like me?

 

[freakout]

I was editing my previous post, sorry.

I can post the full discussion on the latter. The researchers discounted androgens and suggested some other inhibiting factor.

 

[Vox]

I can post the full discussion on the latter. The researchers discounted androgens and suggested some other inhibiting factor.

Yes please, that would be interesting.

Androgens or not, the result is quite intriguing and it is good to see all these bits about hair growth/survival showing up.