Question for Stephen Foote, with pictures for a point

[S Foote.]

The TGF beta-1 pathway still exists in those follicles, and there were more than enough androgens in those mice to act on this pathway if it "mattered" in-vivo!

Uh-huh. I guess you're psychic, Stephen! You KNOW what the level of androgens was in those mice, even though the researchers didn't! :wink:

Well let's just see what those researchers "themselves" had to say about that Bryan :wink:

http://www.hairlosshelp.com/forums/mess ... &forumid=1

"The regeneration of vellus follicles occurs just as quickly on male as on female mice (data not shown); this suggests that a factor or factors other than androgen withdrawal may be involved "

In fact at "that time" Bryan, "YOU" yourself thought that this was so significant, that you highlighted this quote in bold 8)

Also Bryan, everyone who follows your posts will be aware of your validation of androgen related effects in hamster flank studies.

So it seems you have no problems in accepting androgen related studies in hamsters, but you "DO" have a problem with the same kind of studies in "normaly" sexually developed mice???

I will let people reach their own conclusions about your scientific consistency Bryan 8)

No to test my theory by transplantation, you have to extract follicles that are still terminal from the thinning male pattern baldness area, then plant them back in the same area. They should then not miniaturise as they would have originaly.

ROTFLMAO!! I'm gonna say just three words to you:

The Nordstrom study.

Bryan

Is this the Nordstrom study you refer to here Bryan?

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

You remember, the study you claimed "proved" the direct theory, when the authors themselves said the results could be because of effects very close "TO" the follicles, quote:

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

You know, the same study that you posted as "nowadays" evidence, whilst being completely unaware that we "NOW" know that the long term follicle survival in that type of graft, is quite different from what was reported then!

And if Nordstrom had run this study for longer, he would have seen that the only follicles to survive in these grafts to the male pattern baldness area long term, would be those around the edges near the scar!

Is this the study you place all your bets on Bryan??

Nuff said 8)

S Foote.

 

[S Foote.]

The all important factor we need to know about in the "CAUSE" of male pattern baldness, is how androgens "CHANGE" healthy scalp follicles into male pattern baldness follicles?

Yada yada yada.

If all you can do or say in response is to continue your obsession with one specific issue which hasn't yet been scientifically explained, then you can do it all by yourself. Nobody else seems impressed by it.

Bryan

You have just perfectly summed up for your scientific incompetence, for all to see Bryan :wink:

I rest my case :roll:

S Foote.

 

[Bryan]

You know, the same study that you posted as "nowadays" evidence, whilst being completely unaware that we "NOW" know that the long term follicle survival in that type of graft, is quite different from what was reported then!

And if Nordstrom had run this study for longer, he would have seen that the only follicles to survive in these grafts to the male pattern baldness area long term, would be those around the edges near the scar!

LOL!! Even if that were true (I repeat: IF it were true), then how do you explain the huge DIFFERENTIAL effect with those follicles?? They were all transplanted onto the subject's arm at the same time, but the follicles from the balding area still deteriorated FAR more rapidly (assuming that the non-balding ones would eventually deteriorate at all)! How do you try to shoehorn THAT little fact into your theory, Stephen?? :wink:

Bryan

 

[S Foote.]

You know, the same study that you posted as "nowadays" evidence, whilst being completely unaware that we "NOW" know that the long term follicle survival in that type of graft, is quite different from what was reported then!

And if Nordstrom had run this study for longer, he would have seen that the only follicles to survive in these grafts to the male pattern baldness area long term, would be those around the edges near the scar!

LOL!! Even if that were true (I repeat: IF it were true), then how do you explain the huge DIFFERENTIAL effect with those follicles?? They were all transplanted onto the subject's arm at the same time, but the follicles from the balding area still deteriorated FAR more rapidly (assuming that the non-balding ones would eventually deteriorate at all)! How do you try to shoehorn THAT little fact into your theory, Stephen?? :wink:

Bryan

The modern recognised "facts" about what happens to follicles transplanted in the large graft size used in that study, are not subject to "YOUR" personal spin Bryan, quote,

"Even if that were true (I repeat: IF it were true)"

So if you are now so desperate in your arguments, to even try to question modern accepted facts, there is just no point in anyone trying to have any constructive debate with you is there? :roll:

I suggest you do some genuine research into the modern body of evidence, if you expect the more enlightened people here to take you seriously!

S Foote.

 

[Bryan]

Don't try to distract from the question that I asked you! ANSWER THE QUESTION!!

 

[michael barry]

Im inclined to agree with Old Baldy, that androgens have some influence but they are not the greater part of balding. Whether the rest is immuno or an increased fluid level at the dermal papilla depth is another matter. Scientists seem to think the former, Stephen thinks the latter. Its exceedingly difficult to prove/disprove either way. Alum on the scalp perhaps? Thats a contractory and a diuretic..........what do you think Stephen?

Anyway, you two intelligent men are proboably going to go round in round interpreting the two relevant studies available (Immunodeficient mice and Nordstrom) until youre blue in the face unless some new data from other studies becomes available.

Washenik supposedly is working on acne right now................this may be a sign that either Anderans or ICX really has made big progress in tests. Anderans owns the US distribution rights to whatever ICX comes up with and will sell it through Bosley. Curis, through Proctor and Gamble will begin human tests on sonic hedgehog next year. I personally hope one of these two things really work. Im about sick to death of hair man.

 

[Armando Jose]

"Washenik supposedly is working on acne right now"

Dr. Washenik is currently directing Bosley Medical's hair-related research initiative. This research effort will focus on all aspects of hair follicle.

I'm wondering why? It is sebaceous gland implicated in hair biology?


Armando

 

[S Foote.]

Don't try to distract from the question that I asked you! ANSWER THE QUESTION!!

Unlike you Bryan, i do answer any relevant questions you ask me :wink:

If you are refering to the continued balding of follicles from the male pattern baldness area, when transplanted to the arm, the answer is in the size of the grafts.

These were the old "large" 4mm grafts. The changes in the tissue around the follicles has already started the male pattern baldness process.

In a "plug" of this size, any reduction in the pressure due to relocation, is going to take longer to show any regrowth than the period that the study ran for. Also the initial healing inflammation is going to accelerate the already existing miniaturisation, at least initialy.

These principles are clearly demonstrated in what we "now" know happens, to the same 4mm grafts that were regularly used in the male pattern baldness area.

After the initial transplantation the hair is shed, probably due to the hypoxia during the period of re-connection to the vascular system.

But then as reported in both the Nordstrom study and Orentreich's early studies, there is a "normal" first crop of regrowth of these terminal follicles.

This normal growth continues for at least two years, as those studies report. But over time we know that in this size of graft, and even smaller grafts, the hair receeds until the only remaining growth is around the edges of these grafts in the male pattern baldness area.

I have posted the links that prove the above more times than i care to remember!


The "BIG" problem "you" have in trying to defend the current theory Bryan, is this continued hair loss in grafts you claim are DHT "resistent". This hair loss in these grafts, happens over the same kind of time scale as the original male pattern baldness!

This "mini male pattern baldness" model in each graft, cannot be explained away by some of the excuses offered by the transplantation industry.


The problem i have with these early transplantation studies, is they just didn't run them for long enough to see what we know today.

No doubt you will try to distract from this big hole in the current theory somehow Bryan, but the actual science is clear :wink:

S Foote.

 

[michael barry]

http://archderm.ama-assn.org/cgi/conten ... /142/5/605

Thats the Washenik and acne link. Some are interpreting this as ICX really has something good in store, and since Anderans gets to distribute it anyway..........perhaps they are backing off. Some others are interpreting it as Anderans in-house tests have been very good and Dr. Stenn (who proboably knows more about hair than any human being on earth) is heading up the gig from now on.

Im like JB over at hairsite, Dr. Paul Kemp is the scientist that has grown organs from stem cells before (liver), and he's the guy to bank on because he is bald and wants cloning for himself. He's also a tissue engineering expert (and that is what cloning essentailly is). Who knows, but it is funny that Washenik is working on acne indications. But he's a busy guy that proboably puts in 60 hour weeks, so perhaps he can do both.

 

[Bryan]

"Washenik supposedly is working on acne right now"

Dr. Washenik is currently directing Bosley Medical's hair-related research initiative. This research effort will focus on all aspects of hair follicle.

I'm wondering why? It is sebaceous gland implicated in hair biology?

Armando, you're sounding more and more like Stephen Foote every day! You're trying to garner support for your theory by hint, implication, and innuendo, as opposed to hard science. That's not a good policy.

Bryan

 

[Bryan]

If you are refering to the continued balding of follicles from the male pattern baldness area, when transplanted to the arm, the answer is in the size of the grafts.

These were the old "large" 4mm grafts. The changes in the tissue around the follicles has already started the male pattern baldness process.

In a "plug" of this size, any reduction in the pressure due to relocation, is going to take longer to show any regrowth than the period that the study ran for.

That's your story, and you're sticking to it! Right, Stephen? :wink: Wow...no regrowth after 2+ YEARS. What a...how can I say this...CONVENIENT explanation for your theory!

These principles are clearly demonstrated in what we "now" know happens, to the same 4mm grafts that were regularly used in the male pattern baldness area.

After the initial transplantation the hair is shed, probably due to the hypoxia during the period of re-connection to the vascular system.

But then as reported in both the Nordstrom study and Orentreich's early studies, there is a "normal" first crop of regrowth of these terminal follicles.

This normal growth continues for at least two years, as those studies report. But over time we know that in this size of graft, and even smaller grafts, the hair receeds until the only remaining growth is around the edges of these grafts in the male pattern baldness area.

OH REALLY?? I've asked you several times in the past to find some published scientific information having to do with the time-line of so-called "doughnutting" in transplanted hair follicles, but you've never come up with ANYTHING. Your claim above is just a bluff. You have no idea how long it really takes.

The problem i have with these early transplantation studies, is they just didn't run them for long enough to see what we know today.

Yeah, right. You don't know what you're talking about.

Bryan

 

[Armando Jose]

Thats the Washenik and acne link. Some are interpreting this as ICX really has something good in store, and since Anderans gets to distribute it anyway..........perhaps they are backing off. Some others are interpreting it as Anderans in-house tests have been very good and Dr. Stenn (who proboably knows more about hair than any human being on earth) is heading up the gig from now on.

Mr. Stenn have a huge knowdledge about hair, and recently in a lecture in Yale uni. talk about sebaceous gland hypothesis.

May 31


Kurt Stenn, M.D. Dermatopathologist
ARI Philadelphia


Cicatrical Alopecia Pathogenesis - the sebaceous gland hypothesis


Armando

 

[S Foote.]

If you are refering to the continued balding of follicles from the male pattern baldness area, when transplanted to the arm, the answer is in the size of the grafts.

These were the old "large" 4mm grafts. The changes in the tissue around the follicles has already started the male pattern baldness process.

In a "plug" of this size, any reduction in the pressure due to relocation, is going to take longer to show any regrowth than the period that the study ran for.

That's your story, and you're sticking to it! Right, Stephen? :wink: Wow...no regrowth after 2+ YEARS. What a...how can I say this...CONVENIENT explanation for your theory!

http://www.hairtransplantadviser.org/re ... argegrafts[/url]

"hair loss caused by a phenomenon called "doughnutting." In doughnutting, the centers of grafts get insufficient oxygen following transplantation and therefore, the follicles in the central portion of the grafts fail to survive. This results in hair growing only in the periphery of the grafts. This was a common phenomenon in 4- and 5-mm plugs, but can also be noted in grafts 3-mm in size."

The time line of hair loss in these large grafts is very clear! :roll:

The very fact that this kind of hair loss was not reported in your "old" studies, clearly rules out the excuse of hypoxia for this loss that the transplantation industry claims. :wink:

Spin away all you like Bryan, the real science clearly shows a continued balding process in these grafts, that presents over the same kind of time line as male pattern baldness!

The current theory you support, just cannot stand up to male pattern baldness continuing in the center of alledged DHT "resistent" grafts!

If you want to be taken seriously Bryan, then "YOU" explain how these clear proven facts, can possibly be reconciled with the current theory??

Just for once, a straight scientific response would be nice :wink:

S Foote.

 

[michael barry]

.....................http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11553309&dopt=Abstract

Here is a little Kurt Stenn on THE DESTRUCTION OF THE SEBACEOUS GLAND IN citriacial alpecia. He believes a defective gene in the sebaceous gland may be the cause of it........interesting stuff. Stenn is a smart guy, hope he comes up with a HM protocol so I can forget about hair. : )

Insights from the asebia mouse: a molecular sebaceous gland defect leading to cicatricial alopecia.

Stenn KS.

Juvenir Biosciences, Inc., Inc., Skillman, New Jersey 08558-9418, USA. Kstenn@cpcus.jnj.com

The primary cicatricial alopecias have proven to be challenging for the clinician, dermatopathologist and the researcher--let alone the patient. If we are to improve our diagnostic and therapeutic tools for these very difficult disorders, we will need greater insight into their etiology. Recent work with the mouse mutant, asebia, provides a model for cicatricial alopecia. In this model the pathology--perifollicular inflammation, sebaceous gland "destruction", hair shaft granuloma, and cicatricial follicle drop-out--results from the mutation of one very important sebaceous gland gene. In the absence of this gene, the sebaceous gland is hypoplastic and normal sebum production is minimal to absent. In this paper the relevance of this mutant to human alopecias is discussed and the point emphasized that the pathogenesis of some forms of human cicatricial alopecia could involve the sebaceous gland.

Publication Types:
Review

 

[michael barry]

For Stephen's theory to be true,

4 mm grafts moved to a forearm would have to donut because the skin inside the graft's lymphatic pumps would have to cause the same mini-edema at the new locale as the old one, not hypoxia as is commonly claimed.

That would be yet another way to test it I suppose.

 

[S Foote.]

For Stephen's theory to be true,

4 mm grafts moved to a forearm would have to donut because the skin inside the graft's lymphatic pumps would have to cause the same mini-edema at the new locale as the old one, not hypoxia as is commonly claimed.

That would be yet another way to test it I suppose.

I think that 4mm grafts of terminal hair, should not doughnut when transplanted to a good drainage area.

I think the doughnutting hair loss patern in these large grafts to the male pattern baldness area, is because the edema also inflates this tissue over time.

I personaly had 4mm grafts in the early 80's, and experienced this doughnutting myself.

I also think the term cobblestoning used to describe the bumps you can get with these large grafts, are because of their inflation over time.

The effect i personaly see is as i described in figure 3 in my paper.

http://www.hairsite2.com/library/abst-167.htm

I think we have gone as far as we can in this thread, and i am going away for a week or so now.

Regards.

S Foote.