Reading Dr. Lee's comments, I wonder why finasteride at all ?

[bubka]

i think Dr Lee want you to buy his "crap"

 

[Bryan]

Aren't these two statements in conflict with each other? If finasteride failed to change sebum production, that might mean that the fact that azelaic acid doesn't change it either doesn't mean that it's an ineffective antiandrogen... it's been proven that finasteride is effective at reducing dht levels and yet sebum production doesn't change, then perhaps sebaceous glands are not that sensitive to androgens, aren't they? Am I missing something?

What I think you're missing is that sebaceous glands are rich in the type 1 form of 5a-reductase, which finasteride doesn't touch to any significant extent. That's why finasteride doesn't affect sebum production.

Bryan

 

[docj077]

Aren't these two statements in conflict with each other? If finasteride failed to change sebum production, that might mean that the fact that azelaic acid doesn't change it either doesn't mean that it's an ineffective antiandrogen... it's been proven that finasteride is effective at reducing dht levels and yet sebum production doesn't change, then perhaps sebaceous glands are not that sensitive to androgens, aren't they? Am I missing something?

What I think you're missing is that sebaceous glands are rich in the type 1 form of 5a-reductase, which finasteride doesn't touch to any significant extent. That's why finasteride doesn't affect sebum production.

Bryan

So, do you think that the scalp will become saturated with testosterone promoting DHT production in the sebaceous glands via 5AR type I while on propecia or what do you think is the mechanism for many people complaining of oily skin while on finasteride.?

 

[Bryan]

I don't necessarly believe any claims of oily skin while using finasteride. In fact, I've probably heard about as many of the OPPOSITE anecdotes, as well (LESS oiliness while using finasteride)! I think they're all probably just coincidental.

Imperato-McGinley tested that theory several years ago, and found that finasteride had no effect on sebum production.

Bryan

 

[docj077]

I'm going to have to remember that. I think I was looking for an excuse for the oily skin people complain of while on finasteride. I just looked into it too much.

Maybe it is just a coincidental phenomenon.

 

[triton2]

What I think you're missing is that sebaceous glands are rich in the type 1 form of 5a-reductase, which finasteride doesn't touch to any significant extent. That's why finasteride doesn't affect sebum production.

Okay, that makes sense. But, given that fact, you cannot use the fact that azelaic acid doesn't shrink the sebaceus gland to imply that it's not blocking 5ar. If azelaic acid is a potent 5ar type 2 blocker, the same rule would apply: its effectiveness wouldn't have any effect on the sebaceous gland.
What I'm trying to tell you is that, given this fact, you cannot say that there's evidence against azelaic acid... well, you can say that a study such as that of Stamadiatis is not enough, certainly it isn't, but we haven't any evidence to even remotely suggest that azelaic acid doesn't work, as you stated many times. If azelaic acid is a 5ar type 2 blocker it shouldn't make much sense to use the argument that it doesn't reduce oil secretion, sebaceus gland size,... to suggest it doesn't work.

I'm not saying it works, I'm just saying that the evidence that it DOESN'T doesn't exist.

 

[Guest]

Triton2,

well normally with a hair loss treatment it is nice to have evidence that it does work rather than simply saying that there's no evidence against it.

 

[triton2]

Triton2,

well normally with a hair loss treatment it is nice to have evidence that it does work rather than simply saying that there's no evidence against it.

With hairloss and with everything in life... logic rules say that the one that has to prove is that which affirmates, not that who denies, but, in thois case, I'm just analizing an argument and its validity. I didn't say azelaic acid worked, what I just said was that the evidence suggesting it DOESN'T work seems to be using a flawed logic.

 

[Bryan]

What I think you're missing is that sebaceous glands are rich in the type 1 form of 5a-reductase, which finasteride doesn't touch to any significant extent. That's why finasteride doesn't affect sebum production.

Okay, that makes sense. But, given that fact, you cannot use the fact that azelaic acid doesn't shrink the sebaceus gland to imply that it's not blocking 5ar. If azelaic acid is a potent 5ar type 2 blocker, the same rule would apply: its effectiveness wouldn't have any effect on the sebaceous gland.

Yes, but I'm not necessarily attacking the claim that it might be a type 2 inhibitor. I'm attacking the SPECIFIC claim by Dr. Lee that topical azelaic acid reduces the production of DHT (all DHT) by up to 98% where applied. THAT specific claim is patently false.

BTW, I should mention here that Dr. Lee told me personally in an email several years ago that azelaic acid inhibits both forms of 5a-reductase. He's clearly wrong (in vivo, at the very least).

Bryan

 

[triton2]

Yes, but I'm not necessarily attacking the claim that it might be a type 2 inhibitor. I'm attacking the SPECIFIC claim by Dr. Lee that topical azelaic acid reduces the production of DHT (all DHT) by up to 98% where applied. THAT specific claim is patently false.

I don't know where Dr. Lee pulled up the 98% figure. Even Stamadiatis study, which uses azelaic in conjunction with zinc+b6, is less optimistic and doesn't go above the 90% figure. Azelaic acid alone, if anything, should be less effective than azelaic+zinc+b6... I guess the 98% figure doesn't have any reality behand it and it's just a wild dreamy random guess.

BTW, I should mention here that Dr. Lee told me personally in an email several years ago that azelaic acid inhibits both forms of 5a-reductase. He's clearly wrong (in vivo, at the very least).

Of course, if azelaic acid blocket 5ar type 1 it should have some effect on sebum production and sebaceous gland size. However, wasn't there a study with MK386 which didn't improve acné? Well, I guess that doesn't have anything to do... perhaps you can get both sebum and sebaceous gland size to "go down" without improving a previous acné condition...

Once this has been said, what do you think about Stamadiatis study? Do you think that those 5ar blocking properties could be extrapolated to 'in vivo'? I'm not saying that 'in vivo' it should block up to 90% DHT but, do you think that, for instance, ***some*** (like 40-50% for instance) blocking could be possible? Do we have any other evidence aside from Stamadiatis study?
At last, I'm really confused... I've read that while 5ar type 2 is expresed in hair dermal papilla cells, in CULTURE CELLS (IN VITRO) you cannot find type 2. What kinda cells did they use in stamadiatis study? If they were cells rich in type 1, but not in type 2, it's clear that that would invalidate the whole study, in the sense that it would be merely showing 'in vitro' 5ar1 inhibition... but 'in vivo' it clearly doesn't inhibit dht.
I hope you excuse my poor knowledge about this subject but I'm beginning to scratch its surface. Most of the few things I know about this I've learned them from you. So thank you.

 

[CCS]

I googled MK386, with an image search. Can't find the med. I just want to see what it looks like, molecularly, since it is specific for 5ar1. Google keeps getting weaker and weaker, ever since they went public. I think they are trying to cut cost and get profits higher for a quick turn over. Type "teaspoons in an ounce". The site will not give you the freedom of a search. They just tell you the convertion ratio. Soon we will be in a small closed system of only what they let us see. They already blocked out maybe 80% of the net, like any of these posts.

 

[Bryan]

Of course, if azelaic acid blocket 5ar type 1 it should have some effect on sebum production and sebaceous gland size. However, wasn't there a study with MK386 which didn't improve acné? Well, I guess that doesn't have anything to do... perhaps you can get both sebum and sebaceous gland size to "go down" without improving a previous acné condition...

Yeah, maybe. But unfortunately, they didn't even test sebum production in that study, just the overall, bottom-line effect on acne.

BTW, it amazes me that as long as Avodart has been out now, I still haven't seen any studies that tested its ability to reduce sebum, either.

Once this has been said, what do you think about Stamadiatis study?

I don't think ANYTHING about it, in particular. It needs to be tested in vvo in a more direct fashion. Especially for type 2 inhibition! :wink:

Do you think that those 5ar blocking properties could be extrapolated to 'in vivo'?

No. It's GOT to be tested in living creatures.

I'm not saying that 'in vivo' it should block up to 90% DHT but, do you think that, for instance, ***some*** (like 40-50% for instance) blocking could be possible?

Sure. Anything's possible. But it has to be tested.

Do we have any other evidence aside from Stamadiatis study?

Nope. That's it.

At last, I'm really confused... I've read that while 5ar type 2 is expresed in hair dermal papilla cells, in CULTURE CELLS (IN VITRO) you cannot find type 2. What kinda cells did they use in stamadiatis study?

Homogenized human infant foreskins, which should contain the type 2 enzyme.

If they were cells rich in type 1, but not in type 2, it's clear that that would invalidate the whole study, in the sense that it would be merely showing 'in vitro' 5ar1 inhibition... but 'in vivo' it clearly doesn't inhibit dht.

The study protocol does appear to be sound for our specific purpose (hairloss), now all that needs to be done is to have it be tested in vivo.

Bryan