Some additional anti-Foote evidence for everyone to ponder!

[Bryan]

I've already mentioned this first one at least a couple of times in the past when I've debated Stephen Foote, but he's never made any reply to it. He seems to have a tendency to get temporary amnesia whenever he sees something that doesn't fit well into his theory! :wink: This would be: "A Preliminary Study of the Effect of 11a-Hydroxyprogesterone on the Hair Growth in Men Suffering from Androgenetic Alopecia", A. H. Van Der Willigen et al, Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 1987; 67:82-85. What's unusual about this trial is not just that it's yet another successful test of a topical antiandrogen for male pattern baldness, it's that it's the only one I know of that tested the effects of the antiandrogen both in the area to which it was applied, AND in an area to which it was NOT applied (a control area). Every day before retiring to sleep, the test-subjects applied a 1% lotion of 11a-hydroxyprogesterone to the affected cranial area. Before the start of the study and again after 1 year, the hair roots were obtained in a standardized way from two fixed locations: the left temporal and the cranial scalp. Anagen/telogen percentages were determined at both sites.

After one year, the treated subjects showed an increased number of anagen hairs in the cranial (treated) area, but a further decrease in the number of anagen hairs in the temporal (untreated) area. The subjects who didn't get any treatment at all showed anagen decreases in both the cranial and the temporal areas.

The significance of this trial, of course, is that Stephen Foote has always argued that antiandrogens and 5a-reductase inhibitors work for male pattern baldness through an indirect systemic effect, rather than a direct effect on hair follicles. But the results here would seem to contradict that theory, because a beneficial effect was seen only in the top part of the scalp where the antiandrogen lotion was actually applied, and NOT in the nearby temporal area that didn't receive the drug. How do you explain THAT, Stephen?

The other thing I wanted to discuss is another of Stephen's odd claims, which is that even minoxidil doesn't have a "direct" growth-stimulating effect on hair follicles. He asserts that it, too, works by lowering the edema around hair follicles by supposedly shifting fluid away from them. But if that's the case, I'd like him to explain why topical minoxidil also works for alopecia areata, which has a tendency to occur in "patches" around the scalp, which generally move and shift their position on the scalp as time goes by. The disease is generally considered to be an autoimmune disorder, with the immune system attacking the hair follicles in those specific areas.

Here's another interesting study with a "twist" to it that's similar to the first one I mentioned above: "Double-blind, placebo-controlled evaluation of topical minoxidil in extensive alopecia areata", Vera H. Price, J Am Acad Dermatol 1987; 16:730-6. Here's the "twist", as described in the treatment protocol section (added emphasis in bold is my own): "Subjects were randomly assigned in a double-blind fashion to receive either the 3% minoxidil solution or placebo. The assigned solution was applied twice daily to affected areas on half of the scalp only, with overnight petrolatum occlusion. The other half of the scalp was left untreated throughout the 1-year study."

The treatment was generally successful, and here's what Price says in the Discussion section: "Subjects in the minoxidil group who regrew scalp hair had growth on both the treated and untreated sides, but hair growth always began earlier and was more abundant on the treated side. Hair growth on the untreated side of the scalp in the minoxidil group may have been either spontaneous regrowth or a response to the minoxidil in the nearby scalp areas. There is some speculation that topical minoxidil spreads across the skin surface or even within the skin, much like solvents through chromatograph paper. Alternatively, topical minoxidil may be transferred from the treated side to the untreated side by wigs, hats, or pillowcases. A systemic effect is unlikely in view of the low to very low minoxidil serum levels measured."

So I'd like to ask Stephen the obvious question: if topical minoxidil really only works to grow hair by supposedly shifting fluid away from hair follicles to some "central volume", just how small and confined a physical area do you think it's possible for it to do that in? After all, the left half of a human scalp isn't very far away at all from the right half; do you really think that it could make that much of a difference in "edema" in the top parts of a scalp that are only a couple of inches away from each other, not to mention the little problem of whether or not there even IS "edema" at all in a patient with alopecia areata?? Let's hear your thoughts on all that, Stephen! :wink:

 

[global]

Yeah, how do you explain that Stephen?

 

[S Foote.]

Re: Some additional anti-Foote evidence for everyone to pond

I've already mentioned this first one at least a couple of times in the past when I've debated Stephen Foote, but he's never made any reply to it. He seems to have a tendency to get temporary amnesia whenever he sees something that doesn't fit well into his theory! :wink:

This would be: "A Preliminary Study of the Effect of 11a-Hydroxyprogesterone on the Hair Growth in Men Suffering from Androgenetic Alopecia", A. H. Van Der Willigen et al, Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 1987; 67:82-85. What's unusual about this trial is not just that it's yet another successful test of a topical antiandrogen for male pattern baldness, it's that it's the only one I know of that tested the effects of the antiandrogen both in the area to which it was applied, AND in an area to which it was NOT applied (a control area). Every day before retiring to sleep, the test-subjects applied a 1% lotion of 11a-hydroxyprogesterone to the affected cranial area. Before the start of the study and again after 1 year, the hair roots were obtained in a standardized way from two fixed locations: the left temporal and the cranial scalp. Anagen/telogen percentages were determined at both sites.

After one year, the treated subjects showed an increased number of anagen hairs in the cranial (treated) area, but a further decrease in the number of anagen hairs in the temporal (untreated) area. The subjects who didn't get any treatment at all showed anagen decreases in both the cranial and the temporal areas.

The significance of this trial, of course, is that Stephen Foote has always argued that antiandrogens and 5a-reductase inhibitors work for male pattern baldness through an indirect systemic effect, rather than a direct effect on hair follicles. But the results here would seem to contradict that theory, because a beneficial effect was seen only in the top part of the scalp where the antiandrogen lotion was actually applied, and NOT in the nearby temporal area that didn't receive the drug. How do you explain THAT, Stephen?

I am sure i "have" responded to this before, but if i did miss it i will gladly explain some obvious scientific logic to you Bryan. :wink:

Have you ever read the posts about people using dutasteride, who report increased loss in the temple area Bryan? This is using a strong "systematic" anti-androgen that commonly grows hair on the crown as in the study you quote above. but struggles at the temples. In fact even every systematic treatment, has trouble improving the temples. so how does that topical study show any "difference" Bryan?

Did that topical study try any subjects with an application to "one" temple, to at least attempt to quantify "if" there was a direct effect in that area?

I would concede to your argument Bryan , if they had run that test the other way round! If the topical had increased temple hair growth when applied "directly" to the temples, i would have been really impressed :wink:

Everyone here knows the systematic anti-androgens give the same results as in your topical study Bryan, so what do you think you are "proving"?

According to your theory Bryan, topical anti-androgens should be able to show a "difference" localised to individual follicles! So show me "these" studies Bryan? :wink:

By the way, i object to your phrase quote:

" What's unusual about this trial is not just that it's yet another successful test of a topical antiandrogen for male pattern baldness"

Successful for male pattern baldness!!!

So where are all these successful topicals for human male pattern baldness? Only in your fantasies Bryan, as everyone else on these forums knows! :wink:

Nevermind "hampster flank this, or maqaque that", show us some human "successes" Bryan! :wink:

The other thing I wanted to discuss is another of Stephen's odd claims, which is that even minoxidil doesn't have a "direct" growth-stimulating effect on hair follicles. He asserts that it, too, works by lowering the edema around hair follicles by supposedly shifting fluid away from them. But if that's the case, I'd like him to explain why topical minoxidil also works for alopecia areata, which has a tendency to occur in "patches" around the scalp, which generally move and shift their position on the scalp as time goes by. The disease is generally considered to be an autoimmune disorder, with the immune system attacking the hair follicles in those specific areas.

Here's another interesting study with a "twist" to it that's similar to the first one I mentioned above: "Double-blind, placebo-controlled evaluation of topical minoxidil in extensive alopecia areata", Vera H. Price, J Am Acad Dermatol 1987; 16:730-6. Here's the "twist", as described in the treatment protocol section (added emphasis in bold is my own): "Subjects were randomly assigned in a double-blind fashion to receive either the 3% minoxidil solution or placebo. The assigned solution was applied twice daily to affected areas on half of the scalp only, with overnight petrolatum occlusion. The other half of the scalp was left untreated throughout the 1-year study."

The treatment was generally successful, and here's what Price says in the Discussion section: "Subjects in the minoxidil group who regrew scalp hair had growth on both the treated and untreated sides, but hair growth always began earlier and was more abundant on the treated side. Hair growth on the untreated side of the scalp in the minoxidil group may have been either spontaneous regrowth or a response to the minoxidil in the nearby scalp areas. There is some speculation that topical minoxidil spreads across the skin surface or even within the skin, much like solvents through chromatograph paper. Alternatively, topical minoxidil may be transferred from the treated side to the untreated side by wigs, hats, or pillowcases. A systemic effect is unlikely in view of the low to very low minoxidil serum levels measured."

So I'd like to ask Stephen the obvious question: if topical minoxidil really only works to grow hair by supposedly shifting fluid away from hair follicles to some "central volume", just how small and confined a physical area do you think it's possible for it to do that in? After all, the left half of a human scalp isn't very far away at all from the right half; do you really think that it could make that much of a difference in "edema" in the top parts of a scalp that are only a couple of inches away from each other, not to mention the little problem of whether or not there even IS "edema" at all in a patient with alopecia areata?? Let's hear your thoughts on all that, Stephen! :wink:

Sigh :roll:

First of, if minoxidil is effecting the local circulation dynamics, it is sure as hell also going to effect most of the area of the scalp to different degrees as reported in your quoted study.

If as you are trying to claim, minoxidil acts "directly", there should have been "NO" effect at all on the other side of the head! You are just providing more evidence against your own ideas Bryan! :roll:

The simple fact that minoxidil "did" effect a wider area supports my theory, not yours!

Of course a largely inflammatory "patchy" condition like alopecia areata is going to be improved by reducing the local tissue fluid levels (edema).

The degree of inflammation increases with the degree of edema. I have posted many links before relevant to this!

Your bad habits do you no favours on these forums Bryan. :wink:

You look at studies with blinkered cherry picking eyes, your priority being to just try to put other people down. Your total disregard of the "whole" evidence, will always come home to roost 8)

Funny how every time i get you on the spot, as in the stem cell question you can't reconcile with your opinions. You run off and start yet another ill informed diversionary "have ago at Foote" thread! 8)

S Foote.

 

[Pondle]

Re: Some additional anti-Foote evidence for everyone to pond

Have you ever read the posts about people using dutasteride, who report increased loss in the temple area Bryan? This is using a strong "systematic" anti-androgen that commonly grows hair on the crown as in the study you quote above. but struggles at the temples. In fact even every systematic treatment, has trouble improving the temples. so how does that topical study show any "difference" Bryan?

I don't know if the anecdotal reports about dutasteride's efficacy at the temples constitute reliable scientific evidence, Stephen. Given the difficulties getting hold of a genuine supply of dutasteride, I suspect many of the users may actually be taking fakes.

Besides, we have anecdotal reports that finasteride causes depression, anxiety, something called "brain fog"... I just think anecdotes are - on balance - largely worthless in a scientific debate.

 

[S Foote.]

Re: Some additional anti-Foote evidence for everyone to pond

Have you ever read the posts about people using dutasteride, who report increased loss in the temple area Bryan? This is using a strong "systematic" anti-androgen that commonly grows hair on the crown as in the study you quote above. but struggles at the temples. In fact even every systematic treatment, has trouble improving the temples. so how does that topical study show any "difference" Bryan?

I don't know if the anecdotal reports about dutasteride's efficacy at the temples constitute reliable scientific evidence, Stephen. Given the difficulties getting hold of a genuine supply of dutasteride, I suspect many of the users may actually be taking fakes.

Besides, we have anecdotal reports that finasteride causes depression, anxiety, something called "brain fog"... I just think anecdotes are - on balance - largely worthless in a scientific debate.

I agree!

So do you have any scientific studies that demonstrate that topical anti-androgens fare any better than systematic anti-androgens in the temple area?

You always have to remember that the theory Bryan keeps on shouting about, makes no distinction here! It's all about a direct androgen interaction with follicles!

So how can topical anti-androgens possibly "not" have identical effects when applied to "all" balding areas in male pattern baldness?

If i am going to be challenged on a point of anti-androgens applied to other areas, "NOT" then effecting the temples, i demand evidence that when applied to temples these topicals fare any better!

Or else the whole premise is wrong, see my point?

S Foote.

 

[michael barry]

Stephen wrote:

"So where are all these successful topicals for human male pattern baldness? Only in your fantasies Bryan, as everyone else on these forums knows! "


3 Fluridil photos, http://www.menspharma.com/results.htm

Fluridil is designed to degrade in water, and lots of us (including me) think that it would not be as good as spironolactone because of this. There is no WAY it should be able to get to the lymphatics, yet those three pics show hair regrowth.

http://www.revivogen.com/pictures/

6 pictures of regrwoth with Revivogen. And three are pretty damn good.





Stephen also wrote:

"Have you ever read the posts about people using dutasteride, who report increased loss in the temple area Bryan? This is using a strong "systematic" anti-androgen that commonly grows hair on the crown as in the study you quote above. but struggles at the temples. In fact even every systematic treatment, has trouble improving the temples"

Michael Barry's comment............................Lets get one thing over with Stephen, NOBODY hardly EVERY has temporal regrowth, especially if the hair has been gone for any decent length of time, and many of the men bitching about temporal shedding with Dutas, probably were getting the infamous "anti-androgen shed" that everybody gets when they get on finas from months 1-to roughly 3-and-a-half- or so. Dr. Proctor writes of a "mysterious hair growth inhibitor" secreted behind the eyes that probably restricts temple growth, and is why hair goes here first in most men (besides the fact that there are more androgen receptors on temporal and vertex areas hair, where we tend to bald first, perfectly following the direct theory) , and why its so hard to get temporal regrowth.

NOBODY, unless there is some sort of genetic intervention, is ever going to have SUPER temporal regrowth with any anti-androgen, and that includies the mighty cyterperone acetate and fluridil in transexuals because Ive looked.


Byran Shelton probably doesn't have anything personal against you Stephen, and I certainly dont. However, alternative baldness theories, in my opinion, are wrong. A LOT of these young guys could really hold onto what they have with just topical spironolactone twice a day and nizoral in my opinion. So when they get distracted by alterna-baldness theories like yours and Armandos, and the Shampoo guys, and the "tension" people, and the blood flow people, and they dont peruse helpful things like spironolactone, revivogen, finas, nizoral, minoxidil, fluridil, proctor's stuff, tricomin............they probably lose hair that they will not be able to grow back two years down the line. I imagine that this bothers Bryan, as he has spent a good bit of his spare time tyring to help the young guys. Its kind of the same reason that I log on and share what I know about finas/spironolactone and the few topicals that I feel can help. I wish someone would have told me about spironolactone about a decade ago..............Id have great hair now, instead of just pretty good hair.

 

[Bryan]

Re: Some additional anti-Foote evidence for everyone to pond

Have you ever read the posts about people using dutasteride, who report increased loss in the temple area Bryan? This is using a strong "systematic" anti-androgen that commonly grows hair on the crown as in the study you quote above. but struggles at the temples. In fact even every systematic treatment, has trouble improving the temples. so how does that topical study show any "difference" Bryan?

Did that topical study try any subjects with an application to "one" temple, to at least attempt to quantify "if" there was a direct effect in that area?

I would concede to your argument Bryan , if they had run that test the other way round! If the topical had increased temple hair growth when applied "directly" to the temples, i would have been really impressed :wink:

Everyone here knows the systematic anti-androgens give the same results as in your topical study Bryan, so what do you think you are "proving"?

According to your theory Bryan, topical anti-androgens should be able to show a "difference" localised to individual follicles! So show me "these" studies Bryan? :wink:

So that's it? You're basing that response on hearsay and anecdotes about the difficulty of stopping temporal loss?

By the way, i object to your phrase quote:

" What's unusual about this trial is not just that it's yet another successful test of a topical antiandrogen for male pattern baldness"

Successful for male pattern baldness!!!

So where are all these successful topicals for human male pattern baldness? Only in your fantasies Bryan, as everyone else on these forums knows! :wink:

Nevermind "hampster flank this, or maqaque that", show us some human "successes" Bryan! :wink:

???

Why are you "playing dumb"? You already know that as well as I do. For example: topical spironolactone, RU58841, fluridil, and the aforementioned 11a-hydroxyprogesterone.

First of, if minoxidil is effecting the local circulation dynamics, it is sure as hell also going to effect most of the area of the scalp to different degrees as reported in your quoted study.

That's what I'm asking you: TO WHAT DEGREE do you think it can affect different areas of the scalp to different degrees? Do you seriously think that one area of the scalp can be loaded with "edema", while an area an inch or two away remains clear? Does that seem reasonable to you?

If as you are trying to claim, minoxidil acts "directly", there should have been "NO" effect at all on the other side of the head! You are just providing more evidence against your own ideas Bryan! :roll:

The simple fact that minoxidil "did" effect a wider area supports my theory, not yours!

Uhh...excuse me, but that's why I included the part where Price speculated about the possible diffusion of minoxidil into neighboring areas.

The main thing I want from YOU is to explain to what degree you think topical minoxidil could supposedly cause a local lessening of "edema". Do you really think it can cause such a lessening (or even a normalization) of "edema" only an inch or two away from an area of high "edema"? Let's see how far out on a limb you're willing to go! :wink:

 

[S Foote.]

Have you ever read the posts about people using dutasteride, who report increased loss in the temple area Bryan? This is using a strong "systematic" anti-androgen that commonly grows hair on the crown as in the study you quote above. but struggles at the temples. In fact even every systematic treatment, has trouble improving the temples. so how does that topical study show any "difference" Bryan?

Did that topical study try any subjects with an application to "one" temple, to at least attempt to quantify "if" there was a direct effect in that area?

I would concede to your argument Bryan , if they had run that test the other way round! If the topical had increased temple hair growth when applied "directly" to the temples, i would have been really impressed :wink:

Everyone here knows the systematic anti-androgens give the same results as in your topical study Bryan, so what do you think you are "proving"?

According to your theory Bryan, topical anti-androgens should be able to show a "difference" localised to individual follicles! So show me "these" studies Bryan? :wink:

So that's it? You're basing that response on hearsay and anecdotes about the difficulty of stopping temporal loss?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer ... t=Abstract[/url]

http://alopecia.researchtoday.net/archive/1/2/66.htm

Quote:

" The presence of ectatic lymphatic vessels in the two cases with hair loss was particularly emphasized."

I have said many times what my theory involves in terms of the "system". It is "local" changes in the local lymphatics in my opinion, "NOT" systematic as in the "whole" body.

In fact according to the "direct" theory you support Bryan, minoxidil should have "NO" effect on androgen related hair growth at all!

You are trying to tell us that androgens effect hair follicle cells at the genetic level. This then alters the expression of genes related to the cells "basic ability to multiply". This is not a case of any lack of supply of substances necessary for cell multiplication. Nutrients etc are "still" there, but the androgen effect prevents male pattern baldness follicle cells from "using" what it needs to multiply, because of this changed gene expression.

So how can something like minoxidil that does not effect the androgen pathway, "possibly" make any difference??? It just can't "IF" the direct theory is right, no way!


You are going to have to do a lot better if you want to dismiss my theory Bryan!

S Foote.

 

[S Foote.]

Michael.

You are missing my point in this thread. Bryan has tried to claim that the effect of topical AA's can "ONLY" be because of a direct action on follicles.

In my theory it is the "local" changes that are induced in the local tissues.

I am glad people are having some growth with topical fluridil as shown in those pics. But that doesn't rule out a "local" action on "local" tissues. If fluridil is penetrating the skin, it is getting into the local lymph vessels. All it has to do is survive long enough to effect scalp lymphatics to have an effect by my theory.

I have looked at the studies i can find, and these only check for systematic absorbtion in the serum. I dont see any reference to histology tests in the scalp?

If you can find any such tests let me know Michael. It is Easter and i am away till Tuesday.

Happy holidays!

S Foote.

 

[Johnny24601]

re:

Why even apply the topical anti androgen to the scalp if only systemic effects are saving you hair? I would assume a pill form would be much easier to fit into one's lifestyle. Same question for minoxidil?
I thought it has reported in the past that nizoral has anti androgen effects, is that true? If so, again why is it only recommended to apply to the scalp.

As a general comment, I have not followed this Foote/Bryan argument too much, but I have found both of you have shared some interesting information that I for one have found to be helpful. I think both of you are doing a service by debating this important issue with what I consider to at least be defensible (to different degrees) arguments. I don't really understand why you two seem to provoke one another. I believe all the little back and forth comments are unproductive and take away from both of your arguments. Basically, what I am saying is that it is childish and not helpful to readers like me who are just looking for information on male pattern baldness and not interested in reading about little squabbles. Just my opinion.

 

[badasshairday III]

Brian. This was pointless. We already know that S. Foote is totally wrong.

 

[Bryan]

Re: re:

Why even apply the topical anti androgen to the scalp if only systemic effects are saving you hair? I would assume a pill form would be much easier to fit into one's lifestyle. Same question for minoxidil?

You don't quite understand what Stephen is saying. He's saying that the effect is neither purely "local", nor purely "systemic". He's saying that when you apply a topical antiandrogen like spironolactone, RU58841, fluridil, etc., enough of it goes a little deeper into the skin to (supposedly) increase the drainage of those lymphatics, which in turn decreases edema in the scalp. So it's not a DIRECT effect on hair follicles (according to his theory), but an effect that goes a little deeper than the level of the hair follicle.

As a general comment, I have not followed this Foote/Bryan argument too much, but I have found both of you have shared some interesting information that I for one have found to be helpful. I think both of you are doing a service by debating this important issue with what I consider to at least be defensible (to different degrees) arguments. I don't really understand why you two seem to provoke one another. I believe all the little back and forth comments are unproductive and take away from both of your arguments. Basically, what I am saying is that it is childish and not helpful to readers like me who are just looking for information on male pattern baldness and not interested in reading about little squabbles. Just my opinion.

I understand your complaint, but such squabbling is rather inevitable. During the first year or two of our debate (yes, I said the FIRST YEAR OR TWO! ), we were more cordial with each other. But eventually there came a point when it became clear to most everyone, not just me, that Stephen simply wouldn't listen to reason. Despite his theory having been solidly refuted on all grounds, he continues to argue in favor of it. He's not just bailing water from a sinking ship, the ship has already sunk. From this point on, it doesn't really have anything to do with a technical argument over the biological/medical issues associated with balding, it has to do with the compulsive and obsessive efforts of a man in deep denial over the failure of his pet theory to keep it going at all costs. I find it fascinating, which is why I continue to challenge him on it. I keep wondering just how far he'll go with it.

 

[S Foote.]

Why even apply the topical anti androgen to the scalp if only systemic effects are saving you hair? I would assume a pill form would be much easier to fit into one's lifestyle. Same question for minoxidil?

You don't quite understand what Stephen is saying. He's saying that the effect is neither purely "local", nor purely "systemic". He's saying that when you apply a topical antiandrogen like spironolactone, RU58841, fluridil, etc., enough of it goes a little deeper into the skin to (supposedly) increase the drainage of those lymphatics, which in turn decreases edema in the scalp. So it's not a DIRECT effect on hair follicles (according to his theory), but an effect that goes a little deeper than the level of the hair follicle.

As a general comment, I have not followed this Foote/Bryan argument too much, but I have found both of you have shared some interesting information that I for one have found to be helpful. I think both of you are doing a service by debating this important issue with what I consider to at least be defensible (to different degrees) arguments. I don't really understand why you two seem to provoke one another. I believe all the little back and forth comments are unproductive and take away from both of your arguments. Basically, what I am saying is that it is childish and not helpful to readers like me who are just looking for information on male pattern baldness and not interested in reading about little squabbles. Just my opinion.

I understand your complaint, but such squabbling is rather inevitable. During the first year or two of our debate (yes, I said the FIRST YEAR OR TWO! ), we were more cordial with each other. But eventually there came a point when it became clear to most everyone, not just me, that Stephen simply wouldn't listen to reason. Despite his theory having been solidly refuted on all grounds, he continues to argue in favor of it. He's not just bailing water from a sinking ship, the ship has already sunk. From this point on, it doesn't really have anything to do with a technical argument over the biological/medical issues associated with balding, it has to do with the compulsive and obsessive efforts of a man in deep denial over the failure of his pet theory to keep it going at all costs. I find it fascinating, which is why I continue to challenge him on it. I keep wondering just how far he'll go with it.

Johnny 24601.

I rarely post these days as i am pursuing other areas linked to my theory. I do read new posts just for the info relating to new studies etc.

I only posted in one other thread and this one, because of Bryans attempts to mislead people about the evidence for my theory. I do this not to really defend my theory as such, as whatever anyone on these forums thinks, is not relevant to any validity it may have scientificaly.

My problem with Bryan is he is misleading some people on these forums as to just what the scientific rules of evidence actually are! He has got used to people on these forums just taking his word for what studies and other evidence means.

People come here looking for answers, so they are not too particular about the "true" science. This is why people like Bryan can get away with fancy sounding words, and be taken for an "expert". But this is not doing anyone else any favours, and misleads people as to the genuine science.

A perfect example is Bryans comments above.

The paragraph he wrote above is just his wishfull thinking, it has no basis in any hard scientific evidence. It is not even truly representitive of our previous debates! He just thinks if he calls my theory "wacko" or "eccentric" for long enough, people will just believe him!

In contrast, here is what a "genuine" recognised hair loss scientist had to say about my theory.


"It is a very complex process, but your thoughts are very organized and on the right path, similar to what others have been proposing, and in some ways yours are more straightforward. I think you've done a good job in thinking this through......
Hope this helps...
regards
Marty Sawaya"

So it seems my theory is similar to what professional scientists are thinking!

Then do you really think that Bryans uneducated comments on internet forums, make me question the science behind my theory! I just laugh when i read Bryans idea of "science"!

This thread itself was just a diversion by Bryan, from a question i asked him in another thread about stem cells.

http://www.hairlosstalk.com/discussions ... &start=110



He couldn't answer my question, so instead he decided to divert attention away from it by repeating questions here that i have responded to many times before!

How can this kind of tactic be that of someone who is "really" interested in genuine science? His next usual tactic when i get fed up of responding to his repetitive questions, will be to claim some kind of "victory" in the debate. :roll:

If people want to go along with Bryans bulls**t, thats fine by me. Just don't ever try to tell me it's got anything to do with science! :roll:

Good luck everyone, i'am gone.




S Foote.

 

[powersam]

Brian. This was pointless. We already know that S. Foote is totally wrong.

i dont really think you or i have enough indepth scientific knowledge to make that call. there are problems with bryans theory and problems with stephens. if you think it is wrong then prove it here, rather than making throwaway comments.

 

[Bryan]

You know very well what i am talking about Bryan, i have raised the point many times before.

I am talking about the "reletive" efficacy of the systematic versus topical anti-androgens. The so far the record shows that there is more effect if there is "some" systematic absorbtion. You have refered to this yourself in regard to spironolactone.

No, the record does NOT show any such thing, and I have never referred to any such thing in regard to spironolactone. I have said it many many times before, and I'll say it once again: in studies with stumptailed macaques, Uno and others found that topical RU58841 was more effective at treating androgenetic alopecia than even HUGE oral doses of finasteride (1 mg/kg/day). Why do you keep avoiding that fact? :wink:

It has been clearly shown Bryan that edema in the human scalp can exist just milimeters away from "normal" tissue!

Really? Do you have any scientific evidence to support that claim?

In fact according to the "direct" theory you support Bryan, minoxidil should have "NO" effect on androgen related hair growth at all!

You are trying to tell us that androgens effect hair follicle cells at the genetic level. This then alters the expression of genes related to the cells "basic ability to multiply". This is not a case of any lack of supply of substances necessary for cell multiplication. Nutrients etc are "still" there, but the androgen effect prevents male pattern baldness follicle cells from "using" what it needs to multiply, because of this changed gene expression.

So how can something like minoxidil that does not effect the androgen pathway, "possibly" make any difference??? It just can't "IF" the direct theory is right, no way!

Are you serious, Stephen?? Do you think I think that androgens are the ONLY thing that can influence hair growth?? Why do you suppose it is that chemotherapy so often causes a patient's hair to fall out completely? I don't think it does that because of some androgenic (or antiandrogenic, for that matter) property of chemotherapy drugs! :wink:

And have you ever heard of "Vaniqa"? That's an FDA-approved drug that interferes with the growth of unwanted hair. It doesn't work by any androgenic or antiandrogenic pathway, either, but interferes with another enzyme that's critical for hair growth.

I can't believe that you would ask such a STUPID question about how can minoxidil affect hair growth, if it doesn't have any effect on the androgenic pathway. You're really showing your ignorance now.

 

[Bryan]

i dont really think you or i have enough indepth scientific knowledge to make that call. there are problems with bryans theory and problems with stephens.

What are the problems with my theory?

 

[powersam]

all the ones stephen points out :lol:

 

[Bryan]

Well, you used to say in your sig file that you were in sort of a quandary about whom to believe: me, or Stephen. Have you made a decision on that, yet?

 

[Aplunk1]

i dont really think you or i have enough indepth scientific knowledge to make that call. there are problems with bryans theory and problems with stephens.

What are the problems with my theory?

Your and Stephen's theories all come down to this simple question:

Whose penis is bigger?

 

[Bryan]

BTW, I'll add this one other bit of trivia: a study from several years ago tested numerous drugs and chemicals for any possible binding to human androgen receptors, and they did in fact find that minoxidil binds to them to a very very slight degree, something tiny like 1/1,000 or so that of testosterone, if I recall correctly. Not enough to have any significant effect. Just a curious little factoid! :wink: