I would just like to make a point here, but I don't intend to get into anymore unconstructive debates on these forums.
There is a very important scientific rule, that any valid theory must satisfy. This is a good description quote.
"Parsimony: When there are multiple explanations of a phenomenon, scientists must always accept the simplest or logically most economical explanation. This concept is called parsimony or “Occam’s razor.” Parsimony prevents scientists from pursuing overly complex or outlandish theories with endless number of concepts and relationships that may explain a little bit of everything but nothing in particular."
What this means in DHT related changes in hair growth, is that you must explain "ALL" the changes in hair growth and the surrounding tissue, by just "ONE" initial action of DHT. The changes that must be explained here are below.
How DHT increases hair growth in particular areas of the body consistently, and why only in some individuals DHT causes scalp hair loss again in particular areas. You also have to explain how this "SAME" action of DHT creates the noted scalp immunological changes, fibrosis and hypoxia. Then you have to explain why your proposed action of DHT increases sweating capacity in bald areas, and reduces this in areas where DHT increases hair growth. Not forgetting why your explanation increases levels of DHT in bald areas, and why manipulating WNT's makes a difference to hair growth. Finally your proposed action of DHT must explain why some transplantation procedures work whilst others don't.
The "official" explanation of genetic differences within the follicles, just cannot do what the scientific method dictates here. It requires many different mechanisms to explain all the changes involved. I would also be interested to hear how the supporters of the calcification, skull thickening, and Galea theories, can explain all these changes by just one action of DHT? I think not.
There is only one initial action of DHT that answers all these questions. This is that DHT increases the pumping efficiency of lymphatic vessels. From this one initial action, you can explain all these changes using basic text book physiology. You don't even need to know what's happening at the genetic/ molecullar level.
My article that raises this issue with the current research is here.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324829427_TISSUE_SCIENCE_PUBLISHED_ARTICLE
My review/discussion paper that elaborates on these questions is here.
https://www.academia.edu/17570665/A...nt_Hair_Research_and_an_Overlooked_Connection.
People may say OK what can be done here? Well these are my thoughts based upon this indicated action of DHT, and Human lymphatic physiology. The solution to male pattern baldness could be a lot more straightforward, cheaper, safer, and more effective than is currently thought. We need to reduce DHT in the hairy areas of the scalp and beard area, and increase DHT levels in the bald scalp itself.
I think the noted increased levels of DHT in the bald scalp, is the bodies way of trying to reduce the higher tissue fluid pressure here. The problem is that the action of DHT lower down, is in effect "blocking the pipework". Taking Propecia will reduce this blockage lower down, but will also reduce DHT production in the bald scalp where it is needed. So in theory if you take Propecia, you will get a significant boost in scalp hair growth by also applying DHT cream to the balding areas. I think this situation is why topical Finasteride in bald areas, does very little for scalp hair growth, it is just being applied in the wrong place.
I see the future here as using topical 5ARI's (shampoos and lotions), on the hairy areas of the head, and topical DHT on the balding areas. In established male pattern baldness, massage and lasers could help get rid of the fibrosis, that interferes with follicle re-enlargement.
Over twenty years ago I argued on the forums, that hair loss treatment research would fail to produce results in Humans, for as long as it failed to take account of the common spatial growth controls that must apply here. So far I have been proven right, and I am sorry to say the same fate will apply to all the current treatment research proposals. People should realise that this is not just my opinion, the current hair loss research clearly goes against the recognised science in tissue growth physiology, as my first article linked above points out.
