H recently shared a great article over on HLC2020's comments, which discusses how young men are turning to drugs and alcohol as they struggle with hairloss.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/hidden-epidemic-men-turn-drink-drugs-due-hair-loss/
What I find particularly interesting, and got me to thinking, is the comments from apparently older people.
"My grandfather went bald early, it's in the genes. I don't think it traumatised him. Being shot, later blown up, then gassed, then having to change regiment twice due to massive losses in those regiments in the Great war, now that did affect him. What kind of man is traumatised by hair loss. A man without moral fibre?
By the way my grandfather came back to father 5 more children & die in his bed aged 74. Never conplained." — William Bate
It's not WW2 anymore, Bill.
"Media, particularly films and, more particularly Hollywood, promote full hair and thin svelte body.
Then look at the average American male.
Cease worrying, unless your partner believes the media images - then you know there's a problem.
In the North East, for many years now, most men have adopted the shaven head white van driver look. Low maintenance hair, no issue if going bald." — Gary Leece
Translation: "It's not a problem if you just keep your girlfriend away from movies! Don't let her get a glimpse of the other side!"
"If at some point in the future, you suggest that Millennials are, in general, stupid; and someone takes issue with you, refer them to this article. QED." — Some other c***.
I've noticed that, on Facebook articles pertaining to baldness, the doctors I've seen, and other commentors online, most of the "suck it up, it's just hair, you f*****g nancy boys" types are usually Baby Boomers or early Gen Xers. Now, the complaints that millenials and even many Gen Xers have against the Baby Boomer generation is well documented. These old people who, some statistics place at as high as 50%, have no plans of retiring nor consideration for their demise, while having left the three generations since with sizeable economic burden, as well as accounting for several US presidents in the past two decades and making up a large percentage of Trump voters all boils down to one thing, regardless of where your politics fall:
Dinosaurs are impeding any sort of change.
Indeed, out of the three doctors I had to see before one told me about the existence of finasteride, it was the youngest who told me about it. I have an uncle who is now 70 years old, and refuses to retire from a job that a young person could easily fill.
Obviously, these same people were the researchers and scientists of the past, and still are in the present. I'm pretty sure any that anyone I've seen who is a high-ranking person in the FDA speak, they're generally 50 - 70 years old. I can't help but think their attitudes toward hairloss then and now, stemming from a refusal to accept that times have changed, have a lion's share in the lack of progress on the hairloss front for decades. This would be the same generation going on about "ethics" in stem cells; delaying useful applications of them. It doesn't matter whether it helps 8 million people or just 800k. If it helps them; we should do it.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/hidden-epidemic-men-turn-drink-drugs-due-hair-loss/
What I find particularly interesting, and got me to thinking, is the comments from apparently older people.
"My grandfather went bald early, it's in the genes. I don't think it traumatised him. Being shot, later blown up, then gassed, then having to change regiment twice due to massive losses in those regiments in the Great war, now that did affect him. What kind of man is traumatised by hair loss. A man without moral fibre?
By the way my grandfather came back to father 5 more children & die in his bed aged 74. Never conplained." — William Bate
It's not WW2 anymore, Bill.
"Media, particularly films and, more particularly Hollywood, promote full hair and thin svelte body.
Then look at the average American male.
Cease worrying, unless your partner believes the media images - then you know there's a problem.
In the North East, for many years now, most men have adopted the shaven head white van driver look. Low maintenance hair, no issue if going bald." — Gary Leece
Translation: "It's not a problem if you just keep your girlfriend away from movies! Don't let her get a glimpse of the other side!"
"If at some point in the future, you suggest that Millennials are, in general, stupid; and someone takes issue with you, refer them to this article. QED." — Some other c***.
I've noticed that, on Facebook articles pertaining to baldness, the doctors I've seen, and other commentors online, most of the "suck it up, it's just hair, you f*****g nancy boys" types are usually Baby Boomers or early Gen Xers. Now, the complaints that millenials and even many Gen Xers have against the Baby Boomer generation is well documented. These old people who, some statistics place at as high as 50%, have no plans of retiring nor consideration for their demise, while having left the three generations since with sizeable economic burden, as well as accounting for several US presidents in the past two decades and making up a large percentage of Trump voters all boils down to one thing, regardless of where your politics fall:
Dinosaurs are impeding any sort of change.
Indeed, out of the three doctors I had to see before one told me about the existence of finasteride, it was the youngest who told me about it. I have an uncle who is now 70 years old, and refuses to retire from a job that a young person could easily fill.
Obviously, these same people were the researchers and scientists of the past, and still are in the present. I'm pretty sure any that anyone I've seen who is a high-ranking person in the FDA speak, they're generally 50 - 70 years old. I can't help but think their attitudes toward hairloss then and now, stemming from a refusal to accept that times have changed, have a lion's share in the lack of progress on the hairloss front for decades. This would be the same generation going on about "ethics" in stem cells; delaying useful applications of them. It doesn't matter whether it helps 8 million people or just 800k. If it helps them; we should do it.
