????The biggest hairloss mystery????

[michael barry]

Bryan, hope youre getting out of town for that hurricane. Be careful out there man........CNN says its a biggie and might be as savage as the legendary-turn of the century one that hit Galveston. Be careful.

 

[Bryan]

The fatty acids in emu oil aren't in their "free" form. They won't inhibit 5a-reductase.

Emu oil could be hydrolyzed into its constituent fatty acids by esterases in the epidermis or hair follicle itself, at least in theory. Esterase activity in human skin is considerable, and is the development basis for topical prodrug agents, of which quite a few exist. Such activity isn't reflected in the in vitro assays of 5 alpha-reductase, of course. I don't know offhand what interspecies variation there is of skin esterases, nor in what species comparisons have been made between topically applied esters and their fatty acids constituents.

However, considering the skin penetration enhancing properties of short-chain fatty acids, along with all of the additional unknown variables associated with an ester approach, I would stick with the former. Topical fatty acids are experimental enough without adding complications.

Dave, I'm going by what Liang and Hiipakka (sp?) found in their testing for that patent application; namely, that topical borage oil had very little effect on sebum production, compared to topical GLA.

Bryan

-----------------------------------------------------
Houston weather forecast:
Chance of rain for Friday and Saturday! :wink:

Bryan

 

[Bryan]

Bryan, hope youre getting out of town for that hurricane. Be careful out there man........CNN says its a biggie and might be as savage as the legendary-turn of the century one that hit Galveston. Be careful.

I'm hunkering down and staying put. We all thank god that the damned thing has weakened some in the last several hours: late last night it was still a Category 5 storm, with sustained winds at 165 MPH. But now it's dwindled-down to a "mere" Cat 4, 145 MPH. Even at this rate, the local TV weatherman just moments ago said that we can still expect 80 - 100 MPH (or possibly greater) sustained winds right here in the middle of Houston, along with a foot or more of rain, when the storm passes over early Saturday morning.

Bryan

-----------------------------------------------------
Houston weather forecast:
Chance of rain for Friday and Saturday! :wink:

Bryan

 

[silkeysmooth]

All I know is that my scalp hurts all the time in the thinning areas and no derm or doctor has any idea why. I know that somehow the pain is directly related to the hairloss because the worse the pain, the thinner the area.

 

[S Foote.]

Bryan,
"your thoughts are very orgainized, and on THE RIGHT PATH, SIMILAR TO WHAT OTHERS HAVE BEEN PROPOSING"

That, to me, STRONGLY suggests that Dr. Sawaya has talked to at least TWO professional scientists in her profession who believe that there is more to baldness than DHT.

Good god...OF COURSE there's more to baldness than just DHT. But we aren't talking about non-DHT theories in general, we're talking about ONE SPECIFIC NON-DHT THEORY (Stephen's screwball idea involving contact inhibition). That's an idea that's been soundly refuted.

Huh????

That reply from Dr Sawaya concerned `MY' theory! :roll: Just read Michaels quote of her wording above :roll:

Also, since when have i ever said as you capitalise above, that mine is a `NON-DHT THEORY??? You know very well i propose an indirect action of DHT!

I know you are probably not thinking straight because of the impending hurricane, so i will excuse your confusion (just this once :wink: ).

But it seems to me that if you just go outside and start talking aloud about male pattern baldness, all the hot air you produce would blow the hurricane away :lol:

S Foote.

 

[hair_tomorrow]

Bryan, hope youre getting out of town for that hurricane. Be careful out there man........CNN says its a biggie and might be as savage as the legendary-turn of the century one that hit Galveston. Be careful.

I'm hunkering down and staying put. We all thank god that the damned thing has weakened some in the last several hours: late last night it was still a Category 5 storm, with sustained winds at 165 MPH. But now it's dwindled-down to a "mere" Cat 4, 145 MPH. Even at this rate, the local TV weatherman just moments ago said that we can still expect 80 - 100 MPH (or possibly greater) sustained winds right here in the middle of Houston, along with a foot or more of rain, when the storm passes over early Saturday morning.

Bryan

-----------------------------------------------------
Houston weather forecast:
Chance of rain for Friday and Saturday! :wink:

Bryan

Good luck Bryan. Hope it just passes you quietly by.

 

[Bryan]

Huh????

That reply from Dr Sawaya concerned `MY' theory! :roll: Just read Michaels quote of her wording above :roll:

Correct. And we think that she was just being polite to you. It's highly unlikely that she really does take your theory seriously.

Also, since when have i ever said as you capitalise above, that mine is a `NON-DHT THEORY??? You know very well i propose an indirect action of DHT!

Whatever. You know what I meant.

I know you are probably not thinking straight because of the impending hurricane, so i will excuse your confusion (just this once :wink: ).

But it seems to me that if you just go outside and start talking aloud about male pattern baldness, all the hot air you produce would blow the hurricane away :lol:

Gosh...wonder how long it took you to think that one up!

Bryan

 

[Dave001]

The fatty acids in emu oil aren't in their "free" form. They won't inhibit 5a-reductase.

Emu oil could be hydrolyzed into its constituent fatty acids by esterases in the epidermis or hair follicle itself, at least in theory. Esterase activity in human skin is considerable, and is the development basis for topical prodrug agents, of which quite a few exist. Such activity isn't reflected in the in vitro assays of 5 alpha-reductase, of course. I don't know offhand what interspecies variation there is of skin esterases, nor in what species comparisons have been made between topically applied esters and their fatty acids constituents.

However, considering the skin penetration enhancing properties of short-chain fatty acids, along with all of the additional unknown variables associated with an ester approach, I would stick with the former. Topical fatty acids are experimental enough without adding complications.

Dave, I'm going by what Liang and Hiipakka (sp?) found in their testing for that patent application; namely, that topical borage oil had very little effect on sebum production, compared to topical GLA.

Have you seen their newer patent?

Method and compositions for regulation of 5-alpha reductase activity

It seems most related to their paper published the same year:

Hiipakka, R. A., H.-Z. Zhang, et al. (2002). "Structure-activity relationships for inhibition of human 5alpha-reductases by polyphenols." Biochemical Pharmacology 63(6): 1165.

 

[S Foote.]

Huh????

That reply from Dr Sawaya concerned `MY' theory! :roll: Just read Michaels quote of her wording above :roll:

Correct. And we think that she was just being polite to you. It's highly unlikely that she really does take your theory seriously.

So let's just review this situation then Bryan.

You claim that my theory is `wacko', and evidence `clearly' refutes this right?

But Dr Sawaya, a recognised leading hair loss researcher, when asked to comment on my theory, says that others (professional scientists that is), are now thinking along similar lines.

So what is it that these professional scientists are `missing' Bryan? What is it that `YOU' know that these scientists don't?

While your at it, tell us all why it is that even hair transplant specialists are now questioning the old donor dominance notion that you consider to be `Gospil'?

Why dont you write to Dr Limmer, a leading transplant expert and tell him he is just plain wrong when he reported that emerging evidence now questions donor dominance as reported on this site!

http://www.hairlosstalk.com/newsletter/article181.htm

Then you could write to the expert scientists who are performing body hair to scalp transplants. This should just be a waste of time according to you! So tell them where their going wrong Bryan :wink:

Then you could also point out to Dr Sawaya that she is mistaken in giving my theory any credibility! I would love to read her reply on that one 8)

In other words Bryan, don't just come here claiming that your personal interpretation of the evidence takes priority, show us all that you are not afraid to ask for expert opinions on `YOUR' opinions! 8)

S Foote.

 

[Dave001]

Correct. And we think that she was just being polite to you. It's highly unlikely that she really does take your theory seriously.

So let's just review this situation then Bryan.

You claim that my theory is `wacko', and evidence `clearly' refutes this right?

But Dr Sawaya, a recognised leading hair loss researcher, when asked to comment on my theory, says that others (professional scientists that is), are now thinking along similar lines.

1.) Your alleged response from her does not include what those "similar lines" are. They might all be thinking that Coke tastes better than Pepsi.

2.) Even in the extremely unlikely event that she DID intend to say that her colleagues were thinking along the same lines as your "theory", that is not evidence that your "theory" is correct.

It would be incredibly disrespectful toward Dr. Sawaya for us to assume that she paid a modicum of credence to your delusional theory.

 

[michael barry]

Did any of you guys get a chance to look at the Duke University and Massachusetts Hospital research links I posted from Hairloss-reversible.com? Was wondering what any of you might have thought of that.........



Stephen, Have you had a chance to see a lymphoedema doctor personally and have them just check your own temples for edema? I seen that your theory had been on hairsite since 2001 and its 2005 of course. A Doctor testing your temple or side recession could give an ultimate thumbs up or down on edema being male pattern baldness couldnt it? Or perhaps have the Doctor just check two other bald edema patients for it and if just one of the three of you tests postive for edema of the scalp it could be submitted for review by the testing doctor. If all three of you test negative, it would put the theory to rest.

You have put a lot of work into that theory, and after reading the symptoms of edema and how it so closely mirrors male pattern baldness, no one could fault you for developing it. But you could test it yourself at this point and end any speculation and gain closure in the hard work youve put into it?

Regardless whether its proven right or wrong, I feel very confident that aiding lymphatic drainage must help the upper layers of the scalp around the follicle to be less filled with stagnant protiens and toxins that cant be "good" for hair anyway. Hagerty sure believes this.

 

[Bryan]

So let's just review this situation then Bryan.

You claim that my theory is `wacko', and evidence `clearly' refutes this right?

Correctamundo.

But Dr Sawaya, a recognised leading hair loss researcher, when asked to comment on my theory, says that others (professional scientists that is), are now thinking along similar lines.

So what is it that these professional scientists are `missing' Bryan? What is it that `YOU' know that these scientists don't?

There almost certainly AREN'T any such "professional scientists" who think along the same lines as you. I challenge you to find any published material which mirrors your zany theory. (Note to the other readers of this thread: now THAT oughtta keep him off the street for a while! :wink: )

While your at it, tell us all why it is that even hair transplant specialists are now questioning the old donor dominance notion that you consider to be `Gospil'?

I already HAVE told you about that. Why must I repeat myself??

Then you could write to the expert scientists who are performing body hair to scalp transplants. This should just be a waste of time according to you!

HUH?? What the Sam hell are you talking about?? Why should that be a waste of time, according to me?

Then you could also point out to Dr Sawaya that she is mistaken in giving my theory any credibility! I would love to read her reply on that one 8)

Hey, I've got a terrific idea, Stephen: why don't you email Dr. Sawaya again and ask her to NAME those researchers who are supposedly "thinking along the same lines as you", and where you can read their published work??

Bryan

 

[moegreen]

man u guys need to get a life

 

[S Foote.]

Correct. And we think that she was just being polite to you. It's highly unlikely that she really does take your theory seriously.

So let's just review this situation then Bryan.

You claim that my theory is `wacko', and evidence `clearly' refutes this right?

But Dr Sawaya, a recognised leading hair loss researcher, when asked to comment on my theory, says that others (professional scientists that is), are now thinking along similar lines.

1.) Your alleged response from her does not include what those "similar lines" are. They might all be thinking that Coke tastes better than Pepsi.

2.) Even in the extremely unlikely event that she DID intend to say that her colleagues were thinking along the same lines as your "theory", that is not evidence that your "theory" is correct.

It would be incredibly disrespectful toward Dr. Sawaya for us to assume that she paid a modicum of credence to your delusional theory.

This sulking on your and Bryans part, is getting a bit pathetic now.

The `alledged' response from Dr Sawaya as you put it, was forwarded to be by the admin on this site. If you don't think it was a genuine response, ask HairLossTalk.com.

To be clear, i will again post the letter i sent to experts, and Dr Sawaya's response along with Dr Bazans's response below this post.

The wording of this reply to my enquiry from Dr Sawaya, is very clear despite all the `spin' you and Bryan are desperately trying to put on this to try to save `face' on this forum :wink:

Of course my theory may not be 100% correct, but it seems to be at least in the ball park of the emerging scientific opinions. Testing will have to be done, and it is encouraging that with these latest similar professional ideas, more original studies relating to male pattern baldness may follow!

It seems you both just can't handle the fact that recognised experts are not agreeing with `YOUR' personal opinions on my theory.

Sorry boys, but your inflated ego's will just have to accept this. 8)

S Foote.

 

[S Foote.]

My letter to experts and responses.

S Foote.


_________________________________________________




Dear ---------

I would welcome your opinion on a factor that must, given accepted physiology, have the `final say' in the size of the in vivo anagen follicle. This factor is the basic mechanism in multi-cellular biology of contact inhibition.

My opinion on the role of contact inhibition in anagen follicle size, and the advantages of this in the evolution and function of hair, can be seen here http://www.hairsite2.com/library/abst-167.htm A slightly modified version of this paper was published in Medical Hypotheses (2002) 59 (5), 522-526. doi:10.1016/S0306-9877(02)00259-1, available on line at http://www.idealibrary.com


The basic reasoning goes like this.

The amount of hair produced is directly related to the period of anagen, and the size achived by the anagen follicle. In male pattern baldness, the anagen period is shortened, resulting in miniaturised follicles.

In multi-cellular biology, any organ `building' is subject to the ultimate control of normal contact inhibition. Contact inhibition ensures that organs can only be as large as the available space allows. This prevents biological structures from interfering with each other.

As the anagen follicle starts to enlarge, it has to push the surrounding dermal tissue aside. The greater the resistence to movement of the dermal tissue, the earlier normal contact inhibition will `kick in'. If the resistence is high, the anagen enlargement period will be turned off early by contact inhibition, resulting in miniaturised follicles. If the resistence is low, anagen enlargement can continue for longer, resulting in larger follicles and increased hair growth.

The only factor that could `modify' the resistence to movement of the dermal tissue, is the fluid pressure within it. If the fluid pressure is high, the tissue rigidity is increased, and therefore its resistence to movement. Likewise, if the fluid pressure is low, so is the resistence to movement.

This mechanism makes a link with high fluid pressure and reduced hair growth, and low fluid pressure and increased hair growth. In my opinion, hair follicles evolved to `read' the fluid pressure in surrounding tissue to adjust hair production in line with other temperature controls in evolving mammals. Please see "The hydraulic dermal model" section of my paper.

A role of contact inhibition mediated through hydraulic changes in male pattern baldness, does not conflict with in-vitro observations, or the donor dominance observed in transplanted grafts. Sample follicle cells `switched off' by contact inhibition, have been fundamentally altered compared to cells that continue to multiply. EG: samples from terminal hair producing follicles. Any different in-vitro response of such samples to androgens, or other substances is to be expected! The observed Hypoxia in follicle grafts demonstrates no `active' circulation within these grafts. No active circulation means no hydraulic changes! The grafts will remain in the `as transplanted state', demonstrating donor dominance.

In male pattern baldness we have hair loss, immune infiltrate and immune sensitivity, ultimate fibrosis, and tissue thickening. These are all recognised factors in edemous tissue. http://www.lymphoedema.org.au/lymphoed.htm

One way to increase hair growth according to this mechanism, is to increase the resistence of follicle cells to contact inhibition? The danger here is that these cells would then be far more likely to become tumorous. In my opinion, the results of Fuchs in manipulating the Wnt pathway, confirms a central role of contact inhibition in follicle developement. http://www.hhmi.org/fuchs/index.html

If you look at other cases of hair loss, the common factor in these conditions is an increase in tissue fluid pressure for one reason or another!

As far as HM like procedures are concerned, i think the implantation itself could create `one off' conditions? There is bound to be some kind of healing process here, and this could very likely allow increased cell multiplication initially, and the developement of a large anagen follicle. We know that an `over production' of cells can occour during the healing process, scar tissue for example?

This predicts a potential problem with follicles generated by HM? If these follicles cycle normally, come the next anagen phase, these would then also come under the influence of normal contact inhibition. If the scalp conditions have not changed, large HM generated follicles could only last for one cycle?

I would welcome your comments on this proposal.

Best Regards,

Stephen Foote.

_____________________________________


Dear Stephen:
Your note is very interesting. I have been following your work on the hydraulics of tissue (regarding mostly on scalp physiology).
I find your work is brilliant and it must be continued since it may open one of the gates we need for solving the problem.
Our research deals with some of the proposed ideas. We find contact inhibition is a true factor in the dermal model. In respect to HM, and particularly my own method that is called SIT (scalp impregnation therapy) the life expectancy and normal cycling of the follicular complex is of utmost importance. We expect an anagen telogen catagen cycle to be repetitive and self adjusting to the environment while conserving donor dominance. We have so much to do. Keep it up.
Best of luck (and hard work),

Dr. Carl
http://www.itzan.com
(Mexico)


____________________________________________


"Alot of good points are brought up regarding the hair follicle growth and the fact that anagen is a bit predetermined by the previous hair cycle and the "clock" that is set or how long the matrix cells can grow and divide, making a big, anagen follicle, or a smaller and smaller follicle with each hair cycle. The idea of pressure changes from localized factors is interesting as the problem with male pattern hair loss is the fibrosis/scarring that takes place so that the follicles and surrounding tissues are damaged and cannot regenerate.
Male pattern hair loss is not supposed to be a scarring, cicatricial process, but it is a mixed inflammatory process in that many people do have inflammatory changes but usually in the middle follicle, and not as much in the lower follicle, as in alopecia areata.

Overall, these are interesting arguments to stimulate anagen follicles, keeping in mind that there are many substages of anagen, each similar to the cell cycle in carrying out a specific function for a certain period of time.
Many researchers are working on similar concepts with use of growth factors to see if there is any certain one or mix of them that can effect the process.

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"

 

[Dave001]

[quote="S Foote.":6d0a6]

Correct. And we think that she was just being polite to you. It's highly unlikely that she really does take your theory seriously.

So let's just review this situation then Bryan.

You claim that my theory is `wacko', and evidence `clearly' refutes this right?

But Dr Sawaya, a recognised leading hair loss researcher, when asked to comment on my theory, says that others (professional scientists that is), are now thinking along similar lines.

1.) Your alleged response from her does not include what those "similar lines" are. They might all be thinking that Coke tastes better than Pepsi.

2.) Even in the extremely unlikely event that she DID intend to say that her colleagues were thinking along the same lines as your "theory", that is not evidence that your "theory" is correct.

It would be incredibly disrespectful toward Dr. Sawaya for us to assume that she paid a modicum of credence to your delusional theory.

This sulking on your and Bryans part, is getting a bit pathetic now.

The `alledged' response from Dr Sawaya as you put it, was forwarded to be by the admin on this site. If you don't think it was a genuine response, ask HairLossTalk.com.

To be clear, i will again post the letter i sent to experts, and Dr Sawaya's response along with Dr Bazans's response below this post.

The wording of this reply to my enquiry from Dr Sawaya, is very clear despite all the `spin' you and Bryan are desperately trying to put on this to try to save `face' on this forum :wink:

Of course my theory may not be 100% correct, but it seems to be at least in the ball park of the emerging scientific opinions. Testing will have to be done, and it is encouraging that with these latest similar professional ideas, more original studies relating to male pattern baldness may follow!

It seems you both just can't handle the fact that recognised experts are not agreeing with `YOUR' personal opinions on my theory.

Sorry boys, but your inflated ego's will just have to accept this. 8) [/quote:6d0a6]

Go ahead. Take the reply down from your refrigerator and repost it, since you seem to need it in order to feel important. The situation is quite comical, really. The entirety of support for your goofball theory is a canned e-mail response. It sounds completely boilerplate to everyone but you, and more important, it does not qualify as evidence, no matter what its intended meaning.

But let's pretend for a moment that her reply does mean what you want it to. Where does that leave your theory? Nowhere, which is exactly where it was before. You're still left defending your idiotic theory with pathetic attempts to discredit the individuals who present evidence that refute your theory, instead of addressing evidence itself.

 

[S Foote.]

[quote="S Foote.":74893]

Correct. And we think that she was just being polite to you. It's highly unlikely that she really does take your theory seriously.

So let's just review this situation then Bryan.

You claim that my theory is `wacko', and evidence `clearly' refutes this right?

But Dr Sawaya, a recognised leading hair loss researcher, when asked to comment on my theory, says that others (professional scientists that is), are now thinking along similar lines.

1.) Your alleged response from her does not include what those "similar lines" are. They might all be thinking that Coke tastes better than Pepsi.

2.) Even in the extremely unlikely event that she DID intend to say that her colleagues were thinking along the same lines as your "theory", that is not evidence that your "theory" is correct.

It would be incredibly disrespectful toward Dr. Sawaya for us to assume that she paid a modicum of credence to your delusional theory.

This sulking on your and Bryans part, is getting a bit pathetic now.

The `alledged' response from Dr Sawaya as you put it, was forwarded to be by the admin on this site. If you don't think it was a genuine response, ask HairLossTalk.com.

To be clear, i will again post the letter i sent to experts, and Dr Sawaya's response along with Dr Bazans's response below this post.

The wording of this reply to my enquiry from Dr Sawaya, is very clear despite all the `spin' you and Bryan are desperately trying to put on this to try to save `face' on this forum :wink:

Of course my theory may not be 100% correct, but it seems to be at least in the ball park of the emerging scientific opinions. Testing will have to be done, and it is encouraging that with these latest similar professional ideas, more original studies relating to male pattern baldness may follow!

It seems you both just can't handle the fact that recognised experts are not agreeing with `YOUR' personal opinions on my theory.

Sorry boys, but your inflated ego's will just have to accept this. 8)

Go ahead. Take the reply down from your refrigerator and repost it, since you seem to need it in order to feel important. The situation is quite comical, really. The entirety of support for your goofball theory is a canned e-mail response. It sounds completely boilerplate to everyone but you, and more important, it does not qualify as evidence, no matter what its intended meaning.

But let's pretend for a moment that her reply does mean what you want it to. Where does that leave your theory? Nowhere, which is exactly where it was before.[/quote:74893]



You say quote:

" You're still left defending your idiotic theory with pathetic attempts to discredit the individuals who present evidence that refute your theory, instead of addressing evidence itself."

But neither you or Bryan have presented any evidence that rufutes my theory!! This notion that you `have' refuted it exists only in your deluded minds!

Both of you just cherry pick from the literature, what you `percive' supports your personal opinions. But you have both `NOT' refuted my theory in any scientific way.

This is why the `REAL' scientists have a very different opinion of my theory than you and Bryan. These people really know what genuine scientific interpretation of evidence is!

All you and Bryan are really interested in is trying to make your opinions seem to be more valid than others on these forums. If thats the game your interested in fine, go ahead.

Just don't try to tell me that your opinions are `scientific', because their not.

And i really don't care what you or Bryan think about anything! You both make it quite clear in these debates that you are not interested in the `science', just your ego's.

This thread was started by someone who being `really' interested in the male pattern baldness issue, quite rightly questions the old assumptions.

I have clearly demonstrated here, that both you and Bryan are completely out of tune with `modern' thinking in male pattern baldness by professional scientists.

Just get over it :roll:

S Foote.

 

[2tone]

IMO the biggest mystery is the information held in the vaults of the large commercial interests Research and Development units .


I accept that DHT is the major contributing factor in male pattern baldness , i personally think that tthe mechanism is a relatively simple one . I like the way stephen foote represents the issue in simple real world terms .. i do not completely appreciate researchers who want only to jump on the genetic bandwagon ..

The single issue i will to see resolved is the removal of DHT from the receptors around the hair follicle .. and triggering the hair follicle switch to change phase vellus-terminla

I personally also believe there is a strong a yet not well clearly explianed connection between stress and DHEA release from the Adrenal glands in combination witrh the release of corticosteroids that in synergy creates an environment in which the male pattern baldness effect is accentuated ..

There is idopathic LOL ( haha j/k ) discussion in the research community regarding how in Females the adrenal androgens are fully responsible for Patterned Baldness .. yet in the same discussions it is said that the adrenal release is NOT responsible for Male Patterned Baldness because they submit that the major source of testosterone in not the adrenal glands DHEA in males .. i think the assumptions are worng .. i think the pattern baldness is an explicit mechanism of the Adrenal synergies .. i think the emotional hubris of the male female sexuality is blinding the medical profession to apparent truths .

this btw is my first post to this forum ,, i thank the creators for this place , i have been looking for some time for a place to discuss matters ..

Thank You .