docj077 said:
[
I don't. You must genetically predisposed to prostate cancer in order to develop the disease. Whether it be through an inherited mutation or a spontaneous mutation...
Kind of makes a mockery of what you intended to convey by 'genetically predisposed'....
DammitLetMeIn said:
No, not every specialist says that.
Look, I know of some of THE top specialists. and this is their contention.
DammitLetMeIn said:
Every specialist that does pedigrees and examines genetic diseases acknowledges that prostate cancer (like all cancer) has an increased chance of developing if you have a first degree relative with the disease.
Well, whoop de doo, we have a genius on our hands...smh
DammitLetMeIn said:
Intrinsic genetic abnormalities are the cornerstone of modern cancer research..
Modern Western Medicine research. Its all focused on a singular narrow minded and thereby limited outlook. Don't even TRY and talk to me about Western Medicine and cancer when we're BLATANTLY losing the war on cancer.
DammitLetMeIn said:
Don't belittle the work of thousands with your asshat theories.
..
How about you don't be so condescending as to label anyone with an alternative viewpoint as 'asshat'. You immediately take an 'L' when you express yourself like that. Not to say I'm surprized tho.
docj077 said:
True. Look online. An increase in prostate cancer risk is associated with increased IGF-1, but only in susceptible individuals.
Like I said already, EVERY man will get prostate cancer if they live long enough - that means everyone is a susceptible individual. Thereby, increased IGF-1 is a risk for every male for acquriing prostate cancer or at very least some malady of the prostate.
docj077 said:
No, the major determinants are age, family history, and race. It's the same way for all cancers...
I was referring to outside of those determinants.
docj077 said:
No, IGF-1 is not a main factor. Genetic predisposition through family history is the number two determinant. ..
It is a MAIN risk factor, I even produced a paper earlier in the thread to show this. Stop skirting around the facts by trying to twist them in an attempt wot in an argument. As someone with male pattern baldness I'd have thought you would be interested in truth, not petty squabbles.
docj077 said:
So, now you turn the increased risk argument against me. ..
I was merely pointing out facts. In my view this is not an 'argument' - at least not on my behalf.
docj077 said:
You have two papers that you posted that say there is no clinical or scientific significance between elevated IGF-1 and prostate cancer. ..
You read what you wanted to read out of them. Their 'discussions' and 'conclusions' did not echo your sentiments. They beleive there is a correlation.
Besides I can produce many more studies.
docj077 said:
I even pointed them out to you and their results even justify their conclusions...
They SAID there IS a correlation. All you did was take out a specific piece of the studies which agreed with you. Besides there are many more studies which show a correlation.
docj077 said:
Yet, somehow you think you're above the interpretations of the individuals that performed the studies.
IT was THEIR interpretations I repeated. You took their statistics and drew your own conclusions.
docj077 said:
You need to accept the fact that you are in over your head on this one.
.
Who are you to tell me I'm in over my head? Do you have a cure for male pattern baldness? I didn't think so. From your other posts I'm aware that you're not even a Doctor yet you have 'Doctor' in your screen name. You're just a medical student yet you seem to think you have more knowledge than two M.D. who believe that IGF-1 plays a significant role in male pattern baldness.
You think I'm in over my head? At least I'm not downtalking two people more advanced in my own profession.
docj077 said:
Raising or lowering IGF-1 through diet through studies I post doesn't mean that I agree with you at all.
I wouldn't expect any less from you based on your previous posts.
docj077 said:
You make things too simple with your posts when the human body is far more complicated
You individualise things and over-complicate things even where facts are staring you in the face. I simply repeat what I've read in studies and from experts and MD's. You think you're above their interpretations.
docj077 said:
that your simple mind can comprehend.
Again, an insult from you. I cannot say I'm surprised as this appears to be your level.
docj077 said:
YOu'd have to go back 57pages and many days of research before you'd hear me say that. My reasoning and knowledge of male pattern baldness has prgressed from that point.
Your ability to have an educated conversation apparently hasn't.
docj077 said:
Yet, that will have no impact on IGF-1 levels in an African American. They have to cut the dairy..".
You have already heard me speak of IGF-1 in dairy in this thread, and btw for the record, dairy is full of fat.
docj077 said:
You make yourself look stupid and your opinion look foolish when you attempt to take the complexities of modern medicine and turn them into your own personal scientific circus.
In fact it is you who looks foolish for being unable to see whats in front of you preferring to pick minor flaws than to listen to reason. Even when a doctor points it out you refuse to take heed.
You speak of modern medicine, yet if you look at their record on male pattern baldness, its pretty horrendous. You can keep banging your head against a brick wall if you like.
docj077 said:
I don't trust you and I don't trust your conclusions.
And I don't trust you to be a free thinker and separate yourself from your completely indoctrinated outlook. Nor, do I trust your character in light on your insistence at throwing insults.
docj077 said:
, because every study that you post either has a study that completely contradicts it.
This is false. Completely false.
docj077 said:
or your conclusions contradict the conclusions of the researchers performing the study..
Again, this offering is completely false.
docj077 said:
No. That's oversimplification (something you're good at) and completely incorrect.
Its not incorrect.
docj077 said:
You have no proof of what the correct levels are for a male with male pattern baldness
My contention is that a male wouldn't HAVE male pattern baldness if his levels were correct. As we've already seen IGF-1 levels are ELEVATED in males with male pattern baldness, and acne and prostate cancer.
docj077 said:
nor do you have proof that lowering these levels will prevent or reverse male pattern baldness.
And you have no proof that it won't. Moreover, I am prepared to explore the idea by looking at ALL the information and looking at corresponding afflictions such as PCOS, acne, prostate cancer etc
You seem to want to throw the idea out of the window before its even considered even where there is evidence to support it. YOu'll get nowhere being so dismissive.
docj077 said:
You also have no proof that shows that men with a defective androgen receptor and low IGF-1 levels have no hair loss.
Well if they have 'LOW' IGF-1 levels then they are likely to have hairloss. I would advocate NORMAL levels.
docj077 said:
You MUST prove all of these. .
All I need to prove is a correlation between elevated IGF-1 and hair loss on a consistent basis. Enough so that downregulating IGF-1 is a good idea for men with male pattern baldness.
docj077 said:
It's your theory and I'm challenging it. .
Once again, its NOT my theory. Many people including M.D.'s have already advanced the theory with even greater science than I have provided.
docj077 said:
It doesn't matter what you do with IGF-1. .
This is presumptious and in my view inaccurate.
docj077 said:
High IGF-1 gives a person signs and symptoms of a disease process. They are very evident. .
Elevated IGF-1 ocurs in bodybuilders. They have symptoms of disease?
docj077 said:
Stopping DHT at the level of the enzyme or the receptor prevents all downstream effects regardless of any effect IGF-1 has in tissue. .
I never disputed this.
docj077 said:
You still don't have proof that lowering IGF-1 is beneficial in male pattern baldness, nor do you have proof that it's even safe..
I have proof that elevated IGF-1 is associated with male pattern baldness. As for lowering IGF-1 levels, it is something I have raised for discussion and something suggested to be explored. I'm not saying for everyone to go out and lower their IGF-1 levels, I'm simply discussin the link with male pattern baldness.
docj077 said:
Oversimplification. Non-sequitur. .
How about i rephrase it for you. 'Oversimplification, in my opinon.' You are not the ultimate arbiter of the human body, so don't act like it.
docj077 said:
This is something that you have no proof of..
All the evidence is mounting up. All it lacks is one specific study. I didn't say it was 110% true, again its something I put out for discussion with an open mind - not to be dismissed by a closed one such as yours.
docj077 said:
You have no proof that IGF-1 increases 5AR function in any way as you don't have the peer-reviewed.
I have studies which show that it does in areas DHT sensitive area apart from the scalp
docj077 said:
Your studies don't demonstrate what the hormone levels are with the increase in IGF-1. For all we know, what's actually happening is hormonal upregulation of 5AR function with the IGF-1 increase simply being an extra finding due to hormonally mediated influences. You have no proof otherwise.
I welcome such points, but that still doesn't dismiss my overall contention entirely.
But you know, everything is always so negative with you. The glass is always half-empty even when it is 3/4 full. You can't seem to look past current medical consenus. You're mentally trapped.