cyberprimate said:
"Transplants from balding and hairy androgenetic alopecia scalp regrow hair comparably well on immunodeficient mice"
What's the current understanding on that 2003 study that was highlighted with great enthusiasm years ago by Bryan here (and on other forums)?
How would one explain the dramatic improvements observed with miniaturized follicles on these immunodepressed mice, today with all the accumulated knowledge since 2005?
You are right to raise this question, because this was the most significant experiment relating to male pattern baldness in recent times.
I was involved with the debates about this study on hairloss forums, and at that time i contacted the people who conducted this with a suggestion.
This was that they should repeat this experiment whilst ensuring that these mice also had androgen treatment, that ensured the transplanted male pattern baldness follicles had more than enough androgens available to maintain any *direct* response they may have to androgens.
I suggested this because if the same result *THEN* happened as in the original experiment, the existing theory of male pattern baldness would be finally disproved, no question!
Perhaps then research would move forward a lot faster, and we may move away from the current dead end we have reached with the old assumptions .
Guess what? my suggestions did not get a reply!
In my experience, it is not so much that there is some kind of cover up going on, it's just what happens in professional science. People just refuse to rock the boat of currently accepted beliefs. To go against the flow in professional science, can cost you funding or your job.
Sad but true.
S Foote.
