S Foote.
Experienced Member
- Reaction score
- 67
docj077 said:That information is straight out of my medical physiology textbook and was repeated by my medical school endrocrinology professor. In vivo studies are impossible in human beings as you can't simply take out someone hair follicle and keep it alive long enough to see a scientific result.
In vitro results are the only alternative until in vivo long term studies can be performed. The same works for drugs during each and every phase of their testing. You're looking for effects and progress, not genetic mechanisms. That's what the lab work is for.
But in this case we "DO" have significant in-vivo evidence that rules out androgen inducable TGF beta-1, as the in-vivo suppresor of male pattern baldness follicles!
TGF beta-1 induced by androgens, suppresses the growth of pre-existing male pattern baldness follicle cells in-vitro. There is no immunology going on in the test tube, so the claim is as you have stated.
You argue androgens are directly interacting with follicle cells and the TGF beta-1 pathway to suppress male pattern baldness follicle cells in-vitro, so this "must" be what is happening in-vivo!
The study below was the perfect in-vivo test of this assumption.
http://www.hairlosshelp.com/forums/mess ... &forumid=1
This study involved transplanting human male pattern baldness follicles to immuno-deficient mice. The androgen levels in those mice was normal enough to produce male and female mice, and as Bryan pointed out far lower androgen levels in humans are known to maintain miniaturised male pattern baldness follicles.
So what happened?
The human male pattern baldness follicles re-enlarged dramaticaly, in the presence of more than enough androgens to keep them miniaturised if your TGF beta-1 assumption is correct!!
So explain that?
Docj007 said:As for the scientifc method, I've had enough of that. I did research on Enterococcus faecalis toxin-antitoxin postsegregational kill mechansims for the better duration of my masters.
With respect a doctors training is not a good grounding in science. Doctors are trained to believe the "textbook" answers. Scientists have to evaluate information in scientific terms, not just take information at face value.
A hundred years ago you would have been trained to "bleed" patients to vent noxious "vapours", and you would have believed this then "text book" fact wouldn't you! :wink:
S Foote.