For bryan and Foote.

[michael barry]

Jacob,
Where do you get that topical you use? I know the inflamil is from lipoxidil.com, but the other stuff. What is each reputed to do explicitly?

By the way Jacob, on Lipoxidil, .....they have one product that is a "all in one type of thing". It would seem to have everything ya' need in one bottle. But the price for 50ml is like $150 a month. Yikes man! Even if it was great stuff. That is SO high. A regular bottle of minoxidil has 60 ml.

I'd love for, and have mentioned this many times, for someone to make a "all in one topical" that included a NO releaser (even if its minoxidil), copper peptide, a SOD, and a good anti-androgen (flutamine, spironolactone, GLA, or ALA in a good portion).....all made for less than 50 a month anyway. Most of us are gonna stay on finas regardless. A hundred a month is just too much to spend on hair. I literally would feel guilty doing that.

 

[S Foote.]

Hi Michael.

I think the link you posted about L'Oreal's research is very telling, and "some" people around here should take a good look at what "real" scientists think!

Really? Specifically what research by L'Oreal do you think is very telling? The article to which you refer is just a short blurb from a popular magazine, printed a few years ago. It was not published by L'Oreal. I've seen L'Oreal's recent patents and patent applications, and none of them relate to contact inhibition.

And just what is it you think is preventing the follicle cells from just "forcing" the hardened dermal cells reported in the article aside, if not normal contact inhibition? Do you have even the slightest clue about basic multi-cellular physiology, or do we have to explain every single detail to you?

Just because this research report is not in a peer reviewed journal, you seem to be trying to claim that it is meaningless? Are you trying to say then that L'Oreal are "lying" about the conditions they found in the balding scalp?

This research is in line you will note with Dr Sawaya's comments in her response to my theory as i have posted.

I'm skeptical that even you're stupid enough to believe that. You've already been told that you've misinterpreted Dr. Sawaya (probably deliberately), but if you're going to continue pursuing that line of reasoning, why don't you confirm your interpretation with Dr. Sawaya?

You mean that "YOU" have said that i misinterpreted Dr Sawaya's comments, certainly no sensible person has :wink: Here is her reply again:


"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"

Better yet, let's make a bet. For money. And gourmetstylewellness.com can act as the neutral party. He'll ask Sawaya in a yes or no form of question whether she feels that the new paradigm of understanding in androgenetic alopecia research has "contact inhibition" as a key mediator, or even a minor one. So whaddya say? Ready to put your money where your mouth is? Perhaps Bryan would like to "risk" some of his money as well. I see no reason he shouldn't profit from your ignorance too.

Another fine example of your good judgement Dave :roll: Before you go making a complete fool of yourself, i will save you some money and just point out one quote from Dr sawaya's reply above:

"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."

What do you think that Dr Sawaya will give as the physiological reason, if she is asked to explain why follicles can't regenerate in the conditions she describes above?

Go ahead and ask her why follicles just can't force their way through fibrose tissue, or any other significant resistence? Ask her to tell you what the common term is for this kind of prevention of cell multiplication due to physical resistence? I'll give you a clue Dave, the initials are CI :wink:

Save your money fool.

S Foote.

 

[S Foote.]

By the way.

Further to the sebaceous gland "size" debate?

It seems that the well respected hair loss researcher Dr Hideo Uno agree's with me on this issue. :wink:

In his much respected paper "The histopathology of Hair Loss" linked here:

http://www.regrowth.com/hair_loss_infor ... 20in%20Men

(Click on "Androgenetic Alopecia in Men ").

He states quote:

"Sebaceous glands generally are the same size in normal hairy skin and bald skin (Figure 19b). "

Pity the figure's are not available in the links to this study that i can find.

S Foote.

 

[Dave001]

Save your money fool.

How predictable.

 

[S Foote.]

Save your money fool.

How predictable.

Go ahead and ask gourmetstylewellness.com if he will contact Dr Sawaya about this "already answered" question!!

I am doing you a favour here and saving you a lot of money, and i think gourmetstylewellness.com has better things to do than serve your sad illusions :roll:

Why don't you ask your "best" buddy Bryan if he is prepared to risk any hard cash here as you suggested he should? 8)

Even Bryan must now be cringing with embarassment at your deranged posts!

S Foote.

 

[2tone]

I thought the pattern part of Male Patterned Hairloss was indicative of a contact inhibition type response also ..

You know what i mean .. how the hair loss seems to start from a few particular locations in the temples and at the top of the head .. the pattern with the effect moving outwards like a ripple on a pond just reminds me of a whole lot of contact type associations i guess ..

After all if it were a pure receptor type response without contact inhibition mechanism involved why does the whole scalp region which is reportedly so DHT sensitive not change its hair growth pattern all at once or randomly or in any other pattern at all ?.. it just seems that the first hairloss region effects the neighbouring region to alter its state as well in a very contact reminiscent type of manner .

 

[S Foote.]

I thought the pattern part of Male Patterned Hairloss was indicative of a contact inhibition type response also ..

You know what i mean .. how the hair loss seems to start from a few particular locations in the temples and at the top of the head .. the pattern with the effect moving outwards like a ripple on a pond just reminds me of a whole lot of contact type associations i guess ..

After all if it were a pure receptor type response without contact inhibition mechanism involved why does the whole scalp region which is reportedly so DHT sensitive not change its hair growth pattern all at once or randomly or in any other pattern at all ?.. it just seems that the first hairloss region effects the neighbouring region to alter its state as well in a very contact reminiscent type of manner .

Well yes.

The slow developement of the pattern of loss in male pattern baldness is more suited in my opinion to an "outside" influence. The current theory hypothesises that "each" follicle has it's own genetic "clock", to try to explain the time delay and pattern.

But this makes no sense in terms of known hormone responses, and the question must be what's the point of such a thing in evolution anyway?

S Foote.

 

[Britannia]

Oh. Obviously I damaged your fragile ego sometime in the past. Foo-bucking-hoo.

Got some letters in the wrong places there chap :roll:

 

[Bryan]

By the way.

Further to the sebaceous gland "size" debate?

It seems that the well respected hair loss researcher Dr Hideo Uno agree's with me on this issue. :wink:

In his much respected paper "The histopathology of Hair Loss" linked here:

http://www.regrowth.com/hair_loss_infor ... 20in%20Men

(Click on "Androgenetic Alopecia in Men ").

He states quote:

"Sebaceous glands generally are the same size in normal hairy skin and bald skin (Figure 19b). "

That's an interesting claim from Uno, but here are a couple of contradictory statements from other hairloss researchers who are even MORE famous than Uno! This first one is from your mentor (yes, I'm being SARCASTIC!) Marty Sawaya. I had previously mentioned her study which documented the greater androgenic influence within sebaceous glands in balding scalp, versus hairy scalp (which you tried to tap-dance around and make excuses for). Now here is yet another study of hers ("Hydroxysteroid Dehydrogenase Activity in Sebaceous Glands of Scalp in Male-Pattern Baldness", Sawaya et al, J Invest Deramatol 91:101-105, 1988), and she makes the following statement in the first paragraph of the Discussion section (added emphasis is my own):

"...Morphologically, hairy [sebaceous] glands tend to be single-lobed and appear more transparent under the microscope, whereas sebaceous glands from bald scalps are larger, with extensive cauliflower branching structure. These differences could reflect the influences of androgens."

Want some back-up from an even MORE authoritative source? Try this statement from the legendary Albert M. Kligman MD, Phd from "The Comparative Histopathology of Male-Pattern Baldness and Senescent Baldness", from Clinics in Dermatology, Volume 6, Number 4, 1988 (from the section on "Late Male-Pattern Baldness"):

"...The arrector pili muscles are uniformly larger, sometimes reaching huge proportions, especially in advanced male pattern baldness. Although no measurements have been made, low-power scans indicate that sebaceous glands are appreciably enlarged in most specimens. They are more lobulated, deeper, and in irregular configurations."

How about them apples, Stephen? Time to put on those tap-dancing shoes again! :wink:

Bryan

 

[S Foote.]

By the way.

Further to the sebaceous gland "size" debate?

It seems that the well respected hair loss researcher Dr Hideo Uno agree's with me on this issue. :wink:

In his much respected paper "The histopathology of Hair Loss" linked here:

http://www.regrowth.com/hair_loss_infor ... 20in%20Men

(Click on "Androgenetic Alopecia in Men ").

He states quote:

"Sebaceous glands generally are the same size in normal hairy skin and bald skin (Figure 19b). "

That's an interesting claim from Uno, but here are a couple of contradictory statements from other hairloss researchers who are even MORE famous than Uno! This first one is from your mentor (yes, I'm being SARCASTIC!) Marty Sawaya. I had previously mentioned her study which documented the greater androgenic influence within sebaceous glands in balding scalp, versus hairy scalp (which you tried to tap-dance around and make excuses for). Now here is yet another study of hers ("Hydroxysteroid Dehydrogenase Activity in Sebaceous Glands of Scalp in Male-Pattern Baldness", Sawaya et al, J Invest Deramatol 91:101-105, 1988), and she makes the following statement in the first paragraph of the Discussion section (added emphasis is my own):

"...Morphologically, hairy [sebaceous] glands tend to be single-lobed and appear more transparent under the microscope, whereas sebaceous glands from bald scalps are larger, with extensive cauliflower branching structure. These differences could reflect the influences of androgens."

Yet again Bryan, you are so desperate to try to convince people on internet forums that you know something about science, that you miss the point entirely :roll:

This is that there is no real evidence one way or the other for any "DIRECT" action of androgens in the "ENLARGEMENT" of sebaceous glands in the male pattern baldness area.

The studies and opinions of scientists are as you point out, are contradictary!

This is a typical statement from you that means nothing in genuine scientific terms, quote:

"This first one is from your mentor (yes, I'm being SARCASTIC!) Marty Sawaya. I had previously mentioned her study which documented the greater androgenic influence within sebaceous glands in balding scalp, versus hairy scalp "

I know you are being sarcastic Bryan, because thats always the tactic you employ in trying to further your personal opinions :wink:

What "greater" androgenic influence? Where is the evidence i asked for that indicates androgens are "DIRECTLY ENLARGING" sebaceous glands?

What gives your argument away here, is the notation you "ADD" on to your reference below!

Want some back-up from an even MORE authoritative source? Try this statement from the legendary Albert M. Kligman MD, Phd from "The Comparative Histopathology of Male-Pattern Baldness and Senescent Baldness", from Clinics in Dermatology, Volume 6, Number 4, 1988 (from the section on "Late Male-Pattern Baldness"):

"...The arrector pili muscles are uniformly larger, sometimes reaching huge proportions, especially in advanced male pattern baldness. Although no measurements have been made, low-power scans indicate that sebaceous glands are appreciably enlarged in most specimens. They are more lobulated, deeper, and in irregular configurations."

How about them apples, Stephen? Time to put on those tap-dancing shoes again! :wink:

Bryan

How the hell can you possibly equate what happens to sebaceous glands in "Late pattern baldness", with any original causal action of androgens? The recognised hostile conditions in "LATE" male pattern baldness tissue in itself, comes into the equation then as any real scientist will tell you Bryan :wink:

Your lack of understanding of basic science is clearly demonstrated by the percieved "pecking order", you try to put on individual scientists credibility Bryan!

Above you say quote:

"Want some back-up from an even MORE authoritative source? "

and

"That's an interesting claim from Uno, but here are a couple of contradictory statements from other hairloss researchers who are even MORE famous than Uno! "

Science is the "AUTHORITY" Bryan, as you would know if you knew anything at all about real science. The interpretation of what is valid in science, is something you should really avoid Bryan.

Keep on posting studies, but just let others interpret them for you, that way you won't look so stupid :wink:

S Foote.

 

[michael barry]

Stephen
I dont see anything wrong with what Bryan posted. (I appreciate the post Bryan).

Stephen, is it your contention that the late-term effects of the male pattern baldness process are what causes the enlargement of the arrector-pilli mucslce? In other words, do you think that this happens AFTER the hair is lost?

Sawaya noted that the sebaceous gland changed shape, and became rumply like cauliflower, instead of smooth..........do you think that is a post-fibriotic happenstance also?

The sebaceous gland, getting its shape distorted doenst suprise me much as the thickening collagen, hardening of collagen, and the skin, proboably push it around a little, exerting some kind of influence. But the muscle getting bigger as you age is a SUPRISE to me. Muscles usually get smaller as one ages unless you really excercise them.

This is interesting info to say the least.

Byran, did you get a chance to look at what the L'Oreal researchers dug up in their study (eight thousand men looked at). Its interesting stuff, the cupulae markers around the follicle, the follicle being pushed upwards by "ageing skin cells". Any thoughts on it? Interested to hear what you'd think about it..........

 

[Dave001]

Yet again Bryan, you are so desperate to try to convince people on internet forums that you know something about science, that you miss the point entirely :roll:

This is that there is no real evidence one way or the other for any "DIRECT" action of androgens in the "ENLARGEMENT" of sebaceous glands in the male pattern baldness area.

So it is not enough that 1) sebaceous gland size is under control of androgens, and 2) sebaceous gland size is enlarged in balding vs. non-balding scalp? You want evidence of what?

 

[Bryan]

Yet again Bryan, you are so desperate to try to convince people on internet forums that you know something about science, that you miss the point entirely :roll:

This is that there is no real evidence one way or the other for any "DIRECT" action of androgens in the "ENLARGEMENT" of sebaceous glands in the male pattern baldness area.

So it is not enough that 1) sebaceous gland size is under control of androgens, and 2) sebaceous gland size is enlarged in balding vs. non-balding scalp? You want evidence of what?

Nicely and succinctly stated, Dave!

Michael, the main reason I posted the above quotes was just to test Stephen Foote's intellectual honesty. I had posted the simple statement that sebaceous glands are generally enlarged in balding scalp. He denied that, and asked for evidence to support it. So that's what I did, by providing statements from two very well-known researchers. Stephen's response to that was to move the goal-posts: now it's no longer good enough just to show that sebaceous glands are enlarged in balding scalp, now I have to prove that they're enlarged specifically because of androgens. See what I mean? He's not honest. He twists things around to suit his own purposes. And you thought I was joking when I told him it was time to put on his tap-dancing shoes!! :wink:

Bryan

 

[S Foote.]

Stephen
I dont see anything wrong with what Bryan posted. (I appreciate the post Bryan).

Stephen, is it your contention that the late-term effects of the male pattern baldness process are what causes the enlargement of the arrector-pilli mucslce? In other words, do you think that this happens AFTER the hair is lost?

Sawaya noted that the sebaceous gland changed shape, and became rumply like cauliflower, instead of smooth..........do you think that is a post-fibriotic happenstance also?

The sebaceous gland, getting its shape distorted doenst suprise me much as the thickening collagen, hardening of collagen, and the skin, proboably push it around a little, exerting some kind of influence. But the muscle getting bigger as you age is a SUPRISE to me. Muscles usually get smaller as one ages unless you really excercise them.

Yes Michael, i think that any sebaceous gland enlargement in the male pattern baldness scalp, is a result of later processes, as is the arrector-pilli muscle changes.

I think the body of evidence supports these later changes as being mediated through the immunology in the bald scalp, and not "directly" by androgens.

Please read my response to Bryan below.

S Foote.

 

[Bryan]

Yes Michael, i think that any sebaceous gland enlargement in the male pattern baldness scalp, is a result of later processes, as is the arrector-pilli muscle changes.

I think the body of evidence supports these later changes as being mediated through the immunology in the bald scalp, and not "directly" by androgens.

OH REALLY??? Find me some scientific evidence for THAT!!

Stephen, now you're just making up $hit as you go along.

Bryan

 

[S Foote.]

Yet again Bryan, you are so desperate to try to convince people on internet forums that you know something about science, that you miss the point entirely :roll:

This is that there is no real evidence one way or the other for any "DIRECT" action of androgens in the "ENLARGEMENT" of sebaceous glands in the male pattern baldness area.

So it is not enough that 1) sebaceous gland size is under control of androgens, and 2) sebaceous gland size is enlarged in balding vs. non-balding scalp? You want evidence of what?

Nicely and succinctly stated, Dave!

Michael, the main reason I posted the above quotes was just to test Stephen Foote's intellectual honesty. I had posted the simple statement that sebaceous glands are generally enlarged in balding scalp. He denied that, and asked for evidence to support it. So that's what I did, by providing statements from two very well-known researchers. Stephen's response to that was to move the goal-posts: now it's no longer good enough just to show that sebaceous glands are enlarged in balding scalp, now I have to prove that they're enlarged specifically because of androgens. See what I mean? He's not honest. He twists things around to suit his own purposes. And you thought I was joking when I told him it was time to put on his tap-dancing shoes!! :wink:

Bryan

I don't know were you get the nerve to call me dishonest Bryan :roll:

Your the one who is "dancing" around here trying to dodge the original question! Let's get it straight Bryan :wink:

My original question was that you provide evidence that androgens were "directly" enlarging sebaceous glands in the balding area, as part and parcel of the balding process!!

All you can provide is studies that refer to "later" sebaceous gland enlargement. This effect has nothing whatsoever to do with any "direct" effect of androgens on sebaceous glands, and is an ageing effect known as Sebaceous hyperplasia.

This happens when androgen levels "reduce", so how do you explain that Bryan??

http://www.emedicine.com/derm/topic395.htm

The absense of any "direct" effect of androgens both on sebaceous gland size "and" sebum secretion, is supported by other studies.

In this study, female Androgenetic Alopecia was studied and concluded quote:

"There was no correlation between hair density and sebum excretion."

Something there "should" be if androgens are directly effecting both follicles and sebaceous glands, as you claim Bryan :wink:

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/ab ... 05.06953.x

But really the final nail in the coffin for your notion that androgens "directly" effect sebaceous gland size, comes from your favorite sebaceous gland guru Kligman!

You have referenced this study yourself Bryan, but you were too busy "cherry picking" it to try to support your own biased opinion, that you missed this important fact :wink:

This study is:

"The effect of androgens and estrogens on human sebaceous glands.

STRAUSS JS, KLIGMAN AM, POCHI PE.

PMID: 13917704"

This demonstrated that it is endogenous androgens, that is androgens produced internaly, that stimulate sebum production. Exogenous androgens, that is externaly applied androgens, have "NO" effect on sebum production!

How can this be if androgens are "directly" effecting sebaceous glands as you try to claim Bryan?

The whole body of evidence says you are "wrong" on this issue Bryan! Just because you can't comprehend this body of evidence, dont try to accuse me of being dishonest OK :roll:

S Foote.

 

[S Foote.]

Yes Michael, i think that any sebaceous gland enlargement in the male pattern baldness scalp, is a result of later processes, as is the arrector-pilli muscle changes.

I think the body of evidence supports these later changes as being mediated through the immunology in the bald scalp, and not "directly" by androgens.

OH REALLY??? Find me some scientific evidence for THAT!!

Stephen, now you're just making up $hit as you go along.

Bryan

You posted to soon Bryan! 8)

S Foote.

 

[Bryan]

My original question was that you provide evidence that androgens were "directly" enlarging sebaceous glands in the balding area, as part and parcel of the balding process!!

All you can provide is studies that refer to "later" sebaceous gland enlargement. This effect has nothing whatsoever to do with any "direct" effect of androgens on sebaceous glands, and is an ageing effect known as Sebaceous hyperplasia.

ROTFLMFAO!!!! Oh, so THAT'S your explanation now, Stephen? All the observed enlargement of sebaceous glands in balding scalp by Kligman, Sawaya, and others is just due to this (relatively rare) "sebaceous hyperplasia"? You'll stoop to ANYTHING to keep your theory afloat, won't you?

The absense of any "direct" effect of androgens both on sebaceous gland size "and" sebum secretion, is supported by other studies.

Stephen, now you're just making a fool out of yourself. Every person in this forum knows that sebaceous glands are VERY sensitive to androgens. Do you want me to BURY you in studies that prove that? :wink:

In this study, female Androgenetic Alopecia was studied and concluded quote:

"There was no correlation between hair density and sebum excretion."

Something there "should" be if androgens are directly effecting both follicles and sebaceous glands, as you claim Bryan :wink:

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/ab ... 05.06953.x

It's been discussed in the past a few times that female balding appears to be a different kind of animal than male pattern balding. Note the last line at that link:

"The alternative explanation is that nonandrogenic mechanisms are involved in mediating hair loss in some women."

But on average, I would expect generally higher sebum levels in people with thinning hair, probably even in females, even though that one small study with women didn't show it.

But really the final nail in the coffin for your notion that androgens "directly" effect sebaceous gland size, comes from your favorite sebaceous gland guru Kligman!

You have referenced this study yourself Bryan, but you were too busy "cherry picking" it to try to support your own biased opinion, that you missed this important fact :wink:

This study is:

"The effect of androgens and estrogens on human sebaceous glands.

STRAUSS JS, KLIGMAN AM, POCHI PE.

This demonstrated that it is endogenous androgens, that is androgens produced internaly, that stimulate sebum production. Exogenous androgens, that is externaly applied androgens, have "NO" effect on sebum production!

How can this be if androgens are "directly" effecting sebaceous glands as you try to claim Bryan?

I don't know where you saw me reference that study, but if you saw it on acne.org, you'd know that I have REPEATEDLY explained Kligman's own reason for it, which is that males already have such high endogenous levels of androgens their sebaceous gland response is already "maxed-out". Supporting that is the fact that WOMEN's glands are apparently NOT maxed-out, because they DO exhibit some increased sebum (on average) when given testosterone. And need I point out that children (boys) increased their sebum production DRAMATICALLY when given testosterone? Jesus Christ, Stephen...run down to the store and BUY A CLUE.

The whole body of evidence says you are "wrong" on this issue Bryan! Just because you can't comprehend this body of evidence, dont try to accuse me of being dishonest OK :roll:

Do you REALLY want me to humiliate you by citing a couple hundred studies or so about the sensitivity of sebaceous glands to androgens?? :wink:

Bryan

 

[Boru]

It's more likely that such hairs are androgen-NEUTRAL. In other words, androgens neither stimulate them nor suppress them. I've read that certain other types of hair are that way, too, like eyebrow hair. Interestingly, there apparently can be mixtures of such follicles in a given location. For example, one fascinating study I have is where they tested random scalp follicles from the same individual, and whereas many of them were found to have the usual sensitivity to androgens (their growth was suppressed by testosterone), an occasional neighboring hair follicle was found NOT to be affected by testosterone, one way or the other (let's see Stephen explain THAT little conundrum)!

Two things Bryan.

First, eyebrow hair is quite obviously increased by androgens, thats a common observation, particularly as we age.

Secondly, that study you quote is just another support for the fact that androgens don't directly effect follicles, untill an indirect effect has already `changed' follicles in to male pattern baldness `mode' 8)

Post details of that study Bryan, and i will point out to you how it supports my theory and dismisses yours! :lol:

It's just so damned ODD how stubbornly he continues to defend his ridiculous little pet theory, even in the face of overwhelming scientific AND circumstantial evidence against it. For example, one marvels at the thick heads of hair on healthy little girls. How many androgens do THEY have circulating in their bloodstreams (cough:nesta:cough)?? And you can draw a pretty clear line of demarcation where that thick scalp hair goes rapidly to vellus, and then to non-existent (in what would be the sideburn/beard area, if they were males). Does Stephen really expect anyone to believe that there are such MASSIVE differences in "edema" in the head area of little girls that would explain such profound differences in the rates of hair growth over the space of less than an inch?? Or is he just floating down a certain well-known river in Egypt? :wink:

Bryan

Why do you have to twist what i say Bryan? What the hell has scalp growth in young girls got to do with my theory of DHT related male pattern baldness. How does this conflict with what i have said?

I insist you answer that point Bryan.

My theory explains how you can go from terminal hair growth to vellous growth over a short distance. Actually, eyebrow hair demonstrates my theory very well as i have explained before!!

I explained to you only a few days ago Bryan, that in my theory the edema does not act directly. Yet here you are again pretending that i claim edema is the only factor in my theory!

If you still don't get it Bryan, i will explain it again. Then i will save the post and repost it every time you try to distort my theory in the future!

S Foote.

Excuse me butting in, as you seem to have no current regimen, do you recommend any particular treatments for others? As I seem to be one of the few who has regrown long-lost hair, without I might add any medical or scientific qualifications to explain my achievement, am I just a lucky guesser? Your scientific arguments are rather confusing to us practical experimentors, is your anguished debate getting us anywhere? Face it, neither of you is going to back down, it doesn't matter who is right or wrong. If you want to know what works, study my regimen for an example. If you want to prove your point, perhaps you need to do a PhD.
Boru

 

[michael barry]

Boru, post some before and after pictures and list your regimine