- Reaction score
- 42
S Foote. said:
No, I do NOT know that.
First of all, the fact that the hair follicles in the macaque study didn't "convert" (as you like to put it) in the extremely short time interval of a day or two is utterly irrelevant. Balding begins to happen slowly over a period of YEARS, not hours or days.
Second of all, I'm unaware of any other study showing a lack of sensitivity to androgens in pre-pubertal scalp hair follicles. If I've forgotten something, please point it out to me. As far as I know right now, all there is is just that one macaque study.
S Foote. said:
I'm still not sure which one you're referring to.
S Foote. said:
Yes, it's just speculation at this point.
S Foote. said:
How many times do I have to say that I don't KNOW for sure what causes that (assuming that it does happen in humans)? I've speculated about it in the past, but I don't wish to appear dogmatic on that subject. Maybe it is indeed the androgens which slowly alter the cellular response over a period of years, or maybe it's some kind of "genetic clock", as Whiting suggested.
S Foote. said:
No. As I made perfectly clear in my response a little earlier to Old Baldy, I'm not even talking about male pattern baldness at the moment. I'm talking about another claim that you've made repeatedly in the past, which is that androgens don't have any direct effect on hair follicles. THAT is what I'm interested in right now.
S Foote. said:
I can't do that because I don't have any such hard evidence; furthermore, I wouldn't do it even if I could, because it has nothing to do with what we're talking about.
So is it safe to assume that you have no response to Sawaya's study? I didn't think you would! :wink:
Bryan
michael barry
Senior Member
- Reaction score
- 14
Great thread gentlemen,
Anyone (Bryan) ever seen a test where androgens stimulated body vellus hair into growth? Im thinking of post menopausal women suddenly getting that 'moustache' as sometimes happens when their estrogen levels plummet, and their small amounts of testosterone actually compete more evenly for androgen receptors. All of a sudden some gals get that moustache, and end up taking estrogen for it........
That great library you live near have any lit you may have seen on that Bryan?
By the way to all..........I think testosterone in either a direct or indirect way based on the two sets of twin female pictures I seen......is the pre-eminent ageing catalyst in skin. I just cant get over how that one twin went somewhat wrinkly and grey so suddenly after the T injections. Also I know a few post menopause and post hysterectomy women.....they age afterwards. Skin loses the glow, hair loses the luster, lines begin to peek through. Just an observation.
Anyone (Bryan) ever seen a test where androgens stimulated body vellus hair into growth? Im thinking of post menopausal women suddenly getting that 'moustache' as sometimes happens when their estrogen levels plummet, and their small amounts of testosterone actually compete more evenly for androgen receptors. All of a sudden some gals get that moustache, and end up taking estrogen for it........
That great library you live near have any lit you may have seen on that Bryan?
By the way to all..........I think testosterone in either a direct or indirect way based on the two sets of twin female pictures I seen......is the pre-eminent ageing catalyst in skin. I just cant get over how that one twin went somewhat wrinkly and grey so suddenly after the T injections. Also I know a few post menopause and post hysterectomy women.....they age afterwards. Skin loses the glow, hair loses the luster, lines begin to peek through. Just an observation.
Apoc
Established Member
- Reaction score
- 0
Ok can someone explain this: Steroids can make hair grow on your upper arms and back. A few guys at the gym have turned into monkeys after a few years of steroids. How come these hairs don't stop growing after they stop using steroids? And these are not some velus hair but strong, long black hairs.
S Foote.
Experienced Member
- Reaction score
- 67
Bryan said:
>Snip the rest<
Finally you get to the point Bryan.
We can all see for ourselves that balding takes time (years), so any valid theory has to explain this. I have made it clear in this thread that i do not deny the observations in the in-vitro studies. But these are not rellevant to your argument because they are "after" the fact!
You are trying to claim that just because androgens effect follicle growth rates in-vitro, that this "proves" androgens are "DIRECTLY" changing these growth rates. But there is no evidence for this at all!
You have said that each follicle has its own "clock" that needs a certain period of androgen exposure before it will respond directly to androgens.
The trouble is this is untestable. You may as well claim that one day the "follicle fairy" comes along and tap's the follicle with a "magic wand" to make it respond to androgens.
True scientific theories "have" to be falsifiable Bryan.
http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/N ... 0000000000
Quote:
"There is a very important characteristic of a scientific theory or hypothesis which differentiates it from, for example, an act of faith: a theory must be ``falsifiable''. This means that there must be some experiment or possible discovery that could prove the theory untrue. For example, Einstein's theory of Relativity made predictions about the results of experiments. These experiments could have produced results that contradicted Einstein, so the theory was (and still is) falsifiable."
Your "theory" Bryan relies on an act of faith sorry! Unless of course you can show us an in-vitro study where androgens "flip" follicle growth rates?
I think there is a way to at least "falsify" your assumption, that the in-vitro studies are reflecting how androgens effect follicles in-vivo.
But first i want you to comfirm you opinion about Sawaya's study. You claim this in-vitro study clearly shows how androgens "directly" effect follicles in-vivo right?
I will post again tommorow.
By the way Bryan, i have said i accept the observations in that study, so stop going on as if i haven't!
Your getting like Bart Simpson in the back of Homers car!
Are we there yet? are we there yet? are we there yet? are we there yet? etc etc.
S Foote.
- Reaction score
- 42
S Foote. said:
After WHAT fact? Sometimes you speak in riddles...
You have made the claim several times that androgens do not DIRECTLY affect hair follicles. I hope you now accept the scientific evidence and see that androgens sure as hell DO affect hair follicles directly.
S Foote. said:
Oh, so once again you're implying that it's just a COINCIDENCE that androgens stimulate body hair and suppress scalp hair in vitro, just as they are presumed to work in vivo! What would William of Ockam say about that, Stephen?? :wink: That's an example of why it's so hilarious that YOU of all people always cite "Ockam's Razor"!
S Foote. said:
Oh, so you're going back YET AGAIN to your favorite subject of what causes scalp hair follicles to become sensitive to androgens during/after puberty. You can never go too long without eventually drifiting back to that issue! :wink:
OF COURSE it's untestable. STICK TO THE ISSUE AT HAND, which is Sawaya's study.
S Foote. said:
It clearly shows that androgens DIRECTLY affect hair follicles, yeah. I can't imagine why they wouldn't affect them the same way in vivo; and indeed, the circumstantial evidence that they do do that is VAST and OVERWHELMING (the start of body hair growth during/after puberty, extra body hair growth (and balding) after steroid use by bodybuilders, hirsutism in women during diseases that stimulate extra androgen release, etc. etc.).
The very idea of what YOU propose, that androgens affect hair growth INDIRECTLY by altering the pressure levels around the follicles while at the same time the very same balding/growth effects are PROVEN to happen in vitro by a DIRECT mechanism, is so ludicrous that William of Ockham must be spinning in his grave right now...
S Foote. said:
When did you ever admit THAT???? :freaked2: :freaked2: :freaked2: I've had to drag you kicking and screaming to it! :wink:
Bryan
michael barry
Senior Member
- Reaction score
- 14
Apoc,
Men sure do get hairer on their bodies as they age dont they? Perhaps taking the male steroid hormones gets hair that would have been growing a decade or so later in the same men NOW.
or
Perhaps the extra androgen hormones kick start many vellus hairs to become full blown anagen body hair follicles. The newly enlarged body hairs proboably have MORE androgen receptors that transcript more androgens than before and therefore STAY big, even after the builder finishes his steroid cycle. And lets not forget, these are gym guys, who have higher levels of testosterone anyway...............so even when they get off "the juice" the new body follicles that they made still will have access to higher than normal circulating levels of testosterone and its metabolite (andro, DHEA, DHEAS, DHT) forms
A sweet woman on hairloss-reversible wrote in a forum that her doctor gave her DHEA supplements (proboably by mistake) saying they were nutritional. She has watched her hairline start to receed in the classic male pattern baldness fashion. To my knowledge DHEA is proboably the LEAST spoken about androgen when it comes to losing head hair after DHT, andro, Testosterone........ Anybody have a comment on this?
The woman, is trying oral spironolactone and prox-n, and estrogen patches. I told her this sounds good to me, but to see a DIFFERENT doctor to check. She's a little shy of minoxidil.
Boy Im rooting for the docs at Intercytex. Life is tough enough without worrying about losing one's hair. Especially for the gals.
Men sure do get hairer on their bodies as they age dont they? Perhaps taking the male steroid hormones gets hair that would have been growing a decade or so later in the same men NOW.
or
Perhaps the extra androgen hormones kick start many vellus hairs to become full blown anagen body hair follicles. The newly enlarged body hairs proboably have MORE androgen receptors that transcript more androgens than before and therefore STAY big, even after the builder finishes his steroid cycle. And lets not forget, these are gym guys, who have higher levels of testosterone anyway...............so even when they get off "the juice" the new body follicles that they made still will have access to higher than normal circulating levels of testosterone and its metabolite (andro, DHEA, DHEAS, DHT) forms
A sweet woman on hairloss-reversible wrote in a forum that her doctor gave her DHEA supplements (proboably by mistake) saying they were nutritional. She has watched her hairline start to receed in the classic male pattern baldness fashion. To my knowledge DHEA is proboably the LEAST spoken about androgen when it comes to losing head hair after DHT, andro, Testosterone........ Anybody have a comment on this?
The woman, is trying oral spironolactone and prox-n, and estrogen patches. I told her this sounds good to me, but to see a DIFFERENT doctor to check. She's a little shy of minoxidil.
Boy Im rooting for the docs at Intercytex. Life is tough enough without worrying about losing one's hair. Especially for the gals.
S Foote.
Experienced Member
- Reaction score
- 67
Your damm right talk is cheap Bryan, as you are about to find out!
Here's the answer you have been waiting for Bryan.
I have never claimed that androgens do not "DIRECTLY" effect hair follicles in-vitro.
But i have said, and i continue to say that this is "NOT AT ALL" representitive of what happens in-vivo where it matters! Got that?
William of Ockham would say that your a fool Bryan, because there is "real hard IN-VIVO (where it matters) evidence", that the in-vitro effect of androgens is just that, a "COINCIDENCE"!!
Thank you for making your view clear Bryan. As you and everyone else knows, i fully agree that androgens cause these changes in hair growth. But the real OVERWHELMING evidence is that the effect is indirect in-vivo, and "NOT" direct as you try to claim!
The jewel in the crown is your statement above quote:
"It clearly shows that androgens DIRECTLY affect hair follicles, yeah. I can't imagine why they wouldn't affect them the same way in vivo;"
Well Bryan, this just goes to show how scientificaly ignorant you are, because "YOU" posted and raved about an in-vivo study that actually "proves" everything you claim here to be just plain wrong!!
The thing is, you are so pre-occupied with your own self promotion on these forums, that you forget what you "claimed" to be important in previous threads!
You really should try to keep your opinions consitant from one thread to another, if you wish to avoid embarrasment Bryan!
This real world in-vivo study clearly shows that human male pattern baldness follicles can regrow "completely" in the presence of androgens!
http://www.hairlosshelp.com/forums/mess ... &forumid=1
Read your "OWN" comments on this study Bryan.
There is no way that your comment above holds up quote" "It clearly shows that androgens DIRECTLY affect hair follicles, yeah. I can't imagine why they wouldn't affect them the same way in vivo"
Well you dont have to "imagine" anything Bryan, that mouse study blows your assumptions out of the water completely, end of story!
You cant even use the androgens effect the immunology which then effects follicles excuse Bryan.
There is absolutely "NO" immunology going on in the in-vitro tests anyway, so you are screwed every which way Bryan!
Your ranting about direct in-vitro effects is irrelevant to the "in-vivo" situation as i have said all along.
Do try to learn something Bryan.
S Foote.
Bryan said:
Here's the answer you have been waiting for Bryan.
I have never claimed that androgens do not "DIRECTLY" effect hair follicles in-vitro.
But i have said, and i continue to say that this is "NOT AT ALL" representitive of what happens in-vivo where it matters! Got that?
Bryan said:S Foote. said:
Oh, so once again you're implying that it's just a COINCIDENCE that androgens stimulate body hair and suppress scalp hair in vitro, just as they are presumed to work in vivo! What would William of Ockam say about that, Stephen?? :wink: That's an example of why it's so hilarious that YOU of all people always cite "Ockam's Razor"!
William of Ockham would say that your a fool Bryan, because there is "real hard IN-VIVO (where it matters) evidence", that the in-vitro effect of androgens is just that, a "COINCIDENCE"!!
Bryan said:
Thank you for making your view clear Bryan. As you and everyone else knows, i fully agree that androgens cause these changes in hair growth. But the real OVERWHELMING evidence is that the effect is indirect in-vivo, and "NOT" direct as you try to claim!
The jewel in the crown is your statement above quote:
"It clearly shows that androgens DIRECTLY affect hair follicles, yeah. I can't imagine why they wouldn't affect them the same way in vivo;"
Well Bryan, this just goes to show how scientificaly ignorant you are, because "YOU" posted and raved about an in-vivo study that actually "proves" everything you claim here to be just plain wrong!!
The thing is, you are so pre-occupied with your own self promotion on these forums, that you forget what you "claimed" to be important in previous threads!
You really should try to keep your opinions consitant from one thread to another, if you wish to avoid embarrasment Bryan!
This real world in-vivo study clearly shows that human male pattern baldness follicles can regrow "completely" in the presence of androgens!
http://www.hairlosshelp.com/forums/mess ... &forumid=1
Read your "OWN" comments on this study Bryan.
There is no way that your comment above holds up quote" "It clearly shows that androgens DIRECTLY affect hair follicles, yeah. I can't imagine why they wouldn't affect them the same way in vivo"
Well you dont have to "imagine" anything Bryan, that mouse study blows your assumptions out of the water completely, end of story!
You cant even use the androgens effect the immunology which then effects follicles excuse Bryan.
There is absolutely "NO" immunology going on in the in-vitro tests anyway, so you are screwed every which way Bryan!
Your ranting about direct in-vitro effects is irrelevant to the "in-vivo" situation as i have said all along.
Do try to learn something Bryan.
S Foote.
hairwegoagain
Senior Member
- Reaction score
- 6
I just took my third sh*t of the day.
Regards,
Hairwegoagain
Regards,
Hairwegoagain
michael barry
Senior Member
- Reaction score
- 14
Stephen and Bryan,
Something to consider:
Bryan posted the RU study where over 14 days head hair follicle growth rates were increased 23%, and a 16% decrease was noted in beard follicles. Protien activitiy up 25%, DNA/RNA polymerase acitivity up 12%. In collagen, there is no lymphatic fluids or immune activity. Androgens had AN EFFECT on the hair cells, and taking them away via receptor blockage increased their growth by about a quarter in two full weeks.
Stephen posts Bryan's hairlosshelp earlier offering of a study that describes an experiment that shows hairs from alopecic human scalp grafted onto immunodeficient mouse skin grows as well as hair from non-alopecic scalp. Especially notable is the skin from FEMALE alopecia to the mice. The mice almost certainly have androgen levels higher than a woman would........yet the hairs grew the same.
Dr. Lee, on minoxidil, has wrote that DHT binds to receptor sites on the dermal papillas, the immune system (at some point) begins to see the hairs as a foreign body and begins to attack them. Immuno attack and edema look very much alike.......so its hard to conclusively prove one of you wrong or right here. Dr. Proctor has stated that immune cells cluster around alopecic follicles in greater numbers than normal, seemingly "marking" the follicles for the immune system. We all know about how effective cyclosporin is for hairloss and have seen Bryan's prox-n 2 year photos where he grew hair, despite using no anti-androgens at all.
Now look at a man in his late fifties with NO HAIRLINE RECESSION AT ALL.....[url]http://www.theincrowdvlog.com/i ... ouglas.jpg[/url] . Thats actor Michael Douglas, who has the same somewhat arirstocratic brow and hairline that he always has had.
AND NOW
http://www.elsiglodetorreon.com.mx/imag ... 259381.jpg . A picture of late fifty-something (she may be 60 now) actress Catherine Denueve. No recession, she must be post menaupause (so her androgens and estrogen levels are much more even now). Look at the hair characteristics.
Here are my impressions and where Im headed with this guys. Michael Douglas hair (and face) have aged more than Catherine's have. Testosterone ages hair and skin and obviously must slow DNA activity and follicle circumference a little (like the 23% or so like Bryan posted from Sawaya) ON ITS OWN. However, since Michael Douglas apparently does not have male pattern baldness...........his hairline hasnt receeded and he doesnt have a bald spot. His immune system IS NOT attacking his hair and scalp. Catherine, who past menapause, is no longer protected by as much estrogen still has thicker follicles and good hair color. As the years pass though.............I think I'd bet on her hair greying and ageing to get closer to Michael's as some testosterone does find its way into receptor sites.
Apparently the immuno response, oxides, "damage around the follicle (especially the connective tissue sheath)" like Pickart has wrote, is what really DOES HAIR IN. Androgens merely weaken the growth somewhat, but more importantly MARK the follicle for attack. Whether the attack is purely immuno or edema is up to Stephen (its your theory Stephen) to prove conclusively or talk a Doctor or two into testing.
THIS IS THE PIC THAT SAID IT ALL TO ME on androgen's alone "killing" your hair. This woman DID NOT go bald when she shot herself up with testosterone, but look at how aged and "a bit" thinner her hair is vs. her TWIN sister http://www.oprah.com/tows/slide/200509/ ... _102.jhtml . She obvioulsy doesnt have baldness genes, but the ageing due to androgens alone indeed show that testosterone or its metabolites do weaken head hair growth at least a little all by themselves.
Please feel free to tell me where you disagree with this..........
Something to consider:
Bryan posted the RU study where over 14 days head hair follicle growth rates were increased 23%, and a 16% decrease was noted in beard follicles. Protien activitiy up 25%, DNA/RNA polymerase acitivity up 12%. In collagen, there is no lymphatic fluids or immune activity. Androgens had AN EFFECT on the hair cells, and taking them away via receptor blockage increased their growth by about a quarter in two full weeks.
Stephen posts Bryan's hairlosshelp earlier offering of a study that describes an experiment that shows hairs from alopecic human scalp grafted onto immunodeficient mouse skin grows as well as hair from non-alopecic scalp. Especially notable is the skin from FEMALE alopecia to the mice. The mice almost certainly have androgen levels higher than a woman would........yet the hairs grew the same.
Dr. Lee, on minoxidil, has wrote that DHT binds to receptor sites on the dermal papillas, the immune system (at some point) begins to see the hairs as a foreign body and begins to attack them. Immuno attack and edema look very much alike.......so its hard to conclusively prove one of you wrong or right here. Dr. Proctor has stated that immune cells cluster around alopecic follicles in greater numbers than normal, seemingly "marking" the follicles for the immune system. We all know about how effective cyclosporin is for hairloss and have seen Bryan's prox-n 2 year photos where he grew hair, despite using no anti-androgens at all.
Now look at a man in his late fifties with NO HAIRLINE RECESSION AT ALL.....[url]http://www.theincrowdvlog.com/i ... ouglas.jpg[/url] . Thats actor Michael Douglas, who has the same somewhat arirstocratic brow and hairline that he always has had.
AND NOW
http://www.elsiglodetorreon.com.mx/imag ... 259381.jpg . A picture of late fifty-something (she may be 60 now) actress Catherine Denueve. No recession, she must be post menaupause (so her androgens and estrogen levels are much more even now). Look at the hair characteristics.
Here are my impressions and where Im headed with this guys. Michael Douglas hair (and face) have aged more than Catherine's have. Testosterone ages hair and skin and obviously must slow DNA activity and follicle circumference a little (like the 23% or so like Bryan posted from Sawaya) ON ITS OWN. However, since Michael Douglas apparently does not have male pattern baldness...........his hairline hasnt receeded and he doesnt have a bald spot. His immune system IS NOT attacking his hair and scalp. Catherine, who past menapause, is no longer protected by as much estrogen still has thicker follicles and good hair color. As the years pass though.............I think I'd bet on her hair greying and ageing to get closer to Michael's as some testosterone does find its way into receptor sites.
Apparently the immuno response, oxides, "damage around the follicle (especially the connective tissue sheath)" like Pickart has wrote, is what really DOES HAIR IN. Androgens merely weaken the growth somewhat, but more importantly MARK the follicle for attack. Whether the attack is purely immuno or edema is up to Stephen (its your theory Stephen) to prove conclusively or talk a Doctor or two into testing.
THIS IS THE PIC THAT SAID IT ALL TO ME on androgen's alone "killing" your hair. This woman DID NOT go bald when she shot herself up with testosterone, but look at how aged and "a bit" thinner her hair is vs. her TWIN sister http://www.oprah.com/tows/slide/200509/ ... _102.jhtml . She obvioulsy doesnt have baldness genes, but the ageing due to androgens alone indeed show that testosterone or its metabolites do weaken head hair growth at least a little all by themselves.
Please feel free to tell me where you disagree with this..........
- Reaction score
- 42
michael barry said:
Actually, that specific issue is in doubt. Without digging-out that study again and re-reading it, I'm pretty sure that there was no information in it at all about androgen levels in that particular strain of immuno-deficient mice. Without having that precise information, I think it would be dangerous to go much further in that direction.
michael barry said:
I pretty much agree with you on that, Michael. All that mouse study does is provide some fairly convincing evidence that the immune system MUST be involved in balding, just like Dr. Proctor (and Dr. Lee?) have been saying. But going beyond that and saying that "contact inhibition" is involved is just an unsupported and fanciful theory of one particular individual.
Bryan
powersam
Senior Member
- Reaction score
- 18
the thing is, we all know its gonna turn out that not one theory accounts for all of male pattern baldness, and only when people start to try and work out how these competing theories can work together will you actually get anything like an answer. every single theory out there at the moment has massive holes in it that other theories seem to go some way towards covering. rather than blasting each others attempts out of the water wouldn't it be far more beneficial and educational to see how they might work in conjunction?
S Foote.
Experienced Member
- Reaction score
- 67
Bryan said:
You have ranted at me in almost every post here, "demanding" that i accept that androgens "DIRECTLY" effect follicles in the body, in the "SAME" way as they do in-the test tube.
You even clearly said Quote:
" I can't imagine why they wouldn't affect them the same way in vivo;"
That mouse study proves you wrong, simple!
Now if you expect people here to take you seriously Bryan, just have the good grace to admit that you were completely wrong in your assumptions!
Then i will tell you why you are also wrong about the role of the immunology. :wink:
By the way, you are also wrong about there being no evidence for a central role of contact inhibition in follicle growth. The work of Fuchs made that clear 8)
S Foote.
S Foote.
Experienced Member
- Reaction score
- 67
michael barry said:
But you have to remember Michael, that these in-vitro studies are not in any way "safe". The cell's themselves are significantly mutated by the culturing as i have pointed out.
That in-vivo mouse study, is probably the most important in a long time. It clearly refutes the assumptions of "ALL" the in-vitro studies, and shows the danger of making such assumptions in science.
This study of "genuine" male pattern baldness follicles in a "real" mammalian dermal system, completely destroys the current theory, "and" the old donor dominance idea. It clearly proves androgens do "NOT" directly restrict male pattern baldness follicles, in fact these follicles thrive!
michael said:
I think the aging issue is something else, let's concentrate on the male pattern baldness issue.
There is no evidence at all for any kind of androgen "marking" of follicles for some kind of immune response. In the genuine cases of auto-immune attacks, the "targeted" cells are destroyed! This is what immune responses do! This isn't happening in male pattern baldness.
In fact macaque studies show male pattern baldness does not "need" any immune involvement at all!
http://www.hairsite4.com/dc/dcboard.php ... ting_type=
I think the immunology seen in human male pattern baldness, is purely because in human male pattern baldness the tissue fluid levels get higher. Higher tissue fluid levels (edema), causes exactly the immunology and fibrosis we see in human male pattern baldness.
http://www.lymphoedema.org.au/index.htm
Quote:
"However if the lymphatic system is damaged or blocked, protein continues to enter the tissues from the blood capillaries in the normal way, and a build-up occurs in the tissues the lymphatics should be draining. The accumulation of protein in the tissues causes excess fluid to enter them and the tissues to swell. The swelling decreases the oxygenation of the tissues, interferes with their normal functioning, and makes them heal more slowly than normal.
To some extent, the protein is also removed by some of the cells in the tissues (e.g. the macrophages). These assist the lymphatic system and can partly take over its role if it is blocked. However in lymphoedema, the chronic excess protein causes these cells also to cease to function.
The excess protein also acts as a stimulus for chronic inflammation. One of the results of this is the formation of much excess fibrous tissue."
I certainly agree that this secondary immunology and fibrosis, can lock the follicles in the miniaturised state, so it does need to be treated in male pattern baldness.
But this is not causing male pattern baldness, or acting as an instrument of "direct" androgen effect according to the evidence.
S Foote.
- Reaction score
- 42
S Foote. said:
Hey, don't blame ME for having to rant at you. I had to do that, to get you to accept the simple, plain evidence that's right in front of your face. How does that old saying go: "Sometimes you have to crack a mule over the head with a two-by-four, just to get his attention..."
S Foote. said:
No it doesn't.
S Foote. said:
Really? Then post the evidence here for all of us to examine. You have a way of adding 2 + 2, and coming up with 5! :wink:
Bryan
S Foote.
Experienced Member
- Reaction score
- 67
Bryan said:
Bulls**t Bryan.
You rant was obviously all about something that was irrelevant to how androgens cause male pattern baldness. You showed everyone "simple, plain evidence" that has been proven wrong in the real world :roll:
Bryan said:
Now your just being stupid in your desperation Bryan :wink:
OK, tell us all why that study doesn't prove your rants in this thread wrong?
I can't wait :wink:
Bryan said:
Typical Bryan :roll: You post there is no evidence of contact inhibition in follicle growth, but you don't bother to check this! "VERY" scientific Bryan :roll:
Try these for starters:
http://www.stophairlossnow.co.uk/News/News143.htm
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer ... t=Abstract
Just don't expect me to explain what's obvious here to you Bryan, or you'll look an even bigger fool than you have this last week :wink:
S Foote.