OK, I won't blame you for being newbies to the hair loss world.
Oh, please. I'll bet my left leg I know a lot more science behind hair loss in general than you and the vast majority of the other posters who are the "newbies" when it comes to science and have only gotten your knowledge from articles. I've actually published and done research on related fields in the past on this.
The reality is that there is only evidence that male pattern baldness is 100% genetic and is not affected by your environment.
Don't group me into the whole bandwagon of those claiming it's environmental, I've never claimed anything of the sort. Also, just because current evidence says something doesn't mean it isn't subject to change at all. If you actually knew how to read, you'd see I ceded that "there is no evidence" and rather I believe (without any scientific reason) that there is a correlation and more research needs to be done. That is actually a very scientific and sound opinion to hold. The fact you think evidence is static and never changing demonstrates your complete lack of understanding of the scientific method and only further proves that you know nothing of the hard science and details behind hair loss.
People are balding faster and at a younger age you say? It's a nice and comforting belief. But unfortunately, it is not true. People were balding very early before. I started balding at 17, my father started at 17 and my grandfather at 17 too.
You don't seem capable of understanding my statement. I didn't say baldness is more prevalent among recent generations, rather people who have already had a genetic predisposition to going bald later in life are possibly starting to go bald early than they should have. Poor lifestyle choices can affect your final height, cognitive ability, sight, etc. all of which are genetic and researchers only recently found that poor lifestyle choices can drastically affect these things which were once thought to be due all entirely to genetics. There is absolutely no reason to think hair loss isn't one of those factors even if it is predominately genetic, and it is completely scientific to suggest more studies be done on this in lieu of recent evidence.
Those theories you have are dangerous. They can prevent you from seeking proven treatments or your hair loss. Your time is precious if you want to slow down your hair loss, so don't make the same mistake a lot of us did. You're in the denial stage. You're not doing something wrong, you've just been dealt crappy hair genetics. So don't be hard on yourself.
Nice strawman. No one is suggesting stopping hair loss treatments for those who get it early, once you have it, you have it. Can you or can you not understand this? What we're interested in is if lifestyle choices such as diet and other factors could increase the likelihood of early hair loss (since the health of hair follicles is often a function of one's diet). We're well aware that it is genetic and people who are losing early were going to lose it anyway, but, the question is if there was anything they could do beforehand to decrease the risk of early hair loss. That is the scientific question. Do you now understand?
For example, someone can have a genetic predisposition to lung cancer. Before evidence surfaced that lung cancer is heavily linked to smoking, would you also claim scientists who suggest that there may be a link that needs to be studied are crackpots and claim a person who gets lung cancer early on gets it because it's all "genetic" and there will never be any evidence that lifestyle choices affect this? Funnily enough, many scientists argued exactly that. Those scientists have all been shown today to be complete imbeciles and possibly responsible for the early deaths of millions.
Perhaps they send bald people to work camps. 