Maliniak Method

[elliotramsey]

Has anyone tried this out? This is a new site that popped up recently (last 6 months or so). The guy says he believes male pattern baldness is related to the galea (as well at DHT) which is kind of what Tom Hagerty says and if the skull expansion methods work (which i believe they are, but im waiting until the 1 year mark to make any judgement), i believe it is also due to an undoing effect in this region (although the theory doesn't say the galea is involved, the author has said that there are probably other factors as to why it works).

At any rate, the guy is at least 60 and he photoed the results. He pretty much went from completely bald to having some hair in a few months. So if it works, then it could potentially help a lot of people whose hair loss is just starting.

He sells an ebook for 30$. Im gonna buy it and see what it says. He offers a money back guarantee, plus the transaction is through paypal, so if its trash it'll be pretty easy to get my money back (i did the same thing before when i bought a book that ripped off the skull expansion theory.. got it all back)

I'll check it out.

 

[cyberprimate]

I haven't bought it. It would be cool to know what you think of his ebook once you read it.

I emailed Maliniak, asking him about why follicles of balding areas were still in bad shape after being transplanted into galea free areas. I received a nice and long email from him the following day. I don't like publishing private emails on the web, but i'll summarize his answer. He says that there is evidence that many follicles from non balding areas do eventually thin out on top of the scalp, but it takes them longer because they're coming from a galea free region and were not "clogged" with accumulated DHT (that's his second big hypothesis seemingly). The follicles from balding areas don't do well after being transplanted to galea free region because they were clogged with accumulated DHT. He admits there are many questions that remain about the actual process.

 

[elliotramsey]

I'm waiting for amazon to refund my precalculus book (im a poor college student). Once they do ill purchase it right away.

The page mentions a special piece of equipment that is advised to be purchased, although it doesn't make or break the program, i guess its supposed to help. I'm curious to know what that is.

 

[Bryan]

To see some powerful experimental evidence against the silly "galea theory" proposed by this fellow, see the first post in the thread I titled "Dispensing with old-fashioned male pattern baldness theories, and one NEW one!", which is currently near the top of the "New Treatments, Studies, and Discoveries" forum. It details a study from 1979 that showed that balding has nothing to do with the galea.

 

[elliotramsey]

Okay i got the book.

He really put a lot of work into it. Its about 23 pages long and the 20 pages of information are packed with information.

Obviously he reiterates his theory about a tight galea in conjunction with DHT clogging the follicle preventing sufficient blood flow (cue the "experienced" posters who will argue that anything that says this is a scam).. but he stresses that lack of bloodflow isn't the sole factor, but the tight galea is the main culprit. I know there has been a correlation between tight scalp and male pattern baldness (i don't have studies), and its pretty obvious if you are even a little observant.

His approach is threefold. The last step being more of a suggestion than a sole contributor.

The first step is to relax the galea. This is done with massaging key areas of the scalp where the galea is attached to the muscles.

The second uses a device called a Violet Ray machine. Using this machine after the galea is relaxed supposedly helps stimulate the follicles to a much greater extent.

The third is to avoid large doses of vitamin A and a specific ingredient (called SLS i think) in shampoo. He says its highly controversial but he follows it, so he's not gonna stop.

Of course, all of these methods have pretty much been discussed before, and he acknowledges that in his book, but he says that first relaxing the galea THEN stimulating the follicles with the violet ray machine, is much more efficient than trying any of the techniques on their own.

After reading the book i have no doubt that he is legitimate and believes what he is doing works.. and i think maybe it does. The pictures on his site sure show that he grew hair. Again he also acknowledges that there are questions that are unanswered or that he's not sure of. Also, he admits that so far he is the only proven test case, but is actively trying to get others to show the same results.

-----------
This is all my opinion, and im just attempting to tie in some loose ends.

Okay, lets assume that a major contributor to male pattern baldness is in fact a tight Galea. In his book, Mr. Maliniak vaguely mentions that it gets tighter because the muscles it is attached to "pull" it tight. Maybe part of that is true, but i got the impression that he doesn't fully understand why it gets pulled tight. It also doesn't explain why some folks don't loose their hair, or why the galea doesn't become tight for everyone.

DISCLAIMER: IM NOT PROMOTING A CONTROVERSIAL PRODUCT!! Im hypothesizing.

What if the tight Galea is a major factor in male pattern baldness, but something else is causing the tight Galea? What if the skull expansion theory in fact helps to tie in some loose ends here?
The SE theory states that certain skull shapes will continue to grow slightly into adult life, acting on the underlying tissue and "suffocating" the overlying hair follicles. The biggest misconception about the theory is that the ENTIRE skull expands, this is not true. What if this exaggeration of the skull bone (which incidentally takes place directly underneath the Galea) is the main cause of male pattern baldness, and the tight Galea is the indirect cause? It has been shown that DHT is indeed associated with bone growth, so its plausible. For me it ties up the questions since the SE theory explains exactly why some go bald in a certain way, and to what extent.

A really obvious observation that could back up this theory:

A lot of the time when one starts to loose hair in the back, before the round "bald spot" forms, the thinning will start in 2 patches, which gradually progresses into 1 round bald spot. The focus here are the 2 patches that start the back balding process.

-You know in this pattern..
Now according to SE theory, that thinning started because the underlying bone began to remodel and subsequently grow a little larger based on the skull shape in that region.
Now im not sure if its like this for everyone, but it is for me. Feel the back of the head where this pattern emerges. Notice how there is a "valley" or small dip in-between the initial thinning spots. For me this helps to confirm the theory because the higher areas would grow first, directly putting pressure on the galea, then soon after the lower area would follow, eventually tightening the whole galea, eventually thinning the entire region into the round bald spot.

I have a contact who is uses the Skull E methods. He started using them back in may and was almost completely bald. He has experienced the same results as Mr Maliniak using different methods.

I have to get to class, so im gonna wrap this up.

This is just my hypothesis so im not saying its definitely true or whatnot. It just makes some sense to me, and i hope a little sense to others. You could say im biased since i do use the skull expansion theory techniques, but perhaps each method deals with the problem in its own way. The Maliniak method loosens and relaxes the galea while stimulating follicles back into growth, while the skull expansion methods help to stop the exaggeration of the skull bones and encourages new hair growth through a combination of the massages and the compression exercises.

Thats my two cents in this. I'm sure people will comment saying things like "that doesn't explain hair transplants" and the usual stuff, but contact either one of the authors and ask them. Mr. Taylor's (skull expansion theory) theory about transplants was initially inaccurate and he admitted that. He has another theory, although i don't know what it is off the top of my head (no pun intended)

Okay i have to go.

Cheers

 

[cyberprimate]

Leon Maliniak was not afraid of answering my questions by email. He seems pretty confident about the validity of his method. I did mention the 1979 Norstrom study to him. Here's the conversation (I'm publishing it here as himself suggested i'd do).

Question 1 : "I find your hypothesis on hair loss interesting despite the fact it's inevitably incomplete. The idea of an involvement of the galea in hairloss is not a new suggestion as you mentioned in your web page. However, with the development of modern hair transplantation, was demonstrated that hair follicles continue their thinning evolution even when they are moved to other areas regardless of whether or not they're in an area of tension, poor blood supply, edema, etc… How would you explain this?"

Leon Maliniak : "Regardless, I love answering these questions, and I have received many different challenges and requests for clarifications of my theory from people all over the world, including DOCTORS. I do not avoid any of them because I have complete confidence in the comprehensive nature of my theory and it gives me the opportunity to defend it, expand it and add further elaborations. All the different things I have been asked and examined till now have only served to further reinforce the validity of this new theory.
Firstly, I am not sure if I understand your question correctly, but it seems to be similar to many questions I get about what happens with transplants and how this fits into my theory.
But to clarify and understand your question correctly, I believe that you are saying that transplants continue their "thinning evolution" even when they are moved to other areas regardless of whether or not they are located in areas without edema and poor blood supply etc., suggesting that these are irrelevant, and also that you are asking "why do transplants NOT do well" IN EITHER CASE.
So, if this correctly represents your question, my first response is that your statement that these transplants do NOT do well "regardless" of whether or not there is edema, poor blood etc., is not accurate . Even though the MALINIAK METHOD and the BORN AGAIN project is an ALTERNATIVE to procedures like transplants, and therefore, in a sense, a competitor, I acknowledge on the website and in the book that the although the evidence about transplants is certainly not conclusive one way or the other, the best consensus at least seems to be that transplants do work and in answer to your question I now add that;
1. If you transplant follicles from an area that is NOT bald ( and I will talk ONLY about the scalp and NOT any other part of the body) to an area that IS bald, those transplanted follicles DO WELL and survive and their "thinning evolution" does NOT continue as you suggest, certainly not for the majority of transplants. If that were true, transplants would not be as popular as they are. My problem with transplants, as is the case with many people who do not want to opt for this solution, is that I do NOT trust surgery , there is a limited AMOUNT OF DONORS TO TRANSPLANT AND FINALLY, THE REST OF YOUR HAIR IN THE BALD AREA CONTINUES TO THIN...so you are eventually no better off.
Some contrary evidence does say however, that many of these transplants DO eventually thin out on top of the scalp, as you suggest, and quite frankly I prefer this evidence.
- In such a case, where the transplants DO thin out, I contend that it fits perfectly into my theory because it would be explained by saying that those that FAIL are eventually subjected to the same type of GALEA tightening and poor blood supply that they were spared from before. It may take them longer because, having come from an area WITHOUT A GALEA, they were not affected by the SECOND factor in my theory, WHICH IS THE BASIS of the conventional wisdom, which is that THEY ARE NOT CLOGGED WITH AN ACCUMULATION OF DHT.
- those that DO survive, I argue and THEORIZE that it is because they are NOT clogged with DHT and possibly the transplants puncture and are implanted BELOW the GALEA.

2. The corollory of this is that there is evidence that hair follicles transplanted from a BALD area to an area where there is NO GALEA do NOT revive and grow new hair...even though, as you state, they are now in an area with GOOD BLOOD FLOW.
- again, in such a case, and in a manner which is consistent with my theory, it would be explained because those transplanted follicles, having lived in an area with the tight GALEA, even after being transplanted, they are STILL clogged with DHT...factor number TWO in the theory, and so will still not grow new hair even though they are no longer affected by the tight GALEA.
So, in conclusion, I submit that as you see in either example above, ONE of the TWO factors at play in my theory is not addressed in each case.
Look, we could discuss this and many other issues related to my theory for hours because it is after all, A THEORY, and many questions remain, especially about the exact process of what goes on in the MATRIX and how and why DHT, which is normally beneficial to hair becomes detrimental. But from my perspective and from the comments I have received from many people who have been involved with this problem for years, the OVERALL LOGIC of my theory about the MAIN issues, MAKES SENSE to them...and from my experience the treatments based on this theory DO WORK. For me and for others that is the MOST IMPORTANT thing.

Question 2 : Thanks a lot for your long and detailed answer. I won't write a million emails to you now as I guess the logical step would be to buy your ebook if i wanted to know more about your position on male pattern baldness. I'll just mention this discussion thread on GourmetStyleWellness in 2005 where someone posted a summary of that important 1979 study that supposedly disproved the influence of the galea on hairloss, so that you know in details the most striking attack against your concepts. I hope you'll give me or the balding community in general a good response, as i imagine this 1979 study will be mentioned often to you in the months or years to come.

Leon Maliniak : If you are suggesting that you will post this letter or your comments on that GourmetStyleWellness site I think that that is a great idea and we would appreciate you bringing attention for our MALINIAK METHOD on that site. If you are just reminding me that in 2005 a study about the GALEA was discussed on that site, I am completely familiar with that forum and have often read the references to that 1979 study. I assure you that as is the case with all academic and scientific issues, where there is no FINAL answer, for every such study there are always an equal number of opinions on the OTHER side. For example, the inescapable fact is that some people even do GALEA SURGERY to treat hair loss, which has been around for a while, so either all these people are crazy OR the GALEA is somehow involved. This subject is controversial, as I say on the website but I have concluded it IS involved. People are free to disagree and continue to use all those other methods which are useless.
In fact, I expect very hostile and aggressive responses IF YOU POST THIS LETTER because this community of people with hair loss problems, of which I am a "charter" member, has been burned so many times they are very cynical and sceptical about any baldness treatment...as well they should be. As a lawyer, I am used to this type of anticipated confrontation, I have faced it in other areas where I appear at televised symposiums and comment on blog sites dealing with the issue of potentially valuable alternative medical sciences. I look forward to the discussion because I have full confidence in this theory and at the end of the day, although we can DEBATE this issue back and forth for hours, at some point a person MUST make a decision on this issue and perhaps many of them will decide to try this RADICAL NEW theory to try to solve his hair loss problem.
Don't forget this theory is a TWO FACTOR theory so the role of the GALEA and the treatment to address it are only ONE part of the equation.
So, in my case, after reading the conflicting and contradictory evidence, and for the purposes of taking a definitive position in my theory, I made a REASONED DECISION to adopt the conclusion that the GALEA is in fact involved the way I say because I prefer the preponderance of evidence, the BALANCE OF PROBABILITIES and the LOGIC of that conclusion over the alternative conclusion that it is not involved.
Some people will disagree with this and that is their choice, but from our perspective, and that of MANY people who have written to us, this theory just MAKES SENSE and more importantly, the treatment method BASED on this conclusion has shown it to be effective.
Those people who don't agree with the LOGIC of this theory will NOT buy the book and use the method and continue to have hair loss and not regrow their hair. Those who do agree with the LOGIC of it all will join us and try this NEW TWO-FACTORED approach and the treatment method that goes with it and will have a real opportunity to get their hair back...as I did. YOU ARE WELCOMED TO POST YOUR LETTER AND THIS RESPONSE ON THAT GourmetStyleWellness FORUM IF YOU LIKE."

However valid his theory is and he's not giving full details about it as it's in the ebook he's selling, this man is not afraid of confrontation.

 

[cyberprimate]

Interestingly, I haven't read any beginning of explanation from the "rigourous ones" to the relevant questions that Galea theory or Skull Expension people ask. I'm extremely skeptical about both theories but why on earth aren't these simple and fundamental questions addressed in our understanding of male pattern baldness (I'm copying them from a Skull Expansion web site) ?

1. Why do some people only start losing hair from the front of the scalp (receding temples), or the back (a bald patch), whilst others lose hair from both these regions simultaneously (diffuse thinning)?

2. Why does remnant hair sometimes exist last long after baldness has developed? ("Remnant hair" is strong healthy residual hair that continues to grow normally within the bald area of the scalp despite complete baldness all around it).

3. Why is it that hair can fall faster in one region of the scalp than in another? (e.g., you might suffer rapidly receding temples at the front, but lose hair at the back very slowly).

And lastly how can we seriously pretend the exact similarity of the galea and of the thinning hair area is sheer biological coincidence?

 

[cyberprimate]

I don't know how the pharmaceutical industry could make huge money selling massage and early 20th century electrical devices… Also the 1979 Norstrom with its conclusive discussion legitimatelly couldn't be ignored by the scientific community (I think its conclusion is questionable though). The deliberate ignorance of the galea is pretty logical in fact. Also once a notion reaches the status of dogma i can imagine it's hard to find money to continue investigating it despite what seems like evidence.

 

[elliotramsey]

I agree.. i think half of the problem is that the pharmaceutical companies are making billions off drugs for hairloss.

If a nondrug option was available, that wouldn't be good for them would it?

 

[cyberprimate]

Okay i got the book.

Does he mention any influence of the immune system or inflammatory process in his understanding of male pattern baldness?

 

[elliotramsey]

No.. Not that I recall

 

[Archon]

or why the galea doesn't become tight for everyone.

Why would you need an explanation for this besides "genetics"? Not that there couldn't be a more complicated mechanism behind it, but it really doesn't matter for the purpose of determining whether or not this guy's theory has any validity to it. In regards to the theory itself and seeing if this method would work, the important question is whether the galea really DOES tighten more in some people than in others?

 

[elliotramsey]

I'm sure genetics plays a part in it.. Who says skull expansion isn't genetic?

The question of whether the galea does tighten would be a nice solid answer to have.. On Tom Hagerty's page he mentions a positive correlation between a tight scalp and male pattern baldness. Idk if he has studies to back it up, but sometimes just because a scientific study hasn't been done doesn't mean that it's not true.. I don't think scientists are looking at male pattern baldness with the galea in mind right now, unfortunately.

 

[Archon]

I'm sure genetics plays a part in it.. Who says skull expansion isn't genetic?

Well I just meant the galea tightening in some people being genetic. I'm not sure if skull expansion was necessarily supposed to have anything to do with it, although it could. The only thing mentioned in the ebook was the muscles on the sides of the head stretching it out for some reason.

 

[RP3X]

It is an interesting theory, but just reading from his website it seems his treatment wont help people loosing hairs at the front/temples ?

It sounds more of a treatment at the top of the end....

but it does sound a little far fetched I mean why not massage your scalp upside down allowing blood flow to the scalp....

Is there any evidence too show massaging the scalp improves hairs ?

 

[cyberprimate]

No there's no evidence. I guess there'll never be any study about scalp massages as no one would want to spend money on something one can't sell.

 

[Bryan]

I don't think scientists are looking at male pattern baldness with the galea in mind right now, unfortunately.

There are other ideas that they aren't looking at right now, either, like the theory that male pattern baldness is caused by wearing too tight hats!

 

[DarkDays]

you know why the scalp gets tight and shiny over time? Gravity.

As we age our skin starts to lose its fat and sags due to gravity which is why on some old people the skin seems to hang on like a ill-fitting cloth.

Now, if you have any type of cloth and put it over something round(like a ball) the flattest parts will be on top and the more you stretch at the edges of the fabric you will see the top get flattened even more on the object.

I could actually see some logic in this in regards to the Maliniak method, but I doubt you can simplify matters such as just saying it is scalp tension(although it might play a part to a certain extent).

and regarding my mention of gravity, standing on your head or being upside down won't regrow hair or reverse aging. You would have to live your life upside down for that to "maybe" work.

 

[cyberprimate]

Gravity doesn't explain why there's hairloss at the back of the head and not on the sides.

 

[Sebastien]

Tell me what to do and I will do it.