Why is there not a REAL solution to male pattern baldness yet?

[slurms mackenzie]

New ideas? I'm not sure I'm seeing that in your posts
Don't be too sure about the "we".

You're a med student, let me know your opinion on this article.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/06/24/si ... index.html

I'm not a med student but my first thought was the link between being active and the length of peoples telomeres.

I see you still subscribe to conventional genetics. It's dead already as far as some geneticists are concerned. Genomics is the new push.

I'm an engineer by trade, so I don't really subscribe to any particular doctrine of biology.

If you wish to disprove the link between lifespan and the length of telomeres, and then the link between exercise and the length of telomeres then I'll listen for it could be interesting yet I'd need some pretty weighted evidence.

 

[anxious1]

[quote:334mrwzh]anxious1 wrote:
i AM open to new ideas, we certainly havent mastered the mechanism yet,

New ideas? I'm not sure I'm seeing that in your posts
[/quote:334mrwzh]

I am open to new ideas, but ur acting like ur theories r something more. something proven. If i wasnt open to new ideas, i wouldnt bother reading ur posts.

For example ive always been suspicious of cows milk, mainly because its made for developing young cows, not humans. Im suspicious of its long term (many generations) effects on genetics, and possible role in cancer, genetic growth diseases that affect telemeres and yes its maybe feasible that it plays a role in male pattern baldness.

but thats all just heresay. speculation. assumption. not proof. Im suspicious of it, but im not going around saying yes milk is a factor in male pattern baldness. I can also think of many reasons why its probably not a factor. I just dont know, and neither do u.

Don't be too sure about the "we".

lol wats that supposed to mean. That youve already solved the mechanism behind male pattern baldness, but noone else has? Youve got a idea. a theory, ur still yet to provide evidence to conclusively prove it.

Stop the forum guys, freakout has solved baldness. no need to do anything but listen to him.

 

[Bryan]

For example ive always been suspicious of cows milk, mainly because its made for developing young cows, not humans.

Do you think that apples growing on a tree are made for humans? How about carrots and green beans and lettuce growing in the ground? Are THEY made for humans? If not, why do you eat them? :dunno:

If I were you, I'd avoid these silly philosophical arguments over what various specific foods are supposedly "made for", and concentrate just on the nutritional aspects of those foods. In other words, leave it up mainly to doctors and scientists, not philosophers.

 

[anxious1]

lol Wat im not allowed to be suspicious of something?

if u bothered to read further youd see wat i wrote after that. Or maybe u just selected the bit that by itself makes me sound silly without quoting the rest of wat i said.

For example ive always been suspicious of cows milk, mainly because its made for developing young cows, not humans. Im suspicious of its long term (many generations) effects on genetics, and possible role in cancer, genetic growth diseases that affect telemeres and yes its maybe feasible that it plays a role in male pattern baldness.

but thats all just heresay. speculation. assumption. not proof. Im suspicious of it, but im not going around saying yes milk is a factor in male pattern baldness. I can also think of many reasons why its probably not a factor. I just dont know, and neither do u.

I made it abundantly clear that its just my opinion, not based on fact or anything. Am i not entilted to post my opinion?

Cows milk is for feeding calfs. Human milk is for feeding humans. Apples r for spreading seeds, therefore the more things that eat them the better.

A cow needs to grow much bigger than a human, therefore i must assume that there is a different ratio of hormones in cows milk, than in human milk. Also cows have more stomachs, to id also have to assume its better absorbed by cows than by humans, so i think its a valid point.

THIS IS MY SPECULATION, IM NOT CLAIMING THIS AS FACT, IM NOT SAYING MILK IS A CONTRIBUTOR TO male pattern baldness

, only that im suspicious of it, in having negative effects on the human body.


By the way bryan u missed the whole point of wat i was posting about just so u could take a quiet stab at me for stating my opinion.

 

[Bryan]

Cows milk is for feeding calfs. Human milk is for feeding humans. Apples r for spreading seeds, therefore the more things that eat them the better.

I ask you again if you think that apples are "made for" humans to eat. And what about the carrots, green beans, and lettuce? Are THEY made for humans to eat?

A cow needs to grow much bigger than a human, therefore i must assume that there is a different ratio of hormones in cows milk, than in human milk. Also cows have more stomachs, to id also have to assume its better absorbed by cows than by humans, so i think its a valid point.

I don't think either of those are valid points. I do suggest, however, that a human not drink the same quantity of milk as a rapidly growing calf. That much is obvious. Neither do I think that a human should eat as much food as a growing young whale.

THIS IS MY SPECULATION, IM NOT CLAIMING THIS AS FACT, IM NOT SAYING MILK IS A CONTRIBUTOR TO male pattern baldness, only that im suspicious of it, in having negative effects on the human body.

Human beings are omnivores. I think it's pretty silly to make sweeping judgements of specific foods based solely on their source.

By the way bryan u missed the whole point of wat i was posting about just so u could take a quiet stab at me for stating my opinion.

Nope. Believe me, I've had this same discussion (about the merits or lack of merits of drinking cow's milk) with a number of other people on other sites. I'm a little hyper-sensitive whenever I see somebody say that "milk is for calves", which isn't logical!

 

[freakout]

LOL!! More "cherry-picking" from freakout! Once again, look at more of the FULL QUOTATION from that passage in the study:

"Therefore, the existence of an inhibitor factor other than androgens, particularly in women showing diffuse/pattern alopecia, that is lacking in the nude mouse seems plausible. This could be some other steroid, hormone, cytokine, neuropeptide, or an immunologically related factor."
:laugh:

Really now ... who's the real TROLL here.

Who did you "think" the researchers were referring to when they said "other than direct androgen action"???? Women? The word ANDROGENS meant they were referring to men, were they not, Mr Bryan. By women, they meant it was more evident in women.


I really wish Merck would send someone with a brain who can argue. Years of the finboys has mislead everyone to believe the DHT factor is fact rather than theory.

 

[freakout]

If you wish to disprove the link between lifespan and the length of telomeres, and then the link between exercise and the length of telomeres then I'll listen for it could be interesting yet I'd need some pretty weighted evidence.

Inheritance is a fact no doubt about it. But some geneticists have come to the conclusion that the science behind genetics was wrong from the beginning. Take a look at the Human Genome Project
Let me know what you think, then I'll comment later.

 

[freakout]

Thanks, anxous1. I'll respond to your post later.

But do you now believe how finboys flare up when the subject of milk is brought up?

 

[Bryan]

Who did you "think" the researchers were referring to when they said "other than direct androgen action"???? Women? The word ANDROGENS meant they were referring to men, were they not, Mr Bryan.

My middle name (the name my friends and family call me) is "Bryan". You can call me simply "Bryan", not "Mr. Bryan".

 

[slurms mackenzie]

If you wish to disprove the link between lifespan and the length of telomeres, and then the link between exercise and the length of telomeres then I'll listen for it could be interesting yet I'd need some pretty weighted evidence.

Inheritance is a fact no doubt about it. But some geneticists have come to the conclusion that the science behind genetics was wrong from the beginning. Take a look at the Human Genome Project
Let me know what you think, then I'll comment later.

I'm not sure what i'm looking for the page seems pretty non controversial. The only thing that stood out to me was the fact they don't currently have the technology to fully sequence parts of the genome, yet, so by some definitions it isn't complete.

 

[freakout]

yeap, that's what encyclopedias are - factual, neutral and objective. So it's up us to form our own opinion.

They can't seem to complete it because they had difficulty determining where a gene starts and ends.

Before the start of the project and with so much media HYPE that the project will make us understand life better, they were estimating that humans must have about 2,000,000 genes to acount for human complexity. In some estimates the MINIMUM should be about 140,000 which is why they prepared for several years of counting.

What's the hidden fuzz all about? Months into the project they were beginning to run out of genes to count .
Over the next two years, they were estimating 100,000. Then down to, 60,000, 40,000.

The BOMB WAS EXPLODING in their faces. The count will never reach 30,000.

So the big fat question is: What makes us different from a mouse and a monkey if they have similar number and almost IDENTICAL sets of genes?? What makes us superior to worms if they got 90% of our genes? What makes a fruitfly superior to worms if the fruitfly has only half of its genes?

Hey, look here I'm not a worm!

 

[freakout]

sir chugalot, that was suppose to be my answer to the question if I could disprove the link between lifespan and the length of telomeres, and the link between exercise and the length of telomeres - throw a question mark on the entire discipline itself.

To support that further, I found some heavy weight position on the stark reality behind genetics research:
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v30/n4 ... 2-343.html

"... "Unraveling The DNA Myth", Barry Commoner declares that the fruits of the Human Genome Project, along with other findings of modern genetics, have undermined everything geneticists thought to be true about their subject. Francis Crick's central dogma is dead, and the creaky, DNA-based edifice of genetics and biotechnology is baseless...

"...in order to deflect attention from the fact that billions of dollars are being poured into a field that is on shaky ground, scientists stifle dissent and pretend that evidence of biological complexity has not put the lie to the central dogma..."

Basically, some geneticists are continuing their work because they wanted to keep their grants flowing into their coffers. We, in turn, became victims of a hopeless premise gone wild.

DNA did not create life. Life created DNA.

 

[freakout]

Life created DNA

... didn't think you'd catch the phrase. Do you subsribe to it?
Life is neither defined as matter or energy. So how can it create DNA?

But I wanted to draw your opinion on this article:
http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/06/24/si ... index.html

 

[freakout]

Epigenetics builds upon genetics. How would we know what is being turned on or off, expressed or silenced, unless we know the genes being effected?
The Human Genome Project was a must, first step, The Human Epigenetic Project is the logical (and enabling) next step.[/b].http://www.epigenome.org/index.php?page=project

The truth is, I only bring up the subject of epigenetcis as a stepping stone to make it easier for some to grasp the complexity of heredity.

Epigenetics is a discipline on its own. It has been proposed many decades ago in sharp contrast to the principal dogma of genetics decades ago which is 'predetermination' - genes with fixed values. This dogma has in the passed couple of decade devolved from that belief due to findings supporting epigenetics.

The commonality between the two disciplines is: they both subscribe to the belief that: 'specific genes carry or influence specific traits or hold specific functions'.

That belief can no longer be true. THE GENE IS DEAD. This is confirmed by the Human Genome Project which found that humans have only 23,000 genes - a number similar to mice and monkeys and genes which are almost identical to that of humans.

THe more recent published "studies" on "successful" gene-hunting expedictions are either attempts to keep money flowing in from their investors or benefactors. Or the researchers have no idea that numbers mean a lot and overlapping genes make impossible to continue their work. My suspicion is they are basically scamming their benefactors.

Just like the Human genome project, the Human Epigenome Project will fail because it too subscribes to the study of specific genes.

'Genome' or 'epigenome' projects do not translate to Genomics research in the strictest sense. Genomics is not concerned with specific genes but rather the study of the genome as a unit and how it compares with other genomes without regard for specific functions of a gene. The typical geneticists cannot qualify to engage genomics research.

A typical laboratory can now map a human genome. BUT simulating a functioning human genome requires a powerful super computer - out of reach by the typical lab - and that is if ever they can decipher the code which I believe will NOT happen within our lifetime.

 

[freakout]

... didn't think you'd catch the phrase. Do you subsribe to it: Life created DNA
Life is neither defined as matter or energy. So how can it create DNA?

Are you asking if I subscribe to epigenetics or this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis
and this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geophysiology?

Nope. Just the phrase itself: Life created DNA. Do you subscribe to it?

The phrase is a challenge to and transcends virtually everything we think we know about Biology and medical science.

 

[freakout]

But I wanted to draw your opinion on this article:
http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/06/24/si ... index.html

My first thoughts are:

1.) What effect does the mechanics of sitting have on the various systems of our body (ie: nervous, circulatory, lymph, muscular, etc.)

2.) What effect does the mechanics of standing have on same systems.

3.) Is the difference of effect just standing or is movement (ie: walking) a factor?

Just by the title alone, one can ask: If sitting can shave years off our lives, what else can sitting do? DId you note the diseases that were mentioned there?