|
|
|
Farrell
Hair Replacement - Voted # 1 In The World For 5 Consecutive Years ! |
[ Men's Archives | Women's Archives | Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: To You
Date: 6/22/2002
Time: 11:55:45 PM
Remote Name: 64.41.17.228
Common Sense wrote:
> Until genetic treatments or hair cloning arrive >(many years away, sorry), NOTHING will > effectively allow new growth that doesn't first > curb androgens' role in shrinking follicles.
Not true at all. Things like minoxidil, grape seed extract, PTHrP, and cyclosporine grow hair along a pathway which has nothing to do with androgens. It's simply a matter of overiding the effects of androgens.
> The effects of hair enhancers like minoxadil > that merely inlarge already existing shunken > follicles (and don't address the androgen > effect) will continue to vary from patient to > patient.
"Merely enlarge" means to grow "new hair" (surely, "new growth" by your definition does not mean de novo formation of hair follicles...). Also antiandrogens vary from person to person, as any antiandrogen study will show.
By the way Common Sense, here's something for you to think about. Prostate cancer is initially driven by androgens. Thus antiandrogen treatments are VERY popular in the treatment of cancer of the prostate. The response to antiandrogens vary a great deal from patient to patient. And now the kicker: prostate cancer, no matter how closely it's tied to androgens to start out with, will eventually become androgen independent. Meaning the cancer will progress, and hormones (or anti hormones) will have no effect on the remaining course of the disease. Ever wonder if the same is true for MPB? :-)
> My question to Bryan and his supporters > like "To You": What is your plan for first > stopping the androgen effect (recognized by > authorities for decades) that will allow other > enhancers to work?
First of all, you do not need to "stop" the effects of androgens for other treatments to work. You should know better than to say this. It is true that combining an antiandrogen with a hair growth stimulator will provide greater results than either alone. By the way, these "enhancers" grow hair better than antiandrogens do! And please don't cheapen non-antiandrogens by calling them "enhancers".
> Do you have something better than what Merck > has delivered (finasteride) or Glaxo will offer > soon (Dut)?
There will be something better than either of these drugs within 5 to 10 years, and I am not talking about gene therapy or HM. There are many compounds currently in testing for MPB that affect various proteins important for hair growth. If you think fin and dut are the best we'll get, you are not up to date on current research in MPB.
> Do you really feel you know of something out > there that is so powerful that the androgen > effect doesn't matter?
If you read my last post, you will see that I referred to antiandrogens as "good" and "very valuable" treatments. My whole point was to say that rather than spending billions of dollars in research, plus many many years, on antiandrogens (especially since we already have some good ones!), why not explore the many other mechanisms of hair growth? Starting from hair follicle stem cells on down.
If you are a doctor like you claim, you should know damn well the limitations of antiandrogens in treating MPB. Yes, they may be among the best things we can CURRENTLY do for our hair, but this is just one step on a path towards a really effective treatment.
By the way, androgens are not even the real problem for us guys. Androgens are among the most potent hair growth STIMULATORS identified to date. The real problem are the proteins that cause hair follicles to shrink on the scalp (but at the same to enlarge hair follicles on the body). Target those other protiens, and you can grow hair on your head like you do on your beard, and you can leave the androgens untouched, thus eliminating side effects of antiandrogen treatments.
> Don't you realize that your lack of common > sense might cause others reading this forum to > spend money of bogus treatments?
I realize hair growth is EXTREMELY complicated, and involves the endrocrine system, the immune system, and the nervous system (i'll blast you into next year with references showing each of these systems is involved in hair growth). I realize there are many hormones, many cytokines, many genes, and many proteins involved in hair growth. And it's disturbing to me that some people are so simple minded that they cannot look past one hormone(ie DHT). They will ignore 90% of all the other factors that are involved in hair growth, and concentrate on how to block the stinking androgen receptor.
60 years since Hamilton detailed androgens and MPB, and the best idea someone can come with 60 years later is to block the androgen receptor. Un-<edited>-believable. You guys so original and novel with your stategy of blocking androgens! Someone please help us all.......
|
Site Index |
|
© Copyright 1997 - 2002 TSE
Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved.
No part of this website can be reproduced. Contact
info: HairSite@aol.com 
