| Home | News | Find a Doctor | Ask a Question | Free |
Hi Dr. Yechiel
I’m 31 .
i started using rogaine mid- december 2008
before that and up till mid of march my blood pressure reading was always 120-70
last sunday i felt dizzy and headache so i stopped . On tuesday i checked the pressure it was 120-84
and on friday it was 130-80.
i started using the rogaine again since last night . minor headaches.
and this morning my throat is throbbing?
do u think this is related , what do you advise?
thank you very much
and appreciate your attentiveness
» Hello Bryan,
»
» I responded to a question by a poster, Pete2, about a product for which he
» provided a link. The product in that link did not include minoxidil in the
» ingredients list. I am not sure what it is that you are referring to. If
» the product I referred to also helps people who did not respond to either
» rogaine or propecia, it is very good to hear. As I stated, there is no need
» to guess about a product which has been on the market for some time. Please
» clarify about the minoxidil.
I was referring to Proxiphen, not Prox-N. Pete’s post was a little confusing in that his title referred to Proxiphen, but the link he provided referred mainly to Prox-N (although the before-and-after photos in the link are those of a Proxiphen user). Proxiphen contains (among numerous other things) minoxidil and the prescription drugs phenytoin and spironolactone. Proxiphen and Prox-N both contain TEMPO/TEMPOL and PBN.
» Hey Stephen! Are you still reading H.L.T? I’ve recently stumbled upon some
» additional evidence squelching your eccentric theory of balding, but I
» haven’t bothered to post about it because I haven’t seen you around for a
» long time. I decided you must have finally learned your lesson, and given
» up your futile pursuit! 
»
» But if you’re still reading H.L.T, I’ll go ahead and post about it over
» there. Should I do it? 
Go ahead Bryan.
Just remember the last time you made such a claim about a macaque study, you backed out and refused to post your alledged “theory killing” info!
Dr Yechiel has pointed out to you some of the glaring holes in the old donor dominance idea in this thread. Other professional scientists are also questioning this as i have pointed out to you many times. Here’s another link in support of this:
http://www.newhair.com/resources/mp-2002-donor-dominance.asp
So why is it that you question Dr Yechiel’s opinions here when by your own admission, you don’t follow the research?
http://www.h********k.com/interact/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=27898&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=24
(Posting won’t accept the link here)
Quote:
“I don’t follow transplantation technology enough even to have an opinion. Sorry.”
Seems that doesn’t stop you giving us your opinion here does it? But it does tell us all about your credibility;-)
S Foote.
» » Dr Yechiel wrote:
» »
» »
» » “When you say that you can’t believe that the surrounding skin tissue
» in
» » large grafts really has anything to do with balding, I take it that you
» » don’t mean it in the extreme that the surrounding tissue is completely
» » irrelevant to hair growth, but rather as an expression which carries
» little
» » weight for the role of the surrounding tissue. So, the question is to
» what
» » degree the surrounding tissue is relevant or irrelevant. I believe that
» the
» » degree of relevancy of the surrounding tissue is critical and I believe
» » that it is clearly illustrated in the 2003 Krajcik-Orentreich article
» where
» » human hairs were individually transplanted into mouse skin. High
» relevancy
» » of the surrounding tissue is actually backed up by resolving the
» apparent
» » contradiction between the Nordstrom article (based on your summary of
» it)
» » and the 2003 Krajcik-Orentreich, which I will discuss below.”
» »
» »
» » I agree with your arguments here Doctor, and at last it seems more
» » professional scientists are realising the holes in the old donor
» dominance
» » idea.
» »
» » We just don’t have much in the way of transplantation research that
» » expands on the effects of the surrounding tissue.
» »
» » I have argued what i consider to be “the” primary effect of surrounding
» » tissue in follicle size. The basic argument can be read here:
» »
» » http://www.hairsite2.com/library/abst-167.htm
» »
» » This is not a formal paper as such, just my engineers viewpoint. In my
» » opinion the mechanism proposed explains the observations in MPB, and
» the
» » transplantation results.
» »
» » Basicaly i think hair follicles evolved as a “pocket” within the
» surface
» » tissue, to allow some control of follicle size through the resistence
» of
» » surrounding tissue to follicle growth through normal contact inhibition.
» I
» » describe this in the link above.
» »
» » What i think happens in transplantation, and the reason why smaller
» grafts
» » are now the norm is this. The healing around the graft creates a
» fibrotic
» » structure around the follicles. This tends to “lock” the follicle size
» in
» » the as transplanted state, as the fibrosis protects the follicle from
» the
» » pressure influences around it. In future anagen enlargements the size
» of
» » this protective “shell” determines follicle size.
» »
» » This would appear as a “donor dominance” as large follicles would
» remain
» » large and small ones small.
» »
» » It is now recognised that the old large plug grafts lose hair in a
» pattern
» » called “doughnutting”. This just leaves hair around the edges where the
» » healing proccess hapened. If you read all the available info, the
» reason
» » given by some for this as hypoxia doesn’t hold up.
» »
» » I think what is happening in the immune deprived mouse study is that
» this
» » condition prevents the normal formation of a fibrose “shell” around the
» » follicles so allowing the expansion of former MPB follicles if the
» tissue
» » pressure allows this.
» »
» »
» » One day we may get more specific testing from professionals to better
» » answer these transplantation questions.
» »
» » Regards.
» »
» » S Foote.
»
»
»
» Hey
»
»
» Are you having any success putting your theory into practice ie regrowing
» hair via some method, if so what is it?
»
»
»
»
»
» Regards
» Pete
Well my theory predicted that lasers would help in MPB because they are known to help lymphedema and fibrosis.
http://www.lymphedemapeople.com/thesite/lymphedema_laser_treatment.htm
DHT induced lymphedema of the scalp, is the mechanism of MPB according to my theory. Finding the most effective laser frequency etc is important.
In the long term i see perhaps a possibility of a one off vascular surgical procedure, being able to prevent and reverse early MPB, but this would take a commitment from other people to research this.
Regards.
S Foote.
Hello S Foote,
I read with interest the article for which you provided a link. Your engineering training clearly shows in the way you deal with hairloss and it is important because every complex problem requires interdisciplinary involvement for a fresh look and for making some progress. I would not comment on the specific details in that article because details will undoubtedly change many times before they mature into a solid theory. However, the basic concept of physical regulation is very important.
My physico-chemical aging model, or the model of regressive bio-regulatory feedback, which I displayed for decades in writings, lectures and seminars is still difficult for many scientist to assimilate. You can read some articles about this in the Journal of Topical Formulations where we uploaded some of the lectures I gave in different settings. The motto “bio-systems understand chemistry but don’t understand physics” is a simple way to put it. Example: there is a bad car accident and the traffic is blocked for miles. The emergency phone call comes in, “we need an ambulance”, and an ambulance is sent out but because the road is blocked by cars it cannot reach the people who need it. So, another call comes in, “we need an ambulance!”, and another ambulance is sent but it too cannot reach the people in need for it. Moreover, the more ambulances they send the more they contribute to further clogging the road but they know how to respond to emergency calls in one way only. So when they run out of ambulances they get a distress signal to get more ambulances. So they purchase more ambulances from the ambulance manufacturer and keep sending them in, even though all they really had to do is to clear a path and then one ambulance may be enough to do the job. The situation is very similar in a bio system. A distress signal is sent: “we need more of a certain chemical”. The body sends it out but the body area in need does not know about it or the chemical cannot arrive there. The body manufactures more of the chemical and sends out larger and larger quantities. But the problem is different: there is enough of the chemical to start with and it just cannot reach its target. Synthesizing more chemicals is the way the body knows how to respond and in doing so it many times aggravates the problem instead of solving it. A physical solution will be to clear the obstacle (or build a bridge) so that the chemicals can reach their target. The body is not well equipped for such tasks and that is why bio-cycles have a general degenerative pattern. Physical intervention may require intervention from the outside. I applied the early version of this model as a working model and developed a treatment (based on small liposomes) which reversed many aging parameters after IV injection by inducing physical changes to cell membranes. When I developed that treatment in the early 80is the term “anti-aging” was not one to be used within the mainstream scientific community. Just watch the current flow of NIH budgeting and volumes of research articles and journals on this very topic to understand how the system works.
The other important thing about your article is that you provide a method to test its validity, That is not something that eccentric people do (I saw that unfortunate comment about your posting which came out of the blue and I was surprised that a seemingly intelligent person would resort to such insults for no reason and without apparent provocation). Eccentric people are beyond proving their statements and they are also never wrong (at least they will never admit to being wrong). You may be a bit of a maverick, challenging the overly comfortable establishment, but that is a very good thing to be. Mavericks are the stem cells who grow new organs replacing old, rusty, and shriveling degenerative limbs in many aspects of life and social issues. Whether you are right or wrong about the details or the model you suggested is much less important than taking a second look at things which are “well established” and maintaining energy toward finding new solutions.
Some suggestions regarding your article:
There are several blood supply routes to the face and scalp which branch into several large networks of tiny capillaries. Practically, they are separated enough from each other to act almost as if they are separate blood supplies Before you block something on the face in the hope that it will prevent its accumulation down the road (on the scalp), find out whether the areas you intend to block originate from the same artery as the scalp area of interest. You can look this up in blood supply distribution color maps in anatomy atlases.
There are two types of sweat glands; the eccrine glands and the apocrine glands. Only the apocrine glands, which are triggered by emotions, develop during puberty in areas rich in hair follicles, such as the scalp, underarms, and genitals. These glands are not involved in temperature regulation.
I also have a suggestion about how you can test one aspect of the sweating theory for less than $3. Use an anti-perspirant (not a deodorant) which is based on temporarily plugging the sweat outlets and therefore the sweat glands may stay in an inflated position rather than a deflated position. Every anti-perspirant on the market (they are actually OTC drugs, not cosmetics as are the deodorants) works that way. I am not suggesting that you actually experiment with that because clogging pores may result in blackheads or whiteheads or acne outbreak. I mean it as a theoretical exercise. Aluminum ions are common in anti-perspirants’ active ingredients. Theoretically speaking (don’t try it in your home), using anti-perspirants on the scalp may keep sweat glands full and reduce the production of sebum in the scalp (if this part of your theory indeed holds).
According to the ACS, sweat glands are not connected to the lymph nodes and sweating is not a significant way for removal of toxins from the body. I don’t know if this has a significant role in your theory at this time but it may be important as you develop it.
As for the DHT theory, this may be one chemical which is largely misinterpreted. DHT is a potent anabolic chemical which generally means that it builds the body; it makes the body large and strong and in the process it may cause some harm, or does it? I mean does it cause direct harm or does the system stress-out from trying to cope with too much anabolic pressure? Example: You plant seeds in small seed-starting containers. When they sprout you are supposed to transfer them to larger containers so they can develop and grow and stretch their roots a little more. Now here the analogy to hair growth is very clear. If the sprouts are not transferred in time the roots will not be able to spread and the sprout will grow a little but not much and will be very thin and in the end it will die. If you wait with the sprout in the small container until it shows some stress and than transfer it to a larger container with simple soil it may recover and keep growing normally. What will happen if you transfer it instead to a large pot with extremely rich soil? It actually may die as well instead of recovering because the pressure to grow fast and quick by the very rich soil creates stress on the not very healthy sprout, which can kill it. If the hair follicles are like sprouts in a container which is not large enough and you give them DHT which for this scenario I will name a strong “fertilizer”, the result may be that the follicle will be under more pressure to grow than it can take and eventually it will shrink very fast until it may die. In an answer to a poster in our own forum several weeks ago, I suggested that a mysterious phenomenon known for a long time in biology called “the oxygen paradox” is applicable to hairloss, provided an explanation to the oxygen paradox is suggested. In the oxygen paradox, cells and organs which are deprived of oxygen to the point that they are in deep stress and then given oxygen again will often die instead of recovering. In my opinion it is a case where very weak and stressed cells or organs are suddenly pressured to act in full motion by the renewed stream of oxygen and that can kill them. Instead, a slow recovery with gradually increased oxygen should be given to these cells and organs. I still have to answer that person regarding other aspects of his question but this part of my answer is very relevant to DHT. If indeed you let follicles recover in a simple environment but a lot of space (just like the nude mice skin provide) and after they recover and become large and grow hair and while they maintain their large space, they receive at that point DHT. What would happen? Will it shrink the follicles again or will it actually boost their growth, as they are now healthy and can cope with the anabolic effects of DHT? You see, many new experiments can be suggested in the moment that you start thinking out of the box. Don’t worry about leaving the box; it will always remain full to capacity until another box is established and the big migration begins.
Just an after thought: in that nude mice study the follicles recovered and started growing hair very quickly, almost immediately after the transplant recovered in the new host. Within 7 weeks the new growing hair was already visible and it grew at nearly normal speed after a little while. When people use minoxidil the visible effect is expected to take many months. Now think about that in terms of space for the follicle. Minoxidil does not improve the space around the follicle and when you stop using it all the good things it did stop and reverse almost immediately. Recovery of follicle size and good space in combination with minoxidil may start the recovery faster, and last much longer after the drug is discontinued.
Thank you.
Elishalom Yechiel, Ph.D.
President
Elsom Research Co., Inc.
email: innovation@elsomresearch.com
voice: 210.493.5225
paper mail: 4510 Black Hickory Woods, San Antonio, TX, USA, 78249
online:
http://www.elsomresearch.com/ — to learn about nanotechnologies in skincare
http://www.new-equilibrium-skincare.com/cosmeceuticals/ — to order retail products
http://www.the-formulator.com/ — to order personalized products
http://www.topical-formulations.com/ — to read the Journal
" DHT is a potent anabolic chemical which generally means that it builds the body; it makes the body large and strong and in the process it may cause some harm, or does it? I mean does it cause direct harm or does the system stress-out from trying to cope with too much anabolic pressure?"
DHT is quickly de-activated in muscles by another hormone back to plain testosterone. DHT has two times the binding affinity for the androgen receptor and five times slower disassociation rate from the adnrogen receptor in peripheral tissues where it is active. DHT is active in some bone tissue, and a few organs, but other than that it is in the skin, not muscle.
I posted some info about how coal tar shampoos apparently more-or-less stop hairloss in some studies by inhibiting a co-factor in alpha five reductase synthesis called NADP, but nobody here seems interested in that. The famous “placebo” effect in the first two-year finasteride trial, where in the first six months the men in the placebo group stopped losing their hair (about the time a bottle of T-gel would last, even though they weren’t told to leave the T-gel in for a few minutes or anything), probably should serve as evidence of MPB not being a “difference” in alpha five reductase enzyme genetics (a korean study showed that it wasn’t, as the seven genes associated with alpha five reductase expression were no different in balding men and non balding me). The difference between balding men and non-balding men are the differences in 2 GENES primarily, one a variant of the androgen receptor gene, and another a gene located somewhere on chromosome 20. One can have the variant of the androgen receptor gene and not go bald though. In fact 76.1% of men WHO DONT GO BALD still have that variant of the androgen receptor gene.
That leaves us with what is on chromosome 20. Why do I have a itchy feeling that this gene will be found to be associated with NADP levels in the scalp. Balding men are shown to have more DHT in their scalps, and an excess of NADP getting more alpha five reductase made up there might be a big reason why. The increase in DHT in a balding guys scalp is on the order of 2 or 2.5 if I remember correctly.
Transplanted hairs have been shown to grey at the same rate as the donor area even ten years after being moved into a bed of dark hair, or if they were dark, to stay dark in a sea of greying hair up front. Donor-dominance isn’t a myth, its the truth. Hairs on the sides and back of the head have been shown to have less androgen receptors, and I imagine that skin has less NADP----meaning less alpha five reductase will get synthesized in those areas…in fact we KNOW that there is more DHT in the balding scalp areas.
If I were going to make a hairloss shampoo…it would have both coal tar and ketoconazole in it, along with lavender, and copper peptides, and probably a free-form fatty acid like gamma linolenic or linoleic aslo and some NO agonist. That would be about it. Keep it simple. NO menthol or peppermint. I can attest that menthol retards hair growth on body hair long after you stop using it…its bad for hair.
» Hello S Foote,
»
» I read with interest the article for which you provided a link. Your
» engineering training clearly shows in the way you deal with hairloss and it
» is important because every complex problem requires interdisciplinary
» involvement for a fresh look and for making some progress. I would not
» comment on the specific details in that article because details will
» undoubtedly change many times before they mature into a solid theory.
» However, the basic concept of physical regulation is very important.
»
» My physico-chemical aging model, or the model of regressive bio-regulatory
» feedback, which I displayed for decades in writings, lectures and seminars
» is still difficult for many scientist to assimilate. You can read some
» articles about this in the Journal of Topical Formulations where we
» uploaded some of the lectures I gave in different settings. The motto
» “bio-systems understand chemistry but don’t understand physics” is a simple
» way to put it. Example: there is a bad car accident and the traffic is
» blocked for miles. The emergency phone call comes in, “we need an
» ambulance”, and an ambulance is sent out but because the road is blocked by
» cars it cannot reach the people who need it. So, another call comes in, “we
» need an ambulance!”, and another ambulance is sent but it too cannot reach
» the people in need for it. Moreover, the more ambulances they send the more
» they contribute to further clogging the road but they know how to respond
» to emergency calls in one way only. So when they run out of ambulances they
» get a distress signal to get more ambulances. So they purchase more
» ambulances from the ambulance manufacturer and keep sending them in, even
» though all they really had to do is to clear a path and then one ambulance
» may be enough to do the job. The situation is very similar in a bio system.
» A distress signal is sent: “we need more of a certain chemical”. The body
» sends it out but the body area in need does not know about it or the
» chemical cannot arrive there. The body manufactures more of the chemical
» and sends out larger and larger quantities. But the problem is different:
» there is enough of the chemical to start with and it just cannot reach its
» target. Synthesizing more chemicals is the way the body knows how to
» respond and in doing so it many times aggravates the problem instead of
» solving it. A physical solution will be to clear the obstacle (or build a
» bridge) so that the chemicals can reach their target. The body is not well
» equipped for such tasks and that is why bio-cycles have a general
» degenerative pattern. Physical intervention may require intervention from
» the outside. I applied the early version of this model as a working model
» and developed a treatment (based on small liposomes) which reversed many
» aging parameters after IV injection by inducing physical changes to cell
» membranes. When I developed that treatment in the early 80is the term
» “anti-aging” was not one to be used within the mainstream scientific
» community. Just watch the current flow of NIH budgeting and volumes of
» research articles and journals on this very topic to understand how the
» system works.
»
» The other important thing about your article is that you provide a method
» to test its validity, That is not something that eccentric people do (I saw
» that unfortunate comment about your posting which came out of the blue and
» I was surprised that a seemingly intelligent person would resort to such
» insults for no reason and without apparent provocation). Eccentric people
» are beyond proving their statements and they are also never wrong (at least
» they will never admit to being wrong). You may be a bit of a maverick,
» challenging the overly comfortable establishment, but that is a very good
» thing to be. Mavericks are the stem cells who grow new organs replacing
» old, rusty, and shriveling degenerative limbs in many aspects of life and
» social issues. Whether you are right or wrong about the details or the
» model you suggested is much less important than taking a second look at
» things which are “well established” and maintaining energy toward finding
» new solutions.
»
» Some suggestions regarding your article:
»
» There are several blood supply routes to the face and scalp which branch
» into several large networks of tiny capillaries. Practically, they are
» separated enough from each other to act almost as if they are separate
» blood supplies Before you block something on the face in the hope that it
» will prevent its accumulation down the road (on the scalp), find out
» whether the areas you intend to block originate from the same artery as the
» scalp area of interest. You can look this up in blood supply distribution
» color maps in anatomy atlases.
»
» There are two types of sweat glands; the eccrine glands and the apocrine
» glands. Only the apocrine glands, which are triggered by emotions, develop
» during puberty in areas rich in hair follicles, such as the scalp,
» underarms, and genitals. These glands are not involved in temperature
» regulation.
»
» I also have a suggestion about how you can test one aspect of the sweating
» theory for less than $3. Use an anti-perspirant (not a deodorant) which is
» based on temporarily plugging the sweat outlets and therefore the sweat
» glands may stay in an inflated position rather than a deflated position.
» Every anti-perspirant on the market (they are actually OTC drugs, not
» cosmetics as are the deodorants) works that way. I am not suggesting that
» you actually experiment with that because clogging pores may result in
» blackheads or whiteheads or acne outbreak. I mean it as a theoretical
» exercise. Aluminum ions are common in anti-perspirants’ active ingredients.
» Theoretically speaking (don’t try it in your home), using anti-perspirants
» on the scalp may keep sweat glands full and reduce the production of sebum
» in the scalp (if this part of your theory indeed holds).
»
» According to the ACS, sweat glands are not connected to the lymph nodes
» and sweating is not a significant way for removal of toxins from the body.
» I don’t know if this has a significant role in your theory at this time but
» it may be important as you develop it.
»
» As for the DHT theory, this may be one chemical which is largely
» misinterpreted. DHT is a potent anabolic chemical which generally means
» that it builds the body; it makes the body large and strong and in the
» process it may cause some harm, or does it? I mean does it cause direct
» harm or does the system stress-out from trying to cope with too much
» anabolic pressure? Example: You plant seeds in small seed-starting
» containers. When they sprout you are supposed to transfer them to larger
» containers so they can develop and grow and stretch their roots a little
» more. Now here the analogy to hair growth is very clear. If the sprouts are
» not transferred in time the roots will not be able to spread and the sprout
» will grow a little but not much and will be very thin and in the end it
» will die. If you wait with the sprout in the small container until it shows
» some stress and than transfer it to a larger container with simple soil it
» may recover and keep growing normally. What will happen if you transfer it
» instead to a large pot with extremely rich soil? It actually may die as
» well instead of recovering because the pressure to grow fast and quick by
» the very rich soil creates stress on the not very healthy sprout, which can
» kill it. If the hair follicles are like sprouts in a container which is not
» large enough and you give them DHT which for this scenario I will name a
» strong “fertilizer”, the result may be that the follicle will be under more
» pressure to grow than it can take and eventually it will shrink very fast
» until it may die. In an answer to a poster in our own forum several weeks
» ago, I suggested that a mysterious phenomenon known for a long time in
» biology called “the oxygen paradox” is applicable to hairloss, provided an
» explanation to the oxygen paradox is suggested. In the oxygen paradox,
» cells and organs which are deprived of oxygen to the point that they are in
» deep stress and then given oxygen again will often die instead of
» recovering. In my opinion it is a case where very weak and stressed cells
» or organs are suddenly pressured to act in full motion by the renewed
» stream of oxygen and that can kill them. Instead, a slow recovery with
» gradually increased oxygen should be given to these cells and organs. I
» still have to answer that person regarding other aspects of his question
» but this part of my answer is very relevant to DHT. If indeed you let
» follicles recover in a simple environment but a lot of space (just like the
» nude mice skin provide) and after they recover and become large and grow
» hair and while they maintain their large space, they receive at that point
» DHT. What would happen? Will it shrink the follicles again or will it
» actually boost their growth, as they are now healthy and can cope with the
» anabolic effects of DHT? You see, many new experiments can be suggested in
» the moment that you start thinking out of the box. Don’t worry about
» leaving the box; it will always remain full to capacity until another box
» is established and the big migration begins.
»
» Just an after thought: in that nude mice study the follicles recovered and
» started growing hair very quickly, almost immediately after the transplant
» recovered in the new host. Within 7 weeks the new growing hair was already
» visible and it grew at nearly normal speed after a little while. When
» people use minoxidil the visible effect is expected to take many months.
» Now think about that in terms of space for the follicle. Minoxidil does not
» improve the space around the follicle and when you stop using it all the
» good things it did stop and reverse almost immediately. Recovery of
» follicle size and good space in combination with minoxidil may start the
» recovery faster, and last much longer after the drug is discontinued.
»
» Thank you.
»
» Elishalom Yechiel, Ph.D.
» President
» Elsom Research Co., Inc.
» email: innovation@elsomresearch.com
» voice: 210.493.5225
» paper mail: 4510 Black Hickory Woods, San Antonio, TX, USA, 78249
» online:
» http://www.elsomresearch.com/ — to learn about nanotechnologies in
» skincare
» http://www.new-equilibrium-skincare.com/cosmeceuticals/ — to order
» retail products
» http://www.the-formulator.com/ — to order personalized products
» http://www.topical-formulations.com/ — to read the Journal
Thank you for taking the time to offer your comments Dr Yechiel.
That was an early version of my ideas, and i continue to persue this outside of these forums. Thank you again for your comments.
Regards.
S Foote.
» Hello S Foote,
»
» I read with interest the article for which you provided a link. Your
» engineering training clearly shows in the way you deal with hairloss and it
» is important because every complex problem requires interdisciplinary
» involvement for a fresh look and for making some progress. I would not
» comment on the specific details in that article because details will
» undoubtedly change many times before they mature into a solid theory.
» However, the basic concept of physical regulation is very important.
»
» My physico-chemical aging model, or the model of regressive bio-regulatory
» feedback, which I displayed for decades in writings, lectures and seminars
» is still difficult for many scientist to assimilate. You can read some
» articles about this in the Journal of Topical Formulations where we
» uploaded some of the lectures I gave in different settings. The motto
» “bio-systems understand chemistry but don’t understand physics” is a simple
» way to put it. Example: there is a bad car accident and the traffic is
» blocked for miles. The emergency phone call comes in, “we need an
» ambulance”, and an ambulance is sent out but because the road is blocked by
» cars it cannot reach the people who need it. So, another call comes in, “we
» need an ambulance!”, and another ambulance is sent but it too cannot reach
» the people in need for it. Moreover, the more ambulances they send the more
» they contribute to further clogging the road but they know how to respond
» to emergency calls in one way only. So when they run out of ambulances they
» get a distress signal to get more ambulances. So they purchase more
» ambulances from the ambulance manufacturer and keep sending them in, even
» though all they really had to do is to clear a path and then one ambulance
» may be enough to do the job. The situation is very similar in a bio system.
» A distress signal is sent: “we need more of a certain chemical”. The body
» sends it out but the body area in need does not know about it or the
» chemical cannot arrive there. The body manufactures more of the chemical
» and sends out larger and larger quantities. But the problem is different:
» there is enough of the chemical to start with and it just cannot reach its
» target. Synthesizing more chemicals is the way the body knows how to
» respond and in doing so it many times aggravates the problem instead of
» solving it. A physical solution will be to clear the obstacle (or build a
» bridge) so that the chemicals can reach their target. The body is not well
» equipped for such tasks and that is why bio-cycles have a general
» degenerative pattern. Physical intervention may require intervention from
» the outside. I applied the early version of this model as a working model
» and developed a treatment (based on small liposomes) which reversed many
» aging parameters after IV injection by inducing physical changes to cell
» membranes. When I developed that treatment in the early 80is the term
» “anti-aging” was not one to be used within the mainstream scientific
» community. Just watch the current flow of NIH budgeting and volumes of
» research articles and journals on this very topic to understand how the
» system works.
»
» The other important thing about your article is that you provide a method
» to test its validity, That is not something that eccentric people do (I saw
» that unfortunate comment about your posting which came out of the blue and
» I was surprised that a seemingly intelligent person would resort to such
» insults for no reason and without apparent provocation). Eccentric people
» are beyond proving their statements and they are also never wrong (at least
» they will never admit to being wrong). You may be a bit of a maverick,
» challenging the overly comfortable establishment, but that is a very good
» thing to be. Mavericks are the stem cells who grow new organs replacing
» old, rusty, and shriveling degenerative limbs in many aspects of life and
» social issues. Whether you are right or wrong about the details or the
» model you suggested is much less important than taking a second look at
» things which are “well established” and maintaining energy toward finding
» new solutions.
»
» Some suggestions regarding your article:
»
» There are several blood supply routes to the face and scalp which branch
» into several large networks of tiny capillaries. Practically, they are
» separated enough from each other to act almost as if they are separate
» blood supplies Before you block something on the face in the hope that it
» will prevent its accumulation down the road (on the scalp), find out
» whether the areas you intend to block originate from the same artery as the
» scalp area of interest. You can look this up in blood supply distribution
» color maps in anatomy atlases.
»
» There are two types of sweat glands; the eccrine glands and the apocrine
» glands. Only the apocrine glands, which are triggered by emotions, develop
» during puberty in areas rich in hair follicles, such as the scalp,
» underarms, and genitals. These glands are not involved in temperature
» regulation.
»
» I also have a suggestion about how you can test one aspect of the sweating
» theory for less than $3. Use an anti-perspirant (not a deodorant) which is
» based on temporarily plugging the sweat outlets and therefore the sweat
» glands may stay in an inflated position rather than a deflated position.
» Every anti-perspirant on the market (they are actually OTC drugs, not
» cosmetics as are the deodorants) works that way. I am not suggesting that
» you actually experiment with that because clogging pores may result in
» blackheads or whiteheads or acne outbreak. I mean it as a theoretical
» exercise. Aluminum ions are common in anti-perspirants’ active ingredients.
» Theoretically speaking (don’t try it in your home), using anti-perspirants
» on the scalp may keep sweat glands full and reduce the production of sebum
» in the scalp (if this part of your theory indeed holds).
»
» According to the ACS, sweat glands are not connected to the lymph nodes
» and sweating is not a significant way for removal of toxins from the body.
» I don’t know if this has a significant role in your theory at this time but
» it may be important as you develop it.
»
» As for the DHT theory, this may be one chemical which is largely
» misinterpreted. DHT is a potent anabolic chemical which generally means
» that it builds the body; it makes the body large and strong and in the
» process it may cause some harm, or does it? I mean does it cause direct
» harm or does the system stress-out from trying to cope with too much
» anabolic pressure? Example: You plant seeds in small seed-starting
» containers. When they sprout you are supposed to transfer them to larger
» containers so they can develop and grow and stretch their roots a little
» more. Now here the analogy to hair growth is very clear. If the sprouts are
» not transferred in time the roots will not be able to spread and the sprout
» will grow a little but not much and will be very thin and in the end it
» will die. If you wait with the sprout in the small container until it shows
» some stress and than transfer it to a larger container with simple soil it
» may recover and keep growing normally. What will happen if you transfer it
» instead to a large pot with extremely rich soil? It actually may die as
» well instead of recovering because the pressure to grow fast and quick by
» the very rich soil creates stress on the not very healthy sprout, which can
» kill it. If the hair follicles are like sprouts in a container which is not
» large enough and you give them DHT which for this scenario I will name a
» strong “fertilizer”, the result may be that the follicle will be under more
» pressure to grow than it can take and eventually it will shrink very fast
» until it may die. In an answer to a poster in our own forum several weeks
» ago, I suggested that a mysterious phenomenon known for a long time in
» biology called “the oxygen paradox” is applicable to hairloss, provided an
» explanation to the oxygen paradox is suggested. In the oxygen paradox,
» cells and organs which are deprived of oxygen to the point that they are in
» deep stress and then given oxygen again will often die instead of
» recovering. In my opinion it is a case where very weak and stressed cells
» or organs are suddenly pressured to act in full motion by the renewed
» stream of oxygen and that can kill them. Instead, a slow recovery with
» gradually increased oxygen should be given to these cells and organs. I
» still have to answer that person regarding other aspects of his question
» but this part of my answer is very relevant to DHT. If indeed you let
» follicles recover in a simple environment but a lot of space (just like the
» nude mice skin provide) and after they recover and become large and grow
» hair and while they maintain their large space, they receive at that point
» DHT. What would happen? Will it shrink the follicles again or will it
» actually boost their growth, as they are now healthy and can cope with the
» anabolic effects of DHT? You see, many new experiments can be suggested in
» the moment that you start thinking out of the box. Don’t worry about
» leaving the box; it will always remain full to capacity until another box
» is established and the big migration begins.
»
» Just an after thought: in that nude mice study the follicles recovered and
» started growing hair very quickly, almost immediately after the transplant
» recovered in the new host. Within 7 weeks the new growing hair was already
» visible and it grew at nearly normal speed after a little while. When
» people use minoxidil the visible effect is expected to take many months.
» Now think about that in terms of space for the follicle. Minoxidil does not
» improve the space around the follicle and when you stop using it all the
» good things it did stop and reverse almost immediately. Recovery of
» follicle size and good space in combination with minoxidil may start the
» recovery faster, and last much longer after the drug is discontinued.
»
» Thank you.
»
» Elishalom Yechiel, Ph.D.
» President
» Elsom Research Co., Inc.
» email: innovation@elsomresearch.com
» voice: 210.493.5225
» paper mail: 4510 Black Hickory Woods, San Antonio, TX, USA, 78249
» online:
» http://www.elsomresearch.com/ — to learn about nanotechnologies in
» skincare
» http://www.new-equilibrium-skincare.com/cosmeceuticals/ — to order
» retail products
» http://www.the-formulator.com/ — to order personalized products
» http://www.topical-formulations.com/ — to read the Journal
HI Dr
Have you got a link to this:
“My physico-chemical aging model”
Regards
Pete
ps Please respond to my email when you get time.
» What is your objection here: that I used the word “necessary” to describe
» a dependency link in the experiment, or that you don’t believe that the
» necessity of full-thickness grafts is implied in this article?
Both.
» “Necessary” is the correct way to identify this key component of the
» experiment which is a dependency link between full thickness grafts and
» growth of strong scalp hair.
I think you inferred that from Orentreich’s study, but I don’t think Orentreich implied it.
» The experiment described in the 1959 Orentreich article was conducted
» using full-thickness skin grafts. I did not quote him. When I quote text I
» use quotation marks, just as you do. I rather explained in my own language
» what Orentriech did and I have tried to evaluate the experiments and
» summarize and emphasize what I considered important in the study, as his
» scientific statement in my own words. In the section you quoted from the
» article there is a clear dependency link between growth of strong scalp
» hair and full- thickness grafts: ”growth of strong scalp hair or of
» baldness lie within the local skin tissues of a full-thickness graft”. This
» means that, for the purpose of this experiment, a full thickness graft was
» understood as a requirement for the growth of strong scalp hair; this is
» why it is mentioned repeatedly in the article (read also the Methods
» section where “full thickness circular incisions were made”). The article
» is about an experiment with full-thickness grafts and it would not have
» been done that way if the experimenters have not considered that
» significant to the success of the experiment.
No. I think Orentreich was just being careful to state carefully what it is he actually did in his experiments. I certainly don’t think he meant that a full-thickness graft was essential to successful hair transplanting. Again, you’re INFERRING things that he didn’t IMPLY.
» You would be right to say,
» whatever this article says, that full skin grafts have been shown not to be
» necessary for a successful implant; that is also what I say, and indeed
» successful individual follicle transplants prove that.
Exactly.
» However,
» Orentrieich’s opinion about the importance of full-thickness grafts was
» expressed quite explicitly in this 1959 article; indeed in time some
» statements in the article have been proven somewhat erroneous or at least
» in need of additional evaluation, but that doesn’t alter the fact of their
» inclusion in the article.
I do think you’re misinterpreting what Orentreich said in that article, but what exactly is the point of dwelling on this one issue in the first place? Isn’t it a moot point?
» This study was carried out using full skin grafts and, in any experiment,
» what is done rules. This means that how the experiment is conducted is more
» important than how it is phrased in being written up and even how readers
» interpret it. After an experiment is conducted it is no longer in the
» experimenters’ domain nor under the authority of the experimenters, and
» every one else’s understanding of the results is as legitimate as that of
» the experimenters. It is however, in respect to the experimenters that what
» they say about their own work is discussed and emphasized. In my opinion
» this experiment with its use of full size skin grafts never gave any chance
» for the “recipients’ dominance” theory to even be tested. Full-size skin
» grafts eliminated much of what the recipient skin could offer for the
» recovery process, so it was reduced to performing mainly as a blood supply
» template for an implanted skin section. They only tested donors’ dominance
» over different blood supply templates. Only the more recent 2003
» Krajcik-Orentreich work gave a chance to test recipient dominance and
» strongly confirmed that it is a valid concept.
And again I point out that even modern “follicular unit” transplants have shown the same donor dominance that Orentreich had with his large grafts (at least by transplanting androgen-resistant hair follicles to areas of balding, if not in the other direction), so while I agree that there is some validity to your objection about relying on the evidence of such large grafts alone, modern medicine has caught up with that relatively minor limitation, and now supports the principle of donor dominance more completely.
As for the Krajcik-Orentreich study, it is so wildly contrived and so completely separate from the normal human experience, it has no bearing at all on the issue of donor dominance versus recipient dominance, and no conclusion at all can be drawn from it about that, one way or the other.
» I already commented on this before but I will just add that differences in
» sensitivity to androgens (assuming that this is even the real picture)
» within different follicles are not the same as a preset clock for the
» demise of that follicle. That is also why I have difficulty with the term
» “apoptosis” because if there are anti-apoptotic avenues that it is not true
» apoptosis. The concentration of androgens and other factors can be seen as
» environmental to the follicle. The demise of the follicle is not preset by
» some genetic vulnerability alone.
I agree with you on that. I don’t like the tendency some people have to say that balding hair follicles are “pre-ordained” (or somesuch) to go bald, as if they go bald precisely by some kind of genetic clock-work. However, sometimes it’s easy and tempting to think of it in such a simple way.
However, I’m a bit surprised that you seem to express some doubt in your first sentence above that there is a difference in the sensitivity of various hair follicles to androgens. Are you serious about that? How could there be any doubt about that at all?
» » So how do you explain the success AND donor dominance of modern
» » transplanted “follicular units”? 
»
» Give me a specific example with a reference so that I can better
» understand your question.
What don’t you understand about my question?? I can’t give you a specific reference, because I don’t pay that much attention to hair transplantation, and I can’t even give you the names of those specific doctors who do that “follicular unit” transplanting. But surely you know what I’m talking about, right?? It’s all the rage nowadays for the most advanced doctors to do that “micro-grafting”, where only individual hair follicles are moved around. You referred to it YOURSELF, earlier in your post!
The fact that even such “micro-grafts” (or “follicular unit transplants” ) still show donor dominance is clear and powerful PROOF that donor dominance is valid. You don’t have to waste time talking about the size of plugs, the amount of skin tissue that gets transferred, whether or not there’s something in that neighboring skin that causes balding, etc.
» » But if you’re still reading H.L.T, I’ll go ahead and post about it over
» » there. Should I do it?
»
» Go ahead Bryan.
Give me a couple of days to do that!
» Dr Yechiel has pointed out to you some of the glaring holes
» in the old donor dominance idea in this thread.
I don’t think he’s pointed out any “glaring holes” in it at all.
» Other professional scientists are also
» questioning this as i have pointed out to you many times.
And I have pointed out to YOU many times that donor dominance, as it pertains specifically to androgenetic alopecia, is still valid. Scientists have shown that certain OTHER growth characteristics of hair follicles don’t necessarily maintain donor dominance, but androgenetic alopecia does do that.
» Here’s another link in support of this:
»
» http://www.newhair.com/resources/mp-2002-donor-dominance.asp
I have no problem with what that link says. You’re not LISTENING to what I’m telling you, Stephen.
» So why is it that you question Dr Yechiel’s opinions here when by your own
» admission, you don’t follow the research?
»
» http://www.h********k.com/interact/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=27898&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=24
»
» (Posting won’t accept the link here)
»
» Quote:
»
» “I don’t follow transplantation technology enough even to have an opinion.
» Sorry.”
»
» Seems that doesn’t stop you giving us your opinion here does it?
No it doesn’t. I may not follow all the nuances of hair transplantation like who is the best doctor, who gives the best results, how much it costs, etc., but I can certainly comment on some of the popular theories behind hair transplantation. Especially the really ECCENTRIC ones!
Dr. Yechiel,
I was thinking of making a custom topical from the following for hair loss
co-Q10
resveratrol
zinc oxide
amacha
turmeric
Apignen (hopefully)
So a few questions about this.
Most of these ingredients can be taken orally. It would be cost advantageous to do so, what advantage would I have from taking these topically? Most of them work through systematic abosoption correct?
Would you add anything else to the list?
How long would 2oz last if applied twice daily?
Thanks in advance.
-Mox
Hello quarterhead,
I am sorry for the delay in my response to your posting but we had a very busy week.
130 over 84 is not normal blood presure for you since your normal blood presure was a steady 120 over 70. It is not a big change but a significant change nevertheless. I doubt that it is related to the blood-pressure lowering effect of minoxidil unless it is an overshoot reaction for the activity of minoxidil which should not have lasted more then a short time after you stopped using it. It may be related to other factors which are not related at all to minoxidil but to other aspects in your life. This is not intended as medical advice and you should keep monitoring your blood presure or conduct other tests with the supervision of your medical practitioner. You may also obtain a device for blood pressure monitoring and get some basic training in operating it but that does not replace going to your medical practioner as he or she see it necessary.
Thank you.
Elishalom Yechiel, Ph.D.
President
Elsom Research Co., Inc.
email: innovation@elsomresearch.com
voice: 210.493.5225
paper mail: 4510 Black Hickory Woods, San Antonio, TX, USA, 78249
online:
http://www.elsomresearch.com/ — to learn about nanotechnologies in skincare
http://www.new-equilibrium-skincare.com/cosmeceuticals/ — to order retail products
http://www.the-formulator.com/ — to order personalized products
http://www.topical-formulations.com/ — to read the Journal
Hello Pete2,
Here is a link to a presentation I gave in an international meeting on nano-technology in which my theory of aging is presented among other issues: http://www.topical-formulations.com/topical/nano-aging.pps. The nano-technology introduction is critical to anderstanding the aging model and for the evaluation of routes for intervention.
The presentation is a large file and it may take 2-3 minutes to open it (just so you don’t think that there is a problem with the web page).
Thank you.
Elishalom Yechiel, Ph.D.
President
Elsom Research Co., Inc.
email: innovation@elsomresearch.com
voice: 210.493.5225
paper mail: 4510 Black Hickory Woods, San Antonio, TX, USA, 78249
online:
http://www.elsomresearch.com/ — to learn about nanotechnologies in skincare
http://www.new-equilibrium-skincare.com/cosmeceuticals/ — to order retail products
http://www.the-formulator.com/ — to order personalized products
http://www.topical-formulations.com/ — to read the Journal
…ive re - posted this as a new thread!
Regards
Pete
| Home | News | Find a Doctor | Ask a Question | Terms of Use & Privacy |
This is an advertising site for paid advertisers to showcase successful hair restoration results only. It is not the mandate of this site to engage in the discussion of failed, unsuccessful procedures, lawsuits, litigations, refunds or complaint cases. Surgical hair restoration procedures carry risks. Please do thorough research, consult your own physician and investigate a doctor's background carefully before making a decision. By proceeding to use our site, you agree to abide by our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy at http://hairsite.com/terms-of-use/ where you can also find a list of HairSite's sponsoring physicians.