Hello everyone, more weird questions from Boris:
I initiated this entry under the drug forum but unfortunately it got very little attention, so perhaps it was more appropriate for me to be post it in this section
It is common knowledge that hair from the occipital and back area of the head is DHT resistant, while the one at the front, temples, etc. are not. The first question is why is this so? It seems that DHT production is associated with an oily scalp, and this oil thus appear at the part of the hair that usually undergoes the first symptoms of hair loss. If this is so, why would transplanting hair that supposedly is DHT resistant to this part of the scalp that is undergoing a constant oil production, could the hair follicale succumb and just fall off?
Why do HT docs still prescribe Dutas, Minox after a HT if in fact the hair which has been transplanted should never experience the thinning of the hair that died and fell. An answer could be to preserve the hair that is not DHT resistant, but still are there other answers for this?
This question is from before, why is DHT produced primarily in the areas that undergo the first signs of hairloss always, as opposed to the back and occipital area of the head. What I am trying to get at, is whether a HT would clearly resolve the problem unless you take Dutas or a similar drug forever.