» » There is imho quite overhelming evidence that there is some bacteria or
» » fungus involved and it seems to be ignored by science for ages now.
»
» Could you elaborate on that evidence? I have seen very little evidence
» that supports such a statement.
»
» » If there are so many antibacterials & fungal treatments that grow hair,
»
» Are there? I only know of ketoconazole, for which there is some credible
» evidence that it prevents hair loss to some extent. What other
» antibacterials & antifungal substances have been proven to influence hair
» loss? And even regrow hair?
»
ketoconazole, reservatrol, half of the topicals the natural guys use, triclosan (this one is anecdotal, a guy on hlh claimed that an antibiotic which name I forgot (all I remember is that it was in the same group as triclosan is, stopped & reversed his hairloss, and was affraid to cease the treatment), but piroctone olamine is antibacterial as well, Roxithromycin is in clinical trials for mpb, this patent up in my first post cites penicilin. It also claims that kaphlex, doxycycline (this is the one that the guy sweared by! I now remember), and erythrocin (all being antibiotics) grow hair. And if you google you could carry on like that almost forever.
» » why noone tries to find an explanation for these or why at least they
» dont
» » bother to consider that DHT is not the only involved mechanism
»
» AFAIK, that is common knowledge. DHT is known to only account for a
» certain percentage of hair loss. There are various theories regarding other
» factors, many involving autoimmune disorders etc.
I rather think its all just part of bigger picture rather then two different causes (ie, DHT increasing sebum productions in DHT sensitive follicles, and thus creating a friendly environment for whatever fungal or bacterial infection lives in the follicle, and when the colony gets deep enough, it’s spotted by white blood cells and your immune system tags it with the bacterial antibodies and seeks and destroys the colony together with your follicle.) Basically something that fits into all clues we have (pattern, donor dominance, all of what we know, needs to be explained by the successful theory).
»
» » How does the DHT theory explain that antifungal and so many
» » andibiotics/antibcterial treatments grow hair? It simply doesn’t,
» unless
» » you accept that DHT is probably just a link in a chain, not its end.
»
» I’m not sure I follow. Ketoconazole is an antiandrogen, which could
» explain why it is effective against hair loss.
ok and how about the other antibacterial antifungal stuff, do you think that all the antibiotics I listed is also antiandrogens? 
»
» The fact that a drug that is used to treat condition A is also helpful for
» condition B does not mean that A is the reason for B. That is a logical
» fallacy.
»
I dont think that admiting that most of the antibiotic treatments I listed are not antiandrogens is a fallacy.
» To give you an example, albeit a poor one, let’s say that we find a way to
» use getfitinib to regrow hair. Getfitinib is a cancer drug. That does not
» mean that people with hairloss have cancer in their follicles. It’s a silly
» analogy, I know, but valid nonetheless and I’m sure you see my point.
»
» I’m not saying it’s impossible that there is a link to fungus or bacteria,
» just that I haven’t seen any such evidence.
»
ok point taken, the list is at the begining of this reply of mine. perhaps it could persuade you to do some research.
» /p
»
»
» (EDIT: I assume we are primarily talking about androgenic alopecia)
yes we are all the time.
