Home | News | Find a Doctor | Ask a Question | Free

More evidence that fungal & bacterial treatments grow hair in general


#1

interesting patent, supposedly a mixture of penicilin + few other drugs grows hair

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5753713/description.html

now check this paragraph:

But with the composition of the present invention, one or more applications
will grow hair in about eight weeks
. Further, since no maintenance
applications are required
, the present inventor infers that the hair
growth is not forced hair growth. Since the hair growth continues, even
without further applications, for six months or more, the present inventor
believes that the cause of such growth is an increase in nutrients which
results in greater hair growth, rather than greater blood flow. The
present inventor concludes that some forms of hair loss may be caused by
infection(s) in the area of the hair follicle.
The composition of the
present invention reduces or kills such infection(s).

==================

Is it just me who thinks that it could really be some bacteria or fungus living in the sebaceous glands (dht increases sebum) thats causing the immune system to seek and destroy everything?

This guy says that this mixture of antibacterials applied twice will grow you hair in 8 weeks and that the hair will carry on growing for 6 months or longer. If thats true then this would be awesome stuff :slight_smile:

But, What is the 6 months time? is it time till the whatever it is builds up colonies again in the follicles?


#2

US Patent Issued on May 19, 1998

what ??


#3

» US Patent Issued on May 19, 1998
»
» what ??

do you know any newer patent that would actually have worked for us yet? :slight_smile:


#4

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.

If there are so many antibacterials & fungal treatments that grow hair, 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

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.


#5

» 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.
»
» If there are so many antibacterials & fungal treatments that grow hair,
» 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
»
» 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.

FYI - the Follica protocol calls for a microbial.


#6

» 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.
»
» If there are so many antibacterials & fungal treatments that grow hair,
» 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
»
» 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 once read a French paper, posted by Brian, claiming that DHT tags the follicular cells (sebaceous glands?) for immunity, kind of laser rays to smart bombs.


#7

» 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?

» 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.

» 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.

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.

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.

/p

(EDIT: I assume we are primarily talking about androgenic alopecia)


#8

» US Patent Issued on May 19, 1998
»
» what ??

isnt it impossible to get a patent issued unless it actually works?


#9

» » US Patent Issued on May 19, 1998
» »
» » what ??
»
» isnt it impossible to get a patent issued unless it actually works?

No. It should be, but things aren’t always that clear cut. It depends on your definition of “works” among other things, and the requirements for “reduction to practice” are not definitive.

Also, getting the patent is one thing. Whether it would hold up in court, should it be challenged, is something else.

/p


#10

» » 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?
»
» » 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.
»
» » 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.
»
» 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.
»
» 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.
»
» /p
»
»
» (EDIT: I assume we are primarily talking about androgenic alopecia)

nizoral has been shown not only to prevent hair loss but to regrow hair extensively in a significant percentage of test subjects, at least in the japanese study


#11

» » 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? :slight_smile:

»
» 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.


#12

» » » 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?
» »
» » » 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.
» »
» » » 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.
» »
» » 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.
» »
» » 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.
» »
» » /p
» »
» »
» » (EDIT: I assume we are primarily talking about androgenic alopecia)
»
» nizoral has been shown not only to prevent hair loss but to regrow hair
» extensively in a significant percentage of test subjects, at least in the
» japanese study

exactly, the photographic evidence was that it gave better results then minoxidil or propecia do


#13

An alpha five reductase type one inhibitor, which theoretically should decrease sebum production quite a bit because alpha five reductase type one enzymes are in the sebaceous glands, was tried for AGA by Merk or Glaxo. It was called MK386. It had little/no effect. The trialees kept losing hair, but at a very slightly slower rate if my memory serves.

The dead keratinocytes, suffering from apoptosis while still in the infranfudiblum (the opeining in the dermis where the hair follicle emerges onto the skin) very well might provide fodder for some kind of bacteria or fungus or whatnot. Just the presence of dead cells themselves might invite a immune response.

Then again too many negative growth factors secreted by the dermal papilla in response to androgens binding to the androgen receptors might induce an immuno response

Or perhaps the inflammation around the infrainfudibulum, where the first inflammation in the histopathology of Androgenic Alopecia is seen microscopically, might damage the DNA of other parts of the follicle as inflammation is like a grenade, it damages things near it. The damaged DNA might be the reason for the immune cells clustering in larger-than-normal-numbers around the base of the follicle, endlessly attacking it.

One of these days Rolf Paus and those guys will figure out the exact chain of events, but I think a “cure” that gives us “more” donor hair will probably be discovered first----


#14

» interesting patent, supposedly a mixture of penicilin + few other drugs
» grows hair
»
» http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5753713/description.html
»
»
» now check this paragraph:
»
» But with the composition of the present invention, one or more
» applications
» will grow hair in about eight weeks
. Further, since no maintenance
» applications are required
, the present inventor infers that the hair
» growth is not forced hair growth. Since the hair growth continues, even
» without further applications, for six months or more, the present
» inventor
» believes that the cause of such growth is an increase in nutrients which
» results in greater hair growth, rather than greater blood flow. The
» present inventor concludes that some forms of hair loss may be caused by
» infection(s) in the area of the hair follicle.
The composition of the
» present invention reduces or kills such infection(s).
»
»
» ==================
»
» Is it just me who thinks that it could really be some bacteria or fungus
» living in the sebaceous glands (dht increases sebum) thats causing the
» immune system to seek and destroy everything?
»
» This guy says that this mixture of antibacterials applied twice will grow
» you hair in 8 weeks and that the hair will carry on growing for 6 months or
» longer. If thats true then this would be awesome stuff :slight_smile:
»
» But, What is the 6 months time? is it time till the whatever it is builds
» up colonies again in the follicles?

whoever reads this should be aware that antibiotics taken internally may actually worsen your hairloss (because they kill intestinal bacteria, and thus reduce your body’s ability to get vital minerals, vitamins and nutrition from food).


#15

» An alpha five reductase type one inhibitor, which theoretically
» should decrease sebum production quite a bit because alpha five reductase
» type one enzymes are in the sebaceous glands, was tried for AGA by
» Merk or Glaxo. It was called MK386. It had little/no effect. The trialees
» kept losing hair, but at a very slightly slower rate if my memory serves.
»

I am aware that 5ar1 is in sebaceous glands on your face and many other parts of your body, but are the scalp hair follicles the same?

»
»
» The dead keratinocytes, suffering from apoptosis while still in the
» infranfudiblum (the opeining in the dermis where the hair follicle emerges
» onto the skin) very well might provide fodder for some kind of bacteria or
» fungus or whatnot. Just the presence of dead cells themselves might invite
» a immune response.
»
» Then again too many negative growth factors secreted by the dermal papilla
» in response to androgens binding to the androgen receptors might induce an
» immuno response
»

ok then why penicilin grows hair?

»
» Or perhaps the inflammation around the infrainfudibulum, where the first
» inflammation in the histopathology of Androgenic Alopecia is seen
» microscopically, might damage the DNA of other parts of the follicle as
» inflammation is like a grenade, it damages things near it. The damaged DNA
» might be the reason for the immune cells clustering in
» larger-than-normal-numbers around the base of the follicle, endlessly
» attacking it.
»

yes it can be like you said, but it does not explain why topical antibiotics help to cease hairloss and grow back the hair.

»
»
» One of these days Rolf Paus and those guys will figure out the exact chain
» of events, but I think a “cure” that gives us “more” donor hair will
» probably be discovered first----


#16

First,

Finasteride is a 5AR1 or 5AR2 inhibitor ?

Debris,

It has been a while you are turning around this deal …considering to try something ? Peniciline application on the scalp daily wont lead to any risk after all.


#17

The whole thing is another example of just how inconsistent the available body of MPB research coverage really is.

I get the feeling that most of what science has ever learned about MPB is the result of people individually testing their own attempted products for it. Generalized research ON THE PROBLEM ITSELF is in relatively short supply compared to this.

It’s like a whole crowd of individuals in a darkened room. They’re all trying to develop a picture of what’s in the entire room by each just shining a little flashlight around the few square feet of floor space that they’ve personally got a patent on.

In the big picture there still hasn’t been very much effort to stand back and light up the whole damn room.


#18

This bacteria and fungus thing reminds of Dr Beck video where he was giving a lecture explaining how he had cured hundreds of cases of cancer, hepatitis C, AIDS, lupus with a protocol he had developed.

He used the protocol and lost 60 pounds and regrew some of his hair and he was 77 yo.

You can watch one of his videos here http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3383948315844437935&ei=8KwBScSfIYT22gKzvfkM&q=dr+beck+medicine


#19

debris, your theory is interesting, and you make a lot of good points, but one question i have that makes me doubt this is that guys with ht’s don’t lose their transplanted hair. ok, maybe sometimes it falls out a bit, but that’s when the ht isn’t done properly or something.

in general ht hair does not fall out. but the dht is still there floating around in the area. if the dht is still there, the fungi and bacteria should still be there, no? if they are still there then why does the hair stay in place? why doesn’t the immune system attack it and make the ht hair fall out?

i think you’re gonna say “because the ht hair follicles aren’t affected by dht”… ok, but they’re still being put in places on your scalp where there is dht and are affected by dht… so why doesn’t the transplanted hair fall out?

also isn’t it true that lots of guys without mpb also can have lots of dht… it’s not really about he dht, it’s about your genes and their REACTION to the dht.

you can have a guy who transforms all the testosterone in his skin cells into dht, and if he doesn’t have the genes for mpb, he won’t lose any hair…

then you can have a guy who transforms only 20% of the testosterone in his skin cells into dht, but if he does have the bad genes, he will start losing his hair even though he has much less dht than the first guy.

so yes, it is the dht that causes the mpb, BUT you also have to be genetically sensitive to dht. if you’re not genetically predisposed, it doesn’t matter if you swim around in a vat of dht all day, you won’t lose any hair.


#20

» debris, your theory is interesting, and you make a lot of good points, but
» one question i have that makes me doubt this is that guys with ht’s don’t
» lose their transplanted hair. ok, maybe sometimes it falls out a bit, but
» that’s when the ht isn’t done properly or something.
»
» in general ht hair does not fall out. but the dht is still there
» floating around in the area. if the dht is still there, the fungi and
» bacteria should still be there, no? if they are still there then why does
» the hair stay in place? why doesn’t the immune system attack it and make
» the ht hair fall out?
»
» i think you’re gonna say “because the ht hair follicles aren’t affected by
» dht”… ok, but they’re still being put in places on your scalp where there
» is dht and are affected by dht… so why doesn’t the transplanted hair
» fall out?
»
» also isn’t it true that lots of guys without mpb also can have lots of
» dht… it’s not really about he dht, it’s about your genes and their
» REACTION to the dht.
»
» you can have a guy who transforms all the testosterone in his skin cells
» into dht, and if he doesn’t have the genes for mpb, he won’t lose any
» hair…
»
» then you can have a guy who transforms only 20% of the testosterone in his
» skin cells into dht, but if he does have the bad genes, he will start
» losing his hair even though he has much less dht than the first guy.
»
» so yes, it is the dht that causes the mpb, BUT you also have to be
» genetically sensitive to dht. if you’re not genetically predisposed, it
» doesn’t matter if you swim around in a vat of dht all day, you won’t lose
» any hair.
»
» also, according to your theory debris, why would fungi and bacteria go
» after dht in the first place? what is it about dht that they like? and
» why would white blood cells attack any of this? it’s not alien tissue
» from another person’s body, like a transplant… it’s not a foreign
» chemical like a skin irritant, is it? it is created in your own body…

arent the hairs in the rim of the horseshoe not falling out, since they are less susceptible to DHT?

You would think dht is all over the scalp right? and the hairs in the rim are either less sensitive and do not respond negatively to dht…or…the dht is not distributed in this rim area

but the fact that transplanted hairs for the most part stay put…would support the theory that these hairs are less sensitive to DHT