[quote]I quibble with the conclusion that every human scalp is programmed to distribute PGD2 in a manner consistent with MPB, because the
while the study found the distribution pattern to be present–I think it’s a leap for it to conclude we are all programmed that way (I didn’t see anything
that supported that conclusion).
[postedby]Originally Posted by roger_that[/postedby]
Why not? The gradient itself supports the conclusion that we’re all programmed that way. The same type of gradient or decrement in PGD2 Synthase was found in all cadavers, male and female, bald and non-bald.
Besides, there are plenty of ways our bodies are programmed to create different types of phenotypic outcomes. Everything from the color of our hair and eyes, to the age and pattern our hair goes gray, to whether we come down with a genetic disease, are all programmed by genetics. Why couldn’t this one be, too? Because you don’t see it? A person may have genes for colon cancer or breast cancer, and they don’t see it or know it, until the genes are expressed.
The very pattern of hair growth on the human scalp, ending at a hairline above the forehead, and ending above the ears and the neck, indicates that boundaries of hairy areas can be patterned by genes. [/quote]
(Sorry for the delay getting back)
This is why I question the age of the cadavers. Assuming they were all of elderly people, the gradient might only
support the conclusion that we all end up that way; however, if there were some very young cadavers involved
in the study that also exhibited the gradient, I’d agree–we’re programmed that way. As written, the conclusion appears
to be based on circumstantial evidence (albeit, very convincing).
[postedby]Originally Posted by roger_that[/postedby]
[quote] What I meant by Dr. U’s theory being moot is that even if it is true (and to me, there’s little chance it is true), it would be moot.
The reason I think it would be moot is that you have a physical cause being translated into a biochemical state.
Obviously we cannot do anything about the physical cause because we all have to stand and walk upright.
But (assuming Dr. U’s theory is true), that physical cause works by being translated into a biochemical state.
We know that we can use drugs (or cell therapy) to impact or change a biochemical state.
So, what’s the problem? If Dr. Ustuner’s theory happens to be true, there is something we can do. In fact, treating MPB if his theory is true would be no different than treating MPB if it isn’t true, because the physical cause (the gravity) is translated into a biochemical state that can be attacked.
Let’s assume his theory is true (a special case). What we know now (undisputed) is that there’s something going on with PGD2 in the scalp. We also know that the scalps of people with MPB are biochemically different than those without MPB, in terms of prostaglandins, DHT, etc. From that, we can infer (a strong inference) that if Dr. U’s theory is true, the physical cause (gravity) acts by altering the biochemical state in affected people.
Therefore, since we know there’s an altered biochemical state in people with MPB, how would Dr. Ustuner’s theory being true mean that we couldn’t use drugs to change or reverse that altered biochemical state?[/quote]
While, in theory, I agree with you, we all know that so far, mankind is 0 for infinity when it comes to applying drugs that restore hair (fully).
Perhaps now that I’m moving into middle age and balder/shinier by the year, I may be seeing the glass has half-empty, instead of half-full,
or it could be failure after failure by numerous bio-chem & pharma co’s, but I find that subscribing to a theory that says “nothing works until proven
differently” is more comfortable than “this will work if tried.”
