Book Review and Synopsis: I Broke the Mystery of Male Pattern Baldness

Futility of Biochemical Hunting Expeditions.

"A serious researcher would note the difference between the words 'CAUSATION' and 'ASSOCIATION' when picking up research materials.

Some biochemicals are ASSOCIATED with baldness - testostoterone, DHT, estrogen etc... This simply means that men have either elevate or deficient levels of these or were exposed to somehow exposed to higher or deficient levels for a considerable period of time.

Often times, however, many of these ASSOCIATIONS are weak - occurring in roughly 10% to 30% of male subjects which further weakens the possibility of CAUSATION.

The paradoxes in these ASSOCIATIONS is: in a petri dish, NONE of these biochemicals NOT even DHT can be shown to CAUSE hair follicles to shrink or die and NONE can be found to promote hair growth in the petri disk. Hair follicles simply continue to grow and thrive. This means that, for more than a century, no one has proven biochemical CAUSATION.

Biochem experts have and will continue trying many biochemicals in petri dishes because it is the cheapest form of bio research and a strong indicator of CAUSATION.

If anyone ever proves biochemical CAUSATION of hair loss, he will have earned a billion dollars overnight for that one information and his research paper will never be publicly released. The reason we find bio research papers thrown out here and there is pharmaceuticals have no use for them.

What is the bottom line? The obsession of amateur researchers on these research materials is a waste of their time particularly for those without the proper educational background and funding. The other bottom line? Look for something else other than biochemistry."

*This portion is not found in the published version.

Barefoot, I've been going through some of your posts and they have been in helpful spirit, whether appreciated or not. The linked book excerpts in your profile (and a review on the forum) is interesting, and I think many of the observations are spot on.

Talking about stress, I agree that modern sedentary man has a big problem. He can't fight or flight in the workplace, and there's no way to release the stress physically, or to boost the testosterone levels with physical activity while one is in a meeting or bending down on a desk.

There is a problem with this lifestyle- it's artificial. We weren't meant to be this way. I would not be surprised if the 'stored up' stress, and the chemicals triggered thereby do a lot of harm to the body. Think of it, its not easily possible even to pull out our shoes and socks and even ground ourselves physically using the feet.

How do you feel can one best tackle stress, then? It is not always possible to walk away from such situations. Shouting out is not a possibility, bottling it up equally harmful :-) Pranayama or breathing exercises do help a bit, but I still don't feel 'released'.

Would appreciate your take on this.
best,
9r5

This site seems genuinely concerned in helping its members and it's fair because it allows postings with opposing views on MPB. (Try posting anything about this book on other forums, you get banned - which is actually the editor's preference ) Some postings appear to be mine - they're actually from dmonitor. The following is his answer to your post .

The reason there are no studies that relate MPB with stress is because 'experts' are always looking for biochemical relationships - it's where the money is.

But you got it dead on when you said 'can't fight or flight'. But take note that we live in a 'secure and stable' civilization and it's a system that we are supposed to be happy with. And you're not suppose to fight it because you can't win and you're not suppose to run away from it because you won't survive either.

So when you engage it's demands and whims (industrial) to survive, you're stuck in-between fight or flight for long periods of time - days or even years depending on the circumstances. Defining lines are difficult to establish because it is also dependent on ones mentality (psychophysiological). Male physiology, compared to women's, generally has a much shorter time duration in dealing with stress - the way of the primitive man.

Sure you can always argue: why are non-bald men unaffected? Is that answerable by saying: maybe they got the instincts that protect them? Or they acquired 'adaptations' that prevents baldness but can lead to other diseases?

Physiologists can, on the other hand, always argue for certain that no biochemical causes hair follicles to shrink and die or grow fast. Hair follicles simply survive with the most basic of organic nutrients in a petri dish even with DHT in it. What the above article (Futility) is saying is hair follicles are simply telling you that something is wrong our lifestyle but it's also saying that nothing is wrong with our biochemistry because it's acting the way it should and has been for a hundred million years. (Argue on this)

The one way to live today and fool male physiology into feeling or 'thinking' it's still lives in prehistoric times is to mimic primitive behaviors and that will likely make you look absurd and insane. But there are ways to do it without looking crazy by choosing the specifics. It's funny because some think they got it all figured out. If anyone thinks he can fix it with daily physical exercises, he is dead wrong.

You have to be a physiologists to know how to mimic those behaviors without looking absurd. The author showed how to do it to the minute (literally counting minutes) and it can't be told in one page.

(Please do not misconstrued my postings as that of someone presenting himself as an expert)

Very constructive review barefoot, but I am no petri dish. One can not take a group of chemicals out of their natural setting and expect them to behave the same. I'll also add to that, I don't think DHT just minituarizes hair follicles, its the calcifying / fibrosis factor that causes the damage - same reason why lowering DHT / raising T works wonders on heart patients.

As for merely looking for a biochemical cause, I am of mostly the same opinion as you, one of my favourite quotes - "Life has always been more of a process than a structure"

Take into consideration that anything that can engage the body in a negative way can cause the fight or flight hormones is a stressor as well.

Hey a<r,
Could you explain to me how fibrosis happens? What I understand fibrosis is scaring and I ask myself how scars without physical damage appear? DOes everybody with hairloss have fibrosis?

I'm not sure if I could absolutely explain the mechanism, I could speculate and ramble on for a while about it but that would be best left to those who understand the intricacies of the topic more ie CS and jdp.

Edit - I believe to answer your question would be to read over the IH homepage, and then dig into the calcification information. I believe systemic inflammation leads to more systemic inflammation which also leads to a boost in DHT - calcifying. If there's one thing I've learned from my often tenacious use of this site, it's that no process in the body or in nature is isolated or exclusive to itself. Which is why I'm convinced that there's no "one" cause for hairloss, it's a process. Which sort of makes nobody right or wrong, some people are just right in greater quantities than others.

Basically fibrosis, calcification, inflammation and shrinkening are the results of all the internal and external problems we have. Besides those 4, is there anything else that comes to mind?

Hi Barefoot, and Dmonitor, thanks for a helpful reply. There is food for thought in there.

best,
9r5

pancacke wrote:Basically fibrosis, calcification, inflammation and shrinkening are the results of all the internal and external problems we have. Besides those 4, is there anything else that comes to mind?

I'm not sure if one can really seperate those four things, and I can't think of anything else, besides finding the underlying cause in specific cases for why these things are happening.

actionAs for merely looking for a biochemical cause, I am of mostly the same opinion as you, one of my favourite quotes - "Life has always been more of a process than a structure"

I'm with you on that. Biological processes cease and biological matter begin to decay and turn to dust without life. It's even more mysterious than hair loss.

action... I am no petri dish. One can not take a group of chemicals out of their natural setting and expect them to behave the same. I'll also add to that, I don't think DHT just minituarizes hair follicles ...

Yes you're right, we are no petri dishes but I could swear I see it with my third eye when I look at bald heads ...
I sure hope someone can say for certain that DHT minituarizes hair follicles because even Propecia scientists can only speculate at this point which is why they used the word 'believe' to convince the medical community that they had it figured out. We know that in research, the word 'believe' is less than a theory. Source

As far as I think this forum can really say for sure, it seems that DHT causes calcification and fibrosis of soft tissues (scalp), this would explain why boosting Testosterone in older males with heart conditions (less DHT) can be so beneficial.
The calcification / fibrosis would be what kicks the hair follicles delicate little ass by cutting off blood flow / nutrient transport / causing inflammation / etc.
There's an over abundance of information about calcification on this site, try googling "immortal hair calcification".

action<reaction wrote:As far as I think this forum can really say for sure, it seems that DHT causes calcification and fibrosis of soft tissues (scalp)

Then why don't we experience fibrosis on other soft tissue, like on the penis etc.?

pancacke wrote:

action<reaction wrote:As far as I think this forum can really say for sure, it seems that DHT causes calcification and fibrosis of soft tissues (scalp)

Then why don't we experience fibrosis on other soft tissue, like on the penis etc.?

Same reason it seems logical that we have a horseshoe pattern, there's no bones in our dicks. The skin over those parts of our skull have much more flesh.

Edit - Don't take this as concrete truth, it just seems to be the most logical explanation I've found with the data we have. And besides, the amount of variables we're leaving out in this is profound, there's still a lot to take into consideration. The impact that DHT has on calcium has been well documented, in fact DHT was brought up as a possible treatment for osteoporosis in women if I remember correctly.

pancacke wrote:
Then why don't we experience fibrosis on other soft tissue, like on the penis etc.?

You can. Called peyronie's disease (curvature of the penis). Google search says 30% of those also develop fibrosis in other soft parts of body such as hands, etc..

Also, interestingly, insulin resistance makes one more susceptible to peyronie's disease.



Regarding DHT, believe there is an in vitro study showing this but the point being is that while DHT causes hair loss, doesn't mean that's the origin and also is an effect of what's going on rather than an actual cause.

jdp701 wrote:

pancacke wrote:
Then why don't we experience fibrosis on other soft tissue, like on the penis etc.?

You can. Called peyronie's disease (curvature of the penis). Google search says 30% of those also develop fibrosis in other soft parts of body such as hands, etc..

Also, interestingly, insulin resistance makes one more susceptible to peyronie's disease.



Regarding DHT, believe there is an in vitro study showing this but the point being is that while DHT causes hair loss, doesn't mean that's the origin and also is an effect of what's going on rather than an actual cause.

This is very interesting jdp, regarding peyronie's disease. Would you classify this as the effect of pathogens? In some quotes I have from you there's information regarding pathogens holding up in soft tissue such as the penis, scalp, etc.

Also for anybody reading the bold, I just want to stress that.

Same reason it seems logical that we have a horseshoe pattern, there's no bones in our dicks. The skin over those parts of our skull have much more flesh.

Actually, is there a way to reduce fibrosis in/on the penis topically aside from the internals we're already trying for hair loss? I don't think I'd want to put bromelain/papain on it, but you never know. (Seriously though, getting rid of fibrosis there would be a good bet)

Also, papain (papaya) has estrogen-like properties, so I wouldn't want that in that area in the bloodstream, and bromelain which is a "meat tenderizer" and papain would probably burn the sh*t out of it. Any ideas here though?

action<reaction wrote:Would you classify this as the effect of pathogens?
Also for anybody reading the bold, I just want to stress that.

Dunno if pathogens or the metals, both or what. Could always dig around in my notes but makes you wonder...

See the description in these two.

http://curezone.com/blogs/fm.asp?i=1527217#i
http://curezone.com/blogs/fm.asp?i=1583691

and

"The authors found that antibiotics used to treat various infections often were ineffective in the presence of abnormal localized deposits of heavy metals..."

http://www.curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i=1268709#i

Whip wrote:Actually, is there a way to reduce fibrosis in/on the penis topically aside from the internals we're already trying for hair loss?

50 50 of DMSO and SSKI (Iodide) is said to. One reason why topical iodine/iodide was experimented with.

Interstingly, David Wolfe in his video on ormus mentioned in previous video that was posted about topical m gold removing someone's calcium deposit on their face.

Very interesting post.

And that last quote really drives home the correlation between infections and metals.

mhmmm, could one have peyronies without noticing it, like could it be deep inside? Maybe fibrosis is not that common on the penis because there is a lot of circulation going on, which breaks up scar tissue!?

action<reaction wrote:
And that last quote really drives home the correlation between infections and metals.

And to further expand calcification/fibrosis as a way for body to keep the pathogens under control.

In other words, picture S Mitis eating away soft tissue as it would the soft tissue of knee. S Mitis further carries a biofilm along that a virus inhabits and when body can't get to it, body tries to trap virus via calcification/fibrosis.

Oversimplified but you get the idea.

jdp701 wrote:

action<reaction wrote:
And that last quote really drives home the correlation between infections and metals.

And to further expand calcification/fibrosis as a way for body to keep the pathogens under control.

In other words, picture S Mitis eating away soft tissue as it would the soft tissue of knee. S Mitis further carries a biofilm along that a virus inhabits and when body can't get to it, body tries to trap virus via calcification/fibrosis.

Oversimplified but you get the idea.

Definitely, thanks a ton jdp.

pancacke wrote:mhmmm, could one have peyronies without noticing it

Not 100% but don't think so.

Fibrosis isn't always visible. What we experience in our hair follicles is miniaturized scarring as a result of inflammation. This and calcification clogs up the follicle so that the hair shaft has very little space to push through, resulting in a thinner hair and eventually complete cessation of growth.

A<R,

BTW, note this important quote which is what I've said for a long time regarding uric acid and the pain that can be felt in some when they lightly move their hair with the hand...

and also the quote regarding IGF 1... important as it's needed for hair growth

"localized increase in uric acid levels"

"We found that all these areas contain Insulin-like Growth Factors I & II which are reduced in the presence of infection"

http://www.curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i=1268709#i

Also, note the quote on using Doxycycline finally working as Doxycycline has worked when treating hair loss.