wmartin@brl-vgr.UUCP (04/25/84)
How about a discussion on a topic close to the heart (or head) of every male -- baldness? Since there seem to be some medically-knowledgeable people reading this, maybe we can get the answers to some questions on the subject. The general treatment of the subject in the popular medical press (doctor's columns in newspapers, etc.) usually says that male pattern baldness is an inherited condition, and that none of the rip-off treatments will work, except transplantation, and that is both painful and expensive. That's where the coverage usually stops. What I have never seen (and don't even know where to look up!) is a discussion of the MECHANISM of balding. Something causes hair on your head to fall out, and no new hair to replace it. What is that? There must be something unique about the scalp which treats hair differently because of its location, or the hair follicles themselves are different in this area. For example, I have hair on my arms. It grows to about 1 centimeter long and either stops growing or falls out and another takes its place. Why is this hair different from the hair on my head? (That is, what is the FUNCTIONAL difference, maybe traceable through evolutionary development from a pelt?) And HOW is this hair different? What causes the hair to either stop growing or fall out after it reaches a certain average length (and which is it -- stop or fall)? Does the hair on my head have a similar length limit, but one that is much longer? (I noticed that, in school, when I didn't get haircuts for a year, my hair never did get very long, though fellow students had hair below their shoulders (or waists).) Or does it really grow indefinitely? Does hair slow its growth as it lengthens? What is the function of the oil glands (or whatever they are) in the scalp? Body hair seems to get along fine without such glands (or with many fewer), so why are they there, aside to make money for the shampoo manufacturers? This leads me into postulating a theory about baldness which may be a great insight or may be total nonsense; I don't recall ever seeing this anywhere else. Let me draw a parallel with leprosy. [A bit extreme you say? -- Read on...] As I recall this, it was long believed that the loss of extremities (fingers, toes, etc.) in cases of leprosy (or Hansen's Disease, to use the modern term) was caused by the disease itself. It was later discovered that this was NOT the case; leprosy caused a loss of sensations in these extremities, and, not feeling any pain, normal use caused enough wear-and-tear on these parts of the body that they became damaged, necrotic, and wore off or broke off. When lepers took special precautions to protect their extremities from damage, they remained healthy and usable tissue. I contend that baldness may be caused the same way. I have long noticed that the areas of my scalp that are going bald are those with the greatest irritation -- itching, tiny skin lesions or infections, etc. The normal thing is to scratch those areas, wash and scrub them intensively, and otherwise make contact with and abrade these regions. This will cause hair to break off or be pulled out. Thus, the prior ill condition of the skin in those parts of the scalp leads to baldness in the same areas. Once the area has gone bald, the irritation dwindles and vanishes there, but has moved to coincide with the new hairline. This process waxes and wanes over time, but inexorably over the years causes the receeding hairline. What I am not sure about is what causes the hair to fail to grow back after being removed (involuntarily) in these areas. It may be that the same internal malaise which is producing the skin irritation is having a deadening effect on the hair follicles. If the irritation could be eliminated without removing the hair, the existing hair would remain indefinitely (how long is a hair's "lifetime", anyway?). But, once normal activity pulls out or breaks off the existing hair, the follicle has been weakened or killed, and cannot produce a replacement. Thus baldness could be prevented by keeping the internal illness which is affecting the scalp skin from beginning in the first place. This wouldn't help reverse existing baldness, as the ill effect has already marched across the skin in the bald area and killed or incapacitated the follicles. I would appreciate medical comment on this theory. Has it been expressed previously in the medical journals or texts? Has it been supported or disproven by research? Also a related query -- we have long read of habituation or dependence on various chemicals or drugs due to long use; nasal sprays and laxatives are often cited in such cases. If the individual uses these constantly, their natural processes deteriorate, and they must use these aids to maintain normal functioning of the affected systems. Would this apply also to medicated shampoos? If you constantly use an anti-dandruff shampoo, will the internal bodily process that would keep excessive dandruff and scalp conditions in check stop working, and you will be forced to continue using the medicated shampoo to avoid a more severe case of scalp trouble than you would have had if you had never used the treatment? Will
darrelj@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Darrel VanBuer) (04/27/84)
The length of hair is limited by falling out and replacement by a new
hair. (I can directly observe this because I have a waxed mustache; this
artificially restricts the fallout to grooming activity. A rough
approximation is a hair lifetime of a year by which time length is about two
inches). I don't know whether the maxiximum length is modulated by changes
in lifetime or in growth rate or both over different parts of the body.
--
Darrel J. Van Buer, PhD
System Development Corp.
2500 Colorado Ave
Santa Monica, CA 90406
(213)820-4111 x5449
...{allegra,burdvax,cbosgd,hplabs,ihnp4,sdccsu3,trw-unix}!sdcrdcf!darrelj
VANBUER@USC-ECL.ARPAlute@abnjh.UUCP (J. Collymore) (04/27/84)
A few months ago, I saw on tv an evening news segment that showed a current study to see if baldness can be reversed by medication. It seems there was a medicine (for internal use) that hadn't been too successful in treating some malady. However, researchers found out (by accident, I think) that when applied externally, it promoted significant hair growth. It had been tested on monkeys, and now has attracted a large number of human volunteers who suffer from baldness. It seems to be working well so far in the early studies. Are there any net users from the medical community that could shed some more light on this current study? Jim Collymore
gek@ihuxj.UUCP (Glenn Kapetansky) (04/28/84)
Ok, so taking this stuff internally seems to promote hair growth.
But who needs hair in their intestines?
--
glenn kapetansky
"If I only had a brain"
...ihnp4!ihu1j!gek dyer@wivax.UUCP (Stephen Dyer) (04/28/84)
The drug in question is a high blood pressure medication called minoxidil. It has the unfortunate side effect in many patients, including women, of increased hair growth, often in a "wolfman" pattern. This is what is being used topically in the tests by Upjohn. As far as I can see, they are being quite hush-hush about the experiments and its results. I haven't heard any leaks which say that it is working well, but I have my own hopes because pattern baldness hit me pretty early. -- /Steve Dyer decvax!bbncca!sdyer sdyer@bbncca
ron@brl-vgr.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (05/02/84)
The drug (I don't recall the name either) was a treatment for hypertension and was causing hair to grow is some rather unusual places on people who were taking it. It can be taken orally or applied topically. There is a study going on where a controlled experiment is being conducted on humans. Early results show that it is working. -Ron