Balding Blog

Snippet from the non-hair-loss article:

A quarter of doctors who know that a colleague is underperforming or incompetent do not sound the alarm, a confidential survey reveals. They fear retribution, believe that no action would be taken, or assume that someone else is dealing with the problem.

Martin Roland of the University of Cambridge and colleagues confidentially surveyed 3000 US and UK doctors in 2009. The results suggested that almost 1 in 5 doctors had direct experience of an incompetent or poorly performing colleague in the previous three years.

Read the rest — Doctors fail to report incompetent colleagues

In the March 12, 2011 issue of New Scientist, the journal quoted a University of Cambridge survey of 3000 US and UK physicians regarding their feelings about the competence of their colleagues. Poor performing colleagues who create errors in patient care reflected an alarming 21% of practitioners in the US and 13% in the UK!

I suspect that these numbers are far worse in fields of medicine like hair restoration, because of the absence of peer review of the activities of these doctors. I could name names, but because of the legal system in the US there is no protection against slander lawsuits lodged against me… so instead I speak loudly about the problem and report to the medical boards those physicians who I know are involved in illegal and immoral acts against patients.

Snippet from the article:

Scientists have unlocked the entire genetic code of two of the most common cancers – skin and lung – a move they say could revolutionise cancer care. Not only will the cancer maps pave the way for blood tests to spot tumours far earlier, they will also yield new drug targets, says the Wellcome Trust team.

Scientists around the globe are now working to catalogue all the genes that go wrong in many types of human cancer. The UK is looking at breast cancer, Japan at liver and India at mouth. China is studying stomach cancer, and the US is looking at cancers of the brain, ovary and pancreas.

Read the full article at the BBC

This is a huge breakthrough in understanding cancer and how to treat it! While this article is not about hair loss, the importance of their research deserves a highlight here as it is far greater than anything we could ever do with saving someone’s hair.

Snippet from the non-hair-loss-related article:

Human mesenchymal stem cells (hMSCs) have become a popular potential therapy for numerous autoimmune and neurological disorders. But while these bone marrow-derived stem cells have been studied in great detail in the dish, scientists know little about how they modulate the immune system and promote tissue repair in living organisms.

Now, one research team has uncovered a molecular mechanism by which hMSCs promote recovery in a mouse model of multiple sclerosis (MS).

According to research, published online Sunday (May 20) in Nature Neuroscience, a growth factor produced by hMSCs fights MS in two ways: blocking a destructive autoimmune response and repairing neuronal damage. The finding could help advance ongoing clinical trials testing hMSCs as a therapy for MS.

Read the rest at The Scientist — Could Stem Cells Cure MS?

Multiple sclerosis is an autoimmune disease that affects the brain and central nervous system, with millions of sufferers all over the world. I know this post isn’t hair-related, but regular visitors to this site know that I like to post interesting general health news/opinion.

Snippet from the non-hair-loss-related-but-still-impotant article:

Prostate cancer screening has become increasingly polarized, with experts weighing in on both sides of the equation. The draft recommendation issued by the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) in October 2011 ignited the controversy — like pouring gasoline into the fire.

Now 2 experts with opposing views on the USPTF recommendation offer evidence for and against routine screening with the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test. The point–counterpoint appears in the March issue of Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention.

The USPTF draft recommendation advised against routine screening with the PSA test, as reported at the time by Medscape Medical News. The USPTF had previously recommended against routine PSA screening in men older than 75 years, but the draft extends that to all men. It gives routine screening in men younger than 75 years a “D” rating, which means “there is moderate or high certainty that the service has no benefit or that the harms outweigh the benefits.”

Read the rest — PSA Testing Continues to Polarize Medical Community

I know this isn’t a hair loss related entry, but it is an important issue I wanted to discuss. So what is this all about? In patients with prostate cancer, a protein (PSA – prostate specific antigen) is found in the blood. It is a cancer marker and like many cancer markers that are detected early (like in a pap test for cervical cancer) their presence means that the person who has tested positive, has cancer of that particular organ.

It has always been a goal to try to detect cancer early enough to produce a cure; however, it is thought that some breast cancers and now even the prostate cancers may never grow enough to be life threatening. If a woman has an in-situ breast cancer that will never grow (can be detected in about 10% of women who were autopsied) or potentially threaten her life, should the breast come off if it is present? That is the question.

For the prostate, even if the cancer grows as the PSA blood test indicates that it does (and biopsies often confirm its presence), is the treatment worse than the disease? Few patients with known prostate cancer ever die from the disease, as they usually die from other diseases like stroke and heart disease. If a man undergoes a prostate surgery, or radiation therapy, or other radical treatments to treat the prostate, their quality of life is often impacted by urinary and fecal incontinence (having to wear diapers for the rest of their lives), have chronic pain from surgery, lose their sexual capability, have their testicles taken off, etc.

The men who have extensively researched treatments for their prostate cancer easily get confused by the various doctors and their prejudices for treating the disease. The surgeons wanted to take out the prostate, the radiation therapist wanted to radiate the prostate, and so on. The medical community is “up in the air” on what to do to manage the wide differences between opinions of experts worldwide.

Now to add more confusion to the discussion, some small percentage of patients do die from prostate cancer, and when the disease spreads to the bones, there could be severe pain associated with the metastasis; but the problem is that today’s doctors do not know which patients with known elevated PSA tests will develop the virulent metastatic “killer” prostate disease. The decisions for the patient are like playing Russian roulette with the quality of what remains of their life.

Clearly, some people know how to exploit balding in the Hollywood setting. The San Francisco Chronicle looks into actors that are shaving their heads for movie roles, instead of going with the naturally bald actors. From the article:

Timothy Olyphant plays Agent 47, the bald assassin in the new action movie “Hitman.” The controversy? Why have the well-coiffed Olyphant shave his head when there are so many bald actors who are perfect for the role?

Full article — Hairless fakers, take note. Bald is in charge.