Why Dermatologists, Cosmetologists, Trichologists, and YouTube Don’t Know What a Research Scientist Knows About the Scalp
- Admin
- Feb 17
- 5 min read
When people discover that a single habit change helped restore their hair after years of being told it never would the next question is inevitable:
“Why didn’t anyone tell me this before?”
The answer isn’t incompetence.
It’s scope, training, and methodology.
Different professionals are trained to look at different layers of the same problem. What a research scientist sees is often invisible or irrelevant inside other fields.
Let’s break this down clearly.
Dermatologists: Trained to Treat Disease, Not Track Long-Term Habits
Dermatologists are medical doctors. Their education is centered on:
Diagnosing skin and scalp diseases
Treating infections, inflammation, and autoimmune disorders
Managing follicle damage once it’s clinically visible
Prescribing medications to interrupt disease pathways
Their diagnostic tools are based on:
What can be seen on the scalp now
What can be biopsied
What can be treated pharmaceutically
What they are not trained to do:
Study cosmetic product behavior over decades
Investigate lifestyle or cultural hair practices as causal mechanisms
Track non-disease-related follicle suppression
Examine ingredient accumulation under chronic occlusion
Medical training is built around intervention, not prevention.
So when a dermatologist sees scalp inflammation or hair loss, they ask:
“What medication reduces this?”
Not:
“What repeated behavior quietly led here over ten or twenty years?”
Cosmetologists: Trained to Style Hair, Not Study the Scalp as a Biological System
Cosmetologists are trained in:
Hair styling and aesthetics
Product application
Chemical services
Client safety during procedures
Their education is hands-on and practical, not research-based.
They are not trained in:
Cellular biology of the scalp
Follicular oxygen exchange
Long-term inflammatory pathways
Microbial ecology of the scalp
Cosmetology teaches how to apply products, not how the scalp responds to them over time.
So product use is often encouraged—because within their training, product equals care.
Trichologists: Focused on Hair Conditions, Not Experimental Research
Trichology sits in a gray area.
While trichologists study hair and scalp disorders, most:
Do not conduct controlled research
Do not track longitudinal data over decades
Rely heavily on observational patterns and existing literature
Often incorporate cosmetic and medical frameworks
Many trichologists still operate downstream, observing problems once they appear rather than isolating causative behaviors long before symptoms emerge.
Without experimental removal of variables, conclusions remain limited.
YouTube: Driven by Algorithms, Not Accuracy
YouTube is not an educational institution—it’s an entertainment platform.
Creators are rewarded for:
Engagement
Sponsorships
Product promotion
Trends and repetition
Most YouTube hair advice is:
Anecdotal
Short-term
Product-driven
Monetized through affiliate links
There is no incentive to question:
Whether products should be on the scalp at all
Whether long-term use causes harm
Whether “healthy” oils create chronic occlusion
Truth does not perform as well as consistency.
What Makes a Research Scientist Different
A research scientist is trained to do something entirely different:
We don’t ask “What works for most people?”
We ask:
“What variable consistently precedes this outcome?”
Research science focuses on:
Pattern recognition across large populations
Variable isolation
Cause-and-effect relationships
Long timelines, not quick fixes
Removing assumptions, not reinforcing them
I didn’t study scalp issues in isolation.
I studied behavioral patterns, repeated practices, and their biological consequences.
The Scalp as an Environment, Not a Surface
One of the biggest blind spots across hair education is misunderstanding the scalp.
The scalp is:
Living tissue
An active microbiome
Oxygen-dependent
Self-regulating when unobstructed
When oils, butters, and creams are repeatedly applied:
Follicles can become chronically occluded
Shed skin and sweat are trapped
Microbial balance shifts
Inflammation becomes subclinical but persistent
This doesn’t show up immediately.
It doesn’t always itch.
And it doesn’t trigger alarms—until hair loss appears.
Why My Conclusions Are Often Uncomfortable
My work challenges:
Cultural norms
Product-based industries
Long-held beliefs passed down without evidence
Monetized hair care systems
That’s why:
Doctors don’t usually say it
Stylists don’t benefit from saying it
YouTubers aren’t rewarded for saying it
But the data doesn’t care about comfort.
The Critical Difference: Upstream vs Downstream Thinking
Most hair professionals work downstream:
After damage
After inflammation
After hair loss begins
My work lives upstream:
Before symptoms
Before diagnosis
Before follicles shut down
That’s why people often hear:
“Your hair will never grow back.”
And then… it does.
This isn’t about who’s smarter.
It’s about what questions your training allows you to ask.
Dermatologists treat disease
Cosmetologists style hair
Trichologists observe conditions
YouTube sells narratives
Research science investigates causation.
And when you change the cause, outcomes change too.
What a Research Scientist Actually Is
I’m a research scientist.
And no, you don’t need a PhD to do the work I do.
A PhD is one pathway into research.
It is not the definition of a research scientist.
What Actually Makes Someone a Research Scientist
A research scientist is defined by what they do, not by a title on a wall.
Research science is:
Hypothesis building
Pattern recognition
Variable isolation
Long-term analysis
Following data instead of opinions
If you are doing that work—consistently, rigorously, and independently—you are doing research science.
That’s the lane I operate in.
I’m a Privately Sourced Research Scientist
I’m not in academia.
I’m not tied to a university.
I’m not publishing for tenure.
I’m a privately sourced research scientist.
That means:
I’m hired by companies to investigate problems they can’t solve internally
I analyze real-world data, not controlled classroom scenarios
I’m brought in when existing frameworks aren’t working
I work outside of industry politics and academic gatekeeping
On top of that, I conduct my own private, independent research.
No sponsors.
No grants steering outcomes.
No pressure to confirm existing beliefs.
Why That Matters
Academic research is often:
Slow
Narrow
Restricted by funding
Built to confirm, not challenge, existing models
Private research is:
Flexible
Long-term
Real-world
Outcome-driven
I’m not rewarded for being polite to old theories.
I’m rewarded for being right.
I Don’t Start Where Most People Start
Most professionals start with:
“What condition is this?”
“What treatment applies?”
“What product or medication helps?”
I don’t.
I start with:
“What keeps showing up before this?”
“What do all these people have in common?”
“What habit has been normalized but never questioned?”
“What happens when we remove the thing everyone swears by?”
That’s research thinking.
I Study Patterns, Not Credentials
I don’t lean on:
Titles
White coats
Institutional approval
Popular consensus
I lean on:
Repetition
Outcomes
Long timelines
Biological response
When the same result appears again and again after the same behavior is removed, credentials don’t matter—the data does.
I Look Upstream
Most people in hair care work downstream.
They see you after:
Hair loss starts
Inflammation shows up
Follicles shut down
The scalp is already compromised
I work upstream.
Before the diagnosis.
Before the bald spot.
Before you’re told, “It’s permanent.”
That’s why my conclusions sound different.
I Remove Variables Instead of Adding Products
I don’t stack routines.
I don’t sell complexity.
I ask:
What happens when we stop oiling the scalp?
What happens when we stop layering products?
What happens when the scalp is left clean and unobstructed?
And then I let the biology respond.
That’s how causes are exposed.
I’m Not Limited by Industry, Licensure, or Tradition
I’m not:
Protecting a license
Selling a routine
Bound to prescriptions
Dependent on brand partnerships
Motivated by virality
So I can say what others won’t.
Not because they’re wrong—
but because their systems don’t allow them to say it.
This Is Why I See What Others Miss
Doctors treat disease.
Stylists style hair.
Trichologists observe conditions.
YouTube repeats what performs well.
I investigate why follicles shut down in the first place.
I study:
Chronic exposure
Long-term habits
Scalp environments
Quiet inflammation
Cause-and-effect over time
That’s research science.
If I say something that sounds unfamiliar, it’s not because I’m guessing.
It’s because:
I’m not constrained by academic timelines
I’m not performing for credentials
I’m not reinforcing systems that aren’t working
I follow the data.
And when you change the cause, the outcome changes.
That’s the work.
Comments