This Guy Says He’s The First Person To Attempt Editing His Dna With Crispr

[Mage]

It's kind of like all those companies selling Ru for educational purposes, in reality everyone knows they're selling it so people can rub it into their head and gain some hair. Potentiallly this could at least save us a bunch of years of balding at the very minimum if this guy decides to help us out, just depends on how many emails he gets, someone should email him a link to this post and tell him to at least reply to us so we don't get our hopes up or anything.

It's also how companies got away with selling salt baths xD

 

[Keisi92]

It turns out, you can. You must simply stated that the kit is used for educational purposes only and not meant to treat or cure diseases. Doing trials on humans is illegal, doing them on yourself is an FDA loophole.

For those of you who have been emailing the guy - make sure you're using tracking code to know if he is opening them. Use polymail, nylas mail or a Gmail plugin. Or create a link, use Google's URL shortner and see if he clicks it.

Wait why is it a loophole? Doesnt he classify as a human?

 

[Keisi92]

Also does anyone even know the genes responsible for hair loss? I suppose there is more than one responsible and it would take who knows how much time to find them ? While this could work in theory I think we will have at least around 10 great options before a solution is arrived with this method.

 

[BaldyBalderBald]

Also does anyone even know the genes responsible for hair loss? I suppose there is more than one responsible and it would take who knows how much time to find them ? While this could work in theory I think we will have at least around 10 great options before a solution is areived with this method.

300 genetic markers have been already identified and potentially linked to baldness.Final list, if it ever comes, will be even longer.

300 genes that could contribute to male pattern baldness – most of which come from the X chromosome, good luck with that biohackers, editing that much genes they will end up looking like a Chronenberg, with hair tho

 

[Trichosan]

It might not be necessary to manipulate 300 genes but rather insert some sequence that codes for a protein which inhibits or is antagonist to Dht at the follicle level.

 

[Longway886]

Can some of the really clever members of the forum give their opinion on if they think this is achievable?

 

[Mage]

If I were to place my bet on some Gene - it would have to do with the ones responsible for cell regeneration. As we grow older, our cells have a harder time regenerating - which has also been linked to the immune system. My guess would be genes that promote that at the mitochondria level.

 

[MomoGee]

Does this DNA editing thing work for the penis? Uhm, asking for a friend.

 

[Mage]

Does this DNA editing thing work for the penis? Uhm, asking for a friend.

It should work for anything, really.

 

[SwissGuy]

Time to get some popcorn.

 

[Jonnyyy]

Has anybody gotten a response from this guy or even have their email opened by him?

 

[InBeforeTheCure]

Dude can you imagine a gene editing kit that you can buy for $200 that you inject and you are permanently cured of this illness? That's some next level sh*t.

That would be f*****g amazing. All you need is to sequence AR genes from someone with thick NW1, clip them with CRISPR, and then insert them into the virus for delivery. All of this has been done with other organisms, we would just need to do it with with a human gene which it sounds like this guy is doing on himself already.

That's the f*****g cure, none of this lifetime pill popping with adverse side effects.

This isn't a great approach. There are probably tens of thousands (maybe as much as 100,000) of genetic variants that contribute to A.G.A, in control of thousands of genes, with the vast majority having tiny effects. Most of the difference between fullheads and baldies is probably due to the aggregate effects of these minor variants. These have tiny effects, but there are so many of them (compared to the variants of large effects) that they add up. For all you know, the NW1 might have an AR region more conducive to balding than you do.

Better would be to insert a gene encoding a siRNA (small interfering RNA) against AR, expressed specifically in dermal papilla cells. This would prevent A.G.A in anyone.

If I were to place my bet on some Gene - it would have to do with the ones responsible for cell regeneration.

Sort of. More like hair regeneration, you could say.

As we grow older, our cells have a harder time regenerating - which has also been linked to the immune system.

Immune system genes aren't associated with A.G.A.

My guess would be genes that promote that at the mitochondria level.

Nope.

Does this DNA editing thing work for the penis? Uhm, asking for a friend.

Green fluorescent protein dick? Make it happen, Josiah.

 

[BaldyBalderBald]

Has anybody gotten a response from this guy or even have their email opened by him?

Lol, Johnny mate, calm down, don't count on this, like really...This would be used for genetic disorders most likely, they are hundreds of them

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders

They don't even started to think they might use it for Androgenetic Alopecia, this can take decades here...

 

[BaldyBalderBald]

The only guy who is working on it as we speak is apparently Dr. Chunyu Han

An article on HL2020 was written in May 2016
http://www.hairlosscure2020.com/a-c...w-genome-editing-technique-to-cure-hair-loss/

 

[moxsom]

This isn't a great approach. There are probably tens of thousands (maybe as much as 100,000) of genetic variants that contribute to A.G.A, in control of thousands of genes, with the vast majority having tiny effects. Most of the difference between fullheads and baldies is probably due to the aggregate effects of these minor variants. These have tiny effects, but there are so many of them (compared to the variants of large effects) that they add up. For all you know, the NW1 might have an AR region more conducive to balding than you do.

InBeforeTheCure is probably rightish here, although I don't think it's quite as high as you think. This latest study only found 250 variants that had association with hair loss, and some were MUCH more common than others

http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1006594#pgen.1006594.s010

Every genetic study that has been done Androgenetic Alopecia has implicated the area around the androgen receptor gene and EDA2R gene having the strongest effect.

There is a possibility to make a few small changes in your genome, however it would be person by person dependent. You'd need your entire genomes sequenced before you started doing any editing. What may be making me bald is not the same thing that may be making someone else bald.

 

[Jonnyyy]

Lol, Johnny mate, calm down, don't count on this, like really...This would be used for genetic disorders most likely, they are hundreds of them

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders

They don't even started to think they might use it for Androgenetic Alopecia, this can take decades here...

Androgenetic Alopecia is a genetic disorder..... and this would only take decades if the FDA starts to regulate it, sorry for trying to help get sh*t started.

 

[BaldyBalderBald]

Yes it is, but a cosmetic one.

And FDA will end up regulating it, you can't just tweak DNA without regulation.That's because it's an emerging technology that it's still badly regulated, but this is inevitable.

CRISPR/Cas9 is, as of today and no matter what this guy said in a BuzzFeed article, carcinogenic and with some serious potential risks.We'll see how this dude will end with his homemade reckless DNA experiments.

Good treatments are coming, more realistic ones, and are much closer than this futuristic tech.
Even saying this tech will be our cure in 5 years without any form of regulation is ridiculously optimistic.

I'm not trying to bring you down here, but the opposite.I've been lurking this forum, blogs like HL2020 and so on for more than 15 years now, jumping and falling from hype train with sh*t amounts of various cure promises.

You're still young, and watching you spending that much of energy, creating like 5 threads a week, and gather as much hope as you can on this.Well sh*t, this breaks my heart, i'm seeing myself here.

If i can avoid you frustration and disappointment, i feel like i must do it.

And don't get me wrong, this kind of technology could potentially lead to the final cure, but in how many years ? You could be grandpa by then.
I know this sh*t hurts, started balding at 15 in 2001, and f*** i was lucky some working treatments were already out, even if these are f*****g horrible.

Anyway, focus your mind on constructing your future life and your hope on current and relatively close upcoming treatments, like Follica, Tsuji, Seti, Fevi...

But this one...this is a chimera

 

[Mage]

Yes it is, but a cosmetic one.

And FDA will end up regulating it, you can't just tweak DNA without regulation.That's because it's an emerging technology that it's still badly regulated, but this is inevitable.

CRISPR/Cas9 is, as of today and no matter what this guy said in a BuzzFeed article, carcinogenic and with some serious potential risks.We'll see how this dude will end with his homemade reckless DNA experiments.

Good treatments are coming, more realistic ones, and are much closer than this futuristic tech.
Even saying this tech will be our cure in 5 years without any form of regulation is ridiculously optimistic.

I'm not trying to bring you down here, but the opposite.I've been lurking this forum, blogs like HL2020 and so on for more than 15 years now, jumping and falling from hype train with sh*t amounts of various cure promises.

You're still young, and watching you spending that much of energy, creating like 5 threads a week, and gather as much hope as you can on this.Well sh*t, this breaks my heart, i'm seeing myself here.

If i can avoid you frustration and disappointment, i feel like i must do it.

And don't get me wrong, this kind of technology could potentially lead to the final cure, but in how many years ? You could be grandpa by then.
I know this sh*t hurts, started balding at 15 in 2001, and f*** i was lucky some working treatments were already out, even if these are f*****g horrible.

Anyway, focus your mind on constructing your future life and your hope on current and relatively close upcoming treatments, like Follica, Tsuji, Seti, Fevi...

But this one...this is a chimera

I don't think anyone with half a brain there thought we would have a cure with this homemade kits. The article is interesting and a step into the future. Your view on DYI is a bit flawed though - we live in an age where information is available to any person and we no longer need to call handymen to fix any small thing, hire an expensive agency for a website and so on. Sure, things won't be perfect but the trade-off is reasonable, imo. I won't try the his kits until I see some results, but I'm definitely interested in buying them in the future.

 

[Jonnyyy]

Yes it is, but a cosmetic one.

And FDA will end up regulating it, you can't just tweak DNA without regulation.That's because it's an emerging technology that it's still badly regulated, but this is inevitable.

CRISPR/Cas9 is, as of today and no matter what this guy said in a BuzzFeed article, carcinogenic and with some serious potential risks.We'll see how this dude will end with his homemade reckless DNA experiments.

Good treatments are coming, more realistic ones, and are much closer than this futuristic tech.
Even saying this tech will be our cure in 5 years without any form of regulation is ridiculously optimistic.

I'm not trying to bring you down here, but the opposite.I've been lurking this forum, blogs like HL2020 and so on for more than 15 years now, jumping and falling from hype train with sh*t amounts of various cure promises.

You're still young, and watching you spending that much of energy, creating like 5 threads a week, and gather as much hope as you can on this.Well sh*t, this breaks my heart, i'm seeing myself here.

If i can avoid you frustration and disappointment, i feel like i must do it.

And don't get me wrong, this kind of technology could potentially lead to the final cure, but in how many years ? You could be grandpa by then.
I know this sh*t hurts, started balding at 15 in 2001, and f*** i was lucky some working treatments were already out, even if these are f*****g horrible.

Anyway, focus your mind on constructing your future life and your hope on current and relatively close upcoming treatments, like Follica, Tsuji, Seti, Fevi...

But this one...this is a chimera

Completely agree, I think this will be the cure for Androgenetic Alopecia but not anytime soon, was just thinking if this guy was smart enough he could maybe get rid of some of the bigger genes for hairloss and that could potentially slow the f*** out of our balding.

 

[InBeforeTheCure]

InBeforeTheCure is probably rightish here, although I don't think it's quite as high as you think. This latest study only found 250 variants that had association with hair loss, and some were MUCH more common than others

http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1006594#pgen.1006594.s010

Right, but those are only the SNPs that reached genome-wide significance in that particular study. Boyle, Yang, and Pritchard estimate that ~100,000 SNPs contribute to complex traits, but that most have tiny effects and escape detection.

Strikingly, we find clear enrichment of shared directional signal for most SNPs, even for SNPs with p values as large as 0.5 (Figure 1C). Across all SNPs genome-wide, the median SNP is associated with an effect size of 0.14 mm, which is approximately one-tenth the median effect size of genome-wide significant SNPs (1.43 mm). We also obtained similar results starting from a smaller family-based GWAS, confirming that the signals are not driven by confounding from population structure (Supplemental Information). Putting the various lines of evidence together, we estimate that more than 100,000 SNPs exert independent causal effects on height, similar to an early estimate of 93,000 causal variants based on a different approach (Supplemental Information).

In summary, we conclude that there is an extremely large number of causal variants with tiny effect sizes on height and, moreover, that these are spread very widely across the genome, such that most 100-kb windows contribute to variance in height. More generally, the heritability of complex traits and diseases is spread broadly across the genome (Loh et al., 2015, Shi et al., 2016), implying that a substantial fraction of all genes contribute to variation in disease risk. These observations seem inconsistent with the expectation that complex trait variants are primarily in specific biologically relevant genes and pathways. To explore this further, we turn next to data on functional enrichment of signals.

So there could be loads of SNPs with odds ratios like 1.002 contributing to A.G.A heritability, but Hagenaars et al. didn't have the power to go below ~1.03 with "only" 52,000 people.

Every genetic study that has been done Androgenetic Alopecia has implicated the area around the androgen receptor gene and EDA2R gene having the strongest effect.

In terms of p-value that's always true (at least in Europeans, since the risk allele for the top hit near AR is fixed in East Asians). In terms of effect size, that's usually true as well, but the largest effect sizes in Hagenaars et al.'s dataset were in rare variants around RSPO2 on Chromosome 8, with ORs up to 6.12 reaching genome-wide significance.

(I added the p < 5e-8?, |Beta|, and OR columns into the summary data)

The region around AR on the X chromosome goes up to 1.79.

Variants around the SRD5A2 (5-alpha reductase type II) gene on Chr2 aren't far behind AR.

But the comparison between the AR and RSPO2 or SRD5A2 regions isn't fair, since they didn't have imputed data for the X chromosome. Maybe AR would win in OR too with imputed data...And those rare variants must have huge error bars as well.

There is a possibility to make a few small changes in your genome, however it would be person by person dependent. You'd need your entire genomes sequenced before you started doing any editing. What may be making me bald is not the same thing that may be making someone else bald.

What would be the advantage in doing that instead of silencing AR totally in scalp dermal papilla cells?

And another question: Do you think individual genome sequencing and editing might help with reversal and not just maintenance?