Cnn - Cotsarelis And Christiano Interview 10/18

[Grasshüpfer]

I wish Tsuji would just implant a single germ into some bald guy to finally check the ( ) human and ( ) in vivo boxes off.
Even if its bald human skin on a mural with dead follicles, probably the mural still manages to grow hair, just because anything grows hair on them.

 

[Swoop]

Someone mentioned that study once within the context of a completely invalid argument. Of course he got destroyed by swooplol. However my question: Is the study actually good science? I can t believe that nobody ever tried to reproduce something similar.

Well, yeah that study is actually pretty interesting and I fully agree with you that it should at least have been reproduced already.

There are two people who did that experiment many years back, Van Neste and Orentreich. Van Neste did not note that miniaturized hair follicles grew back when transplanted upon mice. But Orentreich did notice that they grew back.

Orentreich did use vellus hair that were approximately 30-40um in diameter so these ain't exactly hardcore miniaturized hair follicles.

Also what I had thought of is that Orentreich used only female mice. These mice have pretty high estrogen levels (higher than a human male, I have searched for that once lol) and very low testosterone levels.

The reversal in Orentreich his study was in one cycle literally. That's interesting but there is some support for that in humans as well for instance simply by using finasteride(1).

Evidence is presented to support a new concept that miniaturization is an abrupt, large-step process that also can be reversed in 1 hair cycle, as has been shown clinically, with confirmatory histologic evidence, in patients with pattern hair loss responding to finasteride treatment

Anyway even then it's highly unlikely in my opinion that since Orentreich used both human hair follicles from a woman and men the altered hormonal environment of mice would make such rapid reversal happen in these miniaturized human hair follicles.

In my opinion that study indicates that mice might have some factor in their biological nature that might contribute to this or make this happen. This might mean that we simply haven't found that factor yet and that the possibility exists of a very good growth agent that might rapidly reverse vellus hair follicles to terminal ones. And the study you just have shown is relates to this too.

However it doesn't exactly refute that Androgenetic Alopecia is irreversible at a certain timepoint. Still a very interesting study yeah.

It's true that we simply know very little and that we need better models though. Especially in terms of drug testing. Think about minoxidil for instance. Even after extensive testing we still don't know how it works. @Noisette, found a nice study which is recent from Dr. Lauster who developed a better model for hair follicle research. You know if we for instance knew how minoxidil would exactly work we could maybe develop a more selective drug and have a damn good hair growth agent... As I may quote Dr Lauster his study.;

Despite the intensive research over the past 20 years, our understanding on minoxidil’s mechanism of action remains limited, particularly using ex vivo/in vitro hair follicle-models. However, experimental and clinical results have pointed out minoxidil’s contribution to hair growth, such as the effects on cell growth and senescence.

...........................................................
............................................................

The results indicate, that the MF is a promising tool as a preclinical model to predict personalized response, as well as to assess the hair growth potential of new technologies in human hair follicle.

L'oreal is also busy with a better model now.

Nonetheless I think Androgenetic Alopecia at a certain timepoint reflects a irreversible state anyway. I believe creating new hair follicles is really the way to go. Make use of these healthy cells at the back of our head. Let these cells do the job in their own extreme complex language to create a new hair follicle. No worries anymore of DHT pounding on the hair follicles either.

But JAK inhibitors, they really ain't going to work. As much as I would like them too.

 

[Armando Jose]

Mice models are not the best to investigate scalp human hair. Asynchronicity does'nt exit in them. Only primates and pig are more similar to us.

 

[Takeela370]

So be a man and just admit you are the average example of a hair loss sufferer; very desperate and gullible. I have seen you on hairsite, you are a pretty old member aren't you? God time flies fast, huh?

Wow baby doesn't like it when someone makes a point that goes against his own....

But since you asked.

I would admit that but I'm not. I'm sitting at a NW1.5 am on very low dose finasteride and minoxidil and have great results from it, can't even tell I have Androgenetic Alopecia. (But I wouldn't mind getting off finasteride and getting more regrow th, who wouldn't ) I'm in a DDS program. Which means I'll have a doctorate. So I'm not desperate or gullible. I just hate it when people spew bro science as fact and claim it to be truth, then when someone makes a point against them they throw a temper teantum like a baby all while demanding the other poster "be a man".

Hit the gym and tanning bed harder, bc you're obviously not going to work on your emotional or intellectual issues.

And again, as I've mentioned in every post, since we've seen pictures of people with AA that took JAK inhibitors growing hair in Androgenetic Alopecia pattern it doesn't look great. I don't think this is a cure. I DO think it could have synergy with other treatments. Until the clinical trials are performed no one knows though. (And yes I keep harping on this last bit bc it's ACTUALLY a FACT.)

 

[hairblues]

this thread is becoming useless and its getting insulting to all the members that want to follow this for accurate information maybe make another off topic thread to keep debating the subject.

 

[FoucaultII]

Someone with an ab pic just got destroyed.
At least, his keratinocytes are nourished by the air. That's something, isn't it?

 

[Swoop]

@Takeela370,

Weren't you the one that went into the AA forum to search if people with Androgenetic Alopecia had regrowth through hundreds of pages? Do you know how stupid that was? What did you expect, that they would regrow their hair? Deluded. You didn't have to search for that, you could have known that many years ago. Literally many years ago. I admire the effort though, but it's pretty damn dumb to search for that.

You can't refute any of my points while I did refute the statement of the CEO and did indeed show that tofacitinib exerts it's biological activity at the epidermis. That's all I need to know. Drugs have a certain way of working and If I can evaluate whether tofactinib saturates JAK3 enzyme orally at the hair follicle then I know enough; a topical won't work. Period. And it has been shown that tofactinib works at the epidermis which is non-vascularized. Perhaps you should do a bit of reading about pharmacology & pharmacokinetics.

Furthermore seeing from your posts you certainly don't display to have any knowledge of even basic hair follicle biology at all. Your post a week back where you posted showed incoherent rambling at best. There are countless people on this forum alone who I can name who have way better knowledge as you.

Your best argument is basically this: "yo guys you know we don't actually know if it won't work because it has never been tested!

I'll give you that though Takeela. You are right. Maybe we should do a clinical trial of platypus piss and elephant sh*t in a topical. After all it hasn't been tested dude! How do you know it won't work with 100%?

Lmao.

 

[hairblues]

Someone with an ab pic just got destroyed.
At least, his keratinocytes are nourished by the air. That's something, isn't it?

I actually like his @Swoop abs he's got them let him flaunt them and he's not getting destroy because truth?
he does not really care if you go back and read this on going thing he is not emotionally invested in this..he has an opinion he has his facts to why he has this opinion but you all keep calling him out. called him sexist..where did he say anything sexist?

you all keep calling him out on it and its depressing to follow this thread.

just let it go.

 

[Swoop]

I actually like his @Swoop abs he's got them let him flaunt them and he's not getting destroy because truth?
he does not really care if you go back and read this on going thing he is not emotionally invested in this..he has an opinion he has his facts to why he has this opinion but you all keep calling him out. called him sexist..where did he say anything sexist?

Well thank you that's always nice to hear from a women. Many women like it through the feedback I get, so that's good.

Anyway it becomes more of ego stroking to me now, when debating these guys. I'll stop now.

I do want to say one last thing though. Look you are new. I have been here since 5 years already. What's depressing is that I wish I could say: "Damn this is real good research and his real potential".

This hasn't happened for the last years, but luckily we see huge progression lately. Two things;

1. Huge interest finally towards those dear hair follicles recently (probably due to companies/people seeing $$$, hair transplant market is growing at a rapid rate).

2. Exciting other therapies that even go beyond having "hope" but have real potential towards a real cure like Dr. Tsuji his method.

But this JAK efforts reminds me of pure sh*t. All in all like you said they are going to do JAK sh*t. Luckily we got exciting stuff on the horizon.

 

[hairblues]

Well thank you that's always nice to hear from a women. Many women like it through the feedback I get, so that's good.

Anyway it becomes more of ego stroking to me now, when debating these guys. I'll stop now.

I do want to say one last thing though. Look you are new. I have been here since 5 years already. What's depressing is that I wish I could say: "Damn this is real good research and his real potential".

This hasn't happened for the last years, but luckily we see huge progression lately. Two things;

1. Huge interest finally towards those dear hair follicles recently (probably due to companies/people seeing $$$, hair transplant market is growing at a rapid rate).

2. Exciting other therapies that even go beyond having "hope" but have real potential towards a real cure like Dr. Tsuji his method.

But this JAK efforts reminds me of pure sh*t. All in all like you said they are going to do JAK sh*t. Luckily we got exciting stuff on the horizon.

I mean they are great for AA (which until this week i though i had i have Androgenetic Alopecia)

And the AA treatments are horrible so if they can make this topical work for AA its awesome.

But if its works also for Androgenetic Alopecia great! but i am not holding my breadth.

I just dont understand why this guy (dont know how tag) keeps calling you out its weird he's done i think on several threads..Not referring to everyone you know who i mean.

 

[Swoop]

just dont understand why this guy (dont know how tag) keeps calling you out its weird he's done i think on several threads..Not referring to everyone you know who i mean.

If you want to tag someone you place a @ before his name.

You mean that Foucaltll guy? Yeah, he's probably banned soon. Just a guy who comes in threads to troll other people.

 

[FoucaultII]

If you want to tag someone you place a @ before his name.

You mean that Foucaltll guy? Yeah, he's probably banned soon. Just a guy who comes in threads to troll other people.

Oh, really, why am I a troll? Because you don't like what I say or the way I say it?
It's not me who claimed that keratinocytes are nourished by the atmosphere. Just accept your mistake and let's move on.

 

[Swoop]

Oh, really, why am I a troll? Because you don't like what I say or the way I say it?
It's not me who claimed that keratinocytes are nourished by the atmosphere. Just accept your mistake and let's move on.

I never claimed that. I quoted that from a study. I said that the epidermis isn't vascularized and that is the truth. And you'll get the ban because you just consistently troll on this forum. I have seen it in other topics too towards other people. Apparently I'm not the only one who has seen this. Now hush.

 

[TJT]

Nonetheless I think Androgenetic Alopecia at a certain timepoint reflects a irreversible state anyway. I believe creating new hair follicles is really the way to go. Make use of these healthy cells at the back of our head. Let these cells do the job in their own extreme complex language to create a new hair follicle. No worries anymore of DHT pounding on the hair follicles either.

I have a question for you on this Swoop.
I have DPA and I noticed that if I don't wash my hair for a day or more, the portion that is subject to hair loss becomes much more oily than the portion that is immune. Why is that? I mean, is there something inherently more damaging to hair secreted in the portion of the scalp that is subject to hair loss? The oiliness seems to go hand in hand with hair loss. I mean, the concensus is that the hair follicles themselves in the immune portion are resistant to DHT, and the rest of the follicles are sensitive to DHT, but if that's all there is to it, then why is the oil production of the skin in the portion subject to hair loss different than in the immune portion?

 

[Beowulf]

No. It will probably only help with some inflammatory factors in the scalp. It will also probably help against the itch some people have. It will not cause any cosmetically viable regrowth however. That means that it simply will never proceed to being a commercial treatment. Like I said this endeavor is more of a joke than anything.

Oh well, there are probably better anti-inflammatory drugs anyway, I've been getting good results with glucocorticoids.

Nonetheless I think Androgenetic Alopecia at a certain timepoint reflects a irreversible state anyway. I believe creating new hair follicles is really the way to go. Make use of these healthy cells at the back of our head. Let these cells do the job in their own extreme complex language to create a new hair follicle. No worries anymore of DHT pounding on the hair follicles either.

It definitely seems the most realistic at the moment. Hair transplant surgeons win (until they hopefully get automated), cures every type of hair loss regardless of cause, and it's even handy if you don't have hair loss since you can move your hairline or thicken your hair up. I guess for those of us in the early stages of balding we could go get a hair check to see what our final hair pattern will look like, get lazer treatment to destroy all the hairs that have yet to fall out and then replace them with clonicles in one long expensive and painful trip.

Or you know, get your hairline done and then just keep coming back as the rest slowly falls out but that sound so cumbersome and expensive.

 

[Swoop]

I have a question for you on this Swoop.
I have DPA and I noticed that if I don't wash my hair for a day or more, the portion that is subject to hair loss becomes much more oily than the portion that is immune. Why is that? I mean, is there something inherently more damaging to hair secreted in the portion of the scalp that is subject to hair loss? The oiliness seems to go hand in hand with hair loss. I mean, the concensus is that the hair follicles themselves in the immune portion are resistant to DHT, and the rest of the follicles are sensitive to DHT, but if that's all there is to it, then why is the oil production of the skin in the portion subject to hair loss different than in the immune portion?

It's because of sebaceous gland area enlarging that follows due to DHT (androgens) hitting on your androgen sensitive hair follicles. The sebaceous gland secretes the oil that is on your scalp, but due to the miniaturizing process it leads to increased secretion of the oil. That's why your scalp is so oily.

Here is a recent good study about that where they really looked at many men and performed a morphometric anlysis and they indeed found that in Androgenetic Alopecia patients the sebaceous gland area is really significantly larger than non-balding patients;

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26147300

 

[abcdefg]

I am losing hair in traditional Norwood pattern and I have very oily hair too. I think the sebum just becomes more noticeable as you bald because when the hair miniaturizes its still producing the same amount of oil so your hair gets more oily and it collects together in chunks because the hair itself is shrinking.
Just a byproduct of male pattern baldness like you said but not a cause it seems like to me. Most questions like he said we just dont know yet.

 

[abcdefg]

It's because of sebaceous gland area enlarging that follows due to DHT (androgens) hitting on your androgen sensitive hair follicles. The sebaceous gland secretes the oil that is on your scalp, but due to the miniaturizing process it leads to increased secretion of the oil. That's why your scalp is so oily.

Here is a recent good study about that where they really looked at many men and performed a morphometric anlysis and they indeed found that in Androgenetic Alopecia patients the sebaceous gland area is really significantly larger than non-balding patients;

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26147300

But men without male pattern baldness have androgens and DHT does not affect their sebaceous gland area? Does propecia though or dutasteride return the sebaceous gland back to its original size or even reduce oil production at all because it sounds like it should, but propecia does not change that does it?

 

[Swoop]

But men without male pattern baldness have androgens and DHT does not affect their sebaceous gland area? Does propecia though or dutasteride return the sebaceous gland back to its original size or even reduce oil production at all because it sounds like it should, but propecia does not change that does it?

Correct. Since their hair follicles are not susceptible to the whole process it doesn't lead to these sebaceous gland changes.

In my personal experience using anti-androgens or 5ar2 inhibitors it definitely reduced the oil production. This was most significant on my total slick bald temples.

 

[FoucaultII]

I never claimed that. I quoted that from a study. I said that the epidermis isn't vascularized and that is the truth. And you'll get the ban because you just consistently troll on this forum. I have seen it in other topics too towards other people. Apparently I'm not the only one who has seen this. Now hush.

LOL!
Mr Wikipedia, you, please, just hush!