first
Established Member
- Reaction score
- 1
I do not recall for example Silymarin inhibiting wnt, but I could of course remember incorrectly.michael barry said:Every single one of them also inhibits the wnt pathway to some extent.
I do not recall for example Silymarin inhibiting wnt, but I could of course remember incorrectly.michael barry said:Every single one of them also inhibits the wnt pathway to some extent.
Orin, I just sent you PM. Please check. I need to know more about your regemine.
I do not recall for example Silymarin inhibiting wnt, but I could of course remember incorrectly.
I think that goes for everyone here though.Orin said:On the other hand I'm completly freestyling right now and really don't have a clue as to the inner workings of these complex processes. Just passing along what I've found though.
Yes, I read that too and was quite suprised. It just goes to show how desperate people here are in regards to finding a cure.Orin said:Oh btw, I checked out "regrowth.com" a few hours ago. Their enthusiasm towards various forms of wounding (such as first sandpapering until some blood was present, and then immediately afterwards applying a pretty strong peel)and applying this or that in various concoctions makes this forum seem like the epitome of restraint.
No slam or anything.. just seems perhaps a little too enthusiastic.
masculineyourheart said:Would there be a danger of growing tumours or the like on your head using wnt7a or gefitinib? Say... if people were trying these experiments 6 or more times a year and taking serious amounts of either substance?
Moomin said:Evening chaps
This is my first post so be gentle with me.
Firstly great forum , only found about Follica, neo genesis, wouding and all that jazz 2 days ago and have been glued to the screen like some hirstute (or not so hirstute) junky.
Anway - I've been interested in Wnt (not only Wnt7a, but generally) production particulary whether its necessary for the production or rejuvenation of HF. Firstly I found this interesting piece of information
"Traditionally, it is assumed that Wnt proteins can act as Stem Cell Growth Factors, promoting the maintenance and proliferation of stem cell,
However, a recent study conducted by the Stanford University School of Medicine revealed that Wnt appears to block proper communication, with the Wnt signaling pathway having a negative effect on stem cell function. Thus, in the case of muscle tissue, the misdirected stem cells instead of generating new muscle cells (myoblasts), they differentiated into scar-tissue-producing cells called fibroblasts. The stem cells failed to respond to instructions, actually creating wrong cell types."
and from another article I perused.
"Another research group has just discovered that Wnt is able to suppress mouse stem cell activity because as mice age their bodies make less of another protein called klotho. Well, klotho restrains Wnt and the absence of klotho causes Wnt to suppress stem cell division."
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articl ... id=1976560
http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/004478.html
This would suggest that Wnt is not especially important in the creation of stem cells at best, at worst it may actually negatively affect them. The basic idea being that when a stem cell comes in to contact with increased Wnt (i have no idea how much as a percentage over normal) the communication process that tells stem cells what they are to turn into becomes "garbaled" and as a result they may become something that they should not be, such as fibroblast.
Now in terms of HF production/rejuvenation what does this mean? In my humble opinion the purpose of the Wnt in Follica's original pantent was to promote stem cell devlopment. The two articles above suggest that increase in Wnt production actually has a negative affect. Furthermore I thought the point of the plucking of hair and dermabrasion/wounding of the stratum corneum were to return the skin to an embyonic state and in doing so induce production of stem cells in the first place. I suppose that the inclusion of Wnt, in the original Follica patent, was to increase the number of stem cells, however this no longer seems to be.
As an aside, a respected member of this forum, Orin, said (page 24) that Follica seems to have dropped Wnt in whatever form from its patent kit, I suspect this is true and a source for this would be nice. It would be interesting to see when and why Follica did this, I suspect it may tie in with the release date (these studies were posted in August/September 2007) and content of the two articles posted above.
What does this mean? In my ever increasly humbling opinion, it would appear that there is no need to add an element that increases Wnt, but I do not believe that it would be harmful to our efforts either, just of no actual benefit. Considering wounding of the skin alone produces HF, by inducing the production of stem cells, then in theory all that is needed is a way of stimulating stem cells to produce new hair producing cells from the embryonic skin instead (at least in part) from making something else. As a result I will be focussing on plucking, dermabrasion and EGFR inhibitors.
I realise that alot of this information will probably be old hat to many of you and by now will be ingrained on your brain, but this post is as much for me as it is for anyone else and it provides me with a digestible and organised progression of what I have read on this board and where we seem to be now.
Are you still awake????Your interpretation of the patent is almost spot on with how I see it. Thanks for posting it. :agree:
michael barry said:From the first patent, http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?wo= ... SPLAY=DESC
P-7628-PC
[000124] In another embodiment, the excisional wounds of methods of the present invention are not surgically closed. In another embodiment, the excisional wounds are not contacted with a bandage or dressing before they heal or during a period of time after wound induction. In another embodiment, the excisional wounds are not contacted with an ointment before they heal or during a period of time after wound induction, hi another embodiment, the excisional wounds are allowed to heal by secondary intention. Each possibility represents a separate embodiment of the present invention.
[000125] The subject of methods of the present invention, is, in another embodiment, a human. As provided herein (Example 7) human skin responds to EDIHN in the same manner as mouse skin.
Furthermore:
[quote:laat7adf]00015O]In another embodiment, the scalp, eyebrow, or scarred region is not contacted with a bandage or dressing following the epidermal disruption. In another embodiment, the scalp, eyebrow, or scarred region is not contacted with an ointment following the epidermal disruption. In another embodiment, the scalp, eyebrow, or scarred region is allowed to heal for a period of time without being contacted by any substance, device, ointment, etc., that is ordinarily administered to an
P-7628-PC abrasion or wound to facilitate healing. Ih another embodiment, the scalp, eyebrow, or scarred region is allowed to heal for a period of time without being contacted by any substance, device, ointment, etc., that is ordinarily administered to an abrasion or wound to prevent infection. In another embodiment, the period of time is the time it takes the epidermal disruption to heal. In another embodiment, the period of time is any time or range of times between 2 days and 3 weeks. Each possibility represents a separate embodiment of the present invention.
[00015I]In one embodiment, "following" refers to a period of time of about 2 days. In another embodiment, "following" refers to a period of time of about 3 days. In another embodiment, "following" refers to a period of time of about 4 days. In another embodiment, "following" refers to a period of time of about 5 days. In another embodiment, "following" refers to a period of time of about 7 days. In another embodiment, "following" refers to a period of time of about 10 days. In another embodiment, "following" refers to a period of time of about 2 weeks. In another embodiment, "following" refers to a period of time of about 3 weeks. Each possibility represents a separate embodiment of the present invention.
Speaking of reading all of the literature...have you bothered to read the paper publish in Nature? Did you know that by just wounding they produced an average of 35 new follicles in an area of 2cm^2 but when they inhibited WNTs via DKK1 using transgenic mice between days 0-10 post wounding the number increased to 97! That's basically triple the number of follicles by inhibiting wnt not up-regulating it which is what lithium does. Additionally they improved hair quality by inhibiting wnts during those first 10 days.
goata007 said:Speaking of reading all of the literature...have you bothered to read the paper publish in Nature? Did you know that by just wounding they produced an average of 35 new follicles in an area of 2cm^2 but when they inhibited WNTs via DKK1 using transgenic mice between days 0-10 post wounding the number increased to 97! That's basically triple the number of follicles by inhibiting wnt not up-regulating it which is what lithium does. Additionally they improved hair quality by inhibiting wnts during those first 10 days.
I'm not sure where you read this because it not only contradicts Elaine Fuchs research, it's also not what I read in the abstract
"Inhibition of Wnt signalling after re-epithelialization completely abrogates this wounding-induced folliculogenesis, whereas overexpression of Wnt ligand in the epidermis increases the number of regenerated hair follicles."
Note one of the author is George Cotsarelis & it was published in 2007, so it's one of the latest research publications:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v447/n7142/abs/nature05766.html
Another article:
"In genetically modified mice, the researchers induced expression of a protein that inhibits the wnt proteins from the time of the wound to 17 days later. While the wound healed normally, they found, hair follicles did not form.
In contrast, when they performed the experiment on mice genetically modified to over-express wnt proteins, the animals developed more than twice the number of new hair follicles as controls did."
http://www.medpagetoday.com/Surgery/GeneralSurgery/tb/5674
ThunderTurd said:I'm new so take it easy on me please! I had a thought last night. Seeing as how so many people on-line between the different forums are trying this at home, wouldn't you think Follica is keeping an eye on these threads? Furthermore, If you guys were getting close to what they are actually intending on doing don't you think they would take some steps to try and stop it. I mean, Imagine they put millions of dollars into this and then a couple of very intelligent people on here figure it out on their own and post it on the internet....For Free! If I were follica, I would be pissed. So I guess what I am saying is IF follica is watching this (and since they have gone "underground" or "radio silence" I'm sure they are atleast aware) Wouldn't they start to sweat a little if they felt we had it figured out? I guess if they start pressuring the site admin it would be a really good sign we are on to it? Or am I just crazy?
I don't think Follica is too concerned about the miniscule of the population that's going to try this. That is something I would imagine they take as a given and is beyond their control. If their trials go through with flying colors, they will be plenty happy with the 99.98% of the balding men and women who are going to use their official route of therapy. Think about it, we are talking about sanding our our scalps, puncturing holes and doing acid peels on it. It sounds a little scary and barbaric to me. Moreover, buying chemicals over the internet to use as a topical or internal. Who would do this? We would, but all my balding friends wouldn't. They want to see results and wait a few years to make sure I don't grow another head or develop cancer or something. Personally, I don't think they are going to try to stop it unless they feel someone or another entity is trying to profit over this at their expense. That doen't mean they don't know about the discussions of these forums, I'm sure they do.ThunderTurd said:I never said they COULD stop it, I said they could TRY and stop it. I would if I were them, and to me that would be a pretty good sign that gourmetstylewellness.com was on the right track and very close to figuring it out. I mean, this is their intelluctual property that they have spent millions researching. I don't know how much experience you have with patent law, but lawyers can be quite threatening when you are infringing on them. I am not going to pretend I know patent law or anything outside of having a patent re-voked because another company had "prior art", but I would think that even if they can't control the beast, they would attemt to cage it. Just giving you guys another angle to think about, so no-one gets sued. Having said that, I notice some guys on here are voicing complaints about how to get a uniform dermabrasion. Again, don't know too much about it but I am an engineer and machinist and I would be more than willing to "team-up" with someone and try to design and manufacture a tool/device to get a good uniform abrasion. Anyone have any ideas PM me.