How Long Until A "cure" Or Full Reversal Treatment?

[real kombo]

*or dead

Spoilers: It won't.



100%, freshly-squeezed, no artificial flavours or colouring added COPE!

There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe Androgenetic Alopecia can or will in the foreseeable future be cured by topical drugs alone. They haven't been for decades despite literally hundreds of things being discovered that worked on mice.

You know it, I know it, the entire pharmaceutical industry knows it, and so on.

AA, Totalis, etc. are completely different diseases. So the logic of "well drugs cured that so there!" falls flat on its face.

There is still presently nothing that indicates human scalp hair can or could be regrown in its original pattern by means of some simple drugs administered topically; it's just not enough.

You hope that drugs will cure it because it's "cost effective" and you don't want or are possibly afraid of some type of surgery or wounding therapy that will be more invasive and expensive.

But reality is not concerned with cost efficiency or what people would prefer; it's about what is possible. Currently, all research that has worked to grow new hair involves either wounding or an in-vitro manipulation of various cell types. I know it's shocking, but regrowing full-functioning organs is going to be a lot more difficult than slathering some jojoba oil on your skull and I don't know how many more millions of dollars, hours and years will have to be wasted before this sinks in to the majority of researchers because even a layman can see this sh*t isn't working.

We'd have had the cure by now if people just stopped pissing around with trying to find some wonder drug.

Okay well even if there aren't any further drugs that can help what about surgeries in the future? Is it all bull or do you think there could be ANYTHING that could be effective that could come out in the next 2-3 years?

 

[That Guy]

Okay well even if there aren't any further drugs that can help what about surgeries in the future? Is it all bull or do you think there could be ANYTHING that could be effective that could come out in the next 2-3 years?

I believe in 3 companies: Follica, Shiseido/RepliCel and *Riken.

Why? Because they are all based on findings shown to work in living, breathing humans with hairloss and in the case of the first two; are on the last leg(s) of their trials which have produced results that justify moving it toward commercialization. We know for a fact that wounding can regrow significant amounts of hair. *As per their interview with gourmetstylewellness.com last year, I doubt that even if Riken makes their 2020 release date, that most people are going to be able to afford it in conjunction with other expenses and those who can will likely be in for a wait.

Everything else has either already failed (Sammumed), remains a mouse experiment, or is so far away from even beginning its first trial that there is simply no sense in waiting for it.

So I think that in the coming few years, superior alternatives to transplants and finasteride will be available.

But a drug that can reverse it completely? Not a chance. We absolutely do not have the technology to regenerate organs, even small ones, with a f*****g cream; we are just starting to do it with cultured cells ffs. I know everyone is jerking off over the CXXC5 thing in the news recently, but it's still just a mouse study that, like 90% of mouse studies, does not actually seem to be relevant to male pattern baldness. The study seems to leave out pertinent info about exactly how it "inhibits" hair growth, whether the "high amounts" of CXXC5 in balding scalp is actually binding to the other protein, and they're excited because it grew hair on mice...who don't have male pattern baldness and the myriad of largely unknown factors that determine it...

I'd love to be wrong, but I have yet to see anything that proves me wrong.

 

[razzmatazz91]

I believe in 3 companies: Follica, Shiseido/RepliCel and *Riken.

Why? Because they are all based on findings shown to work in living, breathing humans with hairloss and in the case of the first two; are on the last leg(s) of their trials which have produced results that justify moving it toward commercialization. We know for a fact that wounding can regrow significant amounts of hair. *As per their interview with gourmetstylewellness.com last year, I doubt that even if Riken makes their 2020 release date, that most people are going to be able to afford it in conjunction with other expenses and those who can will likely be in for a wait.

Everything else has either already failed (Sammumed), remains a mouse experiment, or is so far away from even beginning its first trial that there is simply no sense in waiting for it.

So I think that in the coming few years, superior alternatives to transplants and finasteride will be available.

But a drug that can reverse it completely? Not a chance. We absolutely do not have the technology to regenerate organs, even small ones, with a f*****g cream; we are just starting to do it with cultured cells ffs. I know everyone is jerking off over the CXXC5 thing in the news recently, but it's still just a mouse study that, like 90% of mouse studies, does not actually seem to be relevant to male pattern baldness. The study seems to leave out pertinent info about exactly how it "inhibits" hair growth, whether the "high amounts" of CXXC5 in balding scalp is actually binding to the other protein, and they're excited because it grew hair on mice...who don't have male pattern baldness and the myriad of largely unknown factors that determine it...

I'd love to be wrong, but I have yet to see anything that proves me wrong.

riken is working on hair multiplication, right? How far have they gone and what's the timeline/outlook like?
Have you heard about this company called HairClone? They are raising money, or trying to anyway, through crowd funding and even taking pre-treatment fees from people along with money for "follicle banking service" or something. Seems like a scan to me, but would like to know what you think @That Guy .

I listened to an old episode of Spencer Kobren's Bald Truth. The one about accepting baldness if you're too far gone. It was posted in July. Spencer and some dude, were talking about cures and treatments in the pipeline. Replicel and Shiseido were also mentioned. Spencer, the guy who's been in the industry for years and years, said that there isn't going to be a cure in the foreseeable future. He did say there will probably be better treatments, but that's it.

 

[MrV88]

I believe in 3 companies: Follica, Shiseido/RepliCel and *Riken.

Why? Because they are all based on findings shown to work in living, breathing humans with hairloss and in the case of the first two; are on the last leg(s) of their trials which have produced results that justify moving it toward commercialization. We know for a fact that wounding can regrow significant amounts of hair. *As per their interview with gourmetstylewellness.com last year, I doubt that even if Riken makes their 2020 release date, that most people are going to be able to afford it in conjunction with other expenses and those who can will likely be in for a wait.

Everything else has either already failed (Sammumed), remains a mouse experiment, or is so far away from even beginning its first trial that there is simply no sense in waiting for it.

So I think that in the coming few years, superior alternatives to transplants and finasteride will be available.

But a drug that can reverse it completely? Not a chance. We absolutely do not have the technology to regenerate organs, even small ones, with a f*****g cream; we are just starting to do it with cultured cells ffs. I know everyone is jerking off over the CXXC5 thing in the news recently, but it's still just a mouse study that, like 90% of mouse studies, does not actually seem to be relevant to male pattern baldness. The study seems to leave out pertinent info about exactly how it "inhibits" hair growth, whether the "high amounts" of CXXC5 in balding scalp is actually binding to the other protein, and they're excited because it grew hair on mice...who don't have male pattern baldness and the myriad of largely unknown factors that determine it...

I'd love to be wrong, but I have yet to see anything that proves me wrong.

So you still believe in a 2018 release?

For me a cure would be enough if it would be provide me with an "unlimited donor", so that I least could fix up my hair till Norwood 2. Multiple sessions could provide a dense hair transplant, still better than thinned hair and bald spots.

Let's see if a combination of the 3 could provide us with more than 100graft/cm² (although Riken said 125graft/cm²)

 

[Trichosan]

I recall that research that lead to the formation of Frequency Therapeutics. I'll be cheering for that too as my hearing loss is catching up with my rate of hair disappearance.

 

[Hate da Bt]

@That Guy , you clearly have very little idea of what you are talking about.

Do you know the pathophysiology of androgenetic alopecia?
Do you know how hair follicles suffer miniaturization?
The answer is quite simple, actually: nobody does(!) ... in details, to be exact.
Consequently, please, stop acting like you know it all. You don't!

 

[MrV88]

Get a good dense hair transplant, repair your donor through SkinTE, use Shiseido for mantainence, get a more dense hair transplant or repair your last bald spots, use Follica for more density till Tsuji and then let them inject you back to Norwood-10

 

[razzmatazz91]

Get a good dense hair transplant, repair your donor through SkinTE, use Shiseido for mantainence, get a more dense hair transplant or repair your last bald spots, use Follica for more density till Tsuji and then let them inject you back to Norwood-10

Every baldie's dream.
That's what I jack off to every night.

Come on man, let's be real. "treatments", not "cures" are in the pipeline.
The hair multiplication thing.... who knows how long it's going to take.

I'm actually hoping for it to com, but we have to be realistic.

 

[MrV88]

Every baldie's dream.
That's what I jack off to every night.

Come on man, let's be real. "treatments", not "cures" are in the pipeline.
The hair multiplication thing.... who knows how long it's going to take.

I'm actually hoping for it to com, but we have to be realistic.

I don't care about a "cure" or why the f*** this sh*t happens or something else like that. Just like you said a treatment is enough.

I just want it to be fixed nothing else. Better treatments, better options for looking more dense.
Just like an organ transplantation. Sometimes it's better to replace it than finding the reason behind it, because it could take centuries.

 

[That Guy]

Spencer, the guy who's been in the industry for years and years, said that there isn't going to be a cure in the foreseeable future. He did say there will probably be better treatments, but that's it.

For me a cure would be enough if it would be provide me with an "unlimited donor", so that I least could fix up my hair till Norwood 2. Multiple sessions could provide a dense hair transplant, still better than thinned hair and bald spots.

Come on man, let's be real. "treatments", not "cures" are in the pipeline.

4 birds with 1 stone:

I've said on here many times that most people have this fantasy idea of a "cure" and don't actually know what that word means. If it relieves you of the symptoms of the disease; it is a cure.

and there is no cure without "treatment", for any disease. Even if you have to keep using something to maintain its results, it still satisfies the literal definition of a "cure", even if it's not the one you hoped for.

@That Guy , you clearly have very little idea of what you are talking about.

Do you know the pathophysiology of androgenetic alopecia?
Do you know how hair follicles suffer miniaturization?
The answer is quite simple, actually: nobody does(!) ... in details, to be exact.
Consequently, please, stop acting like you know it all. You don't!

Did you know that there is a shitload of research that shows that follicles shrink into oblivion and the most effective thing at restoring them is estrogen and even that still can't bring it all back beyond a certain point?

Flipside, wounding or in-vitro reconstruction of human hair cells does work...in both people and animals. Like, if you take human dermal papilla hair cells and put them in rats, the rats actually grow hair too and they're a completely different species.

Simple reality is that if you want to regenerate an organ, it's actually fairly complicated to do so, and requires a level of precision a simple topical cannot do. You can't regenerate a kidney with a pill, you can't regrow teeth with toothpaste, and you can't regenerate hair follicles with a shampoo — deal with it.

 

[tjnpdx]

@That Guy , you clearly have very little idea of what you are talking about.

Do you know the pathophysiology of androgenetic alopecia?
Do you know how hair follicles suffer miniaturization?
The answer is quite simple, actually: nobody does(!) ... in details, to be exact.
Consequently, please, stop acting like you know it all. You don't!

Ever since 1st grade I've had the ability to reveal the inherent message, shrouded in that fog of ambiguity, of the words people use to express themselves, and transform them into image (or gif). I will perform this feat for you now, here, for everyone to see.

BEHOLD

 

[Hate da Bt]

Ever since 1st grade I've had the ability to reveal the inherent message, shrouded in that fog of ambiguity, of the words people use to express themselves, and transform them into image (or gif). I will perform this feat for you now, here, for everyone to see.

BEHOLD

View attachment 73432

That's more of a projection of your own feelings than my de profundis message.
Tease someone else.
I am not into bs.

 

[tjnpdx]

That's more of a projection of your own feelings than my de profundis message.
Tease someone else.
I am not into bs.

Baldies are so damn serious all the time. And I'm not quite sure if you just admitted that your message was filled with sorrow or grief on purpose, or what you were doing there. Anyhow, although we're far from solving that illusive arcanum arcanorum (we're using latin today, because we're smart ), don't shy away from accepting certain things because it'd be better for it to be another way.

"Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make ye mad"

Oh, Aldous, please, tell me more...

 

[Hate da Bt]

4 birds with 1 stone:

I've said on here many times that most people have this fantasy idea of a "cure" and don't actually know what that word means. If it relieves you of the symptoms of the disease; it is a cure.

and there is no cure without "treatment", for any disease. Even if you have to keep using something to maintain its results, it still satisfies the literal definition of a "cure", even if it's not the one you hoped for.



Did you know that there is a shitload of research that shows that follicles shrink into oblivion and the most effective thing at restoring them is estrogen and even that still can't bring it all back beyond a certain point?

Flipside, wounding or in-vitro reconstruction of human hair cells does work...in both people and animals. Like, if you take human dermal papilla hair cells and put them in rats, the rats actually grow hair too and they're a completely different species.

Simple reality is that if you want to regenerate an organ, it's actually fairly complicated to do so, and requires a level of precision a simple topical cannot do. You can't regenerate a kidney with a pill, you can't regrow teeth with toothpaste, and you can't regenerate hair follicles with a shampoo — deal with it.

I never asked you what the cause of hf miniaturization is. I asked whether you know how the miniaturization is caused, or not.
And you didn't answer my question.
You may talk big, but your talking is like an inflated balloon. Full of ego, but no substance.

 

[tjnpdx]

I never asked you what the cause of hf miniaturization is. I asked whether you know how the miniaturization is caused, or not.
And you didn't answer my question.
You may talk big, but your talking is like an inflated balloon. Full of ego, but no substance.

Sorry @That Guy, I know this isn't my place, but I cannot resist this one: @Hate da Bt, you know your stated regimen is essentially an inflated balloon too, right?

Really, though, happy holidays errybody.

 

[NewUser]

*or dead

Spoilers: It won't.



100%, freshly-squeezed, no artificial flavours or colouring added COPE!

There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe Androgenetic Alopecia can or will in the foreseeable future be cured by topical drugs alone. They haven't been for decades despite literally hundreds of things being discovered that worked on mice.

Why would Tsuji's method stand a greater chance of working in humans than drugs that are growing hair, except the drugs are doing so by activating existing stem cells ? Are there no mice in Tsuji's lab?

 

[Chap1]

This is (kind of, ish) random, but imagine being able to get 100% new hair follicles to grow back on the head like this.

 

[MrV88]

4 birds with 1 stone:

I've said on here many times that most people have this fantasy idea of a "cure" and don't actually know what that word means.If it relieves you of the symptoms of the disease; it is a cure.

and there is no cure without "treatment", for any disease. Even if you have to keep using something to maintain its results, it still satisfies the literal definition of a "cure", even if it's not the one you hoped for.



Did you know that there is a shitload of research that shows that follicles shrink into oblivion and the most effective thing at restoring them is estrogen and even that still can't bring it all back beyond a certain point?

Flipside, wounding or in-vitro reconstruction of human hair cells does work...in both people and animals. Like, if you take human dermal papilla hair cells and put them in rats, the rats actually grow hair too and they're a completely different species.

Simple reality is that if you want to regenerate an organ, it's actually fairly complicated to do so, and requires a level of precision a simple topical cannot do. You can't regenerate a kidney with a pill, you can't regrow teeth with toothpaste, and you can't regenerate hair follicles with a shampoo — deal with it.

"If it relieves you of the symptoms of the disease" that's a treatment. İf this status is mantained until the patient has it's own pre-disease status back without any or at least a lot of symptoms it would be a cure.

Cancer patients do get a "treatment" and sometimes are fully healed, but a lot of symptoms are still existent or different different drugs still have to be taken to mantain this status.

İf we could bring back this patients I would say they are "cured".

All this treatments won't bring us back to NW0 when we where 15, but it could treat our illness and relieve us.

 

[That Guy]

Why would Tsuji's method stand a greater chance of working in humans than drugs that are growing hair, except the drugs are doing so by activating existing stem cells ? Are there no mice in Tsuji's lab?

View attachment 73448

Tsuji's method stands a greater chance of working because it has been done.

Jahoda's experiments on his wife in the 90s, growing new hair from her arm via a mixture of both his own and his wife's cells confirm that it is possible.

Studies like Tsuji's, including one out of Iran recently confirm that human hair cells are capable of growing hair in mice and possibly other mammals as well.

There are also studies like BBQ man, Dhurat, and successful dermarollers like "Somebody" which confirm wounding neogenesis is a viable method of regrowing lost hair: Large amounts of it, in fact — with the best responders thus far even regaining ostensibly fullhead status.

I made a detailed post about all of these things a while back.

For decades though, there has been no drug which has provided full regrowth in maurine models that has yielded the same effects on people. If it has ever made it to human testing at all. Even minoxidil, by itself, is generally useless for growing hair.

The reason why is the researchers generally do not understand male pattern baldness and that it is a degenerative condition and assume that because something activates or deactivates hair growth in maurine models means it's promising for what they usually simply refer to as "baldness". It's f*****g painful to read a lot of these papers that come from otherwise intelligent, well-educated, doctors.

But mice do not have male pattern baldness and generally still have their follicles when these drugs work on them and the method of action therefore treats a problem which is likely entirely different from what we experience.

Making the problem worse, is that if they cannot turn it into a drug that is easy to manufacture and would yield large profit margins, the research is generally discontinued.

To cure male pattern baldness, we need more experiments done on human beings and more companies with balls to develop full-on procedures to treat it instead of cutting and running when they find out their topical crap doesn't work. This is why Follica is the first treatment since finasteride to reach phase III and it is why the community is so stoked about Tsuji.

 

[MrV88]

Tsuji's method stands a greater chance of working because it has been done.

Jahoda's experiments on his wife in the 90s, growing new hair from her arm via a mixture of both his own and his wife's cells confirm that it is possible.

Studies like Tsuji's, including one out of Iran recently confirm that human hair cells are capable of growing hair in mice and possibly other mammals as well.

There are also studies like BBQ man, Dhurat, and successful dermarollers like "Somebody" which confirm wounding neogenesis is a viable method of regrowing lost hair: Large amounts of it, in fact — with the best responders thus far even regaining ostensibly fullhead status.

I made a detailed post about all of these things a while back.

For decades though, there has been no drug which has provided full regrowth in maurine models that has yielded the same effects on people. If it has ever made it to human testing at all. Even minoxidil, by itself, is generally useless for growing hair.

The reason why is the researchers generally do not understand male pattern baldness and that it is a degenerative condition and assume that because something activates or deactivates hair growth in maurine models means it's promising for what they usually simply refer to as "baldness". It's f*****g painful to read a lot of these papers that come from otherwise intelligent, well-educated, doctors.

But mice do not have male pattern baldness and generally still have their follicles when these drugs work on them and the method of action therefore treats a problem which is likely entirely different from what we experience.

Making the problem worse, is that if they cannot turn it into a drug that is easy to manufacture and would yield large profit margins, the research is generally discontinued.

To cure male pattern baldness, we need more experiments done on human beings and more companies with balls to develop full-on procedures to treat it instead of cutting and running when they find out their topical crap doesn't work. This is why Follica is the first treatment since finasteride to reach phase III and it is why the community is so stoked about Tsuji.

TSUJİ TSUJİ TSUJİ TSUJİ .... ALL HAİL LORD TSUJİ!