Samumed Sm04554 Results Normalized To Baseline
- Thread starter hypetraintime
- Start date
First of all I hope your brother and you avoid the MD. Fingers crossed mate.
But I would like to touch upon this discussion as well.
I've been following Parkinson research space for the past 6 months and it seems like an apt comparison for multiple reasons.
PD is not a disease it is more of a syndrome that gathers multiple different causes together because they all lead to similar symptoms.
There are several variants of PD the idiopathic one is the one that happens to most older people (above 50), however there are multiple variants that happen due to multiple possible mutations on gene or genes that are grouped together (PARKIN, PINK1, GBA, SNCA etc.). So basically as you both mentioned those variants are polygenic diseases and would require multiple edits which is definitely a difficult task.
Why did I use this comparison? Because just like Androgenetic Alopecia finding the exact cause of PD (all of the variants) eludes us. This is why I like to compare both.
Thankfully in the case of Androgenetic Alopecia we don't really need to find the culprit. We just need to clone hair follicles and transplant them. Basically I agree with you. We are 15-20 years away from the gene route. However we are definitely close to the cloning part. The timeline will be much more clear when a company like Stemson/ Tsuji/ Hewitt starts their clinical trials.
However when it comes to the new age of medicine and fixing polygenic diseases by fixing genes themselves the cure is still far away.
But that doesn't mean we are not closer to actually treating those diseases. For example a PARKIN PD variant might be due to the oxidative changes causing a certain PARKIN protein to become insoluble. However instead of fixing the genes causing the oxidation of the protein we could supply the soluble version of protein making that variant a treatable disease instead. This is not a cure but just making neurodegenerative diseases treatable would a massive step forward.
To get back to Androgenetic Alopecia one could say that it is already treatable but all of us are here because we know that the current treatments are not good enough. They are just slowing the progression and for a lot of people on this forum not sufficiently or with too grave of side effect profile.
Better treatments might be upon us! SM here might be something like that. I am eagerly awaiting Phase 3 results.
Haha it doesn't look like either of us avoided it, but I do hope we will have a treatment in the next 3-6 years that will spare us from the bulk of the skeletal muscle issues. Thank you for the well wishes!
The science is so well understood and the issue is so well defined (with the muscles) that I think we will be spared from the worst aspects of the condition. Parkinson is a bit different, because as you said, multiple variants and multiple mutations of different genes. Our form of muscle dystrophy is 1 single mutation on the DMPK gene that causes repeat toxic RNA expansions that inhibit different proteins in different systems. The same mechanism as Huntington's disease but the brain's motor neurons are not the target, but both are repeat expansion disorders. You don't even need to alter the DNA to cure both huntingtons and DM, you just need to eliminate the toxic expansions that alter normal functions. Luckily for us and people with huntingtons', small molecule RNA nucleotides are finally able to finally target the toxic RNA and maybe 5-8 different companies are racing to the clinic right now, and dozens for huntingtons. This isn't even the gene therapy path, which offers even yet another path to cure/disrupt both diseases by making 1 time changes to the RNA that eliminates the expansions all together. This is probably 10-15 years away at the current pace, but technology could speed that up.
Either way, you are correct that we are quite far from even cures of single point mutations like the two diseases above, but treatment with significant modification of disease course is very close from a clinical standpoint (ie under 10 years for currently orphan diseases).
For Androgenic Alopecia, the issue is actually much more simple then I think people really give credit (in the grand scheme of things) because like you said, you can tackle the issue and effectively cure the condition without actually curing the polygenic genetic factors that are responsible for the overall condition. I think we will see dozens of similar start-ups to Moogene in the next 5-10 years all racing towards a targeted approach that stops at the follicles and doesn't hit the system as the science behind targeted small molicule medicines and gene alterations becomes more advanced and common place. The real issue here is that traditionally AA has been ignored almost completely by medicine, as funding goes to the high priority areas rather then something seen as cosmetic. The current bull market in venture capital has changed this though, and VC firms are actually looking for big ticket items like balding cures and anti-ageing in general.
I too am eagerly waiting the results of this though. I'm more positive on it then post people are around here, probably because I can actually put phase 1/2 testing into context. Most people saw the 10% increase in hair count (at 90-125 days of course) and instantly wrote it off. Not many hair treatments work to their actual potential in a 90 day dosage period, and we all know phase 2 is aimed at exploring dosage and safety, rather then pure efficacy.
Last edited:
What a useless comment.
Every other post of yours in this entire forum is pure gold, but somehow this thread transforms you into a brainless monkey
What an ironic comment
Time will tell. This thread reminds me so much of the Brotzu thread with the hype and irrational exuberance.
I can see a lot of people are riding their hopes on this but for me if after a year it maintains above baseline, I'd be really happy.
I commented that with full irony. You're post brought nothing to the discussion except to derail with useless comparisons. They don't even have a similar method of action, yet here you are.
You don't get it. It's not the moa that makes them similar, it's the fact that both of them are hyped up as virtually the cure for hair loss when there's no evidence to believe they will be any better than minoxidil.
I do agree, it is being hyped up by a few members as if it's going to be amazing but there are others like me who are just hoping after a year it stays above baseline and maybe like an increase of +5 TAHC and most importantly it's safe.
That's a realistic expectation
It'd be a great treatment for those who don't respond well to anti-androgens or are looking for a little regrowth.
And yet the evidence into it's efficacy will be fully released and on display within 2-3 months. How about we just wait and see what the actual facts are instead of making almost baseless judgements and comparisons?
I certainly do not think this is anything close to a cure, however I am a non-responder to minoxodil and have been unable to grow a single new hair on my head no matter what I've done. If this product can be a minoxodil for me I'd be thrilled, and I'm willing to bet there are thousands of men in the same camp as me who would be thrilled to have a new growth product that could do anything at all for us without harming ourselves in the process.
Flamingflaps
Established Member
- Reaction score
- -10
results comparable to minoxidil would be a big win for some of us.
I promise you it won't be comparable to minoxidil.
Based on what, exactly?
