That makes me believe there's definitely a way to reawaken these dormant follicles for male pattern baldness (just like JAK inhibitors do to AA), either through some kind of cell therapy or even just medication.
So follica talks about creating new vellus hairs, which now might not even be important and histogen talks about turning vellus hairs and the terminal hairs which might be irrelevant. If hair growth comes from dormant follicles then it sounds like both of these companies are barking up the wrong tree.
It's mind-boggling to me that after this many years of research scientists still aren't truly aware of what follicles are growing
This is pretty useless. They renamed what we knew as telogen to kenogen to distinct it from the permanent telogen that some male pattern baldness vellus hairs are in. We already knew minoxidil and finasteride can't regrow long lost vellus hairs.
Anyone got sth else out of this?
I don't see how the data here backs up the claim. Can anyone explain?
Just because there was an increase in hair density and the mean vellus hair count didn't change does not indicate that there was no conversion of vellus into terminal. Because it's entirely possible as well as vellus hairs being converted into terminal hairs, dormant hairs are converted into vellus. Thus balancing out the numbers. What am I missing?
This is what I always thought happened anyway. I find it hard to believe that the new hairs along my hairline are completely different follicles to the ones I had there a few years ago.
Also I have some new, minoxidil grown hairs, that are thin, wispy and have stopped growing at 1cm. These seem to me to be new vellus hairs.
I don't think this is correct simply from looking at pictures of my own hair after taking minoxidil, I can see the 5mm or so of vellus hair at the end of the thicker hair. Eventually those hairs fall out and new resulting hair is pretty much terminal, abliet thin terminal.