Why do scientists have such a difficult time finding a cure?
- Thread starter DTW
- Start date
UunoTurhapuro
Established Member
- Reaction score
- 0
freakout if you are confident in whatever you're doing then why don't you start a post and advice others of your routine without asking them to buy books or manipulating them in PMs. It's that simple!
freakout
Experienced Member
- Reaction score
- 3
Genetics - the investigation of the roles and functions of single genes is a primary focus of molecular biology and is a common topic of modern medical and biological research.
genomics - research of single genes does not fall into the definition of genomics. A different set of genes can express the same trait. It is useless to put a name such as 'bald gene'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genomics
Genomics is a new discipline (outside of mainstream) which may provide answers to paradoxes that genetics could not.
Epigenetics - phenotyping in high gear! This too is a new focus (still ouside of mainstream) with the same potential to answer paradoxes that genetics could not.
Each have contrasting views which cannot be merged.
The last two are not part of standard school curiculla.
genomics - research of single genes does not fall into the definition of genomics. A different set of genes can express the same trait. It is useless to put a name such as 'bald gene'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genomics
Genomics is a new discipline (outside of mainstream) which may provide answers to paradoxes that genetics could not.
Epigenetics - phenotyping in high gear! This too is a new focus (still ouside of mainstream) with the same potential to answer paradoxes that genetics could not.
Each have contrasting views which cannot be merged.
The last two are not part of standard school curiculla.
freakout
Experienced Member
- Reaction score
- 3
Did I help expose those holes? Did it give some hope to those who were told its only in their genes and hormones? How does Rogaine work anyway?idontwanttobebalding said:
My take is, if you see some holes in Androgenetic Alopecia, make a detour right there and look for other possibilities if you believe your own biology couldn't possibly be responsible for male pattern baldness which is associated with serious diseases. It has to be something that makes Androgenetic Alopecia do its thing.
First, this is not mine to discuss. Even the author never found time to visit any forum. He said he published the book only to set a public record - something mainstream will find laugable.idontwanttobebalding said:
So there, don't buy this book if you believe in mainstream science which is backed up by "published scientific studies".
I ask the author if I can make his content public. He said it belonged to his publisher already. So my hands are tied and so are his.
freakout
Experienced Member
- Reaction score
- 3
Decades ago, who would ever believed that your balls had anything to do with male pattern baldness.idontwanttobebalding said:BTW....when you say "it" (the cause) is right below our noses...are you speaking of our jaw or the gland in our brain?
There's another part below your neck that your balls took control of to wreak havock on your scalp. The difference is, you can't blame yourself or your balls before. Now you can blame yourself because you allowed your balls to take control.
NO NO, it's not your dick.follicle84
Experienced Member
- Reaction score
- 7
Forgive me for not reading through the previous posts. Here's my specualation as to why this is so.
To find a cure takes a lot of time, money and research some of which is more difficult than others (take cancer and aids for example, treatment is getting better but still no cure). Furthermore a lot of this research that goes into finding cures makes little or no profit with the exception of treatments made for pharmaceutical use.
Stem cell research, gene theraphy and new drugs may get government and charity funding to reduce the risk of making a profit loss to attain something for the greater good.
Hairloss on the otherhand is not seen as life threatening and whilst a cure would have the potential to make billions its not seen as serious enough for government and charity funding. Which brings us down to the only available option, investors and shareholders. Now considering how many companies go under with research into something that looks promising but fails to deliver intercyx for example. Investors are wary of the risks involved with investing in something that doesnt guarantee an end product. After all its no good researching something if there's no money to be made. Bills need to be paid and an end product is needed to accomodate the money spent researching and investing.
It would take a lot of money and risks to find a cure for the investor and its these things that hold the number of investors back from investing. Its this reason a lot of trials are publically anounced on the results of hairloss treatments like histogen with its completion of phase 1. Results like those attract investors to give the company the funds to carry on there research.
More investors means more money. More money means more staff and equipment. More staff and equipment improves the chances of having enough things to see the research have an end product to make a profit from without running out of money. Which would result in a loss and destroy investor confidence in pursuing a hairloss cure.
Its for these reasons some companies may make temporary solutions like drugs to stem hairloss until a cure is found. At least this way money can be made to fund the research. Look at some of histogens products.
Its for these reasons finding a cure is so slow. For now we will just have to settle for improved treatments until we find that cure.
To find a cure takes a lot of time, money and research some of which is more difficult than others (take cancer and aids for example, treatment is getting better but still no cure). Furthermore a lot of this research that goes into finding cures makes little or no profit with the exception of treatments made for pharmaceutical use.
Stem cell research, gene theraphy and new drugs may get government and charity funding to reduce the risk of making a profit loss to attain something for the greater good.
Hairloss on the otherhand is not seen as life threatening and whilst a cure would have the potential to make billions its not seen as serious enough for government and charity funding. Which brings us down to the only available option, investors and shareholders. Now considering how many companies go under with research into something that looks promising but fails to deliver intercyx for example. Investors are wary of the risks involved with investing in something that doesnt guarantee an end product. After all its no good researching something if there's no money to be made. Bills need to be paid and an end product is needed to accomodate the money spent researching and investing.
It would take a lot of money and risks to find a cure for the investor and its these things that hold the number of investors back from investing. Its this reason a lot of trials are publically anounced on the results of hairloss treatments like histogen with its completion of phase 1. Results like those attract investors to give the company the funds to carry on there research.
More investors means more money. More money means more staff and equipment. More staff and equipment improves the chances of having enough things to see the research have an end product to make a profit from without running out of money. Which would result in a loss and destroy investor confidence in pursuing a hairloss cure.
Its for these reasons some companies may make temporary solutions like drugs to stem hairloss until a cure is found. At least this way money can be made to fund the research. Look at some of histogens products.
Its for these reasons finding a cure is so slow. For now we will just have to settle for improved treatments until we find that cure.
'Genetics (from Ancient Greek ????????? genetikos, “genitive†and that from ??????? genesis, “originâ€[1][2][3]), a discipline of biology, is the science of genes, heredity, and variation in living organisms.[4][5]'
'Genomics is a discipline in genetics concerning the study of the genomes of organisms.'
these are from wikapedia. but nevertheless i feel they are straightforward and to the point.
like i said , genomics IS a discipline of genetics.
so whether the way 100 000 proteins can be made from DNA is explained in genetics or genomics, its still correct to say it can be explained by genetics, because genomics is a discipline of genetics.
freakout
Experienced Member
- Reaction score
- 3
Ok. Whether genomics is under genetics, genomics is a new discipline and has a new approach that's nothing like the way conventional genetics has been done for decades. Putting names like "androgen receptor" genes do not matter.
If I say that genetics is in the embryonic stage, it's an opinion not only by me but radical biologists with PhDs. Personally, I think geneticts will die sooner than expected and the data it collected will be reduced to mere numbers. Genomics will become a discipline of its own. BUt that's my stupid opinion!
The only problem with this approach is the need for super computers of which there are only a few in the world.
Just read up on diabetes type 2 if you think I am wrong about it beng a lifestyle condition.
Im no expert while you're into a medical degree. But thanks for the exchange!
If I say that genetics is in the embryonic stage, it's an opinion not only by me but radical biologists with PhDs. Personally, I think geneticts will die sooner than expected and the data it collected will be reduced to mere numbers. Genomics will become a discipline of its own. BUt that's my stupid opinion!
The only problem with this approach is the need for super computers of which there are only a few in the world.
Just read up on diabetes type 2 if you think I am wrong about it beng a lifestyle condition.
Im no expert while you're into a medical degree. But thanks for the exchange!
freakout
Experienced Member
- Reaction score
- 3
So what if I'm anti-finasteride and anti-dutasteride? You're accusing me of spamming!? I never said the words BUY THIS BOOK!finfighter said:
YOU"RE THE ONE PROMOTING AND PRESCRIBING RU58841. Did it ever occur to you that you can be sued in the United States??
Did you even ask yourself why the original maker NEVER FILED FOR FDA APPROVAL DESPITE CLAIMS OF HIGH EFFICACY RATES and potential hundreds of millions in sales?????????
You're threading dangerous waters and playing Russian roullete my friend. Do it to yourself but don't tell others to follow you.
freakout
Experienced Member
- Reaction score
- 3
I'm really amazed at how you much ridicule posters on this forum. Aren't you ashamed?? You think Androgenetic Alopecia has completely answered male pattern baldness?finfighter said:
Here is one for you if you think a barber and plumber is a lowly job:
http://www2.massgeneral.org/pubaffairs/issues/022301hair.htm
Didn't I tell you that more than half of what medical research 'scientists' claim are WRONG?Michael Detmar said:
freakout
Experienced Member
- Reaction score
- 3
Check his references! You'll have a fairly good idea of his theories. His scope a wide so poking a hole will be difficult. You'll need a really huge paddle to wack it with.idontwanttobebalding said:
If you want the core theory, it's blood supply which he argues, at least to me, fairly well.
So perhaps, you will have to argue or, better still, prove that blood supply isn't the issue.