Bald? Now there's a jab to make hair grow back
- Thread starter c_super2
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 1,380
Yeah until Merk buys all the research and stuffs it in a drawer.....
peacemaker
Banned
- Reaction score
- 22
There are multiple viable options for everything. As for hair loss reversal, I think that Histogen or Follica's methods (if they ever come to fruition) will be the best-suited methods as human's do have the capability to produce new follicles absent of PGD2 and its derivatives. On the other hand, transplanting stem cells as this article suggests would be more suited for bigger issues, ie organ regenerations, etc.
- Reaction score
- 2,634
10 years is an arbitrary number. The truth is nobody has a clue of how much longer these guys will continue to procrastinate. Could be 10 years, 3 years... or 30 years. You're better off living your life now as if there was never going to be a cure. If the last 20 years are any indication, its that all of the biotechs have been an embarrassing failure.
peacemaker
Banned
- Reaction score
- 22
I don't believe that. I think there are at least 3-4 biotechs that are well-financed and well incentivized to cure this thing. Merck or GSK's main intention was not at all to solve hair loss. They just wanted and still want to release some sort of a drug that can capture more market share so that they can recoup their high R&D costs. Propecia's main goal was not to stabilize hair loss anyway. The fact that the drug was helpful to hair loss sufferers only helped improve their profitability.
To find a better solution for hair loss is a top if not the only priority of these biotechs. They are not well diversified like the big drug companies. Hence, they HAVE to find something; otherwise they are out of the game. Even though some drug companies like Histogen claim that they are interested in regenerative medicine in general, their hair loss product will be a big track record and will determine their future funding. Also, as you might have noticed, these companies are the ones who discover what we know now about hair loss (PGD2's that inhibit hair growth, the wnt pathway, etc). Hence, I believe that it is far more likely now to get a decent product that helps then it was 20 years ago.
DesperateOne
Banned
- Reaction score
- 18
These companies have not discovered a damn thing, all the discoveries have been done by universities. Yes, Dr. cot does work in follica but his findings are publicly released because it was a finding with university money and with his peers.
This article is nothing new, there was an exact article done two years. In fact you can find a new article about hairloss promising a cure every single day. It's just websites that need traffic and will try to refactor similar articles and add nothing new. The problem is that most people think it's a new discovery. New breakthroughs will come from sites like cell.
uncomfortable man
Senior Member
- Reaction score
- 490
DON"T BELIEVE THE HYPE!!!
It's easy to say 10 years or 30 years but like Desmond said, there has been more breakthroughs and well funded research that in the last 5 years. There is no doubt that we will have a cure somewhat soon even if its just an improvement to hair transplant. Think about hair transplants 10-15 years ago. Everything has improved a lot and there are a lot of people going after discovering the cure. Also, another good point to look at is almost every time there is an actual breakthrough it seems to come out of nowhere. Google isn't going to post that Follica is 8 months away from a cure, it's obvious that everyone is trying to be secretive about their approach because there actually is competition now, which is a beautiful thing. This discovery will change the world. I believe its coming and Ive come to these forums for almost 2 years to get news, ideas and insight. All I ask is if you don't have anything to contribute then stay off, we need a few more Desmonds.
TheHandsomeLurker
Established Member
- Reaction score
- 21
There was another thread with a BBC article about this. Essentially the researchers have a first step in growing new follicles in a lab, which could then be implanted into a bald scalp. They did it in mice, though, so we'll have to wait and see if this technique works for humans.
peacemaker
Banned
- Reaction score
- 22
I actually wouldn't mind if they implanted mouse skin on my head as most of their experiments seem to work on them instead of us. I could have a brown rat skin, whereas a blond guy could have hamster skin that produces blond furs etc.
These breakthroughs are all nonsense. Just like cancer research, we hear of these breakthroughs and nothing ever comes from them. We hear cancer is hard to cure because it is so many diseases yet billions of dollars have been thrown at breast cancer research alone and we are no closer to a cure for it than we were 40 years ago.
The only reason these fake breakthroughs are reported is to keep the free grant money flowing.
The only reason these fake breakthroughs are reported is to keep the free grant money flowing.
bushbush
Established Member
- Reaction score
- 85
It is easy to say that without reading the primary literature. You may not think the same if you were to do some personal research on recent progress in molecular biology.
uncomfortable man
Senior Member
- Reaction score
- 490
Progress? What progress?! They are still slicing up mice for crying out loud! We've been playing "Of mice and men" since the ****ing 70's and for what? What?! Show me the progress. Show me some inkling of evidence that we are closer to a cure, to a product or service that is REAL AND AVAILABLE TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC?! All I see is lies, exaggerations, misinformation, smoke and mirrors and a **** load of RED TAPE!
K
karankaran
Guest
IF CREDIBILITY OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH IS DECIDED BY NUMBER OF FAILED BREAKTHROUGHS, WE WOULD STILL BE LIVING IN A STONE AGE.
Breakthroughs are made and they fail also. But every failed breakthrough lights up the way for other ones.
AND, just wanted to tell u that the grant money do not flow in our pockets. I earn 30 k a year , being a student researcher. That is well below what you might be earning. And well below what I could have earned , had i not chosen this path.
But i believe that will be among those people who will chastise the same scientists if they rush their research to market without proper safety testing. Did you know it takes 10-15 years for clinical trials to be completed!.
Unfortunately for medical science, certain members of HairLossTalk.com are not a part of the community or else these GREAT MINDS would have solved cancer and baldness in NO TIME. And that , IMO, is the biggest tragedy.
- Reaction score
- 2,634
Not much of a breakthrough if its a failure.
In USA, lol. You can thank the FDA for these ridiculously long timelines. Which begs the question: why are we tolerating such bullsh*t from the FDA? We don't need treatments in 15 years. We need them NOW.
bushbush
Established Member
- Reaction score
- 85
Search for male pattern baldness on Google scholar (http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hair loss=en&q=male+pattern+baldness&btnG=&as_sdt=1,5&as_sdtp=) and then find a single paper that in your own words, report: "lies, exaggerations" and "misinformation".
Suggest to any biologist or medic that in the field of molecular biology, no progress has been made in the last 40 years (with techniques that are now used to probe the causes of conditions such as Androgenetic Alopecia) and you will get laughed out.
- Reaction score
- 2,634
They can have a billion of those papers. Unless there's a procedure that works, all those papers mean jack sh*t to all of us.