Bayer Prolactin Receptor Antibody For Male And Female Pattern Hair Loss

D

Dimitri001

Experienced Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
340
pegasus2 said:
Care to show your math on that?
Click to expand...
I assume he's referring to 1. here, which may not be a bad point if the bit about follicle density checks out.
hmmmmmmmm said:
this post didn't get enough attention, and leads into some other interesting questions about conditions of the monkeys that I'll just dump here

1. It shows there's potentially ~2.5x (or more) available follicles to reawaken in macaques than humans - so a 50-220/cm^2 range of increase in "thick" hairs in monkeys might be naively translated to a range of 20-80/cm^2 in humans

2. The patent also defines "thick" hairs in a way that might not map to human terminal hairs - choosing a smaller cutoff

What width of monkey hair is vellus vs terminal? Is there any reference that shows their chosen thickness actually equivalent to what we consider terminal? If not, this could substantially inflate the "thick" count. A histogram of follicle diameters would have answered these questions

Does their definition of "thick" hairs correspond to other Androgenetic Alopecia studies in macaques? Is this a standard?

3. How were the monkeys selected? Inclusion/exclusion criteria? Any possibility of bias?
What about any pre-existing skin conditions? Infections? Health status (diabetes, hypertension)?
Several references of animal welfare studies in monkeys show that patches of baldness and chronic telogen effluvium are pretty common
Stumptailed macaques *can* have Androgenetic Alopecia - but *did* these particular ones actually get diagnosed as having that?

4. Monkeys have much more pronounced seasonable shedding cycles, outside the duration of the study. What was the documented timing of this in the monkeys, in relation to the study timing?

5. Did their environment change? Was their housing consistent, or did it change upon commencement of study (e.g. single caged or shared cages)? If they were moved, was there a period of acclimatization? Did the food, exposure to sunlight, temperature, or interactions with humans change?

tl;dr -
Only 2-3 monkeys would have been necessary to control for everything I just listed above, given how powerful an effect was expected

The whole point of control groups is that you don't have to care about most of the above details, that's why it's such an important scientific tool and why highly qualified scientists deliberately choosing not to use it makes it hard to have high confidence in the effect until higher quality information is available, given obvious possible biases

But they seem to have done whatever it takes to get Series B funding and a fileable patent...maybe the effect is real but I'll wait for phase II
Click to expand...
 
P

pegasus2

Senior Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
4,504
Dimitri001 said:
I assume he's referring to 1. here, which may not be a bad point if the bit about follicle density checks out.
Click to expand...
Lol They tested finasteride in macaques and it didn't do a tenth of what HMI did. Dutasteride isn't that much better than finasteride. Like I mentioned already, stumptailed macaques have much less density than rhesus, so he needs to fix his math. Those guys got almost full regrowth, and this idea that macaques are not predictive of human response is absurd.
 
T

trialAcc

Senior Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
1,531
hmmmmmmmm said:
Your post's reference on species' difference in hair density represented a good starting point for making the "optimistic" case for HMI in humans

back of the envelope math right now would predict HMI has an effect in humans somewhere between finasteride and dutasteride, closer to dutasteride

I'm going to keep refining the list, and add upper/lower numeric bounds based on any references I can find
(there's some good animal welfare studies that used observed Telogen Effluvium rates as a proxy for "chronic stress" in captive macaques)

also found some ok sources on macaques shedding cycles, will try to see what assumptions are reasonable when mapping it to human seasonal shedding

and papers that are more industry-focused, concerned with being able to accelerate hair growth in animals like sheep to be able to harvest more wool. This is where the bulk of useful info on prolactin and melatonin's ability to "reset" their shedding cycle might come from
Click to expand...
Why is anyone still debating this guy. He's clearly a massive troll who's talking out of his *** and trying his hardest to stomp on the hope train.

He just labeled a 6 month course of a drug that grew hair on bald areas and had regrowth numbers in the hundreds of percent from baseline; "somewhere between finasteride and dutasteride", as if he had any clue in the slightest how to do the back of envelope map that's referencing. What's worse is that the gains held for years and years, which we already know is not and never will be the case from finasteride or dutasteride. You can throw whatever question marks you want into the equation (most of which are valid by the way, we don't know the true efficacy and how it will translate to humans), but you've shown your hand by your pathetic attempts to use hot takes to piss everyone off.

We literally have studies on Macaques from finasteride that didn't even touch this level of efficacy from a individual follicle density standpoint, never mind in raw new terminal hairs. Same goes for RU and minoxidil. HMI115 is in a different level of efficacy on the same animal model.
 
John Difool

John Difool

Senior Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
1,325
RolfLeeBuckler said:
Somebody Here was able to contact Xiu Riu Ping, CEO of HopeMedicine.

Can you give Me the email Adress?
We have to know whats going on
Click to expand...
Care to share the draft before your send? I am curious how would you phrase such an email and expect someone of that reputation to reply to a random dude from a hair loss forum.
 
O

Otrebor

Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
28
I made 4 comments on a path potentially never considered, hypothesizing possible links with prolactin, hoping that a discussion would arise, at least I tried to treat it from a scientific point of view since companies do what they want and we will never know the effectiveness of something until we see it on the market.... I have not been considered at all lol, probably someone has not burned enough to welcome anything from companies like gold or to dismantle without the rehearsal is over, go ahead surely it will be fruitful speeches
 
O

Otrebor

Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
28
I don't want to be edgy at all costs, but what do you expect to receive from a hypothetical answer? Companies are on the hunt for funding, they cannot answer you with extra elements that do not leak from normal information, there are millions at stake and the slightest declaration can blow everything, even when they have never been sent to tsuji or replicel to ask about the progress of the phases replied with the usual nonsense and we were burned I don't understand why this time it should go differently (and I say that personally I put a lot of faith in hmi)
 
John Difool

John Difool

Senior Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
1,325
It's probably easier to recruit people with Androgenetic Alopecia in the street and have them sign an informed consent.
 
5

5minutesbeforemiracle

Established Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
179
hmmmmmmmm said:
Your post's reference on species' difference in hair density represented a good starting point for making the "optimistic" case for HMI in humans

back of the envelope math right now would predict HMI has an effect in humans somewhere between finasteride and dutasteride, closer to dutasteride

I'm going to keep refining the list, and add upper/lower numeric bounds based on any references I can find
(there's some good animal welfare studies that used observed Telogen Effluvium rates as a proxy for "chronic stress" in captive macaques)

also found some ok sources on macaques shedding cycles, will try to see what assumptions are reasonable when mapping it to human seasonal shedding

and papers that are more industry-focused, concerned with being able to accelerate hair growth in animals like sheep to be able to harvest more wool. This is where the bulk of useful info on prolactin and melatonin's ability to "reset" their shedding cycle might come from
Click to expand...
Since you used "back of envelope" math to compare (downplay) HMI's vs finasteride's effects on macaques, I found the following study which will enable us to compare them empiracally.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

The effects of finasteride (Proscar) on hair growth, hair cycle stage, and serum testosterone and dihydrotestosterone in adult male and female stumptail macaques (Macaca arctoides) - PubMed

Finasteride, a 5 alpha-reductase inhibitor, was administered orally (1 mg/kg.day) for 6 months to six male and five female stumptail macaques. Vehicle was given to five male and five female animals over the same period of time. Hair weights in a defined 1-in.2 area of frontal scalp were measured...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Unfortunately, it's just the abstract available for free. Does anyone with access to research journals care to find out what the results were? Then we can compare it to HMI.
 
P

pegasus2

Senior Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
4,504
Otrebor said:
I made 4 comments on a path potentially never considered, hypothesizing possible links with prolactin, hoping that a discussion would arise, at least I tried to treat it from a scientific point of view since companies do what they want and we will never know the effectiveness of something until we see it on the market.... I have not been considered at all lol, probably someone has not burned enough to welcome anything from companies like gold or to dismantle without the rehearsal is over, go ahead surely it will be fruitful speeches
Click to expand...
It's already been discussed
 
P

pegasus2

Senior Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
4,504
Please no one else email her. One is enough
 
P

pegasus2

Senior Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
4,504
5minutesbeforemiracle said:
Since you used "back of envelope" math to compare (downplay) HMI's vs finasteride's effects on macaques, I found the following study which will enable us to compare them empiracally.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

The effects of finasteride (Proscar) on hair growth, hair cycle stage, and serum testosterone and dihydrotestosterone in adult male and female stumptail macaques (Macaca arctoides) - PubMed

Finasteride, a 5 alpha-reductase inhibitor, was administered orally (1 mg/kg.day) for 6 months to six male and five female stumptail macaques. Vehicle was given to five male and five female animals over the same period of time. Hair weights in a defined 1-in.2 area of frontal scalp were measured...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Unfortunately, it's just the abstract available for free. Does anyone with access to research journals care to find out what the results were? Then we can compare it to HMI.
Click to expand...
This is the study I posted earlier in the thread. Unfortunately it only measures hair weights, but I calculated what should be a fairly accurate hair count from that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Community platform by XenForo® © 2010-2023 XenForo Ltd.
Top