Care to show your math on that?back of the envelope math right now would predict HMI has an effect in humans somewhere between finasteride and dutasteride, closer to dutasteride
I assume he's referring to 1. here, which may not be a bad point if the bit about follicle density checks out.Care to show your math on that?
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
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.I assume he's referring to 1. here, which may not be a bad point if the bit about follicle density checks out.
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.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
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.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
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.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
Next group buy is a pack of monkeys.Who wants to buy a macaque and feed him high doses of oral SMI to see if it works lol?
It's already been discussedI 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
View attachment 174585Can someone connect with her email. She is in our top china uni. Here is her peking university email address.
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.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.
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
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.
ok i delete my postYh that's why I didn't post the email publicly I thought people may just spam her lol.