dNovo new promissing player in the stemcell race

[JohnDoe5]

That interview was Ernesto like answering like 3 questions via email very obtusely

So their current method consists of taking a strip of skin and “placing” “induced” stem cells on it? What does it even mean?

By induced stem calls he means that the cells are induced to grow hair.

Hair cells also function as skin cells and when hair cells are cultured numerous times they turn into cells that grow skin. That is the problem. They can't culture your hair cells a lot and create more hair cells because your hair cells lose hair-indictivity in numerous culture passes. The cells can survive as hair cells for a couple passes but that is all. And it isn't enough. They have to be able to do a lot of culturing in order to create enough cells to regrow a lot of hair. And In order to grow hair the cells must be hair induced.

 

[Joxy]

Bzzt! Wrong. Decades ago Dr. Jahoda injected his hair-induced cells into his wife's arm and his injected cells grew hair on her arm.

So? Why he didn’t put his hair-induced cells on his wife head? And, why after 15 years Dr. Jahoda still doesn’t have 1 product on hair loss market?

DNovo method is too invasive and too complicated for practical use. I don’t believe this company will bring something to the market.

 

[Raccooner]

So? Why he didn’t put his hair-induced cells on his wife head? And, why after 15 years Dr. Jahoda still doesn’t have 1 product on hair loss market?

That's what I'd like to know.

 

[Joxy]

I wish the FDA would disappear. Without them we might actually get somewhere eventually.

Actually, they claim they've had success for hair on their web site in preclinicals but they don't state in what animal. If it's mice, that's next to zero then as far as I'm concerned.

FDA is very good thing.

 

[Joxy]

That's what I'd like to know.

It is very simple. His technology was not good enough to start company and bring it to the market. Because scientific research and bringing actual treatment to clinical use are totally different thing.

 

[Raccooner]

It is very simple. His technology was not good enough to start company and bring it to the market. Because scientific research and bringing actual treatment to clinical use are totally different thing.

Too bad there's no picture(s) of the result. Here is some information I dug up about this: Dr. Jahoda's Hair Cloning Research? (bernsteinmedical.com)

 

[JohnDoe5]

So? Why he didn’t put his hair-induced cells on his wife head? And, why after 15 years Dr. Jahoda still doesn’t have 1 product on hair loss market?

DNovo method is too invasive and too complicated for practical use. I don’t believe this company will bring something to the market.

1. I don't know why he didn't put his induced cells on his wife's head but it's probably because she already had a full head of hair so he wouldn't be able to discern if the injected cells produced more hair growth. By injecting the cells where she had very little hair the new hairs were easy to see.

2. The reason that Jahoda and nobody else has a product on the hair loss market yet is because nobody up until now has been able to solve this inductivity problem. It has taken years to solve this problem and I'm not even 100% sure anyone has solved this problem yet.

 

[JohnDoe5]

It is very simple. His technology was not good enough to start company and bring it to the market. Because scientific research and bringing actual treatment to clinical use are totally different thing.

The reason he hasn't bring a product to market is because the only way such a treatment would be practical is if they could remove just a few cells from a person's head and then culture many many copies of those few cell. They haven't been able to do that because those cells lose their hair inductivity in multiple pass culture. That's why they need to crack the code for preserving inductivity during multiple pass culture. This company says they've figured out how to do that. IMO they should take their technology into studies NOW!

 

[Raccooner]

The reason he hasn't bring a product to market is because the only way such a treatment would be practical is if they could remove just a few cells from a person's head and then culture many many copies of those few cell. They haven't been able to do that because those cells lose their hair inductivity in multiple pass culture. That's why they need to crack the code for preserving inductivity during multiple pass culture. This company says they've figured out how to do that. IMO they should take their technology into studies NOW!

Which company? Perhaps you could contact them? If people here reach out, maybe we could get somewhere. You can't expect the scientists to know everything.

 

[froggy7]

John which company?

 

[Joxy]

Chinese scientists (with help from their UK partners) for the first time in history created totipotent 8-cell stage embryo-like cells. Plus, in vivo. This is huge breakthrough for science in future. Totipotent stem cells are much powerful than iPSCs, and can give rise to the whole organism.

BGI groundbreaking research results in cells that may facilitate advances in organ regeneration

Shenzhen, March 22, 2022: In a world-first, scientists from BGI-Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, and a group of partners published

scienmag.com

Rolling back human pluripotent stem cells to an eight-cell embryo-like stage - Nature

The development of a transgene-free, rapid and controllable method for producing eight-cell-like cells from human pluripotent stem cells provides a valuable resource to study early human embryogenesis.

www.nature.com

I hope this kind of things will also affect hair loss research. I am not scientist or very familiar, but can we create much easier hair follicles using totipotent stem cells?

 

[JohnDoe5]

Which company? Perhaps you could contact them? If people here reach out, maybe we could get somewhere. You can't expect the scientists to know everything.

The company is the one being talked about in this thread - d'Novo

 

[pegasus2]

Fda is protect you from another brozuto

No one needs protecting from Brotzu. It's not dangerous, and the FDA has no authority over it. The FDA is supposed to be there to protect us from dangerous drugs. It does that, but what it also does is drive up the cost of development, preventing life-saving drugs from ever being explored because the cost of development is too high. If it wasn't for the Chinese we wouldn't be getting Bayer's PRLR antibody because the FDA stifles R&D. It needs major reform to reduce the regulatory burden and speed up the process so it serves to enable R&D rather than enriching megacap biotechs by preventing better drugs from coming to market. Finasteride should have been obsolete a decade ago, yet Merck is still making billions from it thanks to the FDA.

 

[Raccooner]

No one needs protecting from Brotzu. It's not dangerous, and the FDA has no authority over it. The FDA is supposed to be there to protect us from dangerous drugs. It does that, but what it also does is drive up the cost of development, preventing life-saving drugs from ever being explored because the cost of development is too high. If it wasn't for the Chinese we wouldn't be getting Bayer's PRLR antibody because the FDA stifles R&D. It needs major reform to reduce the regulatory burden and speed up the process so it serves to enable R&D rather than enriching megacap biotechs by preventing better drugs from coming to market. Finasteride should have been obsolete a decade ago, yet Merck is still making billions from it thanks to the FDA.

If the FDA is a protection racket then they need to be disbanded. I think they shouldn't have the final say of what can and cannot be permitted. pegasus2 gave really good examples why we would be better off without the FDA overall. I think there's no problem if the FDA wishes to recommend or not of certain products or procedures but they should not be involved in determining who gets to do what kind of research. The USA is falling behind in research advances compared to other countries due to their interference. Wish there was a way to get them off our backs. They are a medical mafia.

 

[5minutesbeforemiracle]

If the FDA is a protection racket then they need to be disbanded. I think they shouldn't have the final say of what can and cannot be permitted. pegasus2 gave really good examples why we would be better off without the FDA overall. I think there's no problem if the FDA wishes to recommend or not of certain products or procedures but they should not be involved in determining who gets to do what kind of research. The USA is falling behind in research advances compared to other countries due to their interference. Wish there was a way to get them off our backs. They are a medical mafia.

You always need some approval agency, wtf Otherwise a lot of people will get sick before a drug is pulled off the market.

 

[JohnDoe5]

You always need some approval agency, wtf Otherwise a lot of people will get sick before a drug is pulled off the market.

It could be worse than a lot of people getting sick if there is no approval agency...a lot of people could die if there is no approval agency. In fact, that is why the FDA was created. It was created because a lot of people died since there was no regulatory agency controlling what could and couldn't be put into the marketplace.

When and why was FDA formed?

Though FDA can trace its history back to the appointment of chemist Lewis Caleb Beck to the Agricultural Division in the Patent Office in 1848, its origins as a federal consumer protection agency began with the passage of the 1906 Pure Food and Drugs Act.

www.fda.gov

 

[Joxy]

Many people try to sell scum and dangerous products, so we need control body like FDA.