Don't Be Delusional, There Won't Be Anything Better For The Next 30 Years. Deal With It.

How long until anything better (treatment, cure...) comes?


  • Total voters
    170
  • Poll closed .

Spanishboy97

Established Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
421
When I started coming to these boards about ten years ago, I thought we would have something more than we have by now
Five years later and almost two Norwoods later, same. The only thing that gives me hope is hair transplants better methods like Zarev and maybe Breezula as an safe anti-androgen. Back in 2017 we were all so sure of Brotzu, Shiseido and Tsuji... All bullshit now.
 

Chads don't bald

Established Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
107
People don't understand that our knowledge in biotech is cumulative.

This is not even taking account of the fact that AI is now helping with drug discovery and drug development. You can't really use the past to predict the future, because of exponential progress as a result of the stuff mentioned above.
 

MeDK

Experienced Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
414
People don't understand that our knowledge in biotech is cumulative.

This is not even taking account of the fact that AI is now helping with drug discovery and drug development. You can't really use the past to predict the future, because of exponential progress as a result of the stuff mentioned above.

Research isn't exponential, if that was true we would have done very huge leaps every second, and that isn't the truth.

We still use very basic treatments, we still use the same electrical motors, combustion engines and so on. Even computer technology is moving slower.

men went to the moon in the sixties, and we haven't been there since, we still use same kind of propulsion to get to space and such. Nothing haven't really moved away from that.
 

Chads don't bald

Established Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
107
I would argue that we are still on the base of the J curve right now. I believe AI will help us get to the steep slope point
 

MeDK

Experienced Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
414
I would argue that we are still on the base of the J curve right now. I believe AI will help us get to the steep slope point

AI have been used for decades, and we are still were we are at.

What is it that you think AI will change?

Same with people talking about quantum computing will change it all.

How is all of those things going to change, if you have no models to work with?

Its almost like saying "if I get running shoes, then i can run a marathon" even though you never done any running at all.

So I have a hard time imaging what it is that AI is going to do, to help with advancing R&D or even do major discoveries to make a major leap for human development.
 

KNemo

Established Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
200
People don't understand that our knowledge in biotech is cumulative.

This is not even taking account of the fact that AI is now helping with drug discovery and drug development. You can't really use the past to predict the future, because of exponential progress as a result of the stuff mentioned above.
Improved computers means they can be used better however progress isn't exponential. The popular proof of exponential progress is computing technology generally illustrated with Moore's law which died about 14 years ago, another example is silicon process technology which again started to falter over 10 years ago. If you want a third one Dennard scaling is also dead, simplified the thing ensuring improved process technology meant faster computers.
Biology is a much more complex topic in that things are fluid in more than one sense and very hard to measure. What we need is more standardized mass-produced cheap organs on a chip. What use is an AI finding likely substances for a particular purpose if the bottleneck is actually trying them out on human tissue?
 

Chads don't bald

Established Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
107
What we need is more standardized mass-produced cheap organs on a chip.
This is true, in silico trials will help tremendously to speed up progress. Then we don't have to spend 10 years in the trial process, it can be done as soon as you find a potential solution and then go out to the public instantly
 

trialAcc

Senior Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
1,531
I know this thread is 3-4 years old now, but you have to be pretty dumb to think hairloss wont be cured within 30-40 years, let alone not have a better treatment before then. Gene therapy/editing is being done in the clinic, on human beings right now. It's not some mystical science fiction concept.

I'd say 15 years tops before hairloss can be fully prevented if you are starting from NW0. Perhaps sooner using cell derived hair scaffolds to replace lost hair, but the quality and life of the follicles may be poor to start, we'll have to see. You probably see these types of treatments start to enter trials within the next 2-5 years (Stemson & Moogene comes to mind, they are pretty close to human trials), with a successful commercialization closer to the end of the decade.
 
Last edited:

jan_miezda

Banned
My Regimen
Reaction score
291
I know this thread is 3-4 years old now, but you have to be pretty dumb to think hairloss wont be cured within 30-40 years, let alone not have a better treatment before then. Gene therapy/editing is being done in the clinic, on human beings right now. It's not some mystical science fiction concept.

I'd say 15 years tops before hairloss can be fully prevented if you are starting from NW0. Perhaps sooner using cell derived hair scaffolds to replace lost hair, but the quality and life of the follicles may be poor to start, we'll have to see. You probably see these types of treatments start to enter trials within the next 2-5 years (Stemson & Moogene comes to mind, they are pretty close to human trials), with a successful commercialization closer to the end of the decade.
gene editing can not be useful for us. What gene cause hairloss in human? maybe there are many of gene or different combination. no one knows that yet its the hardest part. that's why I like cloning more
 

trialAcc

Senior Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
1,531
gene editing can not be useful for us. What gene cause hairloss in human? maybe there are many of gene or different combination. no one knows that yet its the hardest part. that's why I like cloning more
I don't have a mapped board of gene phenotypes that can answer your question, but there are many companies working on that exact thing right now in pre-clinical trials. One that comes to mind right away is Moogene, as I mentioned in my post. They are developing a CRISPR AAV targeted approach to making follicles immune to DHT/androgenic initiated inflammation.

People hear gene therapy and think you need to make some grand change to the human structure to achieve results. There is specific encoding/expression in the follicles in the top region of men's hair that causes them to be susceptible to androgens. You only need to target the follicles themselves to solve the issue, even if the actual cause of male pattern baldness is caused much further up-stream.

I agree with you though, cloning/cell derived hair replacement will likely be the "cure" for most people posting on this board right now. Gene editing will have larger regulatory/safety hurdles to pass through then cloning.
 
Last edited:

Micky_007

Experienced Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
377
I don't have a mapped board of gene phenotypes that can answer your question, but there are many companies working on that exact thing right now in pre-clinical trials. One that comes to mind right away is Moogene, as I mentioned in my post. They are developing a CRISPR AAV targeted approach to making follicles immune to DHT/androgenic initiated inflammation.

People hear gene therapy and think you need to make some grand change to the human structure to achieve results. There is specific encoding/expression in the follicles in the top region of men's hair that causes them to be susceptible to androgens. You only need to target the follicles themselves to solve the issue, even if the actual cause of male pattern baldness is caused much further up-stream.

I agree with you though, cloning/cell derived hair replacement will likely be the "cure" for most people posting on this board right now. Gene editing will have larger regulatory/safety hurdles to pass through then cloning.

No offense to Moogene’s current solution (CRISPR/Cas9 Therapy for Androgenic Alopecia) but there’s still room for improvement for Moogene’s solution because currently, if I’m being honest, it sounds similar to what a typical topical treatment would do and doesn’t sound like REAL “Gene Editing” to me.

It must be noted that results in mice don’t always translate to the same results in humans (Moogene was trialing on mice) . This has been proven almost every time now for all hairloss treatments that used to be in the pipeline.

What I am going to be suggesting is ACTUAL “Gene Editing”.

Currently, all Moogene Medi's solution does is prevent 5AR (5-Alpha Reductase) activity in the DP (Dermal Papilla ) which is good. But if the DHT moves throughout the body and goes to the Hair Follicles and bonds to the AR then it’s still going to cause the gene expression.

Firstly, Moogene Medi should “Gene Edit the AR in the DP ( dermal papilla) to reject Androgens altogether. Or even better, modify the AR to become an ER (Estrogen Receptor).

The reason for this is because if DHT is produced elsewhere in the body and still bonds to the AR at the hair follicle, the 5AR inactivation suggested by Moogene might be okay, but it won’t be a serious mitigation like AR to ER “Gene Editing”.

Secondly, I suggest Editing the genes on the scalp to express themselves like the follicles of facial hair or any other thick and dense area of body hair because they are resistant to DHT and therefore will be resistant to Androgenetic Alopecia.

Personally, this sounds better and I’m sure you can also tell as well this sounds like ACTUAL “Gene Editing” as opposed to simply applying a topical and using ultrasound at certain intervals so that the scalp absorbs the topical properly, which is what Moogene Medi is proposing on doing yet their calling it "Gene Editing Therapy".
 
Last edited:

trialAcc

Senior Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
1,531
No offense to Moogene’s current solution (CRISPR/Cas9 Therapy for Androgenic Alopecia) but there’s still room for improvement for Moogene’s solution because currently, if I’m being honest, it sounds similar to what a typical topical treatment would do and doesn’t sound like REAL “Gene Editing” to me.

It must be noted that results in mice don’t always translate to the same results in humans (Moogene was trialing on mice) . This has been proven almost every time now for all hairloss treatments that used to be in the pipeline.

What I am going to be suggesting is ACTUAL “Gene Editing”.

Currently, all Moogene Medi's solution does is prevent 5AR (5-Alpha Reductase) activity in the DP (Dermal Papilla ) which is good. But if the DHT moves throughout the body and goes to the Hair Follicles and bonds to the AR then it’s still going to cause the gene expression.

Firstly, Moogene Medi should “Gene Edit the AR in the DP ( dermal papilla) to reject Androgens altogether. Or even better, modify the AR to become an ER (Estrogen Receptor).

The reason for this is because if DHT is produced elsewhere in the body and still bonds to the AR at the hair follicle, the 5AR inactivation suggested by Moogene might be okay, but it won’t be a serious mitigation like AR to ER “Gene Editing”.

Secondly, I suggest Editing the genes on the scalp to express themselves like the follicles of facial hair or any other thick and dense area of body hair because they are resistant to DHT and therefore will be resistant to Androgenetic Alopecia (Androgenic Alopecia).

Personally, this sounds better and I’m sure you can also tell as well this sounds like ACTUAL “Gene Editing” as opposed to simply applying a topical and using ultrasound at certain intervals so that the scalp absorbs the topical properly, which is what Moogene Medi is proposing on doing yet their calling it "Gene Editing Therapy".
The CRISPR virus itself is gene editing, there's no way around that. The fact that the delivery method is topical is just because that's where the delivery to the follicles takes place, and actually makes the entire process easier because they don't have to worry about off target events to the same scale as a systematic approach. They will be using the AAV virus vector delivery to make a cut and replacement of one of the genes in the follicle. It's not a topical that simply tries to alter a process in the target like any current topical.

But yes, it's on mice, as is every pre-clinical medical model. They've probably done it in human cells ex-vivo as well though, another reason why this process should be easier then most other gene therapies. They can simply extract human follicles and tissue and actually deliver the vector to the intended target.
 

Janks16

Established Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
330
It's a hard pill to swallow. I really thought in the last 5 years that something would come to help our hair growth, but there just doesn't seem to be anything on the horizon that will grow new hair. I'm in my 40's now and I've been using minoxidil and Finasteride for 22 years. It's helped keep some of my hair, but it's not what at used to be. It's enough to make a grown man cry.
 

trialAcc

Senior Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
1,531
It's a hard pill to swallow. I really thought in the last 5 years that something would come to help our hair growth, but there just doesn't seem to be anything on the horizon that will grow new hair. I'm in my 40's now and I've been using minoxidil and Finasteride for 22 years. It's helped keep some of my hair, but it's not what at used to be. It's enough to make a grown man cry.
Samumed's SM hair growth drug literally just finished phase 3 trials a month ago. 90 day phase 2 showed 10% growth in new terminal hair, and we all know 90 days is too short to determine end results. 12 month trial results will be in the next 1-2 month.

Might not be revolutionary but it's a different path way then min or finasteride, so if successful it could certainly offer a new treatment for those who need to grow hair. The idea behind their drug is also to prevent damage to the follicles, so again, if successful could be a decent combo treatment that actually works for people.
 
Last edited:

trialAcc

Senior Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
1,531
Bimmler was talking about 30 years in summer 2017.

So nearly 4 years have passed... 26 years to go.
Yes and a phase 3 trial just ended (Samumed SM) and another will start this year (Cassepoia CB). Right there is two drugs that could be "better", and probably with 24~ years to go after either one could be approved.

Either way, science doesn't move at a linear pace. All those little studies of hair being grown on a mice compound on each other until the process is better understand and new companies can capitalize on existing research.
 
Last edited:
Top