Hair Loss Cure Versus Cure For Entire Aging Process

[nameless]

Perhaps I haven't articulated it well so let me try again. The reason I'm paying close attention to potential cures to the entire aging process along with cures that focus solely on hair loss is threefold:

1. A revolutionary cure for hair loss is going to be pricey.

2. A cure for the entire aging process is going to be pricey PLUS it would probably also cure hair loss.

3. A cure for the entire aging process could come out just a few years after a true cure for hair loss.

So look, if a true cure for hair loss comes to market in 3 years and it costs $50,000 that would be a significant hit to my wallet. And then let's say a cure for the entire aging process comes out one or two years later, and let's say that cure for the entire aging process costs $100,000. That would be pricey too. I can't figure out if it would be smarter to get the cure for hair loss as soon as it hits the market, or wait the year or two longer to pay for the cure for the entire aging process, which would include a cure for hair loss as part of its' action.

 

[tele]

is this real?! I find it hard to believe that a cure for the entire aging process will be available in the next 50 years

 

[baldingAF]

Damn @nameless the decisions you face are certainly challenging- must be hard

 

[nameless]

is this real?! I find it hard to believe that a cure for the entire aging process will be available in the next 50 years

WTF is your problem dude?

I get it that some people disagree with me about when a cure for the aging process is going to hit the market. But I posted my issue based on my idea of when a cure for hair loss and a cure for the entire aging process will hit the market, not your ideas. If you want to start your own thread about when you think a cure for hair loss and the entire aging process will hit the market go ahead and do it. But this thread is about my issues, not yours, fool.

For the purpose of this thread I ask that all participants respect my timetable so that we don't have to waste time discussing each of our beliefs when this treatment will come out or when that treatment will come out. This thread isn't so much about the the time-frames as it is about the finances of the situation.

If people don't treat my threads with respect then I won't treat other people's threads with respects. I get it that most people don't agree with me about when a cure for the aging process will come out but please indulge me and go along with my assumptions so that we can discuss the other issues I've raised in this thread. I treat other people's threads/issues with respect and I think it's reasonable for me to ask that others treat my threads/issues with respect too. I'm seriously trying to figure out what to do if an expensive hair loss treatment comes out just a year or two before an even more expensive cure for the entire aging process does.

 

[nameless]

I JUST DON'T SEE HOW YOU THINK AGING IS GOING TO BE CURED IN THE NEXT DECADE. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE ANYWHERE TO SUPPORT THIS. PROVIDE SOME DETAILED EXPLANATIONS AS TO YOUR REASONING AND PEOPLE WILL TREAT YOU FAIRLY. DON'T COME ON A RANDOM FORUM TO TALK ABOUT A FUTURE THAT IS JUST NOT SUPPORTED @nameless

I have already posted some links from pros in the anti-aging industry who say we're just a few years away from a cure. Here is YET another link to one of those stories:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...rse-the-aging-process/?utm_term=.69d7029cee6a

The above story is over a year old. The scientists being interviewed is one of the top scientists in the world. I'm not saying it is definitely going to happen. I'm saying I think it is going to happen. I think hair loss will be cured within 3 years and aging will be cured within 5 years Now since I've posted some evidence please take my thread seriously or I won't take other people's threads seriously.

 

[pegasus2]

Overly optimistic academics are not rare. His belief that this is possible in five years means very little. Here's a more realistic appraisal from the same article:

Eric Lander, who heads the Broad Institute in Cambridge and was a leader of the effort to sequence the human genome, offered a valediction to Tuesday’s session that addressed both the enormous possibilities of the new technologies and the reasons for being extremely cautious. He said there are 4,000 to 5,000 genetic variants associated with human diseases. But these variants don’t necessarily cause those diseases; they just make them slightly more prevalent. Moreover, genes can have multiple purposes — day jobs and night jobs, as Lander put it. These are complex systems, not modules that you can pop out and replace with a better version with zero unintended consequences.

Is going to be a long time before we know what genes to edit to stop or reverse aging, and it might not even be possible no matter how many genes we edit. The best we might be able to do is slow things down.

 

[lemoncloak]

If you think you can delay the treatment for a couple of years, do it. If no aging cure comes out you still get a cheaper treatment, hopefully much cheaper if Kyocera's machines scale well. Fingers crossed.

 

[That Guy]

I don't think a cure for the entire aging process would also solve hairloss because hairloss in the context relevant to most posters here is not a result of aging. Aging doesn't just skip over some people (except Gwen Stefani) and affect others.

Secondly, I do think that nameless has an unhealthy obsession with being young again.

Lastly, I can't agree that a solution to stop all of the aging process would be right behind a hairloss cure and I think all evidence points to the former likely requiring a number of different therapies instead of some one-shot solution.

 

[infinitepain]

Balding ISN'T part of the aging process.

Plenty of NW0 grandpas out there with busted faces.

 

[abcdefg]

Yeah ill take bets that in the next 10 years there is no hair loss cure (Norwood 7 to Norwood 1) and there is no cure for aging.
yeah for male pattern baldness if your not genetically susceptible then you can be 50 or 60 with Norwood 1 hair. Its pretty rare for men, but it does happen I have seen it with my own eyes. Its clearly not aging just no one knows why yet

 

[nameless]

Overly optimistic academics are not rare. His belief that this is possible in five years means very little. Here's a more realistic appraisal from the same article:

Is going to be a long time before we know what genes to edit to stop or reverse aging, and it might not even be possible no matter how many genes we edit. The best we might be able to do is slow things down.

Like I said, I don't want to debate whether or not it will happen soon. I already have my opinion about that. That's not what this thread is about. This thread is about the finances involved and whether or not it would be smarter to wait a couple years after a hair loss cure hits the market so one could purchase the cure for the entire aging process instead.

 

[nameless]

Balding ISN'T part of the aging process.

Plenty of NW0 grandpas out there with busted faces.

More people lose more hair as more time goes by - that seems to suggest that hair loss may be related to aging. But I admit that I'm not sure about that. This thread is not about that issue. It's about the finances involved.

 

[nameless]

If you think you can delay the treatment for a couple of years, do it. If no aging cure comes out you still get a cheaper treatment, hopefully much cheaper if Kyocera's machines scale well. Fingers crossed.

That's a very good point. If I wait the couple years and a cure for the entire aging process comes out I get that instead of the hair loss cure. And if a cure for the entire aging process doesn't come out at least the price of the hair loss cure will have dropped while I was waiting the 2 years for anti-aging treatment.

 

[nameless]

Worst thread ive ever seen get off the forum

I'm very happy that my thread annoys you. I'm happy my thread gets under your skin.

 

[pegasus2]

Balding ISN'T part of the aging process.

Plenty of NW0 grandpas out there with busted faces.

There are also grandpas out there without wrinkles. What we see as aging is just the accumulation of cell damage. What do you think Androgenetic Alopecia is if it's not cell damage? Everyone ages differently.

 

[pegasus2]

Balding ISN'T part of the aging process.

Plenty of NW0 grandpas out there with busted faces.

There are also grandpas out there without wrinkles. What we see as aging is just the accumulation of cell damage. What do you think Androgenetic Alopecia is if it's not cell damage? Everyone ages differently.

Like I said, I don't want to debate whether or not it will happen soon. I already have my opinion about that. That's not what this thread is about. This thread is about the finances involved and whether or not it would be smarter to wait a couple years after a hair loss cure hits the market so one could purchase the cure for the entire aging process instead.

In that case, it would be smarter to get your hair fixed ASAP, since aging won't be cured in your lifetime.

 

[pegasus2]

Yeah ill take bets that in the next 10 years there is no hair loss cure (Norwood 7 to Norwood 1) and there is no cure for aging.
yeah for male pattern baldness if your not genetically susceptible then you can be 50 or 60 with Norwood 1 hair. Its pretty rare for men, but it does happen I have seen it with my own eyes. Its clearly not aging just no one knows why yet

I've seen 20 year olds with wrinkles, and 60 year olds without wrinkles. Does that mean that's not an aging symptom either? Aging affects us all in different ways.

 

[abcdefg]

More people lose more hair as more time goes by - that seems to suggest that hair loss may be related to aging. But I admit that I'm not sure about that. This thread is not about that issue. It's about the finances involved.

Yes. In men that are genetically susceptible to male pattern baldness. Not everyone.

 

[nameless]

Yes. In men that are genetically susceptible to male pattern baldness. Not everyone.

Neither one of us know whether or not reversing the aging process will regrow hair. I stated that. The scientists also say they aren't sure yet. Yet you keep insisting that reversing the aging process won't cure hair loss.

You don't know what you're talking about and you're a fool for insisting that you do.

I'm done talking to you. I don't talk to fools. I won't be responding to you anymore.

 

[That Guy]

Yet you keep insisting that reversing the aging process won't cure hair loss.

You don't know what you're talking about and you're a fool for insisting that you do.

"Aging" is an umbrella term for a host of physical changes that occur from the degeneration of cells with the inactivity of stem cells failing to regenerate the damage and other problems that arise directly as a result of this process. It is essentially wear and tear.

male pattern baldness is not this. It's more likely to happen as you get older as that is statistically more common in the genetics and having the necessary sex hormones in abundance for this to occur. We know this much for a fact about male pattern baldness. The end result of male pattern baldness, as you know, is the organs producing hair are destroyed.

This is why your theory of "If the aging process is fixed, male pattern baldness might be along with it" can be disproved. Fixing the aging process is not going to restore teeth, appendix or kidneys you've had removed.

Which brings me to my next point:

When most scientists talk about curing aging, they are referring to the visible signs of it such as decreased collagen density (along with UV damage) that creates wrinkles and sagging skin.

But when you're talking about curing the "aging process" you have to define exactly what aspect(s) of the aging process you are reversing. Is it wrinkles? Is it eliminating diseases that are more frequent among the old? Is it regenerating lost or failing organs? Is it restoring memory and brain function? Hearing loss? Muscle breakdown and bone fragility?

It is a huge, multi-faceted process and male pattern baldness is not a product of "aging"; It's not something that happens due to senescent cells and as such, is not something that can be fixed by rejuvenating these cells anymore than it's reasonable to assume you'll get a missing tooth back from such treatments.

 

[Trichosan]

Indeed, that's pretty much it in a nutshell. However, one is more likely first to get their teeth back through stem cell regeneration of the tooth bud than they are hair follicles.

 

[pegasus2]

"Aging" is an umbrella term for a host of physical changes that occur from the degeneration of cells with the inactivity of stem cells failing to regenerate the damage and other problems that arise directly as a result of this process. It is essentially wear and tear.

male pattern baldness is not this. It's more likely to happen as you get older as that is statistically more common in the genetics and having the necessary sex hormones in abundance for this to occur. We know this much for a fact about male pattern baldness. The end result of male pattern baldness, as you know, is the organs producing hair are destroyed.

This is why your theory of "If the aging process is fixed, male pattern baldness might be along with it" can be disproved. Fixing the aging process is not going to restore teeth, appendix or kidneys you've had removed.

Which brings me to my next point:

When most scientists talk about curing aging, they are referring to the visible signs of it such as decreased collagen density (along with UV damage) that creates wrinkles and sagging skin.

But when you're talking about curing the "aging process" you have to define exactly what aspect(s) of the aging process you are reversing. Is it wrinkles? Is it eliminating diseases that are more frequent among the old? Is it regenerating lost or failing organs? Is it restoring memory and brain function? Hearing loss? Muscle breakdown and bone fragility?

It is a huge, multi-faceted process and male pattern baldness is not a product of "aging"; It's not something that happens due to senescent cells and as such, is not something that can be fixed by rejuvenating these cells anymore than it's reasonable to assume you'll get a missing tooth back from such treatments.

This is exactly what happens in male pattern baldness. Other types of alopecia are autoimmune disorders, but male pattern baldness is a direct result of damage that occurs to the follicle over time. It doesn't happen instantly, and some people's follicles are more resistant than others, but the damage progresses as you age. The only real difference between wrinkles and male pattern baldness is that one is caused primarily by the sun and smoking, while the other is caused by DHT. In both of them the damage is cumulative over time, this it is a sign of aging. The fact that it can happen to some people at a young age is irrelevant. The aging process doesn't start all of a sudden once you hit 50. Other than being in denial about baldness and aging, your post is pretty much spot on.

 

[That Guy]

This is exactly what happens in male pattern baldness. Other types of alopecia are autoimmune disorders, but male pattern baldness is a direct result of damage that occurs to the follicle over time. It doesn't happen instantly, and some people's follicles are more resistant than others, but the damage progresses as you age. The only real difference between wrinkles and male pattern baldness is that one is caused primarily by the sun and smoking, while the other is caused by DHT. In both of them the damage is cumulative over time, this it is a sign of aging. The fact that it can happen to some people at a young age is irrelevant. The aging process doesn't start all of a sudden once you hit 50. Other than being in denial about baldness and aging, your post is pretty much spot on.

No lol

This just elementary stuff.

male pattern baldness is a genetically-inherited sensitivity to male sex hormones. The age of onset of it likely being genetic as well.

Over-exposure to UV accelerates skin aging but it is not the sole cause of it. Senescence leading to things like decreased collagen and thus skin elasticity and it happens to literally everyone. Just because you can take action to slow it down, doesn't mean it's not still happening.

To put it simply, "aging" is the inevitable consequences upon cells from the passage of time inherent to all humans: Senescence.

male pattern baldness does not involve this. You either have it, or you don't. Like Green eyes or Brown.

 

[pegasus2]

No lol

This just elementary stuff.

male pattern baldness is a genetically-inherited sensitivity to male sex hormones. The age of onset of it likely being genetic as well.

Over-exposure to UV accelerates skin aging but it is not the sole cause of it. Senescence leading to things like decreased collagen and thus skin elasticity and it happens to literally everyone. Just because you can take action to slow it down, doesn't mean it's not still happening.

To put it simply, "aging" is the inevitable consequences upon cells from the passage of time inherent to all humans: Senescence.

male pattern baldness does not involve this. You either have it, or you don't. Like Green eyes or Brown.

I'm not going to argue about this, you can believe what you want. Naturally you will because it makes you feel better.