Hair Loss Cure Versus Cure For Entire Aging Process

Trichosan

Senior Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
1,321
The only relevant connection is, of course, not antiaging, but age reversal. Only now there is only one endeavor in that regard and it is in the initial funding stage. Even the big money like Ellison is no longer pumping dough into it and he had already invested millions. However, the last time I saw him he looked pretty damn good. Maybe he already found the answer!
 

nameless

Banned
Reaction score
1,091
Let me say it again. I don't need anyone to help me figure out whether or not hair loss is age-related. If hair loss isn't age related then this entire issue I'm raising is irrelevant and I will HAVE TO do both the hair loss breakthrough and the anti-aging breakthrough. I get that.

But I don't know for sure yet if hair loss is age-related or not. And nobody else here does either. Anyone here who thinks he/she knows for sure whether or not hair loss is age-related is a fool who overestimates his intellect and takes himself too seriously. None of us know for sure.

So I'm not asking about the sciences involved. None of us know the scientific truth yet. The scientists don't even know for sure. I have spoken with the scientists at BioViva and they've agreed to START watching for hair growth in their experiments. They said they don't know yet.

Since nobody knows for sure yet I'm going to assume that there is a possibility that hair loss is age related so I can contemplate the financial implications of that. I'm asking for some input about the finances of the issue *in case* it turns out that hair loss is age related. I understand that it could turn out that hair loss is not age-related and that would render my issue moot.

My issue asks the reader to suspend his/her own beliefs and assume two things just for the sake of the discussion.

1. hair loss is age related.

2. They might release a cure the entire aging process (which could include a cure for hair loss) a few years after they release a cure for hair loss.

Is there something wrong with my use of language that it's making it hard for people to understand me? My issue is not scientific. I come to you for input with the finances of the issue rather than the science of the issue.
 
Last edited:

nameless

Banned
Reaction score
1,091
Yes. In men that are genetically susceptible to male pattern baldness. Not everyone.

Some scientists say you're wrong.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...re-due-to-aging-dna-study-finds-a6863226.html

https://www.statnews.com/2016/02/04/hair-loss-age/

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/20...caused-disappearing-collagen-researchers-say/

You guys start off with your own assumptions and you get stuck on that stuff, and then you can't stay on point because you're side-tracked into your assumptions. The question I'm putting to you all is not whether or not hair loss is age related. The issue I'm raising is the financing involved in the issue.
 
Last edited:

That Guy

Banned
My Regimen
Reaction score
5,361
I'm not going to argue about this, you can believe what you want. Naturally you will because it makes you feel better.

and you can go on believing that your hair is falling out because you're getting old instead of having an undesirable genetic trait.
 

pegasus2

Senior Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
4,504
Ok, I'll play along with this hypothetical. You already got the best answer. Wait a few years if you're willing. Even if the aging reversal you're expecting doesn't happen, there will be more places doing hair multiplication, and the cost will drop significantly. It really just depends on how much you want hair. Personally, I might do both if I knew an aging cure was coming. If you're going to stay young forever then you have an eternity to make money, so who cares about saving fifty grand. On the other hand, what's a few more years without perfect hair when you're going to be young forever. It's a toss up.
 
Last edited:

nameless

Banned
Reaction score
1,091
Ok, I'll play along with this hypothetical. You already got the best answer. Wait a few years if you're willing. Even if the aging reversal you're expecting doesn't happen, there will be more places doing hair multiplication, and the cost will drop significantly. It really just depends on how much you want hair. Personally, I might do both if I knew an aging cure was coming. If you're going to stay young forever then you have an eternity to make money, so who cares about saving fifty grand. On the other hand, what's a few more years without perfect hair when you're going to be going forever. It's a toss up.

I know you're right. But it would be hard to wait a couple more years though.
 

pegasus2

Senior Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
4,504
and you can go on believing that your hair is falling out because you're getting old instead of having an undesirable genetic trait.
Joke's on you, guy. I have a normal amount of hair for my age. I made it through most of my 20s with perfect hair, and now I pretty much just have a mature hairline. I have god tier genetics for the most part. But back to the point, everyone experiences thinning, it's only the degree that varies. Same as with skin damage. My dad is in his seventies, and hardly has a wrinkle.
 

That Guy

Banned
My Regimen
Reaction score
5,361
Some scientists say you're wrong.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...re-due-to-aging-dna-study-finds-a6863226.html

https://www.statnews.com/2016/02/04/hair-loss-age/

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/20...caused-disappearing-collagen-researchers-say/

You guys have way over-bloated opinions of your own intelligence and it prevents you from looking analytically at anything. You start off with your own pre-conceived notions and then you get stuck on that bullshit and then you can't even tell what the question being put to you is. The question I'm putting to you all is not whether or not hair loss is age related. The issue I'm raising is the financing involved in the issue.

You're still missing the point of that reversing these things is not going to resurrect organs from the dead. Please explain to me how that would be scientifically possible by restoring collagen? Even in these articles you share, it says:

"Once stem cells go, there’s no getting them back, said Elaine Fuchs, a professor of cell biology and development at the Rockefeller University in New York, who was not involved with the study.

“Once the hair growth cycle goes, it goes,” she said. “Once hair loss is triggered, it’s a self-propelling event.”

Also, hairloss that is a result of senescence is not the same as male pattern baldness.

Lastly, male pattern baldness is not observed in Eunuchs, those bahamian men studied for finasteride, generally not observed in MTF transexuals (who often get substantial regrowth as well) and is statistically not common in women and over 200 genes that play into baldness were recently discovered as you may recall.

My issue asks the reader to suspend his/her own beliefs and assume two things just for the sake of the discussion.

You're asking people to deny reality and facts about the condition to feed into the almost certainly false hope that restoration of old tissue will also reverse baldness. You don't have to be a biologist to realize that the two are not the same.

Whether you guys want to believe it or not, the evidence has mounted up that Androgenetic Alopecia is ultimately a complex, but hereditary trait that requires both male sex hormones and genetic disposition.
 

That Guy

Banned
My Regimen
Reaction score
5,361
Joke's on you, guy. I have a normal amount of hair for my age. I made it through most of my 20s with perfect hair, and now I pretty much just have a mature hairline. I have god tier genetics for the most part. But back to the point, everyone experiences thinning, it's only the degree that varies. Same as with skin damage. My dad is in his seventies, and hardly has a wrinkle.

There is no such thing as a "mature hairline"

Keep coping.
 

pegasus2

Senior Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
4,504
and you can go on believing that your hair is falling out because you're getting old instead of having an undesirable genetic trait.
Joke's on you, guy. I have a normal amount of hair for my age. I made it through most of my 20s with perfect hair, and now I pretty much just have a mature hairline. I have god tier genetics for the most part. But back to the point, everyone experiences thinning, it's only the degree that varies. Same as with skin damage. My dad is in his seventies, and hardly has a wrinkle.
There is no such thing as a "mature hairline"

Keep coping.

Lol you're the one cooling, shying like you're not aging early. I'm the last person to say that a mature hairline is ok. I'm the only one in my family to go beyond Norwood 0 before 40, but it's still common for guys to go NW2 in their 30s. It doesn't make me a freak, like you going NW4 in your early 20s
 

That Guy

Banned
My Regimen
Reaction score
5,361
Joke's on you, guy. I have a normal amount of hair for my age. I made it through most of my 20s with perfect hair, and now I pretty much just have a mature hairline. I have god tier genetics for the most part. But back to the point, everyone experiences thinning, it's only the degree that varies. Same as with skin damage. My dad is in his seventies, and hardly has a wrinkle.


Lol you're the one cooling, shying like you're not aging early. I'm the last person to say that a mature hairline is ok. I'm the only one in my family to go beyond Norwood 0 before 40, but it's still common for guys to go NW2 in their 30s. It doesn't make me a freak, like you going NW4 in your early 20s

If you're ranking on the Norwood scale, you have male pattern baldness. There is no "maturing hairline" there is just balding. What you're essentially doing here is coping in the way that most people do with aging by romanticizing it and throwing baldness in with it because it makes hairloss easier to accept. If it was really an age-related condition and young people with it are just "aging fast" like you suggest, then they'd be aging fast in general, but they don't.

because Androgenetic Alopecia is not "aging" like wrinkles, decreasing muscle mass, bones or gray hair are no matter what lie you want to tell yourself. It is a condition that you either have or you do not have. This guy definitely aged and didn't have male pattern baldness:

last_known_photos_34.jpg


That's all there really is to this discussion.
 
Last edited:

Afro_Vacancy

Senior Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
11,938
You're still missing the point of that reversing these things is not going to resurrect organs from the dead. Please explain to me how that would be scientifically possible by restoring collagen? Even in these articles you share, it says:

"Once stem cells go, there’s no getting them back, said Elaine Fuchs, a professor of cell biology and development at the Rockefeller University in New York, who was not involved with the study.

“Once the hair growth cycle goes, it goes,” she said. “Once hair loss is triggered, it’s a self-propelling event.”

Also, hairloss that is a result of senescence is not the same as male pattern baldness.

Lastly, male pattern baldness is not observed in Eunuchs, those bahamian men studied for finasteride, generally not observed in MTF transexuals (who often get substantial regrowth as well) and is statistically not common in women and over 200 genes that play into baldness were recently discovered as you may recall.



You're asking people to deny reality and facts about the condition to feed into the almost certainly false hope that restoration of old tissue will also reverse baldness. You don't have to be a biologist to realize that the two are not the same.

Whether you guys want to believe it or not, the evidence has mounted up that Androgenetic Alopecia is ultimately a complex, but hereditary trait that requires both male sex hormones and genetic disposition.

I'm surprised to see such an informed post against a topic as ludicrous as a cure for the ageing process within five years.

We're not all going to be 19 again by 2025.

Sorry.
 

nameless

Banned
Reaction score
1,091
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.


Tell this to the mice who regained their lost hair when scientists reversed their aging process.

It's beyond me why some people can't simply say that they do not know something.

Researchers tell me on the phone that it's presently unknown whether or not curing the human aging process will also cure human hair loss. I'm deferring to the researchers on this issue.
 
Last edited:

nameless

Banned
Reaction score
1,091
I'm surprised to see such an informed post against a topic as ludicrous as a cure for the ageing process within five years.

We're not all going to be 19 again by 2025.

Sorry.

Scientists say you're wrong, but "F" them huh? You know better than the scientists do, right?
 

nameless

Banned
Reaction score
1,091
David and That_Guy check this out:

These darn scientists (in the below article) are working on an anti-aging treatment. They say their anti-aging treatment might reverse human hair loss. But hey who needs scientists when some guys at a website called Hair Loss Talk have already established with certainty that the hair loss has nothing to do with the aging process, even though aged mice recover their lost hair after scientists reverse their hair loss.

You guys should call the scientists referenced in the study below and inform them of your certainty that the aging process has nothing to do with hair loss. When you call them to enlighten them make sure you tell them about all of your scientific credentials and all of the practical scientific research you all have done regarding the issues of aging and hair loss.

http://www.menshealth.com/health/new-hair-loss-and-aging-treatment-peptide-therapy
 
Last edited:

nameless

Banned
Reaction score
1,091
stupid nonsense like always.

you are following the forums for at least 5 years. you should know by now that reversing hair loss in mice is the easiest thing in the world because almost everything grows hair in mice.

and now lets ask ourselves why anti aging companies are telling us their therapy might reverse hairloss as well?
do you really think that such a new highly valued startup will ever give you an answer like: "dear nameless aka jarjarbinx, we by now know 100% that anti aging therapies will NEVER EVER create new hairs or bring miniaturized hair back! we repeat it for you: our anti aging therapies does absolutely nothing for your hair!"

if they knew it with 100% certainty they would still tell you there might be a chance to reverse hairloss too.

they want to keep up the hope for many people. what would investors and others think if they rule out a hairloss cure completely? they have nothing to gain but even lose more. in contrast to that, they have absolutely nothing to lose if they keep the possibility up and don't destroy the hope for many people.

yes, i think we on this forum all agree that there is a minimal chance of let's say 0.1% that it can bring back some hairs, but getting a NW7 which has been bald for 20 years, back to NW0, come on?


STFU jackass.

I only read 2 or 3 lines of your stupid crap. Thanks for wasting my time with your imbecilic crap, a**h**.

Of course I know that treatments which grow hair on mice may not grow hair on humans, but mice are still a useful barometer for whether or not a treatment *might* grow hair on humans. That's one of the reasons 100% of researchers test their hair growth treatments on mice. But I understand that you disagree with 100% of hair loss researchers so maybe it's time for you to inform all of the hair researchers in the world to stop the useless slaughter of mice in their mouse studies. Perhaps you should call Jahoda, Christiano, and EVERY other hair researcher on the planet and direct them to stop using mouse trials to test hair loss treatments since you, a nobody & sorry-*** doofus, have determined that mice are a total useless model for testing hair loss treatments.

And don't forget to also call the FDA, Merck, and Johnson & Johnson to inform them that Minoxidil and Propecia can't possibly grow hair on humans since they both grow hair on mice.
 
Last edited:

nameless

Banned
Reaction score
1,091
haha, it's amusing how you manage to make a total fool of yourself, each and every time you get into a debate. we've seen it so many times with you in the past, but you just never learn. it's always you who knows it best and all other forum users are wrong and stupid. you're a real winner

Project much moron?

It's fools like YOU who think you know best. And when you tell me I'm wrong you're not really telling me I'm wrong. You're telling the researchers and the industry leaders that they're wrong because I defer to the researchers and the industry leaders.
 
Last edited:

nameless

Banned
Reaction score
1,091
Man your question was so simple: assuming both are plausible and aging regrows hair, obviously you should wait a few years for the aging. Like get off the forum. Your just wasting people's time providing hypotheticals without evidence, and asking questions the reasoning of a child could deduce. Do something else like are you that miserable. The rest of us come here to seek information on what is to come and insight as to what others have learned, not whether fantasy a or b is more important. Grow up.

Hey doofus, this thread IS about "what is to come".

I'm very happy that my thread annoys you. It satisfying to see my thread disturb you so much that you're compelled to interact with it even though you don't want to. It makes me happy that my thread irritates you so much that you want me to leave but you're powerless to make that happen. Please continue to display how irked you are by this thread because I'm delighted by your impotent grievance.
 
Last edited:
Top