Hair Loss Will be Cured Within Ten Years

Will hair loss be cured within ten years

  • Yes

    Votes: 74 40.9%
  • No

    Votes: 107 59.1%

  • Total voters
    181

Chads don't bald

Established Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
67
Good question. I know they are both planning on having machines do the implantation. Stemson will start out manually, but Kyocera has already developed a device for Tsuji. I think you would have to shave. That's a good incentive to stay on finasteride, or to use one of the upcoming advanced AR antagoninsts.
Hmm if they have machines do the implanting, that would make it cheaper right? Since you can scale it up more than a surgeon doing the implanting. Though I imagine a surgeon would still have to oversee everything.
You know they can just over compensate for loss, right? Unless necrosis is stopping them from intersecting into where you still have hair, they'll just overlap. Once donor maintenance and preservation is no longer a factor, there is nothing stopping them from being aggressive and shoring up areas that still have hair.
Ah ok I wasn't aware of that. So they can basically give you double density, and then when you lose your natural hairs it goes back to regular density? I wonder what it means if they don't know your final pattern of hair loss though. How would they know which areas to reinforce?
 

trialAcc

Senior Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
1,172
Hmm if they have machines do the implanting, that would make it cheaper right? Since you can scale it up more than a surgeon doing the implanting. Though I imagine a surgeon would still have to oversee everything.

Ah ok I wasn't aware of that. So they can basically give you double density, and then when you lose your natural hairs it goes back to regular density? I wonder what it means if they don't know your final pattern of hair loss though. How would they know which areas to reinforce?
They could measure miniaturization like a hair transplant surgeon would and just overlap some density, doesn't have to be 100% but enough to prevent unnatural looking patterns.
 

Keratinpro

Banned
My Regimen
Reaction score
135
Does anybody have any guesses as to what is taking Cassiopea so long to have their Breezula go into phase III? I understand COVID slowed everything down last year but what is going on lol? I believe it will be approved much quicker because the trial will only be 6 months + Winlevi has been FDA approved which could potentially speed up the approval of Breezula because it contains the same active ingredient (clascoterone).
 

froggy7

Established Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
72
It is funny how ppl talk about humans traveling in deep space or how we will fully understand the brain soon or how we will transfer our minds to the virtual world. Then you stop for a second and remember that we are struggling to put some freaking hairs in a bald head.

It is a humbling thought.
mind transfer to computer will be shitty, who needs to live in virtual world, transfer to perfect bilogical body it would be somethnig
 

Mighty

Established Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
94
mind transfer to computer will be shitty, who needs to live in virtual world, transfer to perfect bilogical body it would be somethnig
It can't be done. You can't "transfer" your mind to a machine. You would actually be creating a copy of yourself in the virtual world since there is no reason for your biological body to die in the process. There would be two versions of yourself or, in the worst scenario, the biological body dies.

Science deals with the natural world. The mind and soul ppl how ppl like to think are outside the scope of science.

But that would be a useful way to collect not just information, but knowledge, wisdow. We could have robotics workers/slaves that think like humans.
 

trialAcc

Senior Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
1,172
It can't be done. You can't "transfer" your mind to a machine. You would actually be creating a copy of yourself in the virtual world since there is no reason for your biological body to die in the process. There would be two versions of yourself or, in the worst scenario, the biological body dies.

Science deals with the natural world. The mind and soul ppl how ppl like to think are outside the scope of science.

But that would be a useful way to collect not just information, but knowledge, wisdow. We could have robotics workers/slaves that think like humans.
Alright settle down lol, of course we can transfer our minds between the brain and digital interfaces. The brain is just one large machine that fires off electrical pulses to create thought/action. Once the brain is fully mapped and can communicate through a linker there is nothing stopping the flow of conscious through machines.

I don't even understand why this is being talked about.
 

Aqalp

Established Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
62
Soon after that your father got minoxidil and finasteride which were a big deal. Another leap of that proportion would pretty much be a cure.
You are comparing apples to oranges. The science and technology in the 1970s was garbage compared to what it is now in 2021, I don't think you can refute that.
A cure would be a remedy you take just once and voila, baldness gone.
Big pharma wouldn't be happy though, too much money at stake if a cure was found.
yea ble ble bla bla, and your father had stemson and tsuji in 5 years:p
First read about stem cell treatments when lurking on hairloss boards 10 years ago...
 

pegasus2

Senior Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
3,713
A cure would be a remedy you take just once and voila, baldness gone.
Big pharma wouldn't be happy though, too much money at stake if a cure was found.

First read about stem cell treatments when lurking on hairloss boards 10 years ago...
Yes, big pharma is preventing a cure because there's no money in it :rolleyes: It has nothing to do with baldness being extremely complex and polygenic. You are asking way too much with your definition of a cure. Most reasonable people would consider a cure as something that reverses baldness completely.
 

trialAcc

Senior Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
1,172
A cure would be a remedy you take just once and voila, baldness gone.
Big pharma wouldn't be happy though, too much money at stake if a cure was found.

First read about stem cell treatments when lurking on hairloss boards 10 years ago...
Big pharma isn't the one doing the research on these things, it's university labs. If hairloss could have be cured easily then it would have done so through this network. Sure, big pharma could have put money into research and accelerate it, but they really have no reason to do so.

This narrative that "too much money" is at stake or involved in hairloss really needs to end. There really is no money in hairloss, not now, not if better treatment was found, not even if a cure was found. The 500 million of sales from propecia for Merck is 1% of their revenue and they've been sued a thousand times over it. The reason it's all small companies trying to develop these therapies is because it's low hanging fruit to small revenues (from a biotech perspective) that will accelerate their companies.

When the Hope Med mAb comes out and it costs low-to-mid 5 figures for a yearly dose, average people won't use it, just like average people don't get hair transplants unless they can pay 5k for them in Turkey.
 
Last edited:

coolio

Established Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
367
"I'm not gonna spend thousands of dollars just to thicken up my hair." <-- said no woman with thinnng hair, ever.
 

MeDK

Experienced Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
417
Big pharma isn't the one doing the research on these things, it's university labs. If hairloss could have be cured easily then it would have done so through this network. Sure, big pharma could have put money into research and accelerate it, but they really have no reason to do so.

This narrative that "too much money" is at stake or involved in hairloss really needs to end. There really is no money in hairloss, not now, not if better treatment was found, not even if a cure was found. The 500 million of sales from propecia for Merck is 1% of their revenue and they've been sued a thousand times over it. The reason it's all small companies trying to develop these therapies is because it's low hanging fruit to small revenues (from a biotech perspective) that will accelerate their companies.

When the Hope Med mAb comes out and it costs low-to-mid 5 figures for a yearly dose, average people won't use it, just like average people don't get hair transplants unless they can pay 5k for them in Turkey.

its simply pure non-sense.

those "big pharma" specialize in different areas, and since no one have had the key to come up with a better treatment than minoxidil or finasteride, then no one have something to compete with, sure there are copy-drugs out there doing their own take on it. But you earn more if you have the patent behind you. And give you as a company a competitive edge.

If a business doesn't take obvious "low hanging fruit" (which means its takes low effort to make a big impact) then they aren't good at their business.

And yes "one time treatments" is something that makes money of, just like vaccines to mention something relevant to this day. Also why R&D is happening within genetic editing, or more famously "designer babies", also a one time treatment, where the goal is to make a perfectly healthy human.
 

Mighty

Established Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
94
Alright settle down lol, of course we can transfer our minds between the brain and digital interfaces. The brain is just one large machine that fires off electrical pulses to create thought/action. Once the brain is fully mapped and can communicate through a linker there is nothing stopping the flow of conscious through machines.

I don't even understand why this is being talked about.
I just used this subject as an example above and I ended up talking too much about it. Hehe But you didn't understand my comment... You would be able to "transfer" your consciousness, but your biological body would still live normally.

Bam! Relax, this will take longer than hair cloning.

A cure would be a remedy you take just once and voila, baldness gone.
Big pharma wouldn't be happy though, too much money at stake if a cure was found.

First read about stem cell treatments when lurking on hairloss boards 10 years ago...
Yeah... You are asking too much. I doubt that baldness will ever be cured with a pill. For us the cure will be hair cloning. Maybe future generations will make use of genetic therapy.
 

trialAcc

Senior Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
1,172
its simply pure non-sense.

those "big pharma" specialize in different areas, and since no one have had the key to come up with a better treatment than minoxidil or finasteride, then no one have something to compete with, sure there are copy-drugs out there doing their own take on it. But you earn more if you have the patent behind you. And give you as a company a competitive edge.

If a business doesn't take obvious "low hanging fruit" (which means its takes low effort to make a big impact) then they aren't good at their business.

And yes "one time treatments" is something that makes money of, just like vaccines to mention something relevant to this day. Also why R&D is happening within genetic editing, or more famously "designer babies", also a one time treatment, where the goal is to make a perfectly healthy human.
Do you know how much those one time genetic treatments cost? Most are well into the 7 figures right now. The recurring RNA therapies are several hundred thousand per year, and people will be taking those for life or until better is available. In order to beat finasteride or minoxidil you'd have to have a product that was miles better, and the price tag associated with it would have to have certain profit incentives that justified the R&D. Why do you think Bayer, a 75 billion dollar company, licensed it's most promising Androgenetic Alopecia treatment out to a biotech start up instead of just rushing it into clinical trials themselves years ago? Because it's not going to be a very profitable platform even if successful, and they know that.

You're whining about things that you don't understand the economics of. There is no money in hairloss, and that's why there has been no progress.
 
Last edited:

MeDK

Experienced Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
417
Do you know how much those one time genetic treatments cost? Most are well into the 7 figures right now. The recurring RNA therapies are several hundred thousand per year, and people will be taking those for life or until better is available. In order to beat finasteride or minoxidil you'd have to have a product that was miles better, and the price tag associated with it would have to have certain profit incentives that justified the R&D. Why do you think Bayer, a 75 billion dollar company, licensed it's most promising Androgenetic Alopecia treatment out to a biotech start up instead of just rushing it into clinical trials themselves years ago? Because it's not going to be a very profitable platform even if successful, and they know that.

You're whining about things that you don't understand the economics of. There is no money in hairloss, and that's why there has been no progress.
Many companies license out their production. nothing new about that.

Many companies run very few production runs at their "R&D facilities" and then license the production out when its stable. Its normal business procedure. Its extremely rare that a company does it all them self.

Same with R&D, its normal its a collaborative effort. Again nothing new about that.

Tsuji is one of those, Replicel does the same. many does this. Even within the car industry its quite normal to buy into R&D from their suppliers.

I would bet its rather difficult to find a company that DOES NOT license out anything.
 
Top