What I understood from Mr Foote's post was that potential cures being suggested have a severe trade off, which is potentially cancer.
Heads up guys, I realized I posted my interview with Dr. Beren Atac and Dr. Gerd Lindner with a blunder; there were some details I didn't include from Dr. Atac, there's ONE very interesting aspect of some info in the interview that I sort of overlooked. I've since taken down the interview and will repost as soon as I get a chance (I'm at work right now!).
A lot of news indeed. Just a thought guys - could somebody analyse ALL interviews and news and post it in bullets in one thread, I think it would be great to have a summary! thanks
I'll take care of that, but believe it or not, I'm only about HALF WAY with all the news from the congress, lol. There's still a lot more to come. I'll make a summary thread and organize everything neatly in one place.
I have no doubt that the Wnts B-catenin and other molecular pathways, are important in tissue growth control. What I am saying is that any changes in these molecular growth controls in miniaturised follicles, are "supposed" to happen. This is part of the growth restricting chemistry induced by external spatial pressure. Trying to change this natural process is asking for trouble, and is just not necessary anyway in my opinion. If we can change the external pressure conditions that triggers these molecular changes, hair follicles can then enlarge naturally. If nothing else the mouse study referred to demonstrates that given the right external conditions miniaturized human follicles are fully capable of re-enlargement as it is. We don't need to mess with their chemistry, we don't even need to know the molecular basis of this growth restriction. We just need to reduce the external pressure that causes this reaction. This should be well within the capability of modern science, and I think this is the way hair growth research should be going.
As exciting as this is, I'm guessing we've heard all the big news regarding Androgenetic Alopecia from the Congress? Or are there still more exciting things to come? KJ.
We didn’t hear nothing exciting from this congress. Just only talking about same subjects every year. The biggest exciting news was Histogen faked picture, lol!
Looking forward to seeing the summary thread, and thanks for all the effort you're putting into this.
It seems that there's lots of development but obviously these things take time. I think it's unrealistic to expect a cure so quickly when we haven't figured this out despite the advances in medicine/technology over the last 100 years. It would have happened a long time ago if it was that easy to figure out. A good result in the next 5 years would be the development of existing treatments, perhaps a topical which does a job equal to minoxidil & finasteride but doesn't have the same sides. That would be a huge result and the next logical step to existing treatment options. Furthermore, if hair transplants could continue to improve including finding ways to get more out of the donor area and limiting the scars, then again that would be massive progress. The price should also decrease as technology makes it easier, right now it's far too expensive for most people. Having a brand new solution to the problem seems like something that could take far longer than we expect. Why would it come in the next 5 years when it hasn't happened 100 years prior to that?
https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/3xtpod/my_name_is_thomas_helleday_a_cancer_scientist/ 1 lab for cancer, a scientist leading 70 other scientists. We don't even have 70 scientists worldwide for hair related disorders lol...
Bill Gates once said we care more about baldness than malaria.... others have often said to shutup about complaining over hair loss and that there are other more serious conditions that need attention. Looks to me like all other fields of research gets WAY more attention than hair loss. Why do people feel the need to berate hair loss even more?
Supposedly smart people make incredibly stupid comments all the time. Ben Carson for example. If what Bill Gates said was true, then we wouldn't have such absolutely mediocre treatments like the supposed "Big 3" and hair transplants. Haha, if the Big 3 was actually a really "big" treatment, then a flare gun is a really big gun.
i think its more positional goods theory like helouser mentions a lot. the full heads want to keep their advantage
There are billions of people on this planet, of course we need the majority of researchers to be finding cures to major diseases but that doesn't mean we cannot have others working in other fields to find solutions to other problems whilst we're on this planet. Hair loss fits into that category. I don't understand why we only have the existing treatments when there's so much money to be made in this field?
Apparently all the other diseases and afflictions haven't received enough money yet, either, because, for instance, people are still dying of cancer. To be sure, lifespans of cancer patients have certainly been extended. But there is still no cure. And people are still dying of diabetes and heart disease. The human body has been compared to space exploration because so much of it is still unexplored territory. And although scientists are learning to re-grow cochlear auditory hairs in mice to restore hearing, it's still at the experimental mouse stage. Apparently gene therapy trials are hopeful for restoring 20% of hearing loss in deaf people, and the results are expected in 2017. I think that if hair was considered one of the five senses, a cure might be a little closer to a hair loss cure but probably not by a lot. It's obvious to all of us that unmet market demand for a better hair loss treatment has been high for a long time. So where is the supply if markets are the best way to distribute goods and services? Jeffrey Sachs said in recent years that "the cure" for stagnation affecting the global economy for years is simple: technology inputs. Technology has solved hard problems in the past, and what world economies need now are injections of money for the purpose of doing basic and advanced research. Other countries will want to buy things that are worth buying from the richest countries, like fancy gadgets, computer chip and advanced medical technology. Apparently Japan is deregulating in order to reduce the time, effort and cost of bringing cell-based therapies to market. And we've tried deregulation in everything from electric power distribution to banking, and so what could possibly go wrong with Japan's experiment for deregulation of cell therapies technology?
A lot of cancers have been cured. Hep C has been cured. HIV is virtually cured. Having researchers curing diseases doesn't have to be at the expense of hair loss. It's not a competition. Biggest problem is humanity is wasting our resources and money in death/war/military. Curing disease should be our objective, including this hair loss.
