Is The Cure For This Disease Anywhere Close?

[dermrafok]

Is Histogen with HSC alive? Mother of god...Pathetic...

 

[tomJ]

@S.FOOTE yes most agree that histogen would help in some fashion for sure but it isnt available and I don't think they have done anything with it in a while. Sad I know.

 

[Keisi92]

I am curious is this side effect of the skin only present in the treated area? As in only in the scalp ? Beacause if a side effect such as this is present, but there is a treatment that restores you to a fullhead I don't think there should be any problems seeing that the effected area would be totally covered by hair. Also is this side effect permament or temporary? Does the skin turn back to normal after interrupting treatment?

 

[S Foote.]

I am curious is this side effect of the skin only present in the treated area? As in only in the scalp ? Beacause if a side effect such as this is present, but there is a treatment that restores you to a fullhead I don't think there should be any problems seeing that the effected area would be totally covered by hair. Also is this side effect permament or temporary? Does the skin turn back to normal after interrupting treatment?

In theory it would depend on how local the treatment effect is, and the more regrowth the less noticeable it would be anyway. I think certainly the better the treatment, the more the crazing effect (to a point), but this should reduce over time. Think of it like this. If you blow up a balloon and leave it for a while when you let it down it is wrinkled. This is the same principle, the skin has become stretched in male pattern baldness, reducing the pressure relaxes the skin.

 

[ManinBlack]

Srs, what's up with histogen? Did they gave any news at all this year?

Histogen is vaporware. I think most people have given up on them ever coming out with an actual product.

 

[Fortunecookie]

I don't think so.

 

[Jonnyyy]

Histogen is a shady company that will never release a product, unless they release one very soon nobody is going to have anymore interest in their company or their product.

 

[Omega2327]

The OP asked "Is The Cure For This Disease Anywhere Close? "

Not according to the widely accepted science, in the peer reviewed papers about in-vivo tissue growth controls. According to the accepted scientific norm here, hair follicle growth restriction research, is failing to take account of a basic growth control that must play a central role.

http://phys.org/news/2014-04-room-tissue-growth-cell-response.html

Non of the treatments currently being researched, are capable of getting around this growth control in the "actual" conditions of the balding Human scalp. If you consider the only study that demonstrated a significant re-enlargement of "Human" male pattern baldness follicles, this clearly demonstrates that these follicles have the built in ability to re-enlarge, given the right "external" conditions. This is the immuno mouse Human transplantation study, many here are aware of.

http://www.jaad.org/article/S0190-9622(02)61499-9/pdf

If nothing else, this study indicates that the cell based treatments intended to grow androgen "immune" follicles, are pointless and will fail to produce large follicles in the Human situation, as they have consistantly failed to do in many years of trying.

In my opinion, the concentration upon molecular and genetic studies alone can be very misleading. You always should consider the context in which biology/physiology actually functions. However the genes act to produce structures, these structures cannot defy the laws of physics! Often you dont need to know whats happening at the molecullar level, to understand a process of change. This I suggest is a case in point.

When you consider the principles involved in the external pressure based spatial growth controls linked above, against the accepted data in changes in hair growth, it becomes clear that this control is the common factor here.
I have challenged many scientists in hair research and general physiology, to go on the record and deny this major flaw in the current hair loss research, I just get a no comment. I have just made the same challenge to the organisers and scientists involved in the up coming conference in Japan.

If there are any scientists out there who are willing to go on the record, and deny this flaw in the current hair loss research, I would like to hear what they have to say?

Dont shoot the messenger here. Anyone can read the peer reviewed papers about tissue growth controls in-vivo, and see the flaw in current hair follicle miniaturisation research for thenselves.

This post is naively generic and yeah I just really can't take you seriously when you reference articles from 2003... you're clearly old school bro and you've been on these forums for a long time so I'm really not convinced you're up to date with the most current research surrounding a potential cure, the most salient of which is the work of Tsuji/RIKEN. Check it out.

 

[S Foote.]

This post is naively generic and yeah I just really can't take you seriously when you reference articles from 2003... you're clearly old school bro and you've been on these forums for a long time so I'm really not convinced you're up to date with the most current research surrounding a potential cure, the most salient of which is the work of Tsuji/RIKEN. Check it out.

Well I am not the one making the claim here. I strongly suggest people do some research for themselves into basic principles in tissue physiology. The basic physics of hair follicle enlargement "within" the dermal tissue, makes hair follicle enlargement subject to the same spatial growth controls as any other "normal" in-vivo tissue growth.

http://phys.org/news/2014-04-room-tissue-growth-cell-response.html

The ongoing failure of hair follicle research to recognise what every other field of tissue growth research has recognised for a long time, is the reason why the cell based research has got us nowhere in over twenty years of trying. Unless Tsuji/RIKEN can perform magic, and make two things be in the same space at the same time, they will also fail. There is a very basic scientific flaw in the current hair loss research, This is not my claim, it is the widely accepted science in tissue growth in-vivo research.

 

[jamesbooker1975]

Everyone says cure without saying what that means. Cure like going from Norwood 4 back to Norwood 1? I think its many decades away bare minimum. Most likely male pattern baldness treatment progresses very slowly with a new mediocre treatment every decade or so, and you need a kitchen sink approach to get better results. So its going to be a very expensive condition to treat.
There will be no home run treatment. Just more propecia type treatments that help get a little hair back, but nothing major. Prevention will always be key for a long long time to come. AAs wont go anywhere just be complemented by new treatments from different angles.
A lot of people in these forums IMO are delusional about these grand slam future treatments that will cure male pattern baldness completely. Not very likely to happen anytime soon IMO given how complicated male pattern baldness is.

In fact, both of the medicine that we have right now were not development for mp. And we are talking about 1988 , then 1997, then nothing in 20 years, at least no FDA approve ! simple incredible

 

[H]

http://bgr.com/2017/10/31/fighting-aging-study-research-cancer/
Welp for all anti aging enthusiasts...this has been known tho I don't know why this is breaking news right now lol

 

[Omega2327]

Well I am not the one making the claim here. I strongly suggest people do some research for themselves into basic principles in tissue physiology. The basic physics of hair follicle enlargement "within" the dermal tissue, makes hair follicle enlargement subject to the same spatial growth controls as any other "normal" in-vivo tissue growth.

http://phys.org/news/2014-04-room-tissue-growth-cell-response.html

The ongoing failure of hair follicle research to recognise what every other field of tissue growth research has recognised for a long time, is the reason why the cell based research has got us nowhere in over twenty years of trying. Unless Tsuji/RIKEN can perform magic, and make two things be in the same space at the same time, they will also fail. There is a very basic scientific flaw in the current hair loss research, This is not my claim, it is the widely accepted science in tissue growth in-vivo research.

They've already proven their primordium method works in mice and they're extremely confident it will work in humans... so I guess they've already shown "magic" in mice. But hey... maybe you know something that their entire research team doesn't. Maybe you should just call them and tell them they're wasting their time and they're all wrong.

 

[kj6723]

Nope mate, topical anti-androgen, hopefully will replace finasteride and avoid reducing bloodstream DHT, less to none side effects

http://www.cassiopea.com/activities/product-pipeline/breezula.aspx

Breezula replace finasteride? Isn't CB/breezula like a weaker version of RU? I thought best case scenario the big 3 becomes the big 4

 

[coolio]

Well I am not the one making the claim here. I strongly suggest people do some research for themselves into basic principles in tissue physiology. The basic physics of hair follicle enlargement "within" the dermal tissue, makes hair follicle enlargement subject to the same spatial growth controls as any other "normal" in-vivo tissue growth.

It's been known for decades that things like dermabrasion and needling can create new terminal follicles. There are a couple of cases of cancer patients getting quite dense patches of regrowth from drugs related to their science.

Follica's approach isn't the perfect end to baldness but it will make some practical improvement for us. It will be here sooner, safer, and cheaper than anything else. Sorry if this conflicts with your beliefs.

 

[Jonnyyy]

It's been known for decades that things like dermabrasion and needling can create new terminal follicles. There are a couple of cases of cancer patients getting quite dense patches of coverage from it.

Follica's approach isn't the perfect end to baldness but it will make some practical improvement for us. It will be here sooner, safer, and cheaper than anything else. Sorry if this conflicts with your beliefs.

Has the density problem been fixed with Follica? I heard something about how it would only be half the density of the average human?

 

[That Guy]

So, in my occasional lurking (primarily of Noisette's threads) since leaving a while back, I've noticed this place has descended into complete f*****g lunacy.

Anyway, I wasn't going to caught up in it, but I had to sign in to say something to this because I've seen him on about it a few times now and while I'm sure it will amount to nothing; someone has to say it.

Well I am not the one making the claim here. I strongly suggest people do some research for themselves into basic principles in tissue physiology. The basic physics of hair follicle enlargement "within" the dermal tissue, makes hair follicle enlargement subject to the same spatial growth controls as any other "normal" in-vivo tissue growth.

http://phys.org/news/2014-04-room-tissue-growth-cell-response.html

The ongoing failure of hair follicle research to recognise what every other field of tissue growth research has recognised for a long time, is the reason why the cell based research has got us nowhere in over twenty years of trying. Unless Tsuji/RIKEN can perform magic, and make two things be in the same space at the same time, they will also fail. There is a very basic scientific flaw in the current hair loss research, This is not my claim, it is the widely accepted science in tissue growth in-vivo research.

As I understand, you repeatedly claim that these methods will fail because you believe that hair follicles will be restricted in their thickness due to limited space within the skin or something like that; you seem quite convinced.

You seem quite convinced, despite that some of the most well-known hairloss research of the last 50 years readily dispels your fear and there has been no developing hairloss therapy shut down due to such a problem.

In the 1990s, Jahoda successfully used a mix of both his own cells and his wife's to grow new hair in her arm. Here is a picture that was taken at a distance.

As you can see below her wrist watch, the hair is perfectly visible and appears about as thick as much of her bangs.

Successful dermarolling experiments as well as the famed "BBQ Man" have regrown full-thickness follicles with no issue.

In a recent study from Iran, human dermal papilla and epithelial cells were injected into nude mice and it induced hair growth.

There is nothing to indicate that your concerns, at least when it comes to growing human hair, are valid.

Follica works and we know that the process can be repeated; logically, it should be possible to repeat it until a sufficient amount of coverage is achieved should the first pass be insufficient.

If Tsuji succeeds in culturing the required cells (the real hurdle true "cloning" hair), there is no real reason to believe it will fail in humans because we already know it can be done.

 

[Jonnyyy]

So, in my occasional lurking (primarily of Noisette's threads) since leaving a while back, I've noticed this place has descended into complete f*****g lunacy.

Anyway, I wasn't going to caught up in it, but I had to sign in to say something to this because I've seen him on about it a few times now and while I'm sure it will amount to nothing; someone has to say it.



As I understand, you repeatedly claim that these methods will fail because you believe that hair follicles will be restricted in their thickness due to limited space within the skin or something like that; you seem quite convinced.

You seem quite convinced, despite that some of the most well-known hairloss research of the last 50 years readily dispels your fear and there has been no developing hairloss therapy shut down due to such a problem.

In the 1990s, Jahoda successfully used a mix of both his own cells and his wife's to grow new hair in her arm. Here is a picture that was taken at a distance.

View attachment 68243

As you can see below her wrist watch, the hair is perfectly visible and appears about as thick as much of her bangs.

Successful dermarolling experiments as well as the famed "BBQ Man" have regrown full-thickness follicles with no issue.

View attachment 68244

In a recent study from Iran, human dermal papilla and epithelial cells were injected into nude mice and it induced hair growth.

View attachment 68245

There is nothing to indicate that your concerns, at least when it comes to growing human hair, are valid.

Follica works and we know that the process can be repeated; logically, it should be possible to repeat it until a sufficient amount of coverage is achieved should the first pass be insufficient.

If Tsuji succeeds in culturing the required cells (the real hurdle true "cloning" hair), there is no real reason to believe it will fail in humans because we already know it can be done.

Amazing man, great post.

 

[BaldyBalderBald]

Breezula replace finasteride? Isn't CB/breezula like a weaker version of RU? I thought best case scenario the big 3 becomes the big 4

I'm not sure, what will be the point of getting a topical anti-androgen if you are still forced to shut down your body androgens ? makes no sense and no one is gonna buy their product, i guess we will have to wait for results to answer this

 

[kj6723]

I'm not sure, what will be the point of getting a topical anti-androgen if you are still forced to shut down your body androgens ? makes no sense and no one is gonna buy their product, i guess we will have to wait for results to answer this

These topicals meant to shield the actual androgen receptor just don't have anywhere near the reputation for successful maintenance as drugs that lower serum dht. In theory solely local protection in the scalp would be more ideal, but myself I would be reluctant to just switch to a topical cold turkey as my only dht protection unless we have very strong reason to believe it will be at least equally as effective as finasteride. Until then I basically see topical antiandrogen as just an additional angle for a stacked regimen, or as a last resort for dudes who can't tolerate finasteride

 

[BaldyBalderBald]

These topicals meant to shield the actual androgen receptor just don't have anywhere near the reputation for successful maintenance as drugs that lower serum dht. In theory solely local protection in the scalp would be more ideal, but myself I would be reluctant to just switch to a topical cold turkey as my only dht protection unless we have very strong reason to believe it will be at least equally as effective as finasteride. Until then I basically see topical antiandrogen as just an additional angle for a stacked regimen, or as a last resort for dudes who can't tolerate finasteride

I hear you, i would be reluctant myself without solid proof even if i despise lowering my dht serum, but i still think the whole point of developing a topical antiandrogen is to avoid this particular aspect, systemic absorption and be as much as effective.You cannot stack dutasteride with a topical antiandrogen since you basically have no DHT left in your system (-90% and less), and you won't gain further hair by stacking those treatments anyway.This has been researched and developped to be a viable alternative, and to avoid being one step closer to trannies, now we got to see if it's so effective.