Is there really anything groundbreaking coming through.....

[Fallout Boy]

You also have to realize that the people who are making "huge" (they're actually not that huge) profits from hairloss treatments that are currently available are probably not the ones who will develop new treatments. Why would a company like Intercytex (working on HM) care if Merck makes profits from Propecia, or if hair transplant doctors stay in business?

He makes a good point. Intercytex isnt thinkinga bout Merck or any other hairloss company. Theyre in it to make money for themselves.. so if theyre the first ones to solve HM they will easily make millions and millions of dollars... So i seriously doubt theyre doing anything but trying their hardest to figure this thing out.

 

[thin=depressed]

You also have to realize that the people who are making "huge" (they're actually not that huge) profits from hairloss treatments that are currently available are probably not the ones who will develop new treatments. Why would a company like Intercytex (working on HM) care if Merck makes profits from Propecia, or if hair transplant doctors stay in business?

He makes a good point. Intercytex isnt thinkinga bout Merck or any other hairloss company. Theyre in it to make money for themselves.. so if theyre the first ones to solve HM they will easily make millions and millions of dollars... So i seriously doubt theyre doing anything but trying their hardest to figure this thing out.

Sounds reasonable although I still would like to know why the gross lack of interest in HGH which is indeed a cure. At least they should investigate its methods of inducing hair growth so they can mimic it.

 

[The Gardener]

Re: Is there really anything groundbreaking coming through..

Is there really anything groundbreaking coming through.....

No.

 

[everysixseconds]

who ever re-grew a full head of hair using HGH?
this is the first im hearing of it.
and if HGH was a cure, really rich people wouldnt go bald because money isnt a problem. But they do. eg. mel gibson etc.

 

[2young]

I think the reason HGH isn't considered a viable hairloss treatment is twofold:

1) the costs- over $1000/month or so I've heard
2) the risks- use of HGH supplements has been linked to all sorts of nasty things like cancer and a host of other problems


http://my.webmd.com/content/article/49/40032.htm
http://my.webmd.com/content/Article/61/ ... genumber=1

I for one wouldn't take it at present unless I had a growth hormone defficiency.

 

[everysixseconds]

I think the reason HGH isn't considered a viable hairloss treatment is twofold:

1) the costs- over $1000/month or so I've heard
2) the risks- use of HGH supplements has been linked to all sorts of nasty things like cancer and a host of other problems


http://my.webmd.com/content/article/49/40032.htm
http://my.webmd.com/content/Article/61/ ... genumber=1

I for one wouldn't take it at present unless I had a growth hormone defficiency.

i appreciate the effort, and your links raise very pertinent issues, but i still dont know how HGH reverses the balding process.

 

[Petchsky]

I think the reason HGH isn't considered a viable hairloss treatment is twofold:

1) the costs- over $1000/month or so I've heard
2) the risks- use of HGH supplements has been linked to all sorts of nasty things like cancer and a host of other problems


http://my.webmd.com/content/article/49/40032.htm
http://my.webmd.com/content/Article/61/ ... genumber=1

I for one wouldn't take it at present unless I had a growth hormone defficiency.

i appreciate the effort, and your links raise very pertinent issues, but i still dont know how HGH reverses the balding process.

No one does as there have been no studies on it. There was a poster not to long ago who stated that he grew all his hair back taking it, whether that's true or not i don't know.

When it comes to new treatments you have to remember that we live in a Capitalist society. Meaning if there is a new product that helps with hairloss, and it can make someone a profit, it will be made available.

Right now the best us baldies can hope for is HM. Gene therapy looks like it could be promising but that will be after HM IMO.

 

[rapidfrontal]

I'm falling a bit behind here. What is HM & IMO?

BTW(I know what this means), is Mel Gibson really going bald?

 

[Petchsky]

HM = Hair multiplication

IMO - In My Opinion.

Mel Gibson is bald! use the search feature and you will see a thread with a pic showing it.

 

[Fallout Boy]

Mell is pretty bad in the hair department yes.. IMO-in my opinion..

HM Hair Multiplication -"the cure" or so we hope

 

[thin=depressed]

I think the reason HGH isn't considered a viable hairloss treatment is twofold:

1) the costs- over $1000/month or so I've heard
2) the risks- use of HGH supplements has been linked to all sorts of nasty things like cancer and a host of other problems


http://my.webmd.com/content/article/49/40032.htm
http://my.webmd.com/content/Article/61/ ... genumber=1

I for one wouldn't take it at present unless I had a growth hormone defficiency.

I've read several posters who have experience great amounts of regrowth on hgh on other sites as well as a few here.HGH influences cell division and unfortunately it influences cancer cells as well.