On A Scale Of 1 To 10, How Much Of A Disappointment Was The Hair Congress?

[abra]

Don't be too harsh. Think of it this way that if hellrouser had not taken the pain to cover it, we would still be in our lalaland.
Now atleast we know there is hardly newsworthy thing coming out for next 2,3 years.
Let your follicles die in peace.

 

[newplayer]

Hey guys, where is the actual news thread?

 

[Rudiger]

I’m very grateful to hellouser for all his work. I contributed (a small amount) to the Congress. I’m glad we had someone there.

I’m just extremely depressed over my hair loss - for good or ill. Perhaps I shouldn’t be. But I am. The Congress was something keeping me going. So now that it’s come and gone I feel adrift again. I don’t have the scientific knowledge to know how much of a disappointment it was, if any. So wanted to gauge how others see it.

This hair loss sh*t is eating me alive.

This topic doesn't even make sense, which is a reflection on you as the creator in both your intention and also your logic.

Normally when a scale is 1-10 it's like the optimum is the most agreeable, like a 10 is the most positive, but this topic you created asks if 10 is the best possible disappointment which is an eternal hair loss cure?

That's not a disappointment. That's the optimal best thing to happen. And the only disappointing thing is that in life, everyone is entitled to make a topic, even you.

 

[Recon_s]

You guys are legit delusional on here trying to justify how good it was.....Like am I missing something or just to real for this thread?? No one had a cure therefore that's a complete fail. No body wants to here about something 2 years away because they know that never happens, We knew before the congress that there would be no cure or good news but still the majority were hoping for a miracle they knew wasn't going to happen. I get people are desperate but people need to learn to be more realistic. Go ahead and dislike this post but deep down you know I am right

 

[UberBaldaten]

You guys are legit delusional on here trying to justify how good it was.....Like am I missing something or just to real for this thread?? No one had a cure therefore that's a complete fail. No body wants to here about something 2 years away because they know that never happens, We knew before the congress that there would be no cure or good news but still the majority were hoping for a miracle they knew wasn't going to happen. I get people are desperate but people need to learn to be more realistic. Go ahead and dislike this post but deep down you know I am right

Trying to "cure" baldness is like trying to "cure big tits", which are caused by secondary hormone derivates and appear in certain % of individuals ( do not confuse with mammary glands ).
Surgery is the only way.

What we are looking for is reversal, holding the process, or multiplication of DHT resistant follicles which we could implant back.

All going under the category of (long term) treatments.

 

[Recon_s]

Ok smart *** "cure" not the best word here but you know what I mean.

 

[rclark]

The last Hair Congress came out with a tool to tell you which users responded to Minoxidil.

Generally speaking, I think it's a waste of time.

 

[dermrafok]

Trying to "cure" baldness is like trying to "cure big tits", which are caused by secondary hormone derivates and appear in certain % of individuals ( do not confuse with mammary glands ).
Surgery is the only way.

What we are looking for is reversal, holding the process, or multiplication of DHT resistant follicles which we could implant back.

All going under the category of (long term) treatments.

I would not agree on the term ("long term"). Otherwise all right.

 

[ZZmop]

Trying to "cure" baldness is like trying to "cure big tits", which are caused by secondary hormone derivates and appear in certain % of individuals ( do not confuse with mammary glands ).
Surgery is the only way.

What we are looking for is reversal, holding the process, or multiplication of DHT resistant follicles which we could implant back.

All going under the category of (long term) treatments.

This big tit analogy doesn't work. Breast size is determined during puberty and is largely non variable once puberty has finished. In contrast, male pattern baldness has nothing to do with puberty, really. It is a genetic quirk which can strike in one's teens or at the age of 80. Or not at all.

The equivalent for a women's breast size would be a girl with full, busty double D's in her teens then at age 26 suddenly experiences miniaturisation which ultimately leaves her with a completely flat chest that looks as though a mastectomy has taken place.

 

[hanginginthewire]

This topic doesn't even make sense, which is a reflection on you as the creator in both your intention and also your logic.

Normally when a scale is 1-10 it's like the optimum is the most agreeable, like a 10 is the most positive, but this topic you created asks if 10 is the best possible disappointment which is an eternal hair loss cure?

That's not a disappointment. That's the optimal best thing to happen. And the only disappointing thing is that in life, everyone is entitled to make a topic, even you.

It was posted hastily in between bar hops. Not much thought was put in to it. It’s not a scientific poll Sir.

 

[Rudiger]

It was posted hastily in between bar hops. Not much thought was put in to it. It’s not a scientific poll Sir.

I think you just admitted that this is a badly written topic and then finished off by being sarcastic at my expectations.

 

[BaldyBalderBald]

Trying to "cure" baldness is like trying to "cure big tits", which are caused by secondary hormone derivates and appear in certain % of individuals ( do not confuse with mammary glands ).
Surgery is the only way.

What we are looking for is reversal, holding the process, or multiplication of DHT resistant follicles which we could implant back.

All going under the category of (long term) treatments.

Trying to cure baldness is like trying to cure a genetic disease, yeah it's pretty hard, and even if this genetic disease is finally wiped out or fully dormant some damage already caused can not be reversible except surgically (for now).

I really don't get the 'big tits' analogy with a genetic skin disorder

 

[hanginginthewire]

I think you just admitted that this is a badly written topic and then finished off by being sarcastic at my expectations.

Most everything on here is a badly written topic. It’s not the National Academy of Sciences.

 

[rclark]

Most everything on here is a badly written topic. It’s not the National Academy of Sciences.

Really?

 

[Rudiger]

Most everything on here is a badly written topic. It’s not the National Academy of Sciences.

"I can defend my poorly thought out bullshit by saying it's not going to win a Nobel prize".

And speak for yourself about badly written topics. It's not just that it was badly written but it represented nil logic, I can easily forgive poor writing if it comes from a decent thought, but if you don't have a decent thought then I guess you just resort to defending yourself like "I'm not a scientist! Therefore I have the right to create I'll conceived ideas!"

 

[Recon_s]

Can we all just agree it was a big waste of time and money? I feel bad for those that donated....hows your hairloss now? oh ya that's right same as everyone else's

 

[rclark]

Can we all just agree it was a big waste of time and money? I feel bad for those that donated....hows your hairloss now? oh ya that's right same as everyone else's

In my own opinion, it's a big waste of money.

There's nothing big that we're not going to find out some other way, that won't have it's own press conference.

Let's face it, any company that has a Patent on the hair industry is going to publicize their product. Why waste all that money and effort getting a patent in the first place?

 

[hanginginthewire]

"I can defend my poorly thought out bullshit by saying it's not going to win a Nobel prize".

And speak for yourself about badly written topics. It's not just that it was badly written but it represented nil logic, I can easily forgive poor writing if it comes from a decent thought, but if you don't have a decent thought then I guess you just resort to defending yourself like "I'm not a scientist! Therefore I have the right to create I'll conceived ideas!"

You’re right, I’m sorry. How can we rectify this? It’s important that we evaluate and improve the logic behind thread 42693169 here on hairlosstalk.com. I need to be more selective with my “I’ll” conceived ideas! Thanks, teach!

 

[Rudiger]

You’re right, I’m sorry. How can we rectify this? It’s important that we evaluate and improve the logic behind thread 42693169 here on hairlosstalk.com. I need to be more selective with my “I’ll” conceived ideas! Thanks, teach!

I write on my phone mainly, I guess that's your little dig and the closest you'll get to an actual defense, other than basically saying "I'm a retard! Sorry I don't have a PhD Mr Scientist!"

You can't rectify this. Some people are born this way. Carry on making mistakes and then being arrogant and unapologetic about your f*** ups. Because there's no other way.

 

[UberBaldaten]

This big tit analogy doesn't work. Breast size is determined during puberty and is largely non variable once puberty has finished. In contrast, male pattern baldness has nothing to do with puberty, really. It is a genetic quirk which can strike in one's teens or at the age of 80. Or not at all.

The equivalent for a women's breast size would be a girl with full, busty double D's in her teens then at age 26 suddenly experiences miniaturisation which ultimately leaves her with a completely flat chest that looks as though a mastectomy has taken place.

DHT and Estradiol are both secondary hormones. During puberty breast size increases due fat accumulation, and so does body hair which is sensitive to DHT.

To select few this goes beyond that and females grow double D's in teens, and males start losing hair in teens ( DHT damage starts in teens,it just depends how much "health" your follicles have before it's apparent).

They are both secondary gender characteristics. It's defined in medical books if you don't believe me.
You could easily classify your deep voice as a laryngeal dysfunction because it can no longer produce high notes due androgens thickening your vocal cords.

It's just that society prefers males have 0 body hair and full head of hair and in some cases some beard.