Discussion in 'New Research, Studies, and Technologies' started by kigoma, Jun 8, 2016.
Oh you wish. Let's see...
Out of context.
He simply refers to the data from Christiano et al. that was performed on a rodent model, and refers to the interesting aspect of it (topical vs systemic). Immediately after he speaks of vitiligo and actual case reports (humans).
Well I was going to say how big a breakthrough this could be, but swoop seems to be saying its just the usual song and dance. Probably wont work that well if at all, and 10 years away if ever.
A study in rodents is meaningless really
The fact that he mentions they will release it for Androgenetic Alopecia, as well as the slide near the end mentions topical JAK inhibitors for Androgenetic Alopecia (pg.17). That's promising.
This is what he says pretty much at around 13 minutes;
With "they", he refers to Christiano et al. (Columbia University).
Swoop's clearly very knowledgable on this, and I have a lot of respect for what he brings to these forums but I think even he would concede that he doesn't know everything. There is no way he can say with 100% certainty that JAK or a refined formulation of JAK could not work for Androgenetic Alopecia. The comment section of that post seems pretty optimistic. There must be huge overlap between the commentators there and the posters here though.
What I got out of it was:
"To start looking and deploying capital against two new indications for us and that is androgenetic alopecia and also vitiligo. We will be developing a topical JAK inhibitor for androgenetic alopecia and the data on that (here clearly meaning on Androgenetic Alopecia) is quite interesting in that they found that the systemic JAK inhibitor does not work for that particular indication (still talking about Androgenetic Alopecia), but the topical does... "
Whether or not they have data on human applications well, they seem pretty confident in that it will work so let's hope it does.
@distracted, indeed, I could never know for sure. I find it extremely unlikely that JAK inhibitors will work for Androgenetic Alopecia, but we'll see. Clearly evidence is lacking with JAK inhibitors though (outside of mice), and this seems to be taken out of context. Hope it works though!! I would like to add that I don't want to be seen as a authority whatsoever. We are all equal here brahs unk:.
Yeah... I can see how many people would misinterpret this and think that they actually already tried this stuff on Androgenetic Alopecia topically and have seen that this grows hair. But that's not what he means. I'm highly sure of this, because he refers to Columbia University. He also follows up immediately with vitiligo and mentions case reports, which are actual humans. He would have done the same for Androgenetic Alopecia, but he speaks of "data".
And no way in hell that Columbia University or A.M Christiano would trial this stuff on multiple persons, without a registered trial in a "secret" way. Subsequently even if it was a case report it would be all over the news, just like with the AA case report. A.M Christiano didn’t mention anything either in her last interview with Spencer. The guy just probably formulated himself wrongly.
Someone should ask him if he actually refers to human data, just to be sure.
Have you ever posted a reason why you think that? If so, would you mind linking me to the thread?
JAK inhibitors combined with AA treatment could be revolutionary. JAK inhibitors seem to, essentially, signal the follicles to turn on again. With an AA like finasteride or RU creating a healthy environment I'm pretty excited about the possibility here. If you are old and completely bald you are probably SOL, but if you still have a decent population of stem cells this could work wonders.
If this proves to show substantial growth for Androgenetic Alopecia I wonder if we'll be able to get it prescribed off-label as more research comes out and it becomes more well know amongst doctors.
Since it's already a FDA approved drug I'm sure that will help make it a LITTLE easier to get through trials but if they're developing a new type of JAK that's target specific I wonder if they'll have to start trials from ground zero.
Any type of new news is always exciting and welcome.
The more this story develops the more Im leaning towards the topical jak being combined with Follica's method eventually.
Would seem to be a likely possibility.
I remember ready that Follica's method made minoxidil 4x more effective.
The more treatments we have the better off we are, especially since everyone doesn't respond to every single treatment.
Because Cotsarelis seems to agree with me; http://edition.cnn.com/2014/06/20/health/baldness-cure-alopecia/
Nah joke, that would be a bad reason.
I have several reasons but the following would be probably the most important one. When you go to this study; http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/9/e1500973.full
They probably refer with that to this study; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4362521/
It's likely that they refer to the AA mice model in this case.. Because in this case indeed, a topical formulation showed superiority over systemic treatment in AA mice model. As we can indeed also read from the supplemental material;
It wasn't much slower btw..
But let's assume they actually refer to actual humans that have tried oral formulations (actually published) and topical formulations (not published anywhere) of a JAK inhibitor for AA, from which they found that the oral resulted in more "robust" hair growth.
Well have you looked at actual case reports of people that found success for AA with a JAK inhibitor like tofactinib? Or even the ruxolitinib case reports in the last link?
Look at one example here which I posted recently on this link; https://www.instagram.com/thealopeciaexperiment/
Or at the case report of that guy in the first link where Cotsarelis talks. How can hair growth be more "robust" than that? In both cases it's pretty much rapid complete reversal lol.... So that wouldn't make sense would it. Besides let's assume that indeed they have seen more rapid hair growth in AA on humans with a topical formulation. Then what does it matter? At best it would maybe be a tiny bit faster, but eventually it's about the end result. Complete reversal of in this case AA, as displayed in these case reports.
Now the thing is that drugs have biological activity towards a target right? Finasteride primarily has activity towards the 5ar2 enzyme, and also towards 5ar1 at higher dosages. Just like JAK inhibitors have biological activity towards the JAK enzymes.
Now let's take a look at AA;
To simplify it in AA, "killer" T cells attack the epithelial compartment of the hair follicle. They hang around the bulb of the hair follicle. So what do JAK inhibitors do? Well they disrupt this process by latching onto these enzymes (which you can see in the above picture). By doing this they disrupt this process which leads to a decrease in these T cells and now the hair follicle is freed to produce a hair shaft again.
The funny thing is.... These killer T cells are around the close proximity of the hair follicle bulb right? So explain to me how these JAK inhibitors can overthrow these JAK enzymes in these T cells in AA (as evidenced by oral AA test subjects) but wouldn't for example on any other cell type in the hair follicle itself? That would be a laughable thing to assume.. And indeed as evidenced in the picture above you see that the picture illustrates that the compound latches towards the enzymes in the follicular ephitelial cells. The same could be said for every cell pretty much of the hair follicle...
Also remember oral JAK inhibitors do not work for Androgenetic Alopecia at the same dosages, period.
All in all there is really no evidence to believe this will do much at all. I'll eat my shoe if this will work and I obviously hope that it will work. But I'll believe it when I'll see it. Not going to get excited from a useless sh*t mice model. Even when you look at that mice model, SAG initiated hair growth just as about as fast as tofactinib so... There would be more, but I'll leave it at this if you don't mind :mrgreen:.
It's possible that JAK inhibitors do more than affect the immune system.
For example, statins lower cholesterol so people say the benefits of statins are due to lower cholesterol ... but statins actually do a lot in the body other than lower cholesterol.
I just want to share this comment here that I found interesting from hlc2020. Maybe people with more scientific knowledge can understand it and have a debate over it:
This guy seems to know his science, here's another:
Seems more knowledge than Swoop.
Again little boys like you who are led solely by emotions. It's pure fear what you have inside, that's why you are blinded by hope. I have seen so many guys like you. They never turned out to be right and they eventually vanished probably in desperation. They would be so extremely sure of their case. It's no different this time mate. Evidence lacks again and there is much hype for nothing. It's a never ending cycle. I can even give you some links, it's pure comedy. Look at my post history on BTH.
False hope is a bad thing brah. This is false hope. Come back when you have anything to show outside of mice models, some evidence in humans you know? Before that you stand nowhere.
So I'll ask you again; EVIDENCE IN HUMANS?!?!?!?! Pictures? Data? Case report?
I want this to work just as well as anyone, but getting hyped up for nothing is f*cking nonsense. It has happened many times before and I still only see finasteride and minoxidil, no? It's tiring, a thing you might understand in a few years from now.
Everyone, calm down. Just let them do their trials. It's useless speculating about this.