Who Would Help Fund A Kerastem Therapy?

[nameless]

nameless I swear you jump from hair loss cure to hair loss cure almost as if the purpose of doing so was solely to start a new thread. Sammumed results were good so stop feeling like "Kerastem" is our sole hope. Your obviously a treatment man who would prefer to spend thousands of pounds, so how's about a few years from now you get your Kerastem, SM04554, Bimatropost and Histogen and then a nice Replicel to keep them all there. Sound good?

Not interested in Replicel. Only a little interested in Histogen. Barely interested in Bimatoprost. Losing interest in Samumed.
My focus changes as information changes. We should all keep track of the information and change our focus as information
changes. It does none of us any good to let our focus get stuck. I'm not being sarcastic. I'm trying to give you friendly advice.
I think you should follow the information and move your focus as information changes. Kerastem looks like the most promising
and it's already available. I want you to get your hair back, score big with chicks, and be happy.

 

[Heavyduty]

I don't know and I really don't care much.

I do believe that Kerastem probably works because it SHOULD work. -----Yale university put out a study showing that the growth factors in adipose derived stem
cells and fat are all that is needed to regrow hair----- so if you put fat and adipose derived stem cells into the scalp that should grow hair and Kerastem does put fat
and adipose derived stem cells into the scalp.

- - - Updated - - -



Yup probably Kerastem.

Yeah, considering there are reports of people spending thousands on Kerastem to no avail, I'm going to need a source on that.

 

[Follisket]

Ok, but I look at the left photo and I think "bald guy", then I look at the right photo and I think "bald guy", y'know? Sure, it might be ridiculous to expect full-blown fullhead regrowth, but that's just why a before/after of a lower Norwood would be more telling.

Regrowth like this is always more noticable in advanced NWs, but it doesn't really make a difference since you're still in bald-vs-balder-territory. So the question is, does it make enough of a difference for low NWs to be considered any kind of solution? After all, the lower and closer you get to NW1 the harder it is to regrow hair. Which is why I doubt that kind of regrowth on a largely bald head translates to anything worth noting on someone who's trying to fix a receding hairline and avoid the appearance of balding altogether.

I do, however, agree it may be an option for bridging the gap to future treatments if it actually works and 100% maintains hair for several years - in which case, our main concern should be durability, not so much regrowth.

But yes, kudos on the quality photos at least.

 

[buckthorn]

Ok, but I look at the left photo and I think "bald guy", then I look at the right photo and I think "bald guy", y'know? Sure, it might be ridiculous to expect full-blown fullhead regrowth, but that's just why a before/after of a lower Norwood would be more telling.

Regrowth like this is always more noticable in advanced NWs, but it doesn't really make a difference since you're still in bald-vs-balder-territory. So the question is, does it make enough of a difference for low NWs to be considered any kind of solution? After all, the lower and closer you get to NW1 the harder it is to regrow hair. Which is why I doubt that kind of regrowth on a largely bald head translates to anything worth noting on someone who's trying to fix a receding hairline and avoid the appearance of balding altogether.

I do, however, agree it may be an option for bridging the gap to future treatments if it actually works and 100% maintains hair for several years - in which case, our main concern should be durability, not so much regrowth.

But yes, kudos on the quality photos at least.

If the guy on the right grew his hair out a little and styled it, I don't think you would be saying, "bald guy"

 

[nameless]

Yeah, considering there are reports of people spending thousands on Kerastem to no avail, I'm going to need a source on that.

Will you please tell me what reports you're hearing about people using "Kerastem to no avail"

Please provide links to these reports of people using Kerastem to no avail.

 

[Heavyduty]

Will you please tell me what reports you're hearing about people using "Kerastem to no avail"

Please provide links to these reports of people using Kerastem to no avail.

I asked you to provide a source for your claims first, don't answer my question with a question considering that since we're in the field of hairloss burden of proof lies with you.

 

[nameless]

If the guy on the right grew his hair out a little and styled it, I don't think you would be saying, "bald guy"

I agree.

I don't think that there's anything the guy on the left can do to get out of the "bald guy" category but if the guy on the right grew his hair longer then I think he would be thought of as a "balding guy" rather than a "bald guy". Also, for all we know one more treatment would get the guy on the right completely back to NW1.

- - - Updated - - -

I asked you to provide a source for your claims first, don't answer my question with a question considering that since we're in the field of hairloss burden of proof lies with you.

I'm not searching for a source because almost everyone here knows that Yale said that the signals from fat/fat stem cells cause hair growth. I've posted it many times many places, and so have many others. If you don't already know this then you need to get yourself updated on your own dime. On the other hand, not one person anywhere is aware of people who used Kerastem more than 6 months reporting that they got nothing for their investment. So if you post that info then you will be the first person who posted it. And the poor judgment of posters who complain after <3 months treatment do not count. Until he comes back and gives satisfactory answers to some question his assertions are irrelevant to me.

- - - Updated - - -

Ok, but I look at the left photo and I think "bald guy", then I look at the right photo and I think "bald guy", y'know? Sure, it might be ridiculous to expect full-blown fullhead regrowth, but that's just why a before/after of a lower Norwood would be more telling.

Regrowth like this is always more noticable in advanced NWs, but it doesn't really make a difference since you're still in bald-vs-balder-territory. So the question is, does it make enough of a difference for low NWs to be considered any kind of solution? After all, the lower and closer you get to NW1 the harder it is to regrow hair. Which is why I doubt that kind of regrowth on a largely bald head translates to anything worth noting on someone who's trying to fix a receding hairline and avoid the appearance of balding altogether.

I do, however, agree it may be an option for bridging the gap to future treatments if it actually works and 100% maintains hair for several years - in which case, our main concern should be durability, not so much regrowth.

But yes, kudos on the quality photos at least.

Good luck Follisket. The guy in that photo has obvious regrowth and the regrowth is very visible due to the quality pics with no tricky angles or comb-overs.

 

[Heavyduty]

I'm not searching for a source because almost everyone here knows that Yale said that the signals from fat/fat stem cells cause hair growth. I've posted it many times many places, and so have many others. If you don't already know this then you need to get yourself updated on your own dime. On the other hand, not one person anywhere is aware of people who used Kerastem more than 6 months reporting that they got nothing for their investment. So if you post that info then you will be the first person who posted it. And the poor judgment of posters who complain after <3 months treatment do not count. Until he comes back and gives satisfactory answers to some question his assertions are irrelevant to me.

If it's so easy to come by and posted everywhere/known by everyone then why don't you simply post a link for it? It's not asking for much now is it, especially considering I asked you first and the burden of proof still falls on you.

 

[nameless]

If it's so easy to come by and posted everywhere/known by everyone then why don't you simply post a link for it? It's not asking for much now is it, especially considering I asked you first and the burden of proof still falls on you.

but there's no reason for me to. Almost everyone here knows I'm right that Yale proved that the signals from fat and fat stem cells cause hair growth and that these signals are all that is needed for hair to grow. I'm done searching for that information.

Now on the other hand, you are the only one alleging that customers (other than guys who haven't been on the treatment long enough to make a determination but complain anyway) are reporting that Kerastem doesn't work. If
you don't want to provide links to those reports then I allege that there are no such reports and since you didn't provide links to those reports that shows you can't prove your claim.

And don't say I didn't prove my claim about YALE because almost everyone here knows my claim is true so my claim is already proved. You're the one with the dubious claim.

 

[Heavyduty]

And don't say I didn't prove my claim about YALE because almost everyone here knows my claim is true so my claim is already proved. You're the one with the dubious claim.

Is this a joke? I mean, you're essentially claiming that a university managed to grow hair by using fat and adscs and you're accusing others of dubious claims?

I'm still waiting on that widely known and undisputed fact, shouldn't be a problem to link to somewhere that shows some form of evidence for your claims, which I still asked for first.

Edit: Unless it is a problem of course.

 

[nameless]

Is this a joke? I mean, you're essentially claiming that a university managed to grow hair by using fat and adscs and you're accusing others of dubious claims?

I'm still waiting on that widely known and undisputed fact, shouldn't be a problem to link to somewhere that shows some form of evidence for your claims, which I still asked for first.

Edit: Unless it is a problem of course.

It's too much trouble. I don't care if you find out what everyone else has known for over a year.

Now please post your proof that customers are complaining about not getting results from Kerastem.
If you don't then there is no such proof and you're making sh!t up.

 

[GiveMeAccessToMyAccount]

While I completely agree with you that in strictly technical terms nothing short of a one-off permanent fix is really a cure, I guess we're just so incredibly desperate for something that works that convenience is literally the last thing on our minds.

Even the most ridiculous, inconvenient and expensive daily ritual would be considered a cure if it regrew a full head of hair (possibly even less). - Because hair. Because non-existent hair loss treatments.

Also, even assuming Kerastem really works, this is what we expect to save us?

I'm going to be completely honest with this pic that I have seen posted and praised, and quoted with optimism. To me, it just looks like he grew it out and had very minimal results in the vertex and that is it. The people in charge of this picture seemed to know exactly what they were doing, what they were going for. They wanted a shaved head to give the man the appearance of being as bald as possible, and then in the after picture yes there is clearly thicker hairs in the back, but mainly it's just grown out a little bit. It's shady stuff, but then again, who is not shady in hair loss business?

- - - Updated - - -

These results, if legitimate, are impressive as hell and I don't know how anyone can deny that. He has hair growth in completely bald areas of his crown, which I assume has been bald for a while. The thickness and quality of his hair has drastically increased too.

The bold is true, but then underlined I don't see how you can say that, I don't see how you can not notice that it's just grown out.

- - - Updated - - -

The photo on the left looks like the guy shaved with a 0, the photo on the right looks like he shaved with a 1 guard.

 

[buckthorn]

I'm going to be completely honest with this pic that I have seen posted and praised, and quoted with optimism. To me, it just looks like he grew it out and had very minimal results in the vertex and that is it. The people in charge of this picture seemed to know exactly what they were doing, what they were going for. They wanted a shaved head to give the man the appearance of being as bald as possible, and then in the after picture yes there is clearly thicker hairs in the back, but mainly it's just grown out a little bit. It's shady stuff, but then again, who is not shady in hair loss business?

- - - Updated - - -



The bold is true, but then underlined I don't see how you can say that, I don't see how you can not notice that it's just grown out.

- - - Updated - - -

The photo on the left looks like the guy shaved with a 0, the photo on the right looks like he shaved with a 1 guard.

that is definitely not a zero on the right. I think it is shaved with a one in both photos, it's just denser in the second. If you zoom in, you can see that his existing hair has become thicker... idk, perhaps I am just delusional at this point. Either way, How the heck is this not impressive?? It is working by a completely different mechanism than finasteride/dutasteride/ru/minoxidil and providing cosmetically significant growth in balding zones of the head. People's expectations are simply too high. We need a few treatments that work moderately well, because I'll be damned if we ever find one that just reverses Androgenetic Alopecia.

 

[nameless]

If it's so easy to come by and posted everywhere/known by everyone then why don't you simply post a link for it? It's not asking for much now is it, especially considering I asked you first and the burden of proof still falls on you.

Why don't you just google it? Google yale university + adipose + hair follicles. If you google that you'll go to lots of links about it. Now that I've informed you how to find it please post links to customers reporting that Kerastem doesn't work.

- - - Updated - - -

that is definitely not a zero on the right. I think it is shaved with a one in both photos, it's just denser in the second.

Absolutely. I have shaved my head ZERO and when you do that all you see is dots. No hair sticks up. The hair in both pics look the same length to me also.
How did you zoom in on the pics? I can't figure out to zoom. It doesn't matter though because it definitely looks like the hairs are the same length.

 

[Heavyduty]

Why don't you just google it? Google yale university + adipose + hair follicles. If you google that you'll go to lots of links about it. Now that I've informed you how to find it please post links to customers reporting that Kerastem doesn't work.

I'm sorry but is this it? - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3507425/

 

[GiveMeAccessToMyAccount]

That looks like a 0 and a 1 to me but okay. I'm not the one that is all in on this stuff being the savior. To his own, good luck, I do hope it ends up being a very good treatment but I think ultimately it will be a bust. I hope to be wrong.

 

[Greybeer]

ok, i will ask him as soon is i can. if any other one has questions, please post it soon. maybe hellouser?

Can you ask once the fat or the puregraft is injected or placed onto the scalp, if that will act as a barrier preventing topicals from getting into the scalp, And or preventing future treatments from being as effective

 

[buckthorn]

Can you ask once the fat or the puregraft is injected or placed onto the scalp, if that will act as a barrier preventing topicals from getting into the scalp, And or preventing future treatments from being as effective

I don't understand what you mean here... it becomes a part of your scalp. It's just fat tissue. It's vascular. The whole point of this is restoring the depleted fat from the dermis.

 

[Bad_Wolve]

hope to get the answers of our questions tommorw from dr. schlaudraff. i am really excited what he has to say!

 

[hilbert]

I don't understand what you mean here... it becomes a part of your scalp. It's just fat tissue. It's vascular. The whole point of this is restoring the depleted fat from the dermis.

this is something i've missed... so balding is caused/connected to the depletion of dermis fat?