Why there will NEVER be a cure for baldness

[Mighty]

SMP turns blue. It feels pathetic to get ink tattooed to your head to look like hair. I guess it's a good option for some people, but it doesn't solve my problem which is that about 30,000 of my organs are missing. I can't run my hands through smp. It wouldn't make me feel any better than being bald.

I get your point that we have more options, especially if you are just starting to bald. On the other hand millions of us still have no effective solution

Sadly, it is what it is, like most things in the universe. Unless a person has the skills and/or the resources to change their reality, they can do nothing but wait for a solution to come to them. That applies to most of us. The ppl without secondary options will suffer the most (sorry).

I would like to postpone this problem like I did in my early 20s but I can't give me the luxury of having faith in a possible cure anymore. Today I feel like my hands are tied and I will probably have to use finasteride for the rest of my life. Or at least for several long years to come.

Somethings simply are out of our control.

 

[Hairful]

Like everything it would be very expensive at first and become more mainstream over time.

Things like Rhinoplasty and Breast Implants were only for very very rich people initially and it is pretty affordable and mainstream nowdays. They give you tits or a nose "forever" and its a good business with never ending clients. (Just to show an example)

You missed the point of my post.

No companies that can make sh*t happen are investing in it. They just don’t see the point. And you should know how the corporate world works, if anyone suggests in the meeting room we can make it profitable in 50 or so years when prices come down and our patent expires he will be laughed at.

There are real serious issues plaguing humanity that can be easily cured. I will mention something that’s close to heart ie antibiotic resistance. Big pharma have completely abandoned it and there are so many fringe researchers and little biotechs coming up with genius antibiotics but guess what they will never make it to the market because they don’t have the money. Millions of people die every year from antibiotic resistance. If big pharma invests in this then we would have antibiotics to which germs can’t acquire resistance and that means millions of lives saved, in fact such antibiotics have been discovered already. Why is big pharma not investing? They can’t make a profit in the short term, they will get their investment back in 50 years or 100 years even with generics but that’s not profitable enough for them.

You think happiness of baldies is more important to them than saving lives?

They are under no obligation anyway, their sole focus is to make money. And invest which makes more sense. A cure for baldness isn’t profitable

 

[Zon Ama]

SMP turns blue. It feels pathetic to get ink tattooed to your head to look like hair. I guess it's a good option for some people, but it doesn't solve my problem which is that about 30,000 of my organs are missing. I can't run my hands through smp. It wouldn't make me feel any better than being bald.

I get your point that we have more options, especially if you are just starting to bald. On the other hand millions of us still have no effective solution

Why do you ignore the hair transplant? I read in another post from you that you are wealthy, so you can easily afford Zarev.
You will get 20.000-25.000 of your organs back and then close the chapter of hairloss.

 

[pegasus2]

Why do you ignore the hair transplant? I read in another post from you that you are wealthy, so you can easily afford Zarev.
You will get 20.000-25.000 of your organs back and then close the chapter of hairloss.

Transplant doesn't give organs back, it just moves them around. I know I won't be satisfied with a subpar head of hair, which is what a hair transplant will give me. Zarev is overrated

 

[norwood_spotter]

Why do you ignore the hair transplant? I read in another post from you that you are wealthy, so you can easily afford Zarev.
You will get 20.000-25.000 of your organs back and then close the chapter of hairloss.

zarev has patients with good hair diameters i think. if you have good hair diameters you can have a decent result even with high norwoods as long as you dont go into the water. many europeans with fine hair are fucked though

 

[pegasus2]

Your standards are very high bro.

They are. Zarev is a good option for many people, but he harvests outside the safe zone. Personally I'm ok with my looks shaved. Getting back to a thin NW2 isn't going to make me feel that much better like a thick NW1 with a still dense donor zone would. Everyone is different.

 

[coolio]

If HMI-115 turns out to be as potent as we hope it is, then having existing transplants might actually worsen your net total outcome.

HMI seems to revive existing follicles that are dormant because of baldness. Transplants tend to hack up the recipient area, which would destroy a lot of them.


If you aren't holding out for teenage perfection (and assuming your transplant work is not a hackjob) then it's probably nothing to worry too much about. HMI + good transplants = probably still a much improved outcome over transplants alone.

HMI probably offers the best gains in the top & crown (speculation on my part). Nobody gets truly dense transplant coverage on the crown because it's just too big. The best-looking crown transplants are only about half density. They look dense because of hair characteristics and implanting artistry (and flattering photo conditions).


Bottom line, transplants would be an unknown variable for the HMI treatment. You might even end up with more total density in the transplanted areas than nature gave you, and I'm not sure how that would work out.

 

[RagnarLothbrok]

Yeah HMI-115 + high density temple transplant for ridiculous hairline (in that order) is the closest chance we have for a legit cure.

In my case I just can't afford waiting anymore, it affects me too much so i'm going for a transplant. In essence a transplant is just moving follicles around. When they transplant a follicle in an area that already had minituarized follicles the old follicle simply dies and its lost.

The ideal transplant would be a "double transplant" where they can literally swap your back hair for your front hair without losing any follicles but doctors don't bother doing that and just let them die.

 

[Zon Ama]

What about verteporfin? I'm not sure if someone has tested it already? We wouldn't even need HMI-115 if this works

 

[norwood_spotter]

Maybe The Real Cure Was the Friends We Made Along the Way​

 

[RagnarLothbrok]

What about verteporfin? I'm not sure if someone has tested it already? We wouldn't even need HMI-115 if this works

Some people are already using it for 100% scar-less hair transplants. Their donors turn out with absolute 0 scar tissue after a full transplant. Its pretty interesting. The follicle is gone but having 0 scar tissue makes the transplant look much more natural and you can use more hair than usual.

Verteporfin Could Create Scarless Hair Transplant Surgery – Follicle Thought

folliclethought.com

 

[Zon Ama]

Are there any pictures of transplants with verteportfin?
So the follicles that are removed wont regrow again as it was expected, right?

 

[losingbattle88]

Like everything it would be very expensive at first and become more mainstream over time.

Things like Rhinoplasty and Breast Implants were only for very very rich people initially and it is pretty affordable and mainstream nowdays. They give you tits or a nose "forever" and its a good business with never ending clients. (Just to show an example)

The cure has been with us since the beginning of man kind. I present to you Nofap.

 

[pegasus2]

Are there any pictures of transplants with verteportfin?
So the follicles that are removed wont regrow again as it was expected, right?

It hasn't been tried yet. Don't count on it

 

[Hairful]

The cure has been with us since the beginning of man kind. I present to you Nofap.

Have you tried it and noticed any significant results?

After reading the HMi thread and the role of prolactin in hairloss, I am interested in reducing prolactin levels but since serum prolactin levels and hair follicle levels are independent, nofap seems BS

 

[losingbattle88]

Have you tried it and noticed any significant results?

After reading the HMi thread and the role of prolactin in hairloss, I am interested in reducing prolactin levels but since serum prolactin levels and hair follicle levels are independent, nofap seems BS

Seen and heard plenty of evidence of it. I dont think its just about prolactin. Im gonna try it and see Will update.

 

[norwood_spotter]

so jason statham jerked off too much? poor jason

 

[Feramon1]

Abstinence does improve the quality of your hair, but abstinence will not restore your hair, it's like castration, only weaker. The problem is that abstinence works for a limited amount of time, then you will not feel that it gives you anything and rather DHT or prolactin will begin to rise with prolonged abstinence, instead of the expected decrease. Also, prolonged abstinence negatively affects the prostate. I think the norm would be once every 7-10 days (for balding). Contrary to various opinions, sex is no different from masturbation, hair and hormones doesn't care, in both cases, the loss is accelerated.

If you had the same hair sensitivity to any changes as I do, whether it be stress or arousal, you would have no doubt that masturbation and stress really adversely affect your hairstyle, it’s another matter that this is not the main factor, but accelerating.

 

[indie85]

Anyone else think that once there is a cure and everyone's rocking solid NW1s, baldness will become fashionable lol

 

[WaccWaccWacc]

There are a bunch of things out there that will get you your hair back. Unfortunately, none are safe or have “insignificant” consequences. That’s the only hurdle really, which just so happens to be very hard to solve, at least with any angle we’ve tried to date.

To say it will never happen is very naive. Medical breakthroughs are exponential in nature. Just a matter of catching up. There’s also more people interested in this issue today than any other period.

The answer of “when” is also not much more interesting. I personally would put the bounds between 5 and 100 years, distributed fairly uniform. I have no data for that, purely opinion. Anyone who tells you anything more concise is lying.