jasonbourne
Member
- Reaction score
- 3
Fredward is so Wack lmfao
Why things take so long?
- Thread starter hellouser
- Start date
Eh I dont know if I agree there. The importance of it is largely opinion. I feel its more how you feel about yourself than what other people think.
Being bald to me is like a woman with wrinkles its just kind of like premature aging and not a great thing, but it hits everyone eventually
lifelonglearning
Member
- Reaction score
- 8
stockdale paradox.. have faith their will be better treatments to come in the future but dont ignore the brutal fact that currently there is not much options and that it will take quite sometime before these treatments are released to market
I.D WALKER
Senior Member
- Reaction score
- 869
Yes Colonel Stockdale more likely had it right. It may be a more stoic approach by far than his expired comrades had, but certainly a healthier attitude than succumbing to unwavering optimism.
This brings to my mind another incident that relates to hostage versus captor survival in the context of hair loss coping strategies,
to which I'll be the first to admit there have been days where I have fantasized experiencing full blown symptoms of Stockholm syndrome, in this case male pattern baldness being my captor of course.
Where circumstances can run us into extreme choppy, deep waters... screw your head on good and tight, so you don't completely lose it .
Our best and brightest have been funneled to where the biggest pay days have been since the 1980's: banking and finance. It used to be physics and engineering, but the western world has been de-industrializing for the last 30 years. As a result of finance capital overthrowing industrial economy since about 1987, we are behind the eight ball in a number of crucial areas, from a lack of spending on infrastructure and nuclear power physics to cancer, heart disease and hair loss research. Why funnel money into basic research when banks need bailing out from their gambling losses around the world? yes, it really is a matter of priorities. All economies are centrally planned to varying degrees, and our's is currently being managed by a relative handful few bankers and financiers. These people consider themselves masters of the universe so to speak. They have been handed powers of resource allocation that used to be associated with democratically elected governments. They know everything there is to know about money and credit and not so much about things that matter. Imagine if everything was run like a business. As a business manager, how much money will you actually invest in basic research? Then how much of the total will go toward finding a hair loss cure? What will be the time to return on investment? 10 years you say?
On the other hand from what I've read here, I really think pharmaceutical companies are being handed incentives to develop drugs as a result of findings reported by a slew of academic researchers, like Christiano, Jahoda, Cotsarelis and so on. Business types in pharma should be drooling over this low-hanging fruit, and I gather from what Angela Christiano said recently, she thinks so, too. It could now be a case that pharma has a real incentive to develop what might be an actual cure for Androgenetic Alopecia with JAK inhibitors already looking good for at least three of the four major hair loss disorders. Christiano said Tofacitinib has a short time to fail with respect to knowing if it cures Androgenetic Alopecia or not. If Tof produces good results in a couple of easy phase 1 trials, I think the countdown is on at that point.
Good post, everything you've said with regards to the brightest going into finance is pretty accurate. We still have many amazing scientific brains though that has resulted in amazing technological advancements over the last few years. Just look how much better hair transplants are.
With regards to the new drugs to treat hair loss, that is all great, my only issue is that we won't know the long-term side effects of these drugs for decades after. I made a point before that realistically, from a safety perspective, surely developing on existing techniques which are safe would be the best way forward. That means making hair transplants more affordable, quicker, more convenient and as natural looking as possible. There are already great results out there, what we need to work on is donor regeneration and elimination of any kind of scars/pigmentation. In terms of treatments to preserve hair, these need to improve, by now we should be in a position to know why some people get side effects and others do not.
from a realistic view isn't histogen /replicel suppose to be available within the next 2 years?
i read they are starting phase 3 trials.... i just joined the forums and have read past comments about these companies and half of users are pretty pessimistic saying there won't be a cure while others are more optimistic.
losing hair is a very serious matter and its ridiculous that we will soon have driveless car but yet no cure or treatment for hair loss. I don't count propecia etc.
Let's start a crowdfunding to help accelerate this seriously; i am sure there are many people affected by this and with advances in biotech i dont see why it should take longer than 2 years
i read they are starting phase 3 trials.... i just joined the forums and have read past comments about these companies and half of users are pretty pessimistic saying there won't be a cure while others are more optimistic.
losing hair is a very serious matter and its ridiculous that we will soon have driveless car but yet no cure or treatment for hair loss. I don't count propecia etc.
Let's start a crowdfunding to help accelerate this seriously; i am sure there are many people affected by this and with advances in biotech i dont see why it should take longer than 2 years
I am not sure about new treatments. How will we know if they're safe? They may show safety in tests, but long-term, how do we know something like histogen won't cause brain cancer or something? We don't have enough knowledge, we're relying on those with a more scientific brain. I'm not sure in a world like this, where money is king, how safe that is?
I see some of the hair transplants out there, and people's lives have been transformed. I could be way wrong (and hope so) , but I think it's as good a cure as we'll ever find for the foreseeable future. The problems are - it takes too long, it requires multiple procedures and leaves a scar. Plus there's a limitation. For some these factors are not an issue in creating results. For others, they're a huge obstacle, so I feel the ''cure'' is in addressing these issues better for the future. That means, donor regeneration, elimination of scars/pigmentation, decrease in costs etc. There does seem to be progress in all those areas and better technology can only improve that.
Follisket
Established Member
- Reaction score
- 288
The thing is, unless we get significant donor regeneration, hair transplant will never come even close to a real fix.
Method, (in)convenience and price are actually all pretty irrelevant when it comes to a cure/treatment for baldness - at least to me - as long as it's real, thick hair that's guaranteed to stay. But it's baffling that it's still literally impossible to get that even with such a disregard for pretty much any and all other reservations.
Method, (in)convenience and price are actually all pretty irrelevant when it comes to a cure/treatment for baldness - at least to me - as long as it's real, thick hair that's guaranteed to stay. But it's baffling that it's still literally impossible to get that even with such a disregard for pretty much any and all other reservations.
farkhairloss
Established Member
- Reaction score
- 37
Totally agree. If a hair transplant could achieve thick natural density it would be the answer. But a maximum of 8000 grafts (follicular units) on a norward 5 or more who has lost 100 000 follicular units doesnt cut it unless you live in a cave with no light.
If we've lost 100k i don't think we need that many for a nice, full head of hair. We do need more than the 8k you mentioned, perhaps 16k will give a decent result which means we need to double the donor area. Then there's the cost for most people.
Follisket
Established Member
- Reaction score
- 288
It's not even just a matter of density. There is also the issue of not knowing what the pattern and full extent of your hair loss will be, how much donor hair you'll need or if you even have enough. Not to mention we've no idea whether a hair transplant now might limit the potential of a future treatment/cure due to scarring or whatever.
It's all just an absolute mess. Makes you sick to think we're here hoping for an effective cure/treatment when we can't even get a reliable prognosis.
But doubling the donor area would be a good start though, yeah.
It's all just an absolute mess. Makes you sick to think we're here hoping for an effective cure/treatment when we can't even get a reliable prognosis.
But doubling the donor area would be a good start though, yeah.
- Reaction score
- 975
have you a recent photo of this trasplanted guy?
5 years after the operation could be very interesting.
5 years after the operation could be very interesting.
- Reaction score
- 1,332
Even then, if you want some f-ing hair on your head right now, a hair transplant is the only realistic course of action.
I feel much less inferior and much less ugly with those 5000 hairs that shouldn't be there on the top of my head.
Having a frame for one's face is such a big relief. Sometimes I try to imagine myself without that frame and this scares me so much.
This guy looks infinitely much better like this. Why should have have waited to do a hair transplant? You have to live your youth now.
You won't get a second chance. And if something is available, why not use it? You're worried about the future? You don't know what's going to happen.
What I know for a fact on the other hand, it's that right now, I'm comfortable in my own skin thanks to my hair transplant.
And there's a good chance that thanks to my first and second hair transplant in a few years, I will be at peace for at least the next 5 or 10 years to come.
And I don't see how future treatments wouldn't work on me.
(On a side note, the guy you see on that picture is one of the people who turned me down for a hair transplant at the clinic he represented)
He looks way more confident in the 2nd picture! :mrgreen:
Hairloss23
Banned
- Reaction score
- 54
I wonder why lol
jasonbourne
Member
- Reaction score
- 3
- Reaction score
- 2,634
According to that, around 9k solves all problems.
uncomfortable man
Senior Member
- Reaction score
- 490
And people here still think under the misconception that even advanced hairloss is easily reversable...right, just casually go down to your local clinic and drop ten thousand dollars and walk out a new man, when the reality is only the top surgeons in the world can be trusted to do quality work and even then there is only so much they can do.... which translates to alot of bald guys getting turned down by these clinics because they know they cant achieve cosmetically acceptable results that they can show off on their fancy websites and brochures. But joe nw3 is welcomed with open arms. Even in the hairloss industry (where there is supposed to be compassion for this condition )there is descrimination. Oh but you better bet there are tons of butchers out there who will happily take your money regardless of the chances or lack therof your Norwood level provides.
- - - Updated - - -
....which is why it is disheartening to know that no real significant advancement in this ailing industry are going to come in my lifetime.