» I don’t know what to think about the waiting period in regards to the
» Gentifib patient either.
» On the one hand, he probably regrew that hair without obeying any waiting
» period at all. On the other hand, he’s one out of thousands on the drug
» and most of them didn’t get anything regrowing.
» If everyone who was on any EFG-R inhibition drug during the time of a skin
» injury gets hair growth, then I would have expected us to know about this
» property of the drugs a long time ago. They put people on Arava for years
» at a stretch, and the drug’s already been around about a decade.
» So is the Gentifib patient a freak case for growing something without the
» waiting period, or is he representative of anyone who gets a sunburn on an
» EGF-R drug? Hard to know.
I think they tell you to avoid exvessive sunlight with Arava dont they? I know they do with getfitinib. The thing about the two freak hypertrichotic cases is this…Did both those people get too much sun on their head and nose, and then get on the EGF-antagonist three or four days later? Or were they on the drug, and happen to (against the instructions) get too much sun one day and have a burn which made the skin make hair follicles in the burnt area as a response?
The nose photo is particularily intriguing becuase some of the hair growth was “under” the nose…indicative of someone “laying out” in the sun. Someone on the forum suggested an itchy nose or frequent nose blowing and the tissues might have aggravated the skin there.
I just keep coming back to the patent where it continually says “during a state of re-epilithialization” a few times vs. after reepilithialization has taken place and openly wonder. They mention a topical that could be applied PRE-wounding or even at the same time due to “time release”. I have to wonder about a “time-relased” topical preparation on skin that has been deliberately wounded (had the top layer removed). Seems kinda far-fetched. Are they merely being protective in the patent, or was the time verbiage an attempt to be misleading in the first place? Lidocaine, Ive been checking up on that, is a pretty well known egf-antagonist and pubmed has articles about its ability to inhibit egf through tyrosine kinease. It makes me wonder if the patent is deliberately misleading and they know precisely the path they intend to follow?
Post re-epilithialization in the human skin experiments would have been day four…and hair germs were detected on day 7. Can stem cells build hair THAT fast, or were they forming in response to the wound from day one? It makes me wonder…I have no idea.
There would be a way to find out however…abrade a small area while using egf-antagonist and apply for ten days.
I just might try that with lidocaine. I know, I know…Im just nosy, always have been .
With some HT docs fooling around with ACELL now…maybe all this is superfulous. ACELL in FUE-holes would be a god-send in that WE KNOW the hair that grew out of them (if it worked) would be donor-quality hair…
Im excited about both methodologies. The ACELL hair growth in animals grew despite the animals IMMUNE systems----which is more exciting still.