It’s been about three years since I participated, and I moved from Tokyo to Boston.
I’m here as the bearer of great news:
Love and hairy futures to all of you, my follicularly-challenged brethren (and perhaps sistren!).
Does anyone know what is Dimethylpolysiloxane ?
MikieNess,
What specfic info are you able to tell us about the treatment(s) and results?
From Wikipedia: "Polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) belongs to a group of polymeric organosilicon compounds that are commonly referred to as silicones.[1] PDMS is the most widely used silicon-based organic polymer, and is particularly known for its unusual rheological (or flow) properties. PDMS is optically clear, and, in general, inert, non-toxic, and non-flammable. It is also called dimethicone and is one of several types of silicone oil (polymerized siloxane). Its applications range from contact lenses and medical devices to elastomers; it is also present in shampoos (as dimethicone makes hair shiny and slippery), food (antifoaming agent), caulking, lubricants and heat-resistant tiles."
It is chemically inert. That is, it doesn’t have a tendency to chemically react with other molecules in the body. In Dr. Fukuda’s work, it’s not even directly applied to the body (of the subject mice in the test.) Instead, it’s put in a laboratory culturing vessel along with stem cells and epithelial cells, and helps them grow into a mini hair follicle (called a Hair Follicle Germ).
The articles that say “an ingredient in McDonald’s fries may cure baldness” are misleading – that’s just click bait. If this chemical is applied directly to your skin, it won’t grow any hair.
LMGTFY.
It’s an article. You’re welcome.
Not precisely. If it turns stem and epithelial cells into hair follicles, it does indeed, for all intents and purposes, cure baldness. You’re welcome.
Yeah, I’m with you there. But a lot of these articles were giving people the idea that applying it to your scalp would cure baldness itself. It’s a bit more complicated than that. But yes, IF it does this, then it is a cure because they’d be able to grow as much hair as you need in the lab and then just implant it. No other treatment I’ve heard of would be able to do that.
–the article was on social media last week (also in a couple of other threads on this board), wondered if you knew something else that lead you to call it a “cure”.
1 Like
wow. You’re kind of a dick.
I don’t think he’s a dick, I think he’s just not reading and understanding what people are writing in this thread.
The point is, @ESP2, if this treatment works exactly as they describe, then yes – it is a cure. It’s far more of a cure than anything else that has been described on this site, because it doesn’t rely on the condition of your scalp, your existing follicles, etc. It’s basically an assembly line to mass produce new hair follicles which can then be implanted by a surgeon.
How is that NOT a cure?
RT, whether the implantation of HGFs (or the implantation of any other method of reproducing follicles) would work on a scalp that has been bald for 20+ years is precisely my concern. I’ve read that even regular HTs eventually thin out over enough time. Could this work to revive a scalp that has turned from “fertile” to a “desert” over 2 - 3 decades? Will repeat procedures be necessary over extended periods of time to maintain the original result?
Mikieness posted that he had been in Tokyo (the news is out of Japan), and he called it a cure (after the story had already been discussed over the past week, and the general consensus was, as usual, “another treatment that works on mice! great…”). When i read his post, I genuinely wondered whether he knew something that had not been reported or discussed here (what else would we be grateful enough to merit a “your’re welcome” for?). I remember his posts from a while back and considered him a credible poster and very non-trollish, so I thought I’d follow up. But I can see he interpreted my post the wrong way. Too bad responding like an eigth-grader was his default way of handling it.
I wouldn’t have bothered if i didn’t also think there might be something here, especially compared to what we’ve seen previously. Incidentally, thanks for everything you’ve contributed here over the past 20 years.
I think we have different understanding of what is a cure.
If someone expects to just pop into clinic and have the procedure done in 30 min. and walk out NW1 from NW7, then that is not going to happen soon.
Looks like growing hair germs outside our bodies and transplanting them onto our scalps is the most likely viable solution in the near future.
One thing I’m not sure, how many of those transplanted germs will mature into fully functional HF. And how many HF will survive in the following 2 years after implantation. At the moment no HT clinic can achieve 100% yield. To my knowledge, the best yields currently are running at around 70%.
Precisely. If the “cure” is going to involve the implantation of cells, follicles, plugs, etc., the success of the procedure shouldn’t be measured by what is grown outside of the scalp so much as what grows (and continues to grow) on the scalp after implantation. Don’t get me wrong, The ability to grow such a vast amounts of viable hair follicles is arguably the best news we’ve heard to date, but it remains to be seen how effectively and successfully it can be turned into a “cure” via implantation. Hopefully, Dr. A will be able to answer this question for us as he indicated in a couple of other threads.
Sounds like you’re talking about “senescent hair loss” as opposed to androgenetic alopecia. Senescent hair loss is the tendency of most people’s hair to thin in old age, as circulation and nutrition to the follicles diminishes. It affects different people to different degrees. But “fertile” and “desert” aren’t medical terms. Some people have scalps that can sustain a very thick head of hair well over 80, while most people can’t.
I think a lot of people are reluctant to call anything they hear about, especially on the internet, a cure. No other word sends people running away as fast as the word “cure”.
If you’re going to define a cure as ONLY a procedure that can create a full head of hair instantaneously (no waiting) on a Norwood 7 scalp, then nothing will ever meet that definition. It’s like saying a cure for cancer can ONLY be something that immediately destroys the cancer, without waiting, and can send the patient home as good as new on the same day of treatment. That’s a ridiculously high bar.
I’m referring to problems an AA patient might have growing implanted hair due to elastosis of the scalp, not senescent hair loss. I don’t have a medical background worth mentioning, so I use words like “fertile” and “desert” because they get the point across for laypersons, and someone with a medical background will most likely be able to figure out what is meant.
Also, I’m not trying to define the term “cure”. But when someone throws it out there, I want to believe they’re describing what would at least be considered a cosmetically acceptable reproduction that would be essentially undetectable (save for the discerning eye of someone who knows better, like a professional or someone in the industry). So far, there is no legitimate evidence that such a procedure exists, and the likelihood that this latest discovery will turn into it is, at this point, pure speculation . Even if it did, I also agree that it would be unrealistic to expect it to be as simple as walking into a clinic as a NW7 and leaving as a NW1. I never suggested that.
Roger is correct. What is your definition of a cure, If this is a cure, it will happen over time. Most likely, an extraction from the donor area, the multiplication process, the implantation process and finally the maturing process. Much like baby hair. To reach maturity 3-5 years. The positive side is day by day your hair will get thicker just not overnight!
The primary problem with HT has not been fibrosis of the scalp making hair transplants poorly viable; it is the limited amount of donor hair. Scalp fibrosis is far less important than limited donor supply, because (1) relatively few people have it to a significant degree; and (2) even in people who have it, it doesn’t make HT impossible, just somewhat less viable. For instance, it might require more transplants, because of a higher failure rate, and that would deplete the donor supply at a quicker rate than in a normal patient.
My point is that, by far, the limiting factor with HT is donor supply. Fix that problem and you’re 95% or more of the way to a cure for most people.
As to people with scarring from previous HT, I don’t know about that. Scar tissue has much less microvasculature and possibly would be a much poorer host for any kind of implanted hair, whether transplants of existing follicles from the back of the head, or lab-grown follicles.