HairSite: Is an Interview with Dr. Cotsarelis or Dr. Garza Possible?

[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by HairlossCurse[/postedby]
Roger_that is an update available?[/quote]

Gosh, this sounds like such a big deal to have someone log in for a few minutes and answer some questions.

These guys likely are too busy picking up shirts from drycleaners or perhaps I understand, they were filling up on gas instead of answering some questions, or perhaps Dr. Cotsarelis was busy having quality elevator time conversation on the way up at UPenn…

Dr. Cotsarelis, sure you have a net connection, could you take a break from checking emails and log in for a sec… Hello!!

Dr. Cotsarelis this post is meant with full respect of course, but come’ on, I am sure a Dermatologist can find a minute in his day to answer a few intelligent questions from the world at large.

These guys have the time. They lack the willingness to divulge anything.

Guys i emailed yesterday luis garza telling him that our community wants an intereview and very friendly he told me to email him the questions to answer.I have done this in the past so guys start to write your questions to send to him

Great news george.

The main question for me is:

We know from Cots and Garzas publication that exposure of hair follicles to PGD2 has shown to result in complete inhibition of hair growth.

What we do not know however, is whether or not it has been observed that antagonism of the CRTH2 receptor actually can spur hair growth, or at least prevent further hair loss.

It would be great to know whether or not Dr Garza or his colleagues have conducted further research in this direction.

[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by georgex6[/postedby]
Guys i emailed yesterday luis garza telling him that our community wants an intereview and very friendly he told me to email him the questions to answer.I have done this in the past so guys start to write your questions to send to him[/quote]

Q: Do you have an update on the when the clinical trial will begin?
Q: MPB hair follicles grow as normal on immunodeficient mice is this because they do not produce pgd2?
Q: Why dont transplanted hairs get affected by pgd2?
Q: Do you plan on testing(in the clinical trial) pro-growth factors (eg pge2) as well?
Q: hairmans question

excellent questions hairlosscure

[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by HairlossCurse[/postedby]
Q: Do you have an update on the when the clinical trial will begin?
Q: MPB hair follicles grow as normal on immunodeficient mice is this because they do not produce pgd2?
Q: Why dont transplanted hairs get affected by pgd2?
Q: Do you plan on testing(in the clinical trial) pro-growth factors (eg pge2) as well?
Q: hairmans question[/quote]

My question is: “Did you see if finasteride lowered the PGD2 levels”?

-You have demonstrated that Neogenesis+Lithium creates “neogenic-like” hair follicles in vivo in humans. Do these automatically become terminal hairs or is there another treatment necessary?

-Is inhibiting production of PGD2 a more promising pathway or inhibiting the CRTH2 receptor?

" -You have demonstrated that Neogenesis+Lithium creates “neogenic-like” hair follicles in vivo in humans. Do these automatically become terminal hairs or is there another treatment necessary?"

The DIY experimenters’ lack of regrowth with topical Lithium has answered that question pretty clearly. But it’s worth asking Cots about it.

I think whatever is being created by that process is not close to viable topical follicles. I also doubt that Cots will ever give away anything too useful.

Indeed, but it also seems that Follica knew it would grow primitive follicles, which begs the question…why? And how do we get from there to terminal?

Not much, but I saw a link to this article posted on xconomy yesterday.

Wanna squeeze something relevant out of Cots for a change?

Then stop letting him get away with references to “proto-follicle structures” as if they are the genuine article that we all need. Ask him some pointed questions about whether they are currently producing cosmetically/commercially viable patches of terminal hair.

IMHO they are probably still years away from doing what they like to give the impression they are already doing - scuffing the skin of trial patients, topically applying an existing drug, and curing their MPB just like that.

Guys i dont want to ask him the same things i asked last year http://www.hairsite.com/hair-loss/board_entry-id-109308-page-0-order-time-category-0.html
no one of you didnt mention fgf9.I m thinking of asking him about a personal experiment with dermaroller and something to increase fgf9

I doubt anybody has askied him how to go from “neogenic-like follicles” to terminal follicles. Their clinical protocol was designed to creat NL-follicles and not terminal ones.

He won’t tell us anything that could be of practical DIY use, I’m sure of that. But his reaction to the line of questioning about what kind of “follicles” they are able to create may be revealing.

Also, IMHO its always worth asking what kind of timeline to a commercial product they are predicting.

The rosy predictions are worthless, we all know that.

But it’s potentially useful if they say something like they are still “5-10 years away”. (That translates as: “We have no f*cking idea if this will even work at all”.)

[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by georgex6[/postedby]
Guys i dont want to ask him the same things i asked last year http://www.hairsite.com/hair-loss/board_entry-id-109308-page-0-order-time-category-0.html
no one of you didnt mention fgf9.I m thinking of asking him about a personal experiment with dermaroller and something to increase fgf9[/quote]

All of my questions are new.

Can you please ask them,
Thanks.

Are the new follicles only located in the center of the wound, what happens with the surrounding area, does it become scar tissue?

There’s no scarring involved in Follica’s deal. It’s a superficial roughening. No blood.

Q.) How come Follica are trying to treat baldness by creating entire new follices when Dr George Cotsarelis and you (Garza) know that the follicles are still present, just need to be reactivated? Why arent they trialling GPR44 blockers instead?