Home | News | Find a Doctor | Ask a Question | Free

Histogen mentions Dr. Washenik


#21

» » mmmh, I agree with debris. If it worked well for totally bald guys, then
» » they would say something like this: “it will work particularly well for
» » totally bald guys who are depleted of donor hair and are totally
» helpless”.
» » But instead, they focused in “diffuse thinners”.
» » Also, we see in the published photos that they are testing it on difuse
» » thinners. Boomer. As of today, doesn’t seem like the cure we are
» waiting
» » for.
»
» Well, as a diffuse thinner, I’m actually happy about this, but I’m curious
» about why something would work for one thinning pattern and not another.
» They are thinning for the same (if not agreed-upon) reasons, so why would a
» treatment work for one “type” of balding and not another? Are their in
» fact differences in the cause of these two patterns? Diffuse loss seems to
» be more rare.

I think diffuse thinning is a transient stage towards total baldness, and thus, easier to reverse… probably its just a matter of rejuvenating the miniaturized follicles.


#22

I don’t think they know any better than we do unless they did a trial strictly with people with diffuse hair loss


#23

» I don’t think they know any better than we do unless they did a trial
» strictly with people with diffuse hair loss

well, the photo they published was for a thinning guy, not totally bald.
Why don’t they try on a totally bald scalp? The results would be easier to sell: BEFORE=NO HAIR, AFTER= n HAIRS.
I think they don’t do it because it doesn’t work.


#24

» I don’t think they know any better than we do unless they did a trial
» strictly with people with diffuse hair loss

well to me it sounds quite reasonable actually… i mean it obviously grows some new hairs as well as the benefit of rejuvenating thinning hairs.

On an entirely bald scalp you would merely see a few new hairs but not have the benefit of thickening existing hairs, thus rendering it not be as effective. Perhaps the procedure can be done multiple times until the desired result is achieved… time will tell.


#25

» » mmmh, I agree with debris. If it worked well for totally bald guys, then
» » they would say something like this: “it will work particularly well for
» » totally bald guys who are depleted of donor hair and are totally
» helpless”.
» » But instead, they focused in “diffuse thinners”.
» » Also, we see in the published photos that they are testing it on difuse
» » thinners. Boomer. As of today, doesn’t seem like the cure we are
» waiting
» » for.
»
» Well, as a diffuse thinner, I’m actually happy about this, but I’m curious
» about why something would work for one thinning pattern and not another.
» They are thinning for the same (if not agreed-upon) reasons, so why would a
» treatment work for one “type” of balding and not another? Are their in
» fact differences in the cause of these two patterns? Diffuse loss seems to
» be more rare.

I am also a diffuse thinner, and am really looking forward to this product as well.

Here is a shot in the dark on why it is most effective for diffuse loss… If we assume there is a range of damage to each follicle similar to this…

DEAD-------Cosmetically insignificant--------terminal

People with more concentrated loss tend to be either terminal (so any benefit is unnecessary) or between dead and cosmetically insignificant. Boosts to a hair in that category may result in it still being below the cosmetically insignificant threshold.

Diffuse thinners have a ton of hair above the threshold but slightly less than terminal so any additional benefit is noticeable on many many hairs.

So I’m saying it works equally well for everyone, but it just doesn’t show on people with concentrated loss.


#26

» » mmmh, I agree with debris. If it worked well for totally bald guys, then
» » they would say something like this: “it will work particularly well for
» » totally bald guys who are depleted of donor hair and are totally
» helpless”.
» » But instead, they focused in “diffuse thinners”.
» » Also, we see in the published photos that they are testing it on difuse
» » thinners. Boomer. As of today, doesn’t seem like the cure we are
» waiting
» » for.
»
» Well, as a diffuse thinner, I’m actually happy about this, but I’m curious
» about why something would work for one thinning pattern and not another.
» They are thinning for the same (if not agreed-upon) reasons, so why would a
» treatment work for one “type” of balding and not another? Are their in
» fact differences in the cause of these two patterns? Diffuse loss seems to
» be more rare.

i feel that is a slightly selfish and insensitive thing to say for all people who are worse off than you and me. Besides let’s hope we still are diffuse thinners by the time they hit market…


#27

» i feel that is a slightly selfish and insensitive thing to say for all
» people who are worse off than you and me. Besides let’s hope we still are
» diffuse thinners by the time they hit market…

I’ve been on the Big Three for ten years and have been able to halt my hairloss early, so I think I have a good shot. Also, I’m moving into my 30s, so my DHT should be dropping, not increasing, going forward. I hope so, at least - its going to be 5-7 years before a new treatment hits the market.


#28

» » I don’t think they know any better than we do unless they did a trial
» » strictly with people with diffuse hair loss
»
»
» well, the photo they published was for a thinning guy, not totally bald.
» Why don’t they try on a totally bald scalp? The results would be easier to
» sell: BEFORE=NO HAIR, AFTER= n HAIRS.
» I think they don’t do it because it doesn’t work.

That’s exactly why. You said it. The test was done on a thinning guy so the public won’t be able to tell if the stuff really does work or if it was the guy’s hair simply growing long. This way nobody can say their experiment failed.


#29

IMO you guys are reading way too much into that comment.
It doesn’t say a thing about being for diffuse thinners exclusively, and how can you say they are focussing on diffuse thinners because of one comment that mentions diffuse thinners? IMO they are trying to make a point that it will be good for diffuse thinners because in most cases they will not be good candidates for a transplant, i.e best current treatment.
In the puctures, you can see that ONE of the trialists is a diffuse thinner, because that is the only one that has the whole head showing.
People who are receding or followind a normal NW pattern will have a loss of density in the areas where hair loss is taking place.

“the results of our early testing indicate the potential for a phenomenal treatment option, particularly for women and men presenting with diffuse hair loss who are not good candidates for hair transplant surgery,”

Particularly = to a distinctly greater extent or degree than is common.

Also another word for particularly is especially,

So he could have said,

"“the results of our early testing indicate the potential for a phenomenal treatment option, especially for women and men presenting with diffuse hair loss who are not good candidates for hair transplant surgery,”

Meaning it will give results to every one with AGA (obviously, I doubt it could work for one and not the other, because it is the same problem but with a different pattern) but those men and women with a diffuse loss will have better results than those with a slick patch.
I agree it is probably much easier to grow hair that is miniaturised than hair that was lost long ago though, but I can’t see how it can grow more for specific patterns of loss, they are both AGA after all.
Remeber that quote was made after seeing 12 week results after a single injection. At this poing we don’t know if repeat injections will give more results.
At this stage after one injection, the results probably look better on someone who has diffuse loss, grow a few hairs that are surrounded by hair already, or show a couple of hairs growing in a slick bald area.
Pase I is only safety (toxicity), baybe they will focus more on slick baldies in phase II when looking for better efficiacy.

I only have thinning along my hair line at the moment, so either way it will probably work ok for me.

Also ICX didn’t say there tratment would work best on people just starting to thin, there exact words were 'young people in the early stages of hair loss".

The thing I still don’t get is the people who say that in the pictures there is no new hair only thicker and longer hair.
They used software to count individual hairs in a pair of pics and there is clearly (albeit not much) more hair in the after pic.