How about hair from a cadaver?

Stem cell; cell based hair therapy
21

[quote]I wonder why this isn’t being offered by some clinic in someplace like Mexico?

It doesn’t have to come from a cadaver, either. They could take it from a living person, especially one with plenty of hair to spare, who might be paid to donate the necessary cells.

And if the hair would match, maybe it could be taken from an animal?

Don’t be shocked–we’ve been putting pig valves from pig hearts into people for a long time now.

[postedby]Originally Posted by roger_that[/postedby]

Good point about the living person, yes, it could be done, I thought of that too. As for cadavers, even Mexico has laws. Remember how fast they cracked down on Dr. Bazan when they found out he was doing HT surgery but wasn’t qualified as a surgeon, only a regular MD.

As far as an animal, I think no. First of all, would you want dog fur growing on your head? Second, I think the differences between animal and human tissues are so fundamental that it would kick off an immune host response, even though DP cells are normally considered immune privileged.

[postedby]Originally Posted by jarjarbinx[/postedby]

If you get the hair cells from living persons only you would have to deal with huge shortages of donor material. If you use cadaverous cells and cells from living people you would have a better supply of donor material. The demand for such a treatment would be huge.[/quote]

However you’d have to harvest the cells before tissue necrosis sets in, which doesn’t give you much time.

22

[quote]I wonder why this isn’t being offered by some clinic in someplace like Mexico?

It doesn’t have to come from a cadaver, either. They could take it from a living person, especially one with plenty of hair to spare, who might be paid to donate the necessary cells.

And if the hair would match, maybe it could be taken from an animal?

Don’t be shocked–we’ve been putting pig valves from pig hearts into people for a long time now.

[postedby]Originally Posted by roger_that[/postedby]

Good point about the living person, yes, it could be done, I thought of that too. As for cadavers, even Mexico has laws. Remember how fast they cracked down on Dr. Bazan when they found out he was doing HT surgery but wasn’t qualified as a surgeon, only a regular MD.

As far as an animal, I think no. First of all, would you want dog fur growing on your head? Second, I think the differences between animal and human tissues are so fundamental that it would kick off an immune host response, even though DP cells are normally considered immune privileged.[/quote]

I’m not sure Dr. Brazan’s situation is a good analogy in this situation. What doctor Bazan did was illegal because he broke laws regarding qualifications to perform surgeries, but I don’t know if there are laws against injecting someone else’s (dead or living) hair cells into living people’s scalps. I know there are laws against culturing cells and then injecting them into living people’s scalps, but like I said, if you took ALL of the appropriate hair cells from cadaver scalp you might not need to culture those cells because you might get a sufficient amount of cells without any culturing. If no culturing of the cells is involved then implanting someone else’s (dead or living) hair cells might be legal for all I know. Remember, if you got the cells from one (cadaverous) donor that donor had enough cells to keep his hair healthy so if you harvested ALL of them then there should be enough cells to keep your hair healthy.

23

[quote]I wonder why this isn’t being offered by some clinic in someplace like Mexico?

It doesn’t have to come from a cadaver, either. They could take it from a living person, especially one with plenty of hair to spare, who might be paid to donate the necessary cells.

And if the hair would match, maybe it could be taken from an animal?

Don’t be shocked–we’ve been putting pig valves from pig hearts into people for a long time now.

[postedby]Originally Posted by roger_that[/postedby]

Good point about the living person, yes, it could be done, I thought of that too. As for cadavers, even Mexico has laws. Remember how fast they cracked down on Dr. Bazan when they found out he was doing HT surgery but wasn’t qualified as a surgeon, only a regular MD.

As far as an animal, I think no. First of all, would you want dog fur growing on your head? Second, I think the differences between animal and human tissues are so fundamental that it would kick off an immune host response, even though DP cells are normally considered immune privileged.

[postedby]Originally Posted by jarjarbinx[/postedby]

If you get the hair cells from living persons only you would have to deal with huge shortages of donor material. If you use cadaverous cells and cells from living people you would have a better supply of donor material. The demand for such a treatment would be huge.

[postedby]Originally Posted by roger_that[/postedby]

However you’d have to harvest the cells before tissue necrosis sets in, which doesn’t give you much time.[/quote]

I don’t think you would have to harvest the cells before necrosis. I think you would just have to harvest the scalp tissue before necrosis. I think you could then preserve the harvested scalp tissue in some way and harvest the cells from the scalp tissue later.

It all sounds Frankensteinish but if you saw a video of the things that medical people are already doing to cadavers in order to collect donor material it’s the same kind of stuff. They’re cutting cadavers up quite a bit in order to harvest everything that they can.

24

The question is harvesting ANYTHING before necrosis… No real difference if you’re talking about cells or entire scalp. You still have to answer the same legal, technical and logistical questions.

25

I don’t mean laws against doing the procedure; I mean laws against harvesting the cells without consent. I’m not saying it would be impossible to pre-arrange consent from people to donate their follicular cells after they die. I’m just saying that I think it would be about 100X more difficult than you seem to think to organize something like this on the grand scale it would take to meet public demand.

26

The demand won’t be large if paying the donors for their follicles or cells is expensive enough.

[quote]I wonder why this isn’t being offered by some clinic in someplace like Mexico?

It doesn’t have to come from a cadaver, either. They could take it from a living person, especially one with plenty of hair to spare, who might be paid to donate the necessary cells.

And if the hair would match, maybe it could be taken from an animal?

Don’t be shocked–we’ve been putting pig valves from pig hearts into people for a long time now.

[postedby]Originally Posted by roger_that[/postedby]

Good point about the living person, yes, it could be done, I thought of that too. As for cadavers, even Mexico has laws. Remember how fast they cracked down on Dr. Bazan when they found out he was doing HT surgery but wasn’t qualified as a surgeon, only a regular MD.

As far as an animal, I think no. First of all, would you want dog fur growing on your head? Second, I think the differences between animal and human tissues are so fundamental that it would kick off an immune host response, even though DP cells are normally considered immune privileged.

[postedby]Originally Posted by jarjarbinx[/postedby]

If you get the hair cells from living persons only you would have to deal with huge shortages of donor material. If you use cadaverous cells and cells from living people you would have a better supply of donor material. The demand for such a treatment would be huge.[/quote]

27

ON A SIDE NOTE:

Interesting that the follicle developed to contain a mixture of Jahoda’s genes and his wife’s genes.

Something is going on with my transplants: I’m pretty sure the plugs I had transplanted more than thirty years ago, are succumbing to male pattern baldness, or at least to some degree.

The hair growing from those plugs has become frightfully fine in diameter.

Now it could be I have an underlying medical condition (I am waiting for results my blood test), but it’s suspicious that the remaining hair in my donor area, though less robust than it was decades ago, still is not a fine as the hair in the plugs that were taken from the donor region.

I suspect that when you transplant hair plugs, that somehow the genetic material in the surrounding scalp somehow infiltrates the plug over time.

If so, it might be that FUE will prove even more susceptible to this, because with plugs a piece of the donor scalp is transplanted with the follicles, and that transplanted scalp may protect the transplanted follicles from “absorbing” the bald genes from the scalp at the top of the head for a mmuch longer period.

I can think of other reasons this might be happening to me, that the shock from transplantation, may shorten the lifespan of transplanted follicles, for example.

[quote]If such a treatment became available I would consider it.

One more positive thing about the idea that I didn’t mention is that Jahoda’s experiment showed that the new follicles contained his wife’s genes and his own genes, which means that characteristics of the new hair might not stray far from the hair you already have because some of your own hair genes would be in the new hair, plus doctors could harvest cells from donors who’s hair is similar in characteristics to the recipient patient’s hair.

Look at all the positives:

  1. You wouldn’t need to solve the lost hair inductivity problem.

  2. The new hair could look and act a lot like your already existing hair, and with styling techniques (such as blow-drying) it might be possible to make your new hair blend in perfectly with your already existing hair.

  3. The implanted cells are immune privileged.

If this was available I would consider it. Lots of people would. I’m not talking about transplanting a whole cadaver scalp to someone’s head, although that was done for the firefighter patient. I’m just talking about harvesting the right cells from the cadaver donor scalp and implanting those cells into living bald people. We are already harvesting cadaverous donor tissue for numerous medical purposes.

I think that if the dermatologists were to try it, and if the results were excellent for all patients, huge numbers of people would pay for the treatment. The customer traffic would start out a trickle but it would quickly turn into a stampede. It wouldn’t be long before you would be standing in the line.

wow, you guys must be reaaaally really desperate.

[postedby]Originally Posted by roger_that[/postedby]
Like any kind of post-mortem organ donation, it would be subject to the consent of the deceased given during his or her lifetime.

[postedby]Originally Posted by jarjarbinx[/postedby]

But it could cure hair loss, right? And they wouldn’t have to figure out a solution to
the hair inductivity problem in order to do this, right? And taking ALL of the DP cells
from a cadaver would secure a large amount of the DP cells, right? And if you start out
with a large amount of these cells by taking ALL of them from the cadaver donor then you
even if you had to do some culturing of these cells you would probably only need to do one
or two culture passes to produce a huge amount of these DP cells, right? And one or two
culture passes would probably not be enough culture passes to cause a big loss of hair
inductivity, right? And these DP cells are immune privileged so there would be no issue
of rejection, right?

My point is that didn’t Jahoda’s experiment with his wife cells injected into his own arm
prove that what I’m suggesting would cure hair loss?

[postedby]Originally Posted by hairman2[/postedby]

[postedby]Originally Posted by jarjarbinx[/postedby][/quote]

28

That’s actually possible, I think, and would make a good research subject for some HT doctor or scientist…

29

Ironically, it could mean that for those of us who have since wished FUE
had been available back when we had plug tranplants, might actually have been lucky, if it
happens that FUE transplants absorb the tendency to hairloss quicker, because they have
little if any donor scalp to slow the process.

So, what I’m seeing after 30+ years, a FUE transplant might see after, say, 15 or 20.

While I’m on the subject, let me tell you all this: I had my transplants when I was still in my twenties.

At the time, I was probably a Norwood 4.

Since that time, my hairloss continued. I’m telling you, hairloss is relentless. Every few years, my hair all over my scalp, but especially the top of my scalp, gets worse and worse.

It’s infuriating.

The benefits from my transplants were at the peak between 1 and 4 years after the last transplant.

After that, my hair loss continued its downward spiral that continues to this day.

After all that I went through to get transplants, they only did me any real good for 4 years, after which
the benefit began to slowly fade.

But they were the best 4 years of my adult life.

30

I think that either your transplanted follicles lost some of their
cycles due to the shock of the transplant or your transplanted follicles
are being affected by the genes in the recipient area where they were implanted.

I also think that SM04554 will be a breakthrough treatment and it will
probably come to market by the end of next year so I think your time of despair
is almost over.

Hang in there.

31

My Dad had hair transplants in the 80s, and it looks like the same thing happened to him. It permanently turned me off to the idea of hair transplants.

32

Jarjar,

Those interviews I listened to (and watched: one video had slides and photos toward the end) about histogen and replicel, really sound promising.

That I might be able to get one of them in Mexico or Japan in a few more years is exciting. It’s some of the best news I’ve heard yet.

I remember when Ziering was recruiting for the Histogen trials. I thought about volunteering but if I remember right, I was over the age limit (55, I think, was the cut off). I also thought they probably wouldn’t want to work on me because I had had transplant surgery. But at least one of the patients in the trial had hair loss from trauma, and that patient regrew a good amount hair. Reminds me: Histogen also grew hair at people’s temples.

There was another patient that had amazing results. When I saw the photo I thought “Wow-if I had been in the trial and responded like that, I’d be in pretty good shape!”

33

You know, hair does keep growing for a long time after someone dies.
I wonder if that means hair follicles are actually still functioning, or if what’s really happening is the skin is shrinking causing more of the hair shaft below the skin to be exposed (something similar happens to nails holding sheetrock to a stud. As the house ages, the nail heads start to protrude from the surface of the sheetrock, and that’s not because the nails grew, but because something shrank.

But you don’t have to get hair only from dead bodies. You could pay people to donate follicles like they pay people for blood, eggs, and organs.

That pilofocus instrument would enable the harvesting of follicles from living people without scarring them. Scars might have been a deterrent to this in the past.

Some people are so hairy they would not miss selling you a thousand follicles or so (they might be sorry in the future, but that’s not our problem). $10 or $20 a follicle x 1000 follicles = $20,000, which buys a lot of wine–especially in the Third World.

And there are people who would probably sell you a few thousand follicles because they’re happy completely shaving their heads.

34

Ahab, were the interviews on Spencer’s show? Couldn’t find them on his site.

35

Go to hairlosstalk.com
Hellouser gives the interviews at the congress

36

I found it on the B T wbsite.

Google “Replicel Sets The Record Straight” with the quotation marks.

When I was on that page, there was a link in the sidebar to “Histogen - Complete 2015 World Congress Presentation and Interview”

37

Yes, there is a replicel interview on bt. Also there is another replicel interview that is part of hellousers interviews at the hair congress. Very open down to earth discussions. If i had to ask a question it would be if there were ever cell induction problems in a sense which derailed interx/aderans. How was it over come, if it was a problem during cell culture. Other than that, everything was answered

38

[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by macgyver1[/postedby]
Yes, there is a replicel interview on bt. Also there is another replicel interview that is part of hellousers interviews at the hair congress. Very open down to earth discussions. If i had to ask a question it would be if there were ever cell induction problems in a sense which derailed interx/aderans. How was it over come, if it was a problem during cell culture. Other than that, everything was answered[/quote]

Did you listen to the " Histogen - Complete 2015 World Congress Presentation and Interview " over there? It’s also very encouraging.

39

Actually I haven’t seen any of the official presentations yet aside from abstracts. But i did listen to the two 40 min private interviews from Dr. “Rolf” of replicel and dr. "Gail"of histogen. They were Q&A involved too, which was great.

40

Looks like there’s a decent chance we might finally have something that will really help.

Pisses me off, though, how the research into both treatments were delayed by years for reasons that had
nothing to do with the science.

That lawsuit against Histogen is especially galling. It stalled their reseach
for 2 to 3 years. We might have had it available by now if it weren’t for those
bastards who sued them. I don’t know all the details, but I wouldn’t be
surprised if the bastards who sued them were aware of similar technology but were sitting on it
insofar as using it for baldness was concerned, then they hear about histogen researching
something similar for baldness, and they get all upset and sue them, resulting in
a halt to histogen’s research.

Had this been about a cancer cure, I wonder if a lawsuit would have tied the research
up in court for so long.