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

Intereview with dr Garza


#1

Q: Do you have an update on your latest research about fgf-9?

No please refer to Dr. Cotsarelis Nature Medicine paper.

Q: MPB hair follicles grow as normal on immunodeficient mice is this because they do not produce pgd2?

That would be one guess that is potentially true given what we know.

Q: Why dont transplanted hairs get affected by pgd2?

The PGD2 does not travel very far, like all prostaglandins. Since transplanted hair bring their own dermis, they are spaced well from the high PGD2 follicles.

Q: Do you plan on testing(in the clinical trial) pro-growth factors (eg pge2) as well?

In the future If I had the funding I would do this.

Q: have you tested available substances on animal or human models to examine what happens when PGD2 or the GPR44 is inhibited.

We have no information on that at this moment.

Q:what is your opinion about replicel.com & aderansresearch.com

Good ideas. Hopefully they work

Q:Does wounding and lithium grow terminal hairs?

Possible but we do not know.

Q:-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?

Not published yet so impossible to speculate.

Q:* Do you know anything about how your procedure will work on scalp areas which have already had HT work? Is normal HT recipient area scarring a major roadblock, possibly decreasing the density of the patch of new follicles generated? Growth direction issues? Etc? HT scarring varies from patient to patient but do you have any general comments?

HT should be fully compatible with any new technologies.

Q: in order to increase fgf9 what did you use in your experiments.

so far only wnts have been shown to turn on fgf9

and last one
Q:I want your future prediction about Is Follica going to put a breakthrough hair loss treatment into the marketplace in the next few months or years?

I would say years.

TAKE CARE!


#2

Thanks, he really doesnt seem to know more than what he says… Good to get a explanation about transplanted hairs though. We should of asked more technical questions and less speculative ones.


#3

Years! Depressing. I’m more depressed now that I’ve seen his answers than I was before I saw his answers.


#4

Since Follica is years away Dr. Nigam’s cellular transplant therapies are our best hope for right a treatment within 1 year.


#5

Jarjarbinx, 12.11.2012:

Look, I know that I’m the first to say that we should leave the science to the scientists, but Cotseralis’s paper really does seem to contradict known irrefutable fact. It’s an irrefutable fact that healthy transplanted donor hairs do not miniaturize when they’re transplanted into balding skin.

I suppose there could be some logical explanation for this apparent contradiction, but I’m not smart enough to figure out what that logical explanation might be, and I don’t think that Cotseralis has articulated a logical explanation for this glaring contradiction either.

roger_that, 12.11.2012:

Jarjar – I think the answer to your question is that PGD2 is synthesized by the very same cells that it affects, and PGD2 doesn’t affect adjacent structures in the tissues. In fact it can’t, because the half-life is so short, and the molecule only reacts in a very small localized area, that it can’t diffuse outward and affect structures more than a few microns away.

So, when a follicle from a non-MPB area is transplanted into an MPB area, the transplanted follicle remains immune because PGD2 from adjacent follicles just can’t reach it.

The effect of PGD2 is so localized that it’s impossible for PGD2 to dissipate outward and affect adjacent tissues. PGD2 affects the very same cells where it’s being synthesized, and maybe cells a few microns away in the same follicle, but no other cells beyond that.

I think that also explains why, in MPB, you can have such a sharp line of demarcation between the hairless and “haired” areas of a person’s scalp.


#6

Possible but we do not know.

Q:-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?

Not published yet so impossible to speculate.

What do you guys think of these statements made by Garza?


#7

PGD2’s short distance of action:

This also makes PGD2 a b*tch for us to fight. We would have an easier time if it was something that traveled a little farther & more slowly before doing its dirty work.

Garza’s statement on Lithium & terminal hairs:

Very strange. Strange that he would not cop to having tried it. Didn’t they already do a trial on a wound treated with Lithium Gluconate gel?

I don’t know what’s going on here. Effective or not, patentable or not, I am having a hard time believing that Follica has not already explored the possibility. And yet that statement comes across like Garza genuinely does not know, rather than sounding like a careful no-comment.


#8

We had also previous discussed the very short half-life time of PGD2 and that it having such a short half-life could impossibly travel more than a few microns in distance before deteriorating. It is very comforting to have this confirmed by one of the top scientists however.

Very nice indeed of Dr Garza to have responded to our queries.

[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by roger_that[/postedby]
Jarjarbinx, 12.11.2012:

Look, I know that I’m the first to say that we should leave the science to the scientists, but Cotseralis’s paper really does seem to contradict known irrefutable fact. It’s an irrefutable fact that healthy transplanted donor hairs do not miniaturize when they’re transplanted into balding skin.

I suppose there could be some logical explanation for this apparent contradiction, but I’m not smart enough to figure out what that logical explanation might be, and I don’t think that Cotseralis has articulated a logical explanation for this glaring contradiction either.

roger_that, 12.11.2012:

Jarjar – I think the answer to your question is that PGD2 is synthesized by the very same cells that it affects, and PGD2 doesn’t affect adjacent structures in the tissues. In fact it can’t, because the half-life is so short, and the molecule only reacts in a very small localized area, that it can’t diffuse outward and affect structures more than a few microns away.

So, when a follicle from a non-MPB area is transplanted into an MPB area, the transplanted follicle remains immune because PGD2 from adjacent follicles just can’t reach it.

The effect of PGD2 is so localized that it’s impossible for PGD2 to dissipate outward and affect adjacent tissues. PGD2 affects the very same cells where it’s being synthesized, and maybe cells a few microns away in the same follicle, but no other cells beyond that.

I think that also explains why, in MPB, you can have such a sharp line of demarcation between the hairless and “haired” areas of a person’s scalp.[/quote]


#9

Garza also complained about not having sufficient funding to test growth promoting factors. I wonder how much funding would be required to investigate common growth promoting prostaglandins? It would be so great if people like us could raise money for hair loss awareness.

[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by cal[/postedby]
PGD2’s short distance of action:

This also makes PGD2 a b*tch for us to fight. We would have an easier time if it was something that traveled a little farther & more slowly before doing its dirty work.

Garza’s statement on Lithium & terminal hairs:

Very strange. Strange that he would not cop to having tried it. Didn’t they already do a trial on a wound treated with Lithium Gluconate gel?

I don’t know what’s going on here. Effective or not, patentable or not, I am having a hard time believing that Follica has not already explored the possibility. And yet that statement comes across like Garza genuinely does not know, rather than sounding like a careful no-comment.[/quote]


#10

Georgex6, thanks for doing the interview.

I would have asked a much different set of questions. For instance, Drs. Cotsarelis and Garza are not only pursuing their work through Follica. Much of their work, like the PGD2 blockers and antagonists, is being pursued outside of Follica. But you didn’t ask about a timeline for PGD2 blockers for hairloss, or where that work stands in terms of regulatory and commercial development.

Also, I don’t understand this:

“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?”

What is “Neogenesis+Lithium”? Neogenesis is a phenomenon, not a procedure. It’s not the same thing as scalp wounding. Neogenesis simply refers to the growth of brand new or “de novo” hair follicles that you weren’t born with. Histogen also claims their HSC causes neogenesis (at least it is strongly implied if you look at their photos), but they don’t use scalp wounding.

Another one: You asked what can increase fgf9, and Dr. Garza told you “the only thing we know of is wnts”.

I would have asked instead, “Can fgf9 be chemically synthesized in a lab, and injected into the scalp?” and “Can it be mass-produced and marketed as a pharmaceutical for doctors to prescribe?”

Your question restricted discussion of fgf9 just to concepts of basic academic research, and he gave you the perfect “academic research scientist” answer. What about more practical ideas that can be commercialized for treatment?

I would also have asked, with respect to all these chemical agents and factors that supposedly stimulate new hair growth, how good are they? How much hair do they grow? Tell us, do you have ANY data on this, and would you please give us some numbers?


#11

Wow he did not say anything interesting and brandc new…


#12

"Q:I want your future prediction about Is Follica going to put a breakthrough hair loss treatment into the marketplace in the next few months or years?

I would say years."

I think Xconomy has exaggerated their so called interview with Follica. Reading the latest published article, they give a false impression that something will be on the market soon. To say “We’ve been able to consistently show that we crate substantial new hair follicles in humans, and that’s something that no other approach in hair loss as far as I am aware has been able to achieve,” Olle says. “That’s a critical step.", is misleading. If they are making this kind of progress and they are in phase 2 of a clinical trial, it should not take years. The definition of substantial is of considerable importance, size, or worth. Either follica or Xconomy is intentionally making misleading statements. I believe it is Xconomy.


#13

“It’s an irrefutable fact that healthy transplanted donor hairs do not miniaturize when they’re transplanted into balding skin.”

It is not an irrefutable fact.


#14

Yes it pretty much is. Hair transplants have been around for decades now and there is enough empirical evidence to conclude that transplanted hairs do not seem to miniaturize beyond what they would if it had remained in the donor area.

Of course people with thinning donor will also experience thinning in the transplanted areas, but that is not what we are talking about here.

One thing however that makes me wonder is whether or not Dr Gho’s or other donor doubling techniques would work for extended periods of time, since the tissue enclosing the follicle is far less than with regular transplants and parts of it are even regenerated. Would the newly generated tissue take the phenotype of the balding scalp or that of the donor?

[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by Ahab[/postedby]
“It’s an irrefutable fact that healthy transplanted donor hairs do not miniaturize when they’re transplanted into balding skin.”

It is not an irrefutable fact.[/quote]


#15

I don’t believe his comment about FGF is accurate. I believe PGE2 has increased FGF in vivo.


#16

Follica has released all of it’s scientific staff. The remaining people involved are either part of the advisory board (which is distinct from the company, and don’t play a role in day to day operations of the company), part of the venture capital firm (again no role in day to day), or a CEO or VP. No one reamins to do any research. There is nobody to oversee clinical trials, and handle all the day to day stuff involved with that. So, how is it that anything would be happening? who would do the work? I don’t think it looks good at all.

And the latest article claiming they’re on the verge of going commercial is BS. Just another lazy article with no research behind it. The author probably saw the previous exconomy articles with thousands of comments and wanted to drive some page views for his own gain - figured he would go back to a topic that whipped up interest in the past.

Really sucks when you think that this was huge news in 2007. 6 years later and we haven’t seen not even one photo demonstrating a new human hair.


#17

F*** it, lets crowdfund our own company and hire costeralis, or a suitable substitute, and run these experiments he can’t afford to. This is not out of the realm of possibility.

crowdfunding legislation is out in early 2014. If we are serious, it should take us that long to get the preliminary stuff together for a crowdfunded company.

we need to figure out a cost estimate for one of these trials. If its outsourced to a lab that does studies for people, but is managed and designed by cots, or an equivalent that we hire, it could be cheap.


#18

I would not chip in 1 cent for these aholes who will not disclose complete info to us. For all we know these are the last people in the world who will get a cure to us and the reason we don’t know is because we don’t really know what’s going on with them because they’re pathologically coy.

Why would you give money to people who have not even made clear exactly what it is that they have and what they would hope to accomplish with the money - how they would apply the cash?

Did you ever hear the saying, “Buying a pig in a poke”?

From Wikepedia: To buy a pig in a poke mean that something is bought without the buyer knowing its true nature or value, especially when buying without inspecting the item beforehand. The phrase can also be applied to accepting an idea or plan without a full understanding of its basis. Similar expressions exist in other European languages, most of them referring to the purchase of a cat in a bag.


#19

Keep thinking that. Hair keeps miniaturizing in the donor as it does out, just at different rates. As someone who has had an HT, I can attest to that. I repeat THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A “SAFE” DONOR. Maybe that could explainswhy all these so called HM procedures or donor cloning show so many inconsistent results,just sayin


#20

Q: So Dr Garza could you sum it up for us ?

A: Sure, I’m totally clueless - but if you guys think anything is going to happen soon I want some of what you’re smoking :smiley: