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

Kotsarelis research mentioned in greek tv and newspapers


#1

Maybe i didnt understand how big this is…This is the first time that this was mentioned here in greece.There was never anything about HM or whatever but this thing hit the newspapers and the TV here.i am impressed maybe there is hope!!!


#2

» Maybe i didnt understand how big this is…This is the first time that this
» was mentioned here in greece.There was never anything about HM or whatever
» but this thing hit the newspapers and the TV here.i am impressed maybe
» there is hope!!!

From all this media coverage, and all the media coverage which Dr. Cotsarelis has generated in the past, I can see that Dr. Cotsarelis is VERY media savvy and has a very close relationship to the media.

I am sure that every time Dr. Cotsarelis makes a discovery, he contacts the media and gives a full report. It is obvious that he encourages them to report it by saying three magic words:

“Cure for baldness”.

I don’t mean Cotsarelis gives his information to the media and then they decide to write it with the headline, “Cure for baldness.”

I mean that Dr. Cotsarelis snares them in by specifically hyping these developments as a “cure for baldness”, and he says those exact words, or something very similar, when he contacts them, because he knows exactly what will get a rise out of the media, and what will incite them to write newspaper and magazine articles and run TV reports.

You wouldn’t see all of this coverage if Dr. Cotsarelis wasn’t doing this. The media know nothing about the science involved. They only go where they are led, and they can be led around by using the right “key words”. Dr. Cotsarelis knows exactly what key words to use!

By contrast, ICX and ARI aren’t going around reporting a “cure for baldness” every 6 months to the media. They put out the occasional press release, Dr. Washenik will do an occasional interview about progress at Aderans, but they are not going to the media 2 or 3 times every year trumpeting a “baldness cure”, which seems to be what Dr. Cotsarelis is doing.

I am not saying Dr. Cotsarelis’ discovery isn’t significant. What I am saying is that HM will put hair on our heads – good hair, in good enough cosmetic quantities – MUCH sooner than Dr. Cotsarelis’ method.

There is much about Dr. Cotsarelis’ method which is still speculative…

  1. It seems to work in rodents. Does it work in humans? No one knows because it hasn’t been tested.

  2. It’s not sufficient just to “wound” or “disrupt” the skin. You also have to treat the skin with a drug, i.e., a wnt related protein or promoter, which will definitely have to be tested and go through an entire, grueling FDA approval process which, I predict, will take at least several years, because the drug is intervening in some fundamental cellular and biochemical pathways of human physiology. Who knows what side effects it might have if applied topically?

  3. The “fine print” here is that even Dr. Cotsarelis’ people are saying this “cure” will take about 10 years to come to market… how is that significant or exciting when HM is about 2-3 years away from the market, and doesn’t involve any drug?

  4. The hairs produced by Dr. Cotsarelis will be WHITE (unpigmented), no matter what the original color of your hair is. So, you will have to dye the new hairs to match the rest of your hair. To me, that’s a minor inconvenience, but you don’t have to dye your hair with HM.

  5. Why is Dr. Cotsarelis always successful in trumpeting a “cure for baldness” when ICX and ARI are much closer to offering us something close to a cure? The reason is because Dr. Cotsarelis has credentials with a major Ivy League university and knows exactly how to leverage this to get media coverage. He knows exactly the right buttons to push with reporters, i.e., saying “cure for baldness.”

Believe me, reporters would not be writing all these stories if Cotsarelis didn’t say, “Cure for baldness” as soon as he gets them on the phone. Those are the “magic words” that make reporters write these stories.


#3

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FUCHS AND COTSARELIS FINDINGS PLEASE!IF ANY ORTHER THAN PR MANAGERS


#4

Hey John,

Here are some points…

» 1. It seems to work in rodents. Does it work in humans? No one knows
» because it hasn’t been tested.

Sure, we don’t know if the exact procedure works in humans. We do know that wounds in humans can grow hair. The Nature article even cites a paper from the 1950s that demonstrated this – although at the time the critics thought the hairs just “migrated” from the rest of the scalp. In reality we know that wounds can produce stem-cell like conditions that engender actual hair grow.

» 2. It’s not sufficient just to “wound” or “disrupt” the skin. You also
» have to treat the skin with a drug, i.e., a wnt related protein or
» promoter, which will definitely have to be tested and go through an
» entire, grueling FDA approval process which, I predict, will take at least
» several years, because the drug is intervening in some fundamental cellular
» and biochemical pathways of human physiology. Who knows what side effects
» it might have if applied topically?

Yes, a wound can produce hairs, but it most likely wouldn’t be the pattern or density desired by most of us. But the fact is this Nature article offers a new way of thinking about hair growth on bald scalp. And for all we know the wnt protein promoter could, in fact, work!

» 3. The “fine print” here is that even Dr. Cotsarelis’ people are saying
» this “cure” will take about 10 years to come to market… how is that
» significant or exciting when HM is about 2-3 years away from the market,
» and doesn’t involve any drug?

Cotsarelis says 5-10 years away is the most likely target. He has also said that 2-3 years away is possible, under “very optimistic” conditions. Hmmm… ICX is about 2-3 years away, too, under very optimistic conditions…

» 4. The hairs produced by Dr. Cotsarelis will be WHITE (unpigmented), no
» matter what the original color of your hair is. So, you will have to dye
» the new hairs to match the rest of your hair. To me, that’s a minor
» inconvenience, but you don’t have to dye your hair with HM.

The hairs could be pink with purple stripes for all I care. The texture and growth pattern is virtually identical to the rest of the hair. And there are many good dyes out there.

» 5. Why is Dr. Cotsarelis always successful in trumpeting a “cure for
» baldness” when ICX and ARI are much closer to offering us something close
» to a cure? The reason is because Dr. Cotsarelis has credentials with a
» major Ivy League university and knows exactly how to leverage this to get
» media coverage. He knows exactly the right buttons to push with
» reporters, i.e., saying “cure for baldness.”

ICX and ARI are at least 2-3 years away from a cure… if not 5-10 years. Just like Dr. Cotsarelis. And “cure” is more accurate in this journal article than HM. Why? B/c with this new procedure your hair will grow de novo from your own scalp – no external implantation is needed.


#5

» ICX and ARI are at least 2-3 years away from a cure… if not 5-10 years.
» Just like Dr. Cotsarelis. And “cure” is more accurate in this journal
» article than HM. Why? B/c with this new procedure your hair will grow de
» novo from your own scalp – no external implantation is needed.

Boston, I disagree with this part of what you wrote.

ICX and ARI are not “at least 2-3 years away from a cure”. ICX already has a defined procedure which they are trial testing, and it’s already in the pipeline of the FDA and MHRA review process. If it is a cure, or something close to a cure, they already have it worked out; they’re just testing it and waiting for government approval to put it on the market. And this is not the most “optimistic” scenario for ICX. It is the realistic scenario that they’re in the middle of right now – they’re in Phase II of a known treatment. How much more realistic can we get than that?

On the other hand, as far as I know, the Cotsarelis team hasn’t even defined the exact nature, characteristics, or composition of the “drug” or “protein” they hope to use. They only know it has something to do with the “wnt” gene. The biochemistry of the drug will have to be worked out, and then it will have to be submitted to the agencies for review… it will be a brand new investigational new drug (IND) application, which promises to take years and years. Plus, it’s not just a drug, but a COMBINED drug plus medical procedure (the cutting or abrading of the scalp is a medical procedure). They are saying that BOTH will have to be done, in conjunction, to raise new hairs. There are not many combined drugs + medical procedures on the market – the only ones we are familiar with might be certain chemotherapeutic protocols which involve administering a drug plus performing some kind of surgery, in one protocol.

So I don’t think we can equate ICX with Follica. ICX and Aderans (going back to Bioamide) and others have been working on HM for years. This Follica stuff from Cotsarelis is brand new. They are not starting out on a level playing field with ICX. So I don’t think we can just say they’re equally “5 to 10 years away”. That dismisses ICX’s work and forgets that they really are in the middle of Phase II trials right now, and Follica hasn’t even identified what drug they might be testing, let alone starting Phase I.

Another reason we can’t equate HM with Follica is simply that HM is not testing a drug, and Follica presumably will be. Although cell therapy (i.e., “biologics” to use the FDA term) is relatively new, biologics from the patient’s own body are not considered as risky to the patient’s health as a brand new drug, which is an exogenous substance not native to the body.

If we think HM is taking a long time to get through the review process (and we are counting every day), I predict that the wait for approval of a “wnt protein” or “promoter” drug will be much longer and more frustrating. It’s not just that this is a drug – the nature of the drug – one which switches on a gene – means it potentially can have unforeseen effects on other genes and organs in the body, even if applied topically (and presumably it will be applied topically). Do I think this drug will have any real risks? Most probably not. However, rest assured the FDA will want to investigate such a drug thoroughly, and that will take time.

I’m not criticizing Cotsarelis’ work here. I’m not saying there’s nothing to it – in fact I think it’s great, and I think it is probably really fundamentally important work. Also, I do predict this will eventually result in a “cure”. However, I think the near-cure being offered by HM, in a much nearer time frame, is more exciting to me, and probably should be more exciting to everyone else here right now – and the news media, too.


#6

» WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FUCHS AND COTSARELIS FINDINGS PLEASE!IF ANY
» ORTHER THAN PR MANAGERS

There are similarities in their work, both involving genetic pathways and the “wnt” gene. However, this stuff about creating wounds or abrasions of the skin to facilitate follicular neogenesis is something new discovered or confirmed by Dr. Cotsarelis. I don’t believe Dr. Fuchs was working on anything like this.

To me, I think an analogy is when a farmer tills the topsoil to facilitate the planting of his crops. Crops grow better in soil that has been hoed and tilled. Probably the same is true with hair on the scalp. Follicular neogenesis will work much better if the epidermis is abraded. Healing factors kick in and these factors happen also to promote new hair growth, when the conditions are right.

Now, imagine a combined HM + Cotsarelis procedure where:

  1. First the scalp skin is dermabraded

  2. Then cultured DP and other cells are injected as in HM

  3. Then, to top it all off, Cotsarelis’ proposed “wnt” drug is administered topically.

Even if Cotsarelis’ procedure, or HM, alone worked only weakly or partially, I imagine that administering them simultaneoulsy would potentiate both and create a synergistic effect that would result in very thick hair growth.

Smiles, you readin’ this?

I’ve never been into all that Ray Kurzweil stuff, but I just read an article about him in Fortune magazine, I believe (I picked up the copy in Germany so it should be available around you.)

I think we are rapidly approaching the “Singularity” of hair regeneration.

Some day, in the future, we will be able to live as a giant sentient hair follicle, if we want to!


#7

God, I hope to hell you’re right about ICX! Best, BB

» » ICX and ARI are at least 2-3 years away from a cure… if not 5-10
» years.
» » Just like Dr. Cotsarelis. And “cure” is more accurate in this journal
» » article than HM. Why? B/c with this new procedure your hair will grow
» de
» » novo from your own scalp – no external implantation is needed.
»
» Boston, I disagree with this part of what you wrote.
»
» ICX and ARI are not “at least 2-3 years away from a cure”. ICX already
» has a defined procedure which they are trial testing, and it’s already in
» the pipeline of the FDA and MHRA review process. If it is a cure, or
» something close to a cure, they already have it worked out; they’re just
» testing it and waiting for government approval to put it on the market.
» And this is not the most “optimistic” scenario for ICX. It is the
» realistic scenario that they’re in the middle of right now – they’re in
» Phase II of a known treatment. How more realistic can we get than that?
»
» On the other hand, as far as I know, the Cotsarelis team hasn’t even
» defined the exact nature, characteristics, or composition of the “drug” or
» “protein” they hope to use. They only know it has something to do with
» the “wnt” gene. The biochemistry of the drug will have to be worked out,
» and then it will have to be submitted to the agencies for review… it will
» be a brand new investigational new drug (IND) application, which promises
» to take years and years. Plus, it’s not just a drug, but a COMBINED drug
» plus medical procedure (the cutting or abrading of the scalp is a medical
» procedure). They are saying that BOTH will have to be done, in
» conjunction, to raise new hairs. There are not many combined drugs +
» medical procedures on the market – the only ones we are familiar with
» might be certain chemotherapeutic protocols which involve administering a
» drug plus performing some kind of surgery, in one protocol.
»
» So I don’t think we can equate ICX with Follica. ICX and Aderans (going
» back to Bioamide) and others have been working on HM for years. This
» Follica stuff from Cotsarelis is brand new. They are not starting out on
» a level playing field with ICX. So I don’t think we can just say they’re
» equally “5 to 10 years away”. That dismisses ICX’s work and forgets that
» they really are in the middle of Phase II trials right now, and Follica
» hasn’t even identified what drug they might be testing, let alone starting
» Phase I.
»
» Another reason we can’t equate HM with Follica is simply that HM is not
» testing a drug, and Follica presumably will be. Although cell therapy
» (i.e., “biologics” to use the FDA term) is relatively new, biologics from
» the patient’s own body are not considered as risky to the patient’s health
» as a brand new drug, which is an exogenous substance not native to the
» body.
»
» If we think HM is taking a long time to get through the review process
» (and we are counting every day), I predict that the wait for approval of a
» “wnt protein” or “promoter” drug will be much longer and more frustrating.
» It’s not just that this is a drug – the nature of the drug – one which
» switches on a gene – means it potentially can have unforeseen effects on
» other genes and organs in the body, even if applied topically (and
» presumably it will be applied topically). Do I think this drug will have
» any real risks? Most probably not. However, rest assured the FDA will
» want to investigate such a drug thoroughly, and that will take time.
»
» I’m not criticizing Cotsarelis’ work here. I’m not saying there’s
» nothing to it – in fact I think it’s great, and I think it is probably
» really fundamentally important work. Also, I do predict this will
» eventually result in a “cure”. However, I think the near-cure being
» offered by HM, in a much nearer time frame, is more exciting to me, and
» probably should be more exciting to everyone else here right now – and
» the news media, too.


#8

Interestingly, WNT is also a very big factor in developing a successful HM protocol using DP cells. Without the presence of WNT, the cells won’t grow hair. So part of the trick is to add cells and factors that coax cells to secrete the necessary WNT naturally. :slight_smile:


#9

I have to side with JTR on this one. IMO, this Cotsarelis baldness cure thing is just a bunch of sensational news-grabbing crap. Nothing more; nothing less. Sure it is a great discovery, but to promote it as any sort of cure or hope for bald people is not realistic, as it is “too far in the future” to be of extreme interest. HM is the only viable baldness cure on the near-term radar. Nothing else even begins to compare.

Keep in mind that HM and the new Cotsarelis discovery are really basically the same thing anyways. The biggest difference is that HM introduces cells to the scalp in a more targeted fashion and results in better hair quality and much less trauma. It’s fun to get big headlines as a researcher, but these days I’m much more impressed by practical discoveries that will help the everyday person in the near future.

Of course, that leads us to BHT, FUE, and HST. Personally, I remain quite unimpressed with BHT. I’ve seen some pretty good FUE results from time-to-time, but it comes at the expense of massively thinning your donor area. HST is the most interesting current procedure to me, but it seems to be hidden away in the closet along with the “thin look” results that accompany it. So that leaves one realistic solution–HM.

To be perfectly honest, if HM was 10 years out, I would probably save up some cash and do 3 sessions of HST with Gho, wait for recovery, and then have Cole stick an additional 2k hairs in the appropriate places to make it look as natural as possible. That seems to be about the best a NW3 or 4 can do these days and still have decent donor hair left. But it’s expensive and takes a lot of effort to fly all over the place. And here is the clincher–with the results of phase IIa HM right around the corner, I recommend holding off on all HT until we see if ICX is going to be of any real promise or not. Within a year, we should have very good data on whether HT is currently worth it or not. How would you like to get 20k body hairs put on your head just to find out something vastly superior is 3 years out and cost 3x less?

That’s all just my opinion though :slight_smile:


#10

Maybe Im missing something,

BUT would the wounding protocol just give you a headfull of new MPB-follicles that would begin to reminiaturize fairly soon? You would have the same stem cell environment ‘making’ the hairs as you did when you were a fetus would you not? You have adult levels of testosterone NOW…hell, would they even last 2 years?

I suppose it would give you a second chance to use treatments like finas and spiro to keep the hairs as long as you could, but the GENETICS in the new hairs should fit the area of the scalp where they came from, and on most of us, thats balding scalp or scalp we are having to treat to keep it from balding.

HM should give us follicles with donor -area genetics.

I too, like JB, am dissapointed that body hair didn’t turn out to produce great heads of hair, and Ive only seen one real “wow” result and 3-4 more “fair” results, but with huge amounts of money spent. It looks like HM will be the only thing that is going to give “wow” results in the near term. Im open minded about hair though, and am interested in any way possible to give men full heads of hair if they desire such. Id put horse piss on my head if I thought I could regrow my temples and hang upside down like a bat for an hour every night, but it wouldn’t work, so its a waste of time.

I sure am anxious to see if at least one of the 20 guys really regrew a lot of hair up there. Its an exciting time for us.


#11

» Maybe Im missing something,
»
»
» BUT would the wounding protocol just give you a headfull of new
» MPB-follicles that would begin to reminiaturize fairly soon? You would
» have the same stem cell environment ‘making’ the hairs as you did when you
» were a fetus would you not? You have adult levels of testosterone
» NOW…hell, would they even last 2 years?

What makes ICX’ HM so exciting is that dermal cells programmed to be resistant to DHT are being moved to the balding area. There is no guarantee that this will result in long-lasting hairs, but so far it appears that neogenic follicles wind up with the dermal component properties of the dermal cells used to make them (although I believe ICX’ technique to be primarily regeneration due to the depth of the injection, the philosophy is similar).

I’ve always wondered that since Dr. Gho uses epithelial cells in his HM and the existing balding dermal component, how does this result in long-lasting hair? But he seems assured that the stem-cells that get moved result in altering the existing follicles to become DHT resistant. At any rate, it goes to show that the science is not exactly black-and-white. IOW, maybe there is a way to get Cotseralis’ technique to result in long-lasting hairs. But, I certainly would not bet on it because no new cells are being moved to the balding area, so there are no instructions present on how to become DHT resistant. Most likely the crappy-looking pigmentless Cotseralis hairs are going to fall from chronic DHT exposure. But hey, he got great exposure as a hair genius with a “cure for baldness.” And in the final analysis, I believe he is not out to cure baldness; he just wants recognition and funding to continue his usual course.

And that brings me to the final part of my rant. Many of us on hairsite have been aware of HM for a long time now. How much can it take to inject some human heads with some human cells and start figuring out how to create a real cure for baldness that is truly worthy of the news it gets? As good of news as ICX’ phase IIa trials are, IMO, they are years behind where they should be in this research. But I suppose the good news is that they have not yet reached a stumbling block. :expressionless:


#12

» » WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FUCHS AND COTSARELIS FINDINGS PLEASE!IF
» ANY
» » ORTHER THAN PR MANAGERS
»
» There are similarities in their work, both involving genetic pathways and
» the “wnt” gene. However, this stuff about creating wounds or abrasions
» of the skin to facilitate follicular neogenesis is something new
» discovered or confirmed by Dr. Cotsarelis. I don’t believe Dr. Fuchs was
» working on anything like this.
»
» To me, I think an analogy is when a farmer tills the topsoil to facilitate
» the planting of his crops. Crops grow better in soil that has been hoed
» and tilled. Probably the same is true with hair on the scalp.
» Follicular neogenesis will work much better if the epidermis is abraded.
» Healing factors kick in and these factors happen also to promote new hair
» growth, when the conditions are right.
»
» Now, imagine a combined HM + Cotsarelis procedure where:
»
» 1) First the scalp skin is dermabraded
»
» 2) Then cultured DP and other cells are injected as in HM
»
» 3) Then, to top it all off, Cotsarelis’ proposed “wnt” drug is
» administered topically.
»
» Even if Cotsarelis’ procedure, or HM, alone worked only weakly or
» partially, I imagine that administering them simultaneoulsy would
» potentiate both and create a synergistic effect that would result in very
» thick hair growth.
»
» Smiles, you readin’ this?
»
» I’ve never been into all that Ray Kurzweil stuff, but I just read an
» article about him in Fortune magazine, I believe (I picked up the copy in
» Germany so it should be available around you.)
»
» I think we are rapidly approaching the “Singularity” of hair
» regeneration.
»
» Some day, in the future, we will be able to live as a giant sentient hair
» follicle, if we want to! Thank you JTR.:slight_smile:


#13

JB, you are right when you say Costarelis’ “method” is essentially HM. Actually, it probably works via many of the same signaling pathways that HM uses, and in fact, it could probably be a great FACILITATOR of HM. Imagine first dermabrading the skin to release these factors, and then injecting cultured cells as in HM…

Benji and JB, you’re both right that the follicles produced by Costarelis’ method will probably be DHT-sensitive, being derived from cells in DHT-sensitive areas and growing in patients who will have adult levels of testosterone.

Getting back to my proposal to combine HM with Cotsarelis’ method, if DHT-insensitive cells are injected into this “disrupted” skin, I imagine that the follicles produced would be largely DHT-insensitive, as we assume HM follicles to be.

(Note that I said “largely DHT-insensitive”, NEVER “completely DHT-insensitive” – because I believe HM follicles will be hybrids, consisting perhaps of 80% donor area cell lines and 20% recipient area cell lines, or something like that. Since they’ll be hybrids, or more properly, genetic “chimeras”, then they’ll exhibit properties of both. Remember the Jahoda-Reynolds experiments…)


#14

Do we know whether Intercytex use WNT in their HM product?


#15

» Do we know whether Intercytex use WNT in their HM product?

No, as far as we know ICX’s product (ICX-TRC) does not directly involve Wnt.

The great thing about all forms of HM is that the researchers don’t actually have to know HOW it works to know that it DOES work.

They don’t have to know how Wnt is involved, if at all.

They don’t have to know if stem cells are involved, and don’t have to isolate or culture any stem cells.

All they have to do is remove certain cells from your donor follicles, culture them, and reinject them into your scalp. Then watch the hair grow.

There’s a big tendency among some people here to assume that the more knowledge we have about the genetic and biochemical pathways leading to MPB, the quicker will be the path to a certain cure.

That is NOT true, and HM proves it. That is a complete fallacy, in fact.

HM is a cure, or near-cure (it will vary in quality at first), which exploits an observable phenomenon, i.e., that when certain donor cells are cultured and injected back into human skin, new hair follicles will grow.

Scientists don’t have to know (and don’t know) exactly how this happens. They don’t know each and every biochemical reaction that happens. They don’t know which genes, if any, are being switched on or off; they don’t know exactly which cells are being activated in the tissue substrate or nascent follicles; they don’t know what all the intercellular signaling mechanisms are. They don’t know a lot of things. They don’t know the vast majority of what makes HM work.

But the great thing about HM is that they DON’T HAVE TO KNOW.

Why spend decades trying to learn every reaction, every cell mechanism, every genetic pathway, when you can just do something and watch it work?


#16

They may not know everything, but I’m sure they know quite a lot. Ken Washenik said that “The key was to find the 11 secret herbs and spices to let the cells multiply while still keeping the ability to grow hair.” (On the other hand Paul Kemp said that he was not even sure whether they were creating new follicles or whether they were rejuvenating dormant ones…)
The bottom line is that it’s not as simple as one might think it is. (Otherwise it would be on the market by now.) The fact that they don’t know 100% how it works is the reason why the results are still inconsistent.
Anyhow, it’s not on the market yet, and I don’t think it will be in the foreseeable future.


#17

» They may not know everything, but I’m sure they know quite a lot. Ken
» Washenik said that “The key was to find the 11 secret herbs and spices to
» let the cells multiply while still keeping the ability to grow hair.”

Yes, Dr. Washenik did say that. However, finding those ingredients for the culture medium is not equivalent to understanding how the cells create new follicles in the skin. I think much of this work was trial and error.

» The bottom line is that it’s not as simple as one might think it is.
» (Otherwise it would be on the market by now.) The fact that they don’t
» know 100% how it works is the reason why the results are still
» inconsistent.
» Anyhow, it’s not on the market yet, and I don’t think it will be in the
» foreseeable future.

Your points are well taken. However, I think it will be on the market in the foreseeable future. The fact that ICX is in Phase II of trials, and Washenik indicated that the “secret herbs and spices” were found, indicate this.

“Seek truth from facts”, as a great Chinese leader once said.


#18

» Do we know whether Intercytex use WNT in their HM product?

WNT is a natural byproduct of culturing DP cells with epithelial cells. However, this can introduce other problems, so most protocols are steering around it. Thus, other cells and growth factors must be added to the culture to stimulate the manufacture of WNT and other necessary signals. Since it is well-documented that DP cells lose their viability when WNT is not present in the culture, I would say that we do know that ICX uses WNT in its culture. However adding it individually is not feasible, so it must be derived by the other factors in the soup.

I doubt the consistency problem is due to WNT as it is too well-known of a substance to ignore. It is the other less understood factors that make HM consistency a difficult task. And that of course is where trial and error come into play.

As to HM not being available in the near future, we will have to wait and see. However, it is a good sign that 5 of 7 patients averaged ~65% success rate. What makes that striking is that Gho worked for years to get that kind of consistency and never got there. If he had, he would have released his procedure. We still don’t know if ICX hairs are high quality hairs (Gho’s were), but the fact that they managed to hit commercial releasable numbers during their safety study is certainly a favorable sign.


#19

This mice hair story has been stirring up a lot of interest. While hair regrowth isn’t the focus of acell technology, it seems to be a side benefit…and it regrows hair with the original coloring as well:

http://www.acell.com/vetcases/lucille.html

http://www.acell.com/vetcases/fancy.html

http://www.acell.com/vetcases/bravo.html