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

New News? Angela Christiano

It seems to me in order for the researchers to know that there was hair growth if the hair did not protrude outward from the skin that must mean that the hairs started out very VERY short. Shorter than peach fuzz. Perhaps the skin tissue was slick bald skin tissue and there were no follicles…not even tiny ones. If that is the case then perhaps this treatment would work better on people like myself who still has hair on his head and is not slick bald anywhere on his head.

This is not news! Jahoda performed studies at least a decade ago that showed getting the cells to clump (3d culturing technique) greatly increased the number of hairs that grew. So here we are a decade later, and he finally grafted human skin onto mice instead of simply implanting the 3d-cultured cells directly into the mice. Yawn!

Aderans was intimately familiar with the clumping problem (which is why they hired Tom Barrows). They experimented with 3d matrices, cultured clumping techniques, etc for about 10 years. During the bulk of this period, they implanted the cells into human skin grafted on the backs of mice. The result of their studies was, the hair grew extremely well. In fact, well enough to give you back a teenage hairline and then some. Unfortunately, when they tried the same protocols in humans, the hair didn’t grow very well. Thus, they eventually lost their funding.

Moral of story. The authors of this study are trying to drum up funds to keep their lame arses going until they are old enough to retire. Look elsewhere for a cure. These are the dark days of hair multiplication. Eventually, a new breed will rise up and perfect it. But Jahoda will not be among those who prevail.

“Aderans was intimately familiar with the clumping problem (which is why they hired Tom Barrows). They experimented with 3d matrices, cultured clumping techniques, etc for about 10 years. During the bulk of this period, they implanted the cells into human skin grafted on the backs of mice. The result of their studies was, the hair grew extremely well. In fact, well enough to give you back a teenage hairline and then some. Unfortunately, when they tried the same protocols in humans, the hair didn’t grow very well. Thus, they eventually lost their funding.”

So your saying Dr. Jahoda is doing the same stuff Adreans did 10 years or so ago and there is nothing new about Jahoda findings at all?

[quote][postedby]
Aderans was intimately familiar with the clumping problem (which is why they hired Tom Barrows). They experimented with 3d matrices, cultured clumping techniques, etc for about 10 years. During the bulk of this period, they implanted the cells into human skin grafted on the backs of mice. The result of their studies was, the hair grew extremely well. In fact, well enough to give you back a teenage hairline and then some. Unfortunately, when they tried the same protocols in humans, the hair didn’t grow very well. Thus, they eventually lost their funding.[/quote]

It’s sounds like you’re making broadly general statements based on limited knowledge. The whole issue of “clumping” and 3D spheroids is science that’s still very much in development. Jahoda and Christiano are exposing cells to natural-like, “in vivo” type environments while in vitro and then running genetic tests on transcription to get the DP cells to a profile closer to what occurs when they’re replicating naturally in the tissues.

Now, tell me who else has done all of the above?

James, you’ve written thousands of words about Dr. Gho, praising him, defending him, implying that he’s found the “cure” based on “HM” and that he and he alone knows/knew what it was, you don’t say a single word about him now.

If these are “dark days” of Hair Multiplication, then how did we get here, if Gho had the secret all along?

Please, let’s give Jahoda and Christiano some credit for trying this, expanding the scope of research, and pursuing these ideas. Don’t you think they know about what Aderans’ successes and failures were? I don’t care if it took them 10 years to get there, what counts is they’re there now.

Is it safe to assume that 3d spheriod technology is not limited to hair follicle neogensis and that other teams working in other areas will have a lot of cross over and discoveries they can share for mutal advance?

Stem cells seem like a very hot topic to research right now so im hoping things will move on a lot faster now.

Very good questions. Whenever discussing any of this stuff we have to be clear about whether the goal or stated achievement is neogenesis or reviving miniaturized follicles. As for other applications, I dint know.

By the way, the Columbia research (Jahoda and Christiano) was reported in this morning in WTOP news radio in DC.

This seems to currently be directed at pure neogenesis. To my knowledge no mention has been made as to whether or not this can be used to revive miniaturized follicles. Perhaps this is something Dr Nigam can ask Jahoda at the upcoming conference.

[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by roger_that[/postedby]
Very good questions. Whenever discussing any of this stuff we have to be clear about whether the goal or stated achievement is neogenesis or reviving miniaturized follicles. As for other applications, I dint know.

By the way, the Columbia research (Jahoda and Christiano) was reported in this morning in WTOP news radio in DC.[/quote]

Agreed.

This is great news

I think its good news not great news. It sounds like there is still a long way down the road before they can grow large healthy tufts of hair.

And even then, once they are able to do so in a clinical environment then they first need to bring it to market, i.e. pass clinical trials.

[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by alecbaldone[/postedby]
This is great news[/quote]

In some countries there are no requirements to complete all kinds of regulatory hurdles.

Regards to to using your own cells as the donor tissue it make take them months or 1 year to resolve the indictive issues using your own cells. It would appear that they’re looking in the right direction since they are starting to improve on their success.

Regards to getting the donor cells from other people to resolve the inductive issue they can perhaps already do that right now.

I don’t know what to make of the news although I do think it’s generally good news. We need answers to more questions though:

1) What needs to be done to improve the results even further?

  1. Could this work to give tufts of new hair right now if you used other people’s cells for a donor supply and rapidly implanted the donor cells into the recipient area?

For the purpose of using one’s own cells as the donor tissue I think it’s significant that researchers are improving their success by tricking the cells into thinking that the cells are inside of the body. It shows that the researchers have a general direction/plan and they may just need to find more ways to further trick the cells into thinking that they’re in the body.

Also, maybe we just need to give booster treatments. The study showed that the new hairs lasted 6 weeks so maybe do boosters every 3 weeks until you get all your hair back and then do boosters every 6 weeks after you get your hair back. Or maybe the hair will last longer than 6 weeks once you get all your hair back so maybe you could get boosters every 3 or 4 months after you get your hair back. This needs more testing.

sigh… jarjar…

[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by jarjarbinx[/postedby]
In some countries there are no requirements to complete all kinds of regulatory hurdles.
[/quote]

of course there are countries with less regulation, but the bleeding edge research will be financed in the first world. They will take every and any precaution to make sure they can market their findings into a profitable product in the industrialized world. Do you really think Jahoda is going to move to India just for your amusement? You can rest assured that he will stay where he gets his financing and will go through down the normal route of FDA approval. I know you believe that Dr Nigam can just snap his fingers and replicate a decade of research, experience and expertise in his own lab, but I personally think this seems very very unlikely.

[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by jarjarbinx[/postedby]
2. Could this work to give tufts of new hair right now if you used other people’s cells for a donor supply?
[/quote]

this is a silly question and it will not happen. The risk of an immune reaction is simply too large. Also what is the benefit of using someone else’s cells?

[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by jarjarbinx[/postedby]
Also, maybe we just need to give booster treatments. The study showed that the new hairs lasted 6 weeks so maybe do boosters every 3 weeks until you get all your hair back and then do boosters every 6 weeks after you get your hair back. Or maybe the hair will last longer than 6 weeks once you get all your hair back so maybe you could get boosters every 3 or 4 months after you get your hair back. This needs more testing.[/quote]

what are these supposed “boosters” supposed to do? :smiley: I know that in your micky-mouse scientific world, more is better but the real world doesn’t always function that way.

  1. In response to Hairman’s first issue: Dr. Nigam is already trying to transfer cutting edge technology to today’s treatments so we need to see where that leads.

  2. In response to Hairman’s second issue: Is there a risk of an immune reaction? I don’t know. It looks to me like researchers are in agreement that this tissue is immune privileged. Do you have even one link that shows that this tissue is not immune privileged? I have posted numerous articles by different scientists saying that it is immune privileged so if you have even one article contradicting that please post the link. I would be curious to see it. If there is even one scientist contradicting this then that would concern me but if there is NO scientist contradicting this then that would make me wonder if you think you’re smarter than all the scientists in the world. LOL!!!

The benefit to using someone else’s cells is that if you could get enough of them you would not need to keep the cells outside the body for very long to cultivate more cells. Let’s say you could find 10 donors who would each sell half of their donor area to you and let’s say you cultivated them for just a day or two like Jahoda did with his first experiment involving his wife (if he did cultivate them for a day or two as some articles say). It seems like perhaps you could end up with a lot of cells this way and bypass the issue of the cells losing inductivity.

  1. In response to Hairman’s third issue: The reason why you would possibly want boosters every 3 - 4 weeks (probably every 3 weeks would be best) in the beginning is that Jahoda’s recently released results showed that the new hairs were lost after 6 weeks so if you wanted to buildup some cumulative effect to keep the progress continuing you would have to add boosters before the new hairs fell out. I think if you did a booster shot every 3 weeks that would allow you to pile up a cumulative effect and you would be adding new cells before the new hairs would be lost. It seems like after the new hair was fully developed the new hairs would last at least 6 weeks and maybe longer because they would be stronger than the partial hairs that Jahoda created in the recent study.

[quote]of course there are countries with less regulation, but the bleeding edge research will be financed in the first world. They will take every and any precaution to make sure they can market their findings into a profitable product in the industrialized world. Do you really think Jahoda is going to move to India just for your amusement? You can rest assured that he will stay where he gets his financing and will go through down the normal route of FDA approval. I know you believe that Dr Nigam can just snap his fingers and replicate a decade of research, experience and expertise in his own lab, but I personally think this seems very very unlikely.

this is a silly question and it will not happen. The risk of an immune reaction is simply too large. Also what is the benefit of using someone else’s cells?

what are these supposed “boosters” supposed to do? :smiley: .[/quote]

too lazy to respond to these ridiculous statements point by point. So heres an overall summary.

  1. it is common knowledge that foreign tissue leads to an immune reaction. It may well be that it is not the case for DP cells but that does not matter because that will need to be proved beyond a doubt to the FDA. Nobody is going to fund such a stupid idea.
    You seem to fail to understand that the whole point of the study and these 3d cell cultures.

  2. to my knowledge, the study did not say that the hairs were lost after 6 weeks. It merely stated that the hairs were only investigated and studied for a period of 6 weeks. If these hairs form into proper follicles I do not think there would be any need for any so-called “boosters” (the choice of wording alone shows how simple minded you are).

At the bottom of the article you will find a video describing what they have found. Really interesting… Let me guess, next week Cots will post something on his latest find.

  1. One of the articles I read said the hairs fell out after 6 weeks.

  2. Of course someone would fund what you call a “stupid” idea to find out if these cells are immune privileged or not. Jahoda did such a study and so have other scientists and now you are saying that all of their results are wrong even though you can’t show one study that says that they are wrong. I guess this means that you’re saying that you know better than all of the scientists who did study this issue and came to the conclusion that this tissue is immune privileged. LOL!!

[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by hairman2[/postedby]
too lazy to respond to these ridiculous statements point by point. So heres an overall summary.

  1. it is common knowledge that foreign tissue leads to an immune reaction. It may well be that it is not the case for DP cells but that does not matter because that will need to be proved beyond a doubt to the FDA. Nobody is going to fund such a stupid idea.
    You seem to fail to understand that the whole point of the study and these 3d cell cultures.

  2. to my knowledge, the study did not say that the hairs were lost after 6 weeks. It merely stated that the hairs were only investigated and studied for a period of 6 weeks. If these hairs form into proper follicles I do not think there would be any need for any so-called “boosters” (the choice of wording alone shows how simple minded you are).[/quote]

  1. I do not believe that. How can hair which did not even grow long enough to penetrate the dermis even fall out?

  2. you dont seem to understand that it appears that the 3d cultures enable an environment in which cells can be cultured while maintaining their capacity to induce hair follicles. That is the whole point of this article. I dont understand why you keep blathering about foreign donor.
    Also, Jahoda did not perform such a study to assess the safety of foreign cell implants and what you always fail to understand is, if there is a potential risk, it does not matter how unlikely it may be, the FDA and all other regulatory organs will put it to the test and make life very difficult. The whole idea is pretty idiotic. :rotfl:

[quote]1. One of the articles I read said the hairs fell out after 6 weeks.

  1. Of course someone would fund such a “stupid” idea to find out if these cells are immune privileged or not. Jahoda did such a study and so have other scientists and now you are saying that all of their results are wrong even though you can’t show one study that says that they are wrong. I guess this means that you’re saying that you know better than all of the scientists who did study this issue and came to the conclusion that this tissue is immune privileged. LOL!!

[postedby]Originally Posted by hairman2[/postedby]
too lazy to respond to these ridiculous statements point by point. So heres an overall summary.

  1. it is common knowledge that foreign tissue leads to an immune reaction. It may well be that it is not the case for DP cells but that does not matter because that will need to be proved beyond a doubt to the FDA. Nobody is going to fund such a stupid idea.
    You seem to fail to understand that the whole point of the study and these 3d cell cultures.

  2. to my knowledge, the study did not say that the hairs were lost after 6 weeks. It merely stated that the hairs were only investigated and studied for a period of 6 weeks. If these hairs form into proper follicles I do not think there would be any need for any so-called “boosters” (the choice of wording alone shows how simple minded you are).

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

One article I read said that the hairs fell out after 6 weeks. You should contact Dr. Jahoda to be certain if you want to be certain. Since the article I read said the hairs fell out after 6 weeks I’m accepting that assertion until you post evidence that says otherwise. And when I say evidence I mean something stronger than your baseless hunches, which are unreliable at best.

The reason for discussing foreign donor tissue is that it could eliminate the need to solve all of the problems associated with the loss of inductivity by your own cells due to them being outside of your body for long periods of time due to the multi-month culturing process, moron. It will take time to find a way around this issue entirely. I read an article wherein Christiano said that only 22% of the appropriate genes were expressed in the culturing so that means they have to figure out why the rest of the necessary genes weren’t expressed and what can be done to make them express. On the other hand, if they could just get sufficient foreign donor tissue then they would not have to worry about solving that problem. They could just go straight to implanting the foreign cells and they could skip almost all of the culturing process moron and that means that the cells would not be out of a human body for long and that means that they could stop trying to get around the issue of the loss of inductivity.

It doesn’t matter why Jahoda did the test…the point is that one of the things he found out is that these cells are immune privileged. Also, numerous other scientists have dug deep into these cells and they have also found that these cells are immune privileged. I have not read where even one scientist is saying that these cells are not immune privileged but you keep suggesting it. How about citing one study that shows that your baseless concern is valid? Please show one study that says that these cells are not immune priviliged since that is what you are suggesting over the objections of dozens of top-flight scientific researchers who have done their homework unlike your silly self.

But for the record I do believe that part of the reason Jahoda set-up that experiment the way he did (putting his donor tissue into his wife’s arm) was because he wanted to examine the idea of immune privilege for these cells. He likely suspected they might be immune privileged.

[quote]1. I do not believe that. How can hair which did not even grow long enough to penetrate the dermis even fall out?

  1. you dont seem to understand that it appears that the 3d cultures enable an environment in which cells can be cultured while maintaining their capacity to induce hair follicles. That is the whole point of this article. I dont understand why you keep blathering about foreign donor.
    Also, Jahoda did not perform such a study to assess the safety of foreign cell implants and what you always fail to understand is, if there is a potential risk, it does not matter how unlikely it may be, the FDA and all other regulatory organs will put it to the test and make life very difficult. The whole idea is pretty idiotic. :rotfl:

  2. One of the articles I read said the hairs fell out after 6 weeks.

  3. Of course someone would fund such a “stupid” idea to find out if these cells are immune privileged or not. Jahoda did such a study and so have other scientists and now you are saying that all of their results are wrong even though you can’t show one study that says that they are wrong. I guess this means that you’re saying that you know better than all of the scientists who did study this issue and came to the conclusion that this tissue is immune privileged. LOL!!

[postedby]Originally Posted by hairman2[/postedby]
too lazy to respond to these ridiculous statements point by point. So heres an overall summary.

  1. it is common knowledge that foreign tissue leads to an immune reaction. It may well be that it is not the case for DP cells but that does not matter because that will need to be proved beyond a doubt to the FDA. Nobody is going to fund such a stupid idea.
    You seem to fail to understand that the whole point of the study and these 3d cell cultures.

  2. to my knowledge, the study did not say that the hairs were lost after 6 weeks. It merely stated that the hairs were only investigated and studied for a period of 6 weeks. If these hairs form into proper follicles I do not think there would be any need for any so-called “boosters” (the choice of wording alone shows how simple minded you are).

[postedby]Originally Posted by jarjarbinx[/postedby]

[postedby]Originally Posted by hairman2[/postedby][/quote]

if you think that Jahodas home experiment with his wife is enough to convince the FDA about safety issues then you are alot more insane than i thought.

I’m done talking to you.

You are changing the meaning of what I have stated. I didn’t say that Jahoda’s experiment is enough to convince the FDA or that Jahoda entertained the idea that it would be. I said that Jahoda did the experiment the way he did in part to see if these cells triggered an immune response in this one experiment.

Your position that Jahoda didn’t consider the ramifications of putting the cells into a different person than the cells came from is ludicrous.

Home | News | Find a Doctor | Ask a Question | Terms of Use & Privacy

This is an advertising site for paid advertisers to showcase successful hair restoration results only. It is not the mandate of this site to engage in the discussion of failed, unsuccessful procedures, lawsuits, litigations, refunds or complaint cases. Surgical hair restoration procedures carry risks. Please do thorough research, consult your own physician and investigate a doctor's background carefully before making a decision. By proceeding to use our site, you agree to abide by our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy at http://hairsite.com/terms-of-use/ where you can also find a list of HairSite's sponsoring physicians.