Pgd2

Stem cell; cell based hair therapy
1

In relation with this link:

What do yo think about PGD2? Are still something to investigate on and Cots knows that he can gain something from the products he is going to develop with pharma companies or do you think that PGD2 is something that works only theoretically and Cots just wanted to protect his studies even if he knows that PGD2 is not a game changer?

2

I am happy that at least someone is writing about serious ongoing science.

Base on recent events and news, I now beleive that Cots (folicabio) is the only science (PGD2,FG) that is viable and that can bring hope to hair loss sufferers.

After years of reading this forum, i must admit, that hm is dead and real discussions has been rare.

It seams that newsbies ( with the upmust respect) such as Alemb81 has brains and knowns what is real science from spam.

I am happy to see your post, Alemb81, it differs from Dr Nigam never ending spam … infinite nonesense…

Please all other hardcore hm guys (including rogerthat) come back… and tell us where is the science going?.. where are those insiders that are/where doing clinical reasearch?

PS: In my signature i have writen what i thought was the promissing research back in 2006??? in 2013, i don’t thing the list is right anymore!!! Now, what should that list be?

3

Just realised that AleMB81 has a lot more post than me… very sorry to calling you newbie… all my respect!!!

4

Jim It’s ok and thanks for your post. i totally agree with you, it’s really odd that a doctor from india could do what big pharmas could not . The aim of my post is to try to undestand what people think about pgd2. I remember that when Pgd2 came out people thought the cure was approching… Now i think we are quite confused because we don’t know if the pgd2 theory is pure theory or can work but the substances/vehicles tried at home are not the right ones or something else we don’t know…

Pgd2 theory has a strong scientific background but we don’t know if it has a practical use

5

The problem with Dr. Nigam’s work is not that it does not produce any hair. It does produce some thickening but not enough. However, Dr. Nigam now says that he is finding that repeat treatments improve the outcome so if he means that additional repeat treatments results in the patient getting more hair produced with each treatment then that means that by doing repeat treatments we may be able acqure a satisfactory amount of thickening.

But if he just means that some people don’t get any regrowth from the first treatment so he tries repeat treatments on the patient and after repeat treatments the patient who didn’t originally get regrowth from the first treatment finally gets a SMALL amount of regrowth from the repeat treatments then that is insufficient results because we don’t want a small amount of regrowth.

We want more regrowth with each repeat treatment.

For example:

  • If the patient does just one treatment date he could add maybe 10% - 15% more hair.

  • If the patient follows-up with a second treatment date (the original treatment plus 1 repeat treatment) then perhaps he adds another 10% to the 10% to 15% that he got from the first treatment.

  • If the patient does a 3rd treatment date (the original treatment plus 2 repeat treatments) then perhaps he adds another 10% to the 10%-15% that he got from the first treatment and the 10% he got from the 2nd treatment.

  • If the patient does a 4th treatment date (the original treatment plus 3 repeat treatments) then perhaps he adds another 10% to the 10% - 15% that he got from the first treatment and the 10% he got from the 2nd treatment and the 10% he got from the 3rd treatment.

  • Each time he gets another repeat treatment he gets more hair until he finally gets a lot of new hair after maybe 3 or 4 repeat treatments.

[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by AleMB81[/postedby]
Jim It’s ok and thanks for your post. i totally agree with you, it[/quote]

6

This patent seems to be the “final” patent. All the other from Garza/Cots have heaps of different genes mentioned where as this is very specific and concise on PGD2. I think this is a good thing!