Roger_That and Other Informed Posters

Stem cell; cell based hair therapy
41

Fair enough, about the practical use thing.

But IMO the more telling part is that Cots consistently keeps us a good 5 years behind him. WNTs, PGD2/E2, FGF-9 . . . everything he publicly discloses is pretty old news to Follica.

If these things are 5 years behind his current data then I have a hard time believing that he doesn’t already know whether the simpler methods of using them will work or not. He does not disclose that part when he goes public with something either. This guy wants to keep the public 5 years behind him.

42

I thought PGD2 was a very obvious causative element, and is in line wiht current thinking about AGA…as a treatment modality, highly questionable!

43

[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by Aran Linvail[/postedby]
I thought PGD2 was a very obvious causative element, and is in line wiht current thinking about AGA…as a treatment modality, highly questionable![/quote]

That’s exactly my point.

Cots releases a new piece of info. He does it with all the fanfare of it being a genuinely new discovery. Except it’s 5 years behind his current work. He already knows that his info offers no obvious practical benefits and he refrains from telling everyone that last bit. So we amateurs spend money on the idea and chase our tails for a few years.

Cots could prevent that easily with a few extra words during his press conferences. He knows that withholding those few words causes money and effort to be spent unnecessarily (not to mention risking heath). But he keeps his mouth shut and lets people mistakenly run with his newest ideas and continue thinking he is near the brink of success. Deception.

44

[quote]

[postedby]Originally Posted by cal[/postedby]

That’s exactly my point.

Cots releases a new piece of info. He does it with all the fanfare of it being a genuinely new discovery. Except it’s 5 years behind his current work. He already knows that his info offers no obvious practical benefits and he refrains from telling everyone that last bit. So we amateurs spend money on the idea and chase our tails for a few years.

Cots could prevent that easily with a few extra words during his press conferences. He knows that withholding those few words causes money and effort to be spent unnecessarily (not to mention risking heath). But he keeps his mouth shut and lets people mistakenly run with his newest ideas and continue thinking he is near the brink of success. Deception.[/quote]

If you read the discussion of the paper that revealed the inhibitory effect of PGD2 on hair growth, what is known, unknown, and the rationale behind the conclusions are perfectly reasoned (particularly on the subject of practical benefits). There is no need to be paranoid about it. The science is right there to read, people are free to do what they want with that knowledge (spend their money or risk their health).

45

Walrus, that may be so. What conclusions do you draw from the paper, about what is known and unknown about PGD2’s effects, and what the practical benefits of PGD2 inhibition may be?

46

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

Walrus, that may be so. What conclusions do you draw from the paper, about what is known and unknown about PGD2’s effects, and what the practical benefits of PGD2 inhibition may be?[/quote]

In a nutshell, as I see it:

Known:

  • PGD2 modulates hair growth, experientially demonstrated.
    Unknown:
  • How the theory fits with existing models of (androgenic) hair loss. Suggestion that the synthesis of PGD2 may be androgen dependant.
  • The degree of therapeutic effect from normalisation of prostaglandin levels. I.e. could it lead to regrowth, or maintenance?
    -Whether the same mechanism is important for hair loss in women.
    Practical:
  • Reference to a number of potentially therapeutic compounds that are in development.
  • Admission that ‘delivery, dosing and safety’ first need to be addressed.
47

[quote]In a nutshell, as I see it:

Known:

  • PGD2 modulates (speed of) hair growth, experientially demonstrated.
    Unknown:
  • How the theory fits with existing models of (androgenic) hair loss. Suggestion that the synthesis of PGD2 may be androgen dependant.
  • The degree of therapeutic effect from normalisation of prostaglandin levels. I.e. could it lead to regrowth, or maintenance?
    -Whether the same mechanism is important for hair loss in women.
    Practical:
  • Reference to a number of potentially therapeutic compounds that are in development.
  • Admission that ‘delivery, dosing and safety’ first need to be addressed.[/quote]

I think your read of the paper is exactly right, on all counts. Great summary. I particularly think the last point you made is the most salient for people here.

MANY home experimenters have topically applied a wide array of compounds that allegedly decrease or inhibit PGD2 in some way. However, we have no idea about issues like dosing and particularly, delivery. Are these compounds actually getting to people’s follicles in useful concentrations?

Also, almost all of the self-experimentation is being done by non-scientists who are just speculating that the particular compounds they’re trying will truly inhibit or sufficiently decrease PGD2 at the tissue and cellular levels.

Admittedly, some of the tests done, such as my brief experimentation with NasalCrom (Cromolyn Sodium), have been based on extreme speculation, the theoretical basis of which has never been corroborated by any scientist I know of, including but not limited to Dr. Cotsarelis.