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

To Spanish Dude: \'Hot Zones\' Theory or \'Brownian Motion\' Theory


#1

Hi Spanish Dude,

You are one of the most thoughtful and skeptical people here, you look beneath the conventional explanations for the real science behind things…

Recently you advanced the ‘hot zones’ theory, regarding why cell therapies like Intercytex TRC seem to work only sporadically or spottily. Correct me if i’m wrong, but your theory seems to be that each individual’s scalp has different zones, some of which are more amenable to cell injections, while other areas are resistant. You indicate that this phenomenon is responsible for the generally variable and poor results we see in most cell based hair regeneration trials.

I understand your theory, but i have a different theory which i would like you to consider:

I think that the problem is really that when cell injections are performed, as soon as the cells enter the skin, they immediately start moving away from each other, because there is nothing really that holds them in close proximity to each other.

The cells are really entering an aqueous environment, which is the intercellular spaces between skin cells in the dermis. So even if the cells are kept together within the syringe, as soon as they are ejected out of the syringe, they enter an environment where they quickly drift apart.

But the DP cells must be very close together, exceedingly tightly packed, in order to have a chance at successfully forming a hair-follicle bud.

Since with every injection, the cells will drift away from each other at slightly different rates (statistically this will be true), a certain percentage of injections may be successful, but a certain percentage won’t.

The Aderans “scaffold” idea is a way to prevent this from happening, because it keeps the injected cells in close proximity, therefore increasing their chances of forming a proto-follicle.

I believe that this is the fundamental problem that all HM experimenters, from Gho onward, have experienced in their work… although they may not have known or understood it. They certainly did not articulate it, and didn’t tell any of us it was the problem.

The problem is therefore more “mechanical” than biological. It is based on simple “Brownian motion”, the tendency of particles of any size, floating in a liquid environment, to eventually move apart from each other and spread in a random pattern.

I think that this theory explains why HM seems to have generally low, and unreliable “yields”. The yield being the percentage of successful divided by all the injections, or:

Yield = number of successful injections / total number of injections

The real, longstanding problem with ALL the HM experiments and trials we’ve seen is that, while it seems to work sometimes, it is generally neither reliable nor predictable.

I believe that my theory explains this physical fact.

This explanation does not mean that Aderans’ scaffolds will be a miracle solution that will resolve this problem completely and form perfect hair follicles all the time. However, it does indicate that the Aderans approach may be better, and has the potential to leverage HM into a more reliable clinical procedure.

What do you think?


#2

The biggest one is that when they injected a mice, the mice grew perfectly nice hair. We have seen it from ICX, and we have seen it from all other treatments that have mild to no effect on humans. A nude mice with a coarse dense bulb of perfectly naturaly looking hair on their back where the treatment was tested.

IF your brownian theory was true, it would not be limited to humans, but it would have to affect mice as well.

All treatments work on mice perfectly, but fail on humans.

So although i think you are true to some extent, I also think there is something more fundamental to humans that make all treatments fail for us.


#3

I think almost ALL of the various injecting and needling operations may be suffering from the same issue:

They’re basically working with the flawed assumption that these methods are adequate to saturate all the follicles with their effect. I see no reason to think they are.

The effect might be somewhat better than literally just regrowth when the needle strikes an individual follicle. There might be SOME spreading of the benefits. But even so, I still don’t see how anyone expects to needle the scalp, with or w/o medicine inejections, and consistently reach all the scalp follicles with a treatment process.


#4

» I think almost ALL of the various injecting and needling operations may be
» suffering from the same issue:
»
» They’re basically working with the flawed assumption that these methods
» are adequate to saturate all the follicles with their effect. I see no
» reason to think they are.
»
» The effect might be somewhat better than literally just regrowth when the
» needle strikes an individual follicle. There might be SOME spreading of
» the benefits. But even so, I still don’t see how anyone expects to needle
» the scalp, with or w/o medicine inejections, and consistently reach all the
» scalp follicles with a treatment process.

this is true, although the concentration of cells seems to be good enough for mice so it shows that the principle is correct. in humans though it does never work so well.

it may be because the number of cells would need to be bigger but still if it worked in mice, in theory it should also work for us if we do it right.

BUT it doesnt. thats imho an important clue. imho its more likely to be because mice were immuno suppressed and thus more willing to accept the cloned cells and start a new growth. we are not.

i do see that logic in that brownian theory and i am sure its a valid to some extent, i think though that there is more fundamental obstacle involved as well because otherwise, they would have problem growing hair in mice where the cells are not injected directly into follicles either.

all in all, the proto hair hopefuly will work better.


#5

Good point debris. I think the brownian movement theory is not valid because it doesn’t work on immunosupressed mice with human skin grafted on their backs. As you said, these mice do grow hair.

Maybe the DP cells get dissoriented when they are injected in humans due to the immune system (not present in mice). These cells don’t cooperate and just drift away from the injection site.
The immune system attacks these DP cells (even if they are supposed to be immune-compatible) or simply dissorients them.

The protohair and scaffold approaches are promissing, but time will tell if these approaches will escape the immune system.

Why ICX needed so many years to realize that scafoldless injections don’t work? ARI is working on scaffolds from the beginning, but ICX chose to suppress these scaffolds. I thought that ICX had strong reasons to suppress the scaffolds. Maybe because ICX could multiply cells in high numbers, they thought that massive injections of DP cells would suffice. But this approach failed.

» » I think almost ALL of the various injecting and needling operations may
» be
» » suffering from the same issue:
» »
» » They’re basically working with the flawed assumption that these methods
» » are adequate to saturate all the follicles with their effect. I see no
» » reason to think they are.
» »
» » The effect might be somewhat better than literally just regrowth when
» the
» » needle strikes an individual follicle. There might be SOME spreading
» of
» » the benefits. But even so, I still don’t see how anyone expects to
» needle
» » the scalp, with or w/o medicine inejections, and consistently reach all
» the
» » scalp follicles with a treatment process.
»
» this is true, although the concentration of cells seems to be good enough
» for mice so it shows that the principle is correct. in humans though it
» does never work so well.
»
» it may be because the number of cells would need to be bigger but still if
» it worked in mice, in theory it should also work for us if we do it right.
»
» BUT it doesnt. thats imho an important clue. imho its more likely to be
» because mice were immuno suppressed and thus more willing to accept the
» cloned cells and start a new growth. we are not.
»
» i do see that logic in that brownian theory and i am sure its a valid to
» some extent, i think though that there is more fundamental obstacle
» involved as well because otherwise, they would have problem growing hair in
» mice where the cells are not injected directly into follicles either.
»
» all in all, the proto hair hopefuly will work better.


#6

Hello:

thanks for your kind words, but in this case I think I don’t deserve your compliments. My “hot spots” theory was basically meaning that the injections are effective when they strike a “viable” vellus hair. In this case, the vellus hair is rejuvenated. The viable vellus hair is a “hot spot”.
When you rejuvenate all these viable vellus hairs, the game is over. It is useless to apply more injections, because you won’t get new hairs. Thus, you will get the best results in the first round of injections, and in the next rounds you will get less new hair each time.

In other words, TRC is not doing neogenesis, but only rejuvenation. And just partial rejuvenation (not all miniaturized follicles can be rejuvenated).
If TRC were doing neogenesis, then it seems ovious that repeated session would give you more and more hair without restrictions.

Why did I come up with this theory of limited effectiveness?
Very simple: if TRC effectiveness didn’t decay over repeated sessions, it would be simply a matter of getting many sessions until you get all the hair you need. Thus, TRC would be a viable product, although expensive. And ICX would be right now publishing photos of very bald men who were successfully regenerated until full heads of hair.

» Hi Spanish Dude,
»
» You are one of the most thoughtful and skeptical people here, you look
» beneath the conventional explanations for the real science behind
» things…
»
» Recently you advanced the ‘hot zones’ theory, regarding why cell therapies
» like Intercytex TRC seem to work only sporadically or spottily. Correct
» me if i’m wrong, but your theory seems to be that each individual’s scalp
» has different zones, some of which are more amenable to cell injections,
» while other areas are resistant. You indicate that this phenomenon is
» responsible for the generally variable and poor results we see in most cell
» based hair regeneration trials.
»
» I understand your theory, but i have a different theory which i would like
» you to consider:
»
» I think that the problem is really that when cell injections are
» performed, as soon as the cells enter the skin, they immediately start
» moving away from each other, because there is nothing really that holds
» them in close proximity to each other.
»
» The cells are really entering an aqueous environment, which is the
» intercellular spaces between skin cells in the dermis. So even if the
» cells are kept together within the syringe, as soon as they are ejected out
» of the syringe, they enter an environment where they quickly drift apart.
»
» But the DP cells must be very close together, exceedingly tightly packed,
» in order to have a chance at successfully forming a hair-follicle bud.
»
» Since with every injection, the cells will drift away from each other at
» slightly different rates (statistically this will be true), a certain
» percentage of injections may be successful, but a certain percentage
» won’t.
»
» The Aderans “scaffold” idea is a way to prevent this from happening,
» because it keeps the injected cells in close proximity, therefore
» increasing their chances of forming a proto-follicle.
»
» I believe that this is the fundamental problem that all HM experimenters,
» from Gho onward, have experienced in their work… although they may not
» have known or understood it. They certainly did not articulate it, and
» didn’t tell any of us it was the problem.
»
» The problem is therefore more “mechanical” than biological. It is based
» on simple “Brownian motion”, the tendency of particles of any size,
» floating in a liquid environment, to eventually move apart from each other
» and spread in a random pattern.
»
» I think that this theory explains why HM seems to have generally low, and
» unreliable “yields”. The yield being the percentage of successful divided
» by all the injections, or:
»
» Yield = number of successful injections / total number of injections
»
» The real, longstanding problem with ALL the HM experiments and trials
» we’ve seen is that, while it seems to work sometimes, it is generally
» neither reliable nor predictable.
»
» I believe that my theory explains this physical fact.
»
» This explanation does not mean that Aderans’ scaffolds will be a miracle
» solution that will resolve this problem completely and form perfect hair
» follicles all the time. However, it does indicate that the Aderans
» approach may be better, and has the potential to leverage HM into a more
» reliable clinical procedure.
»
» What do you think?


#7

http://www.pnas.org/content/105/48/18800.full.pdf+html

Does hairloss result from a disruption in baseline polarity?


#8

» http://www.pnas.org/content/105/48/18800.full.pdf+html
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
» Does hairloss result from a disruption in baseline polarity?

» http://www.pnas.org/content/105/48/18800.full.pdf+html
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
» Does hairloss result from a disruption in baseline polarity?

I don’t have time to read that document and I am not sure if I would understand all the technicalities. It talks about cell signalling. And I think the immune system disrupts these signals, and that is why the DP cells don’t cooperate well into forming a working follicle. In immunosupressed mice they yield much better results.
Maybe, if we used immunodepressors during the first few days after injecting the DP cells, we could boost the results significantly. Why not trying it with a mild immunodepression? And just for 2 weeks after injections…

what do you think? Has this been talked before?