» I don’t understand one thing: Why do you think that a slick balled head,
» is actually filled with small hairs? sure when I look at dad’s head I see a
» few small hairs here and there, but if all his hairs were there, only very
» small, surely i would see them. So is these hypothesis that follicles
» never die based on any thing?
I went from NW1 - NW6 in about 6 years. If the lightning is right, I can easily see dense vellus hair all over my NW1 area. Those minitaurized follicles would probably stop making even vellus hair in next 5 years or so, that’s why I’m interested in saving as many as I can.
» The genes are identical in balding and non-balding follicles in one person.
» That’s how they use DNA to identify people. If your genes were different
» throughout the body, they wouldn’t be able to use DNA to identify somebody.
» It’s just how the genes are expressed that causes some follicles to bald.
» That’s why they compare genes from different people to try and find genetic
» causes of diseases (including baldness).
I know that DNA is the same all over, I was talking about gene expression, signalling etc in balding vs non-balding follicles. The fact that to this day there is no clear cut answer to why follicles minitaurize means that most of the scientists working on a cure are basically going the band-aid route - instead of actually understanding the problem at the root level.
»
» I know that DNA is the same all over, I was talking about gene expression,
» signalling etc in balding vs non-balding follicles. The fact that to this
» day there is no clear cut answer to why follicles minitaurize means that
» most of the scientists working on a cure are basically going the band-aid
» route - instead of actually understanding the problem at the root level.
I totally agree. It’s infuriating.
The net total amount of money & effort & time dumped into these millions of pathetic MPB products would have probably cracked this sh*t a long time ago. But no, it’s all one operation after another doing the same things to get a product onto the market before their shareholders pull the plug on their funding.
It’s crazy.
The military could never have invented the Atomic bomb like this. It’s like splitting up all the scientists involved in the Manhattan Project into dozens of teams each operating independently, assigning each team one single type of explosive to mess with, and then hoping that one of these teams will make a nuclear explosion work out of it.
» A 'slick bald head" is filled with tiny hairs from the original follicles.
» This is not a theory, it’s a simple fact. Examine your head with a
» magnifying glass or something powerful enough, and they’ll be there.
»
»
»
» Balded follicles don’t “die.” They don’t vanish. The follicles would
» still be there if you took a dead cadaver’s bald scalp and dissected it
» looking for them.
»
» The balded follicles are just effectively shut down by the body.
» Unplugged. All signs point to the method of shutting them down being an
» immune system attack that holds them perpetually out of action.
I looked and for every hair my dad had there isn’t a small one instead. do you have any proof of this my friend?
Because if what you say is true, then one could do a very interesting thing:
take out all of a balled man’s follicles and transplant them into a immunosuppressant mouse, let them grow, and transplant them back into the balled man’s head. sure the immune response would surely come again, but in theory he would have a period of time with a full set of hair. I just don’t believe that my dad still has he’s 100000 follicles he used to.
» I looked and for every hair my dad had there isn’t a small one
» instead. do you have any proof of this my friend?
After a while - ie. 10+ years the follicle minitaurize even more and stop producing vellus hair as well. if you had temples for over 10 years now, you can check that for yourself as well.
There’s no reason that bald men can’t have inactive follicles on their heads. Honestly I’m surprised that this idea has aroused such strong feelings from you.
The whole reason that follicles have proven so goddamn difficult to clone or reactivate is because they’re not that straightforward. They’re deceptively small and they seem to do a very simple job, but they’ve actually turned out to be pretty complex little motherf*ckers. Our MPB problem would be a lot easier to fix if follicles were just disposable little things that our skin liked to spit out & replace at will like shark’s teeth.
Follicles are really more like a bunch of tiny little organs than they are like a simpler “tissue” that we can throw in a petri dish and grow lots of. (Throw skin cells in a dish and they do multiply. But the new skin cells don’t bring any new scalp follicles along with them.)
We can’t easily control and replace follicles for the same reasons that we can’t control & generate entire kidneys & lungs & hearts. Hence, we’ve resorted to literally transplanting other follicles if we want to get new hairs anywhere that the original visible hair is lost.
Researchers are just now finding evidence that the body has ability to generate any 100% new follicles after leaving the womb. It’s not something that the body wants to do readily. HM is pushing the envelope past what ever normally occurs in the body’s aging & healing processes.
» Yeah, what Goata007 said.
»
» There’s no reason that bald men can’t have inactive follicles on their
» heads. Honestly I’m surprised that this idea has aroused such strong
» feelings from you.
Was this last sentence for me? I had heard that follicles don’t actually die, they minitaurize. But there is so much info out there, some even by doctors, stating that follicles die few years after minitaurization. This study definitely proves that follicles don’t die. Does the study also mention for how long the vellus hair had been minitaurized i.e. if it’s less than 2-3 years then the follicle probably still was in pretty good shape. However, if it’s well over 5 years then that’s really good news for us - especially people like me & baccy.
» Researchers are just now finding evidence that the body has ability to
» generate any 100% new follicles after leaving the womb. It’s not something
» that the body wants to do readily. HM is pushing the envelope past what
» ever normally occurs in the body’s aging & healing processes.
But wouldn’t it be easier if they just find out which signalling from the immune system is actually supressing the follicle and then just make a topical for it. I’ve never heard of any scientist taking this route. Afterall the above study does proves that the follicle is still there just suppressed, so why not just unleash it’s full potential instead of going the hardcore route of creating a new follicle?
goata007, I hadn’t actually aimed any of that post at you.
As for the issue of regeneration vs reactivation, I basically agree with you. Specifics aside, I think it’s crazy for the hair research world to have invested so much effort into cloning follicles when there are live follicles all over our heads still.
It’s like a car mechanic saying he doesn’t understand what’s wrong with your car’s engine, so he intends to build you a whole new engine because he thinks that will be easier than fixing it.
» As for the issue of regeneration vs reactivation, I basically agree with
» you. Specifics aside, I think it’s crazy for the hair research world to
» have invested so much effort into cloning follicles when there are live
» follicles all over our heads still.
»
» It’s like a car mechanic saying he doesn’t understand what’s wrong with
» your car’s engine, so he intends to build you a whole new engine because he
» thinks that will be easier than fixing it.
» Yeah, what Goata007 said.
»
» There’s no reason that bald men can’t have inactive follicles on their
» heads. Honestly I’m surprised that this idea has aroused such strong
» feelings from you.
»
»
»
» The whole reason that follicles have proven so goddamn difficult to clone
» or reactivate is because they’re not that straightforward. They’re
» deceptively small and they seem to do a very simple job, but they’ve
» actually turned out to be pretty complex little motherf*ckers. Our MPB
» problem would be a lot easier to fix if follicles were just disposable
» little things that our skin liked to spit out & replace at will like
» shark’s teeth.
»
»
» Follicles are really more like a bunch of tiny little organs than they are
» like a simpler “tissue” that we can throw in a petri dish and grow lots of.
» (Throw skin cells in a dish and they do multiply. But the new skin cells
» don’t bring any new scalp follicles along with them.)
»
» We can’t easily control and replace follicles for the same reasons that we
» can’t control & generate entire kidneys & lungs & hearts. Hence, we’ve
» resorted to literally transplanting other follicles if we want to get new
» hairs anywhere that the original visible hair is lost.
»
» Researchers are just now finding evidence that the body has ability to
» generate any 100% new follicles after leaving the womb. It’s not something
» that the body wants to do readily. HM is pushing the envelope past what
» ever normally occurs in the body’s aging & healing processes.
My friend, do you have any scientific proof for this fact, or is it just something that you know it true?
And if this is a reality, what about my idea of extracting all the follicles of a bald man and transplanting them in a immunesupprasnt mouse, letting them grow, and putting them back in the bald man’s head?
» My friend, do you have any scientific proof for this fact, or is it just
» something that you know it true?
The whole point of this thread is to show scientific evidence that minitaurized follicles are still capable of growing thick hairs. The first post is the proof! not only that, I’ve also told you about my very own case i.e. dense vellus hair all over NW1 area.
» And if this is a reality, what about my idea of extracting all the
» follicles of a bald man and transplanting them in a immunesupprasnt mouse,
» letting them grow, and putting them back in the bald man’s head?
The problem is that those follicles would have mouse blood etc in them, you can’t just stick it back into a human head.
» » It’s like a car mechanic saying he doesn’t understand what’s wrong with
» » your car’s engine, so he intends to build you a whole new engine because
» he
» » thinks that will be easier than fixing it.
»
» easier said than done, don’t you think ?
true, but it’s not like they are having it any easier going the cloning route.
» »
» » I know that DNA is the same all over, I was talking about gene
» expression,
» » signalling etc in balding vs non-balding follicles. The fact that to
» this
» » day there is no clear cut answer to why follicles minitaurize means
» that
» » most of the scientists working on a cure are basically going the
» band-aid
» » route - instead of actually understanding the problem at the root
» level.
»
» I totally agree. It’s infuriating.
»
» The net total amount of money & effort & time dumped into these millions
» of pathetic MPB products would have probably cracked this sh*t a long time
» ago. But no, it’s all one operation after another doing the same things to
» get a product onto the market before their shareholders pull the plug on
» their funding.
»
»
»
» It’s crazy.
»
» The military could never have invented the Atomic bomb like this. It’s
» like splitting up all the scientists involved in the Manhattan Project into
» dozens of teams each operating independently, assigning each team one
» single type of explosive to mess with, and then hoping that one of these
» teams will make a nuclear explosion work out of it.
seriously guys… do you really think understanding gene expression and cell signaling is an easy task??I take it you are all aware of how many unidentified genes we have found but have no understanding of whatsoever?? it’s easy to moan and bitch but understanding the mystery of the human DNA is with todays understanding a ridiculously difficult task and in no way compares to the development of the atomic bomb.
» seriously guys… do you really think understanding gene expression and cell
» signaling is an easy task??I take it you are all aware of how many
» unidentified genes we have found but have no understanding of whatsoever??
» it’s easy to moan and bitch but understanding the mystery of the human DNA
» is with todays understanding a ridiculously difficult task and in no way
» compares to the development of the atomic bomb.
Obaman just announced that he will lift the ban on stem cells research, hopefully this is the beginning of many many new scientific discoveries including a cure for baldness.
» » My friend, do you have any scientific proof for this fact, or is it just
» » something that you know it true?
»
» The whole point of this thread is to show scientific evidence that
» minitaurized follicles are still capable of growing thick hairs. The first
» post is the proof! not only that, I’ve also told you about my very own case
» i.e. dense vellus hair all over NW1 area.
»
» » And if this is a reality, what about my idea of extracting all the
» » follicles of a bald man and transplanting them in a immunesupprasnt
» mouse,
» » letting them grow, and putting them back in the bald man’s head?
»
» The problem is that those follicles would have mouse blood etc in them,
» you can’t just stick it back into a human head.
“Human hair follicles were grafted onto 2 strains of immunodeficient mice to compare the regeneration potential of vellus (miniaturized, balding)”
This is not proof that a balled man has on he’s head 100000 follicles, that when grafted to a immunodeficient mouse will grow back. This is only proof that hair in the balding process, can be saved, buy ceasing the immune response.
You guys say that even when a man is NW7 He still has a head full of small hairs, that are just waiting to be saved from the clinging hands of the immune system.
I actually believe you, but I’m looking for proof, since this could have very interesting ramifications.
» You guys say that even when a man is NW7 He still has a head full of
» small hairs, that are just waiting to be saved from the clinging hands of
» the immune system.
»
» I actually believe you, but I’m looking for proof, since this could have
» very interesting ramifications.
If that is true, it can be easily proven by putting a bald head under microscope or some magnification device to see if the 100000 follicles are there, I think some are in reality miniaturised but not all 100000 follicles, at most 40% I bet.
I read about that too but it still sounds far away
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. President Barack Obama will soon issue an executive order lifting an eight-year ban embryonic stem cell research imposed by his predecessor, President George W. Bush, a senior adviser said on Sunday.
“We’re going to be doing something on that soon, I think. The president is considering that right now,” Obama adviser David Axelrod said on “Fox News Sunday.”
In 2001, Bush limited federal funding for stem cell research only to human embryonic stem cell lines that already existed. It was a gesture to his conservative Christian supporters who regard embryonic stem cell research as destroying potential life, because the cells must be extracted from human embryos.
Embryonic stem cells are the most basic human cells which can develop into any type of cell in the body.
Scientists believe the research could eventually produce cures for a variety of diseases, including Parkinson’s disease, diabetes, heart disease and spinal cord injuries.
Obama vowed to reverse Bush’s ban during his presidential campaign and in his inaugural address last month promised to return science to its proper place in the United States.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration last month cleared the way for the first trial to see if human embryonic stem cells could treat people safely.
The trial will try to use stem cells from already existing lines to regrow nerve tissue in patients with crushed spinal cords.
Stem cells are the body’s master cells, giving rise to all the tissues, organs and blood. Embryonic stem cells are considered the most powerful kinds of stem cells, as they have the potential to give rise to any type of tissue.
Regardless of when he does it, President Obama will lift the ban on the ebryonic stem cell research in this term. He mentioned it during his run for Presidency, and he mentioned it just now.
» I read about that too but it still sounds far away
»
» WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. President Barack Obama will soon issue an
» executive order lifting an eight-year ban embryonic stem cell research
» imposed by his predecessor, President George W. Bush, a senior adviser said
» on Sunday.
»
» “We’re going to be doing something on that soon, I think. The president is
» considering that right now,” Obama adviser David Axelrod said on “Fox News
» Sunday.”
»
» In 2001, Bush limited federal funding for stem cell research only to human
» embryonic stem cell lines that already existed. It was a gesture to his
» conservative Christian supporters who regard embryonic stem cell research
» as destroying potential life, because the cells must be extracted from
» human embryos.
»
» Embryonic stem cells are the most basic human cells which can develop into
» any type of cell in the body.
»
» Scientists believe the research could eventually produce cures for a
» variety of diseases, including Parkinson’s disease, diabetes, heart disease
» and spinal cord injuries.
»
» Obama vowed to reverse Bush’s ban during his presidential campaign and in
» his inaugural address last month promised to return science to its proper
» place in the United States.
»
» The U.S. Food and Drug Administration last month cleared the way for the
» first trial to see if human embryonic stem cells could treat people
» safely.
»
» The trial will try to use stem cells from already existing lines to regrow
» nerve tissue in patients with crushed spinal cords.
»
» Stem cells are the body’s master cells, giving rise to all the tissues,
» organs and blood. Embryonic stem cells are considered the most powerful
» kinds of stem cells, as they have the potential to give rise to any type of
» tissue.
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.