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

We\'re Deluding Ourselves - There Will Be No Non-Cell Based Hair Loss Cure!


#21

Tell ya what . . .

I’ll pluck a bunch of vellus & weakened hairs from an area, wait several days, and then dermabrade the area.

You go to any HM researcher you want - ANY of them you like, even all of them at once. Get whatever treatment they are currently offering commercially or have in human trials.

We’ll compare pics and see who has more hair regained after a year.


#22

[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by roger_that[/postedby]
The more I look at all the evidence and take in the big picture, the more convinced I am than ever, that there will be NO non-cell based treatment which can effectively cure MPB.

By “no non-cell based cure” I mean:

– no topicals of ANY kind (no growth factors, no Histogen, no Follica, no AAPE or other cell-derivatives, no anti-FGF5, no PGD2 inhibitor)

– no wounding treatment of ANY kind, with topicals or without

– no plucking treatment of ANY kind

– no Pilox, no laser comb, no electric field, no exotic chemical or nutrient-based treatment

– no “cosmetic” substance rolled out by some shady or never-before-seen firm somewhere in the world

– no amazing discovery involving some everyday substance or activity that just somehow escaped being discovered by humans for 3000 years of recorded history

– no pill or drug of ANY kind

– no “parsimonious” miracle treatment like addressing lymph blockages or hanging people upside-down or any of those pie-in-the-sky “weird science” ideas professed by armchair eccentric hair loss “boffins” and amateur scientists

The MOST that even the best of any of the above will be able to do is produce sparse, sporadic hair or peach fuzz. None of the above will help anyone whose hair loss is not very recent or slight. There will be no miraculous “aha” chemical or drug of any kind that will grow truly substantial amounts of cosmetically viable hair on a mostly-bald scalp. You might as well get a hair transplant – the results will suck, they may tear up portions of your scalp, but it will still probably look better than any of the above.

The ONLY candidate for a REAL cure to MPB is one thing: a cell-based treatment, where newly-grown cells are added to the scalp. In this way, brand new follicles can and will be created in any quantities we need. It’s also the only realistic hope we have of reviving miniaturized follicles with any degree of certainty.

ONLY adding new cells to the scalp – meaning inductive Dermal Papilla cells (Drs Christiano and Jahoda), or inductive DP-like cells grown from pluripotent stem cells (Dr Terskikh and Sanford-Burnham), or other related research (e.g., Drs Lauster and Lindner in Berlin) will offer any REALISTIC hope for the 90% of us on these boards who are suffering from REAL, advanced hair loss, not just minor thinning. A related idea is growing new follicles in vitro, which Dr Lauster’s team and some scientists in Japan are working on.

Many people on these forums are constantly deluding themselves, always putting hope in “next” chemical or drug or product that suddenly appears on the market, or in the research pipeline. There’s always a huge buzz and much hype about these products, but the real results never pan out.

When people buy these chemicals and products online and test this stuff on themselves, it never works.

When clinical trials are actually done of these chemicals and drugs and treatments, the best they ever show is minimal, incidental hair growth which is not substantially more than what a placebo would produce. Even if it does seem to grow more hair – as in the case of products like Histogen – it’s obvious that it won’t restore a full head of hair on the vast majority of people, and it’s obvious that these products, if used in the massive dosages that might actually produce significant regrowth, can be quite toxic to the system.

I suggest that if you have significant hair loss – not just minor thinning – you start to change your thinking and don’t get excited about every new drug or chemical or topical that comes along.

The most these things will be able to do, in the VERY BEST CASE SCENARIO, is grow some peach fuzz or sporadic new hairs. But you’ll still have a lot of scalp to cover after that, after these products reach their inevitable biochemical plateaus.

And don’t wait for FDA approval or legalization of any of these chemicals anywhere in the world, either. What I am saying refers to such products whether approved by the FDA and other regulatory authorities, or not. It is inconsequential whether or not they’re approved. Even treatments which mostly suck, like Minoxidil, have been approved almost everywhere in the world. So don’t get your hopes up. Don’t think that FDA approval somehow means a product will actually work well. On the other hand, don’t assume that because a product is not FDA approved yet, it’s really so great that you just have to get your hands on it, because it’ll regrow all your hair. You will NOT regrow your head of hair using chemicals, government approved or not.

There is a paradox with many of these products – in theory, they could grow substantial amounts of hair, but to reach that point, you have to have so much of the product in your system, that it becomes toxic. And there you have the ultimate Catch-22.

I repeat: the ONLY real hope for a CURE to hair loss we will see, is going to be a cell-based treatment, where newly-grown cells are actually put, implanted, or injected into your skin.

There is really no other realistic way ahead.[/quote]

I disagree… the scientists who did the plucking believe they can locate a molecule that signals the pathway that their plucking hit.

Of course, multiplying a million follicles and implanting them is ideal, but there may be a way to rejuvinate follices other ways… see my posts on s.aga for examples


#23

Which takes us back to stem cells and signaling from stem cells. So I’m saying, now that research is on the cusp of a cure using stem cells and converting them to a pool of new DP cells, who needs to isolate one more “miracle” molecule to create yet another new “miracle” topical? We’ve seen all that before. The actual cutting-edge science going on in laboratories around the world has moved past that now.

The only thing that has been proven over the past 20 years is that drugs and topicals aren’t a cure. They may grow a little hair, some peach fuzz or sparse terminal hairs, they may slow down the balding process for a while, but they cannot and will never replace a full head of hair. And so the ultimate takeaway from all this is that the idea of any kind of realistic “cure” from drugs or topicals, from slathering some new “silver bullet” cream on your scalp, is fundamentally misdirected.

Sure, you’re making a massive amount of posts on that other site (s-aga), and some of them are interesting, but the only thing I see you’ve posted about there that offers any kind of hope of a real cure is Sanford-Burnham.

Some of the stuff you’re posting on there is interesting. Some of it is downright laughable, like the posts about research on inner ear “hair cells” maybe providing an MPB cure.

I appreciate your enthusiasm and passion for Google-based research, and I’m sure a lot of people on that site do with the amount of posts you make there. But, just a friendly suggestion: You might want to take a few courses in biology and biochemistry before engaging in all this wild speculation and scenario-spinning about a lot of scientific issues.


#24

[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by roger_that[/postedby]
Which takes us back to stem cells and signaling from stem cells. So I’m saying, now that research is on the cusp of a cure using stem cells and converting them to a pool of new DP cells, who needs to isolate one more “miracle” molecule to create yet another new “miracle” topical? We’ve seen all that before. The actual cutting-edge science going on in laboratories around the world has moved past that now.
[/quote]

Roger, obviously SB’s stuff is the most interesting. It’s also just a research paper sitting in a shoe box in the closet at their office. It’s not going anywhere. CONCLUSION: I agree with you. Unfortunately I’ll have a super cool hover-board before they do anything with that finding. I wish this weren’t the case…i really do.

Did I call it a miracle topical?

The fact is… plucking stimulated a pathway that regenerated hair… consistently.

How many papers get published where this perfect pathway/regeneration occurs? Obviously not many becuase the plucking paper was in CELL… so of course it was semi-important.

Bottom line: they are very close to mapping out that pathway. If they can, they can trigger it more effectively than plucking via a specific molecule… NOT MY WORDS, they are the author’s words… and it sounds like they are already in the lab trying to do this… which i am thankful for

All Im saying is we don’t know where or when or what is going to pop up. Saying SB’s technique is the holy grail is like proclaiming the sky is blue— no sh*t sherlock.


#25

Yeah because the wound from plucking 100 hairs is the same as the wound from chopping your head off… a wound is a wound right? I don’t see any people with their heads chopped off growung full heads of hair, so OBVSIOULY wounding doesn’t work.


#26

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

Some of the stuff you’re posting on there is interesting. Some of it is downright laughable, like the posts about research on inner ear “hair cells” maybe providing an MPB cure.

[/quote]

I’m glad you find some of my posts interesting, because I find zero of yours interesting. So please, work on that. As for ear hair:

I asked if maybe some of the research could answer pathway questions in follicles. The fact is that many drugs that regrow head hair (anti-inflmatories) are being used to grow inner ear hair back.

You retorted that by telling me that hair on my head is longer than inner ear hair… which makes me think you may be aspie… again… no sh*t sherlock.

as the old saying goes:

Give a man a fin and you save his hair for a day; teach a man to laser and you give him NW1 for a lifetime. Ancient American Proverb


#27

I did NOT say the hair on your head is “longer” than inner ear hairs. Please re-read my comments. It’s true, but that was not the focus of my comment. Here’s what I actually wrote:

“The “hair cells” of the Organ of Corti in the inner ear (cochlea) have nothing to do with hair follicles on the rest of the body, like the scalp. It’s an entirely different anatomical organ. They are much smaller than the follicles of a normal scalp and have a completely different anatomical structure, physiology, etc. In fact the hair cells of your inner ear are connected directly to nerve endings of the auditory nerve.”

Do you see the word “longer” in that comment?

Hairs on your head are longer, but as everyone knows, scalp hair can be very long or very short. Long when you grow it long, short if you give it a buzz cut. That’s not the point. I used the word “smaller”. It’s not just that the inner ear hairs (called stereocilia) are much, much shorter, by tremendous orders of magnitude, than an average scalp hair on a person without a buzz cut, it’s that they are much SMALLER in diameter. Inner ear hair cells are MICROSCOPIC. They are invisible to the human eye, unless you’re using a powerful microscope.

From Wikipedia: “In the inner ear, stereocilia are the mechanosensing organelles of hair cells, which respond to fluid motion in numerous types of animals for various functions, including hearing and balance. They are about 10–50 micrometers in length and share some similar features of microvilli.[1] The hair cells turn the fluid pressure and other mechanical stimuli into electric stimuli via the many microvilli that make up stereocilia rods.[2] Stereocilia exist in the auditory and vestibular systems.”

See that? Stereociia are 10-15 micrometers in length, and obviously their diameter/circumference is going to be a lot smaller than that. To give you an idea of the relative size, one micrometer is 1/1000th of a millimeter.

Whether your mistake was deliberate, or just a product of your terrible memory, I have no idea. But please, stop distorting my comments in the future.

And not only are inner ear hairs much smaller, they are not even anatomically or physiologically similar to scalp hair or body hair. For one, they have actin fibers in them. Actin is a contractile protein which is present in striated muscle fibers. It contracts and changes size upon receiving mechanical stimuli. And the huge differences don’t end there. There is nothing remotely similar in scalp hairs. In fact if you study the anatomy, chemistry, embryology and histology of the two structures, you’ll find that they almost couldn’t be more different.

Furthermore there are no “follicles” in the same sense as scalp hair or body hair present in stereocilia. They actually connect through nerve endings which ultimately lead to the auditory and vestibular nerves.

I’m afraid it’s going to take more than your simply Googling everything that crosses your mind, and then putting your own uniformed spin on it, for your ideas to be useful to anyone.

As far as your comments that Sanford-Burnham is “not going anywhere” – absolute BUNK. Prove it. Offer one shred of real evidence that that procedure is not going anywhere or is dead in the water.


#28

[quote]You retorted that by telling me that hair on my head is longer than inner ear hair…

[postedby]Originally Posted by roger_that[/postedby]

As far as your comments that Sanford-Burnham is “not going anywhere” – absolute BUNK. Prove it. Offer one shred of real evidence that that procedure is not going anywhere or is dead in the water.[/quote]

“these things can take years”

“no, no update yet”

  • SB rep from the SB blog, answering questions about updates

#29

[quote]You retorted that by telling me that hair on my head is longer than inner ear hair…

[postedby]Originally Posted by roger_that[/postedby]

I did NOT say the hair on your head is “longer” than inner ear hairs. Please re-read my comments. It’s true, but that was not the focus of my comment. Here’s what I actually wrote:

“The “hair cells” of the Organ of Corti in the inner ear (cochlea) have nothing to do with hair follicles on the rest of the body, like the scalp. It’s an entirely different anatomical organ. They are much smaller than the follicles of a normal scalp and have a completely different anatomical structure, physiology, etc. In fact the hair cells of your inner ear are connected directly to nerve endings of the auditory nerve.”

Do you see the word “longer” in that comment?

Hairs on your head are longer, but as everyone knows, scalp hair can be very long or very short. Long when you grow it long, short if you give it a buzz cut. That’s not the point. I used the word “smaller”. It’s not just that the inner ear hairs (called stereocilia) are much, much shorter, by tremendous orders of magnitude, than an average scalp hair on a person without a buzz cut, it’s that they are much SMALLER in diameter. Inner ear hair cells are MICROSCOPIC. They are invisible to the human eye, unless you’re using a powerful microscope.

From Wikipedia: “In the inner ear, stereocilia are the mechanosensing organelles of hair cells, which respond to fluid motion in numerous types of animals for various functions, including hearing and balance. They are about 10–50 micrometers in length and share some similar features of microvilli.[1] The hair cells turn the fluid pressure and other mechanical stimuli into electric stimuli via the many microvilli that make up stereocilia rods.[2] Stereocilia exist in the auditory and vestibular systems.”

See that? Stereociia are 10-15 micrometers in length, and obviously their diameter/circumference is going to be a lot smaller than that. To give you an idea of the relative size, one micrometer is 1/1000th of a millimeter.

Whether your mistake was deliberate, or just a product of your terrible memory, I have no idea. But please, stop distorting my comments in the future.

And not only are inner ear hairs much smaller, they are not even anatomically or physiologically similar to scalp hair or body hair. For one, they have actin fibers in them. Actin is a contractile protein which is present in striated muscle fibers. It contracts and changes size upon receiving mechanical stimuli. And the huge differences don’t end there. There is nothing remotely similar in scalp hairs. In fact if you study the anatomy, chemistry, embryology and histology of the two structures, you’ll find that they almost couldn’t be more different.

Furthermore there are no “follicles” in the same sense as scalp hair or body hair present in stereocilia. They actually connect through nerve endings which ultimately lead to the auditory and vestibular nerves.

I’m afraid it’s going to take more than your simply Googling everything that crosses your mind, and then putting your own uniformed spin on it, for your ideas to be useful to anyone.

As far as your comments that Sanford-Burnham is “not going anywhere” – absolute BUNK. Prove it. Offer one shred of real evidence that that procedure is not going anywhere or is dead in the water.[/quote]

TL;DR


#30

I completly agree with you. everybody should agree with you if evertbody would read all the papaers. all the cure were ready in the 90s with jahoda’s researches.
the problem is that jahoda found out also that those cells (dermal papilla) could not be replicated.
some company tried to found other cells that could do the same but none of these cells is good. i dont know exactly which cells were used by intercytex, aderans or replicel, but it is clear that the alternatives doesn’t work. maybe even the dermal papilla cells dosen’t work for hair regenerarion because nobody would be able to try those cells in humans. maybe the cure exist only in theory.
we have the presumption that science cuold solve every problem we have