What can we do to invite the Hair Research Community to make this their Home?

Realizing this hairsite forum can act as a world hub for the Dermatology Hair Researchers and Medical Community, since I am aware of no other forum for them to exchange ideas and material real time.

These scientist/researchers communicate already, that is the hair loss community we strive to be informed of by studies and we are just not privy to it, I don’t know what channels yet they communicate through.

Obviously conferences like the one currently.

Of immediate benefit is an electronic means of communication with not only the world to seek funding and internet buzz for patents and grants being sought, but also to proof idea’s and to seek new idea’s for papers they are required to turn out for their academic standing. Certainly for Dr.'s in the field this would present a marketing opportunity. For the Phd student, or Post Doc, it could serve as a means to establish valuable relationships with various labs & future employment perhaps.

Finally not worried about them staying once they come as chat is an Addictive part of Human Nature. they are always looking for ideas to do papers on, as they have to be original unpublished research each time, sure we could provide some ideas.

As well if we send out say 100 emails to presenters from the Hair Congress linking and inviting them here as well as asking a pertinent question for the forum and just get 5 or less that join here, well they create an automatic community here and have peers to communicate with as well, so there is no concern if everyone is not at their level.

Obviously much of this will happen word of mouth & by referral & creating a buzz.
Here is an example of putting a face to the type of individuals I am speaking of
http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/dermatology/research/basic_science/garza_lab/staff.html
What are your idea’s to make this forum one that is populated by researchers and professionals in the field?

Stop the demented childish bickering.

I’m amazed Nigam is still around after what he has had to put up with both aimed at him and how board members talk to one another.
I also fret sometimes that because of certain punks on this board they may drive him off or could have stopped other doctors from coming here in the first place.

I’ve seen members make posts and then cut down by others in the harshest way and the fact is I cringe, it’s utterly childish and would feel mortified acting like that to someone else.
Then it gets worse and everyone gangs up, seriously reading this kind of childish crap puts me right back in high-school.
People also seem to be gleefully sick in putting others down instead of acting in a responsible manner and talking about things like human beings.

Stop the naysayers and prophets of doom.
People who come and slag off the recent treatment and being wailing about how hair-loss is ruining their lives I DON’T CARE. I come here for information presented in a respectful fashion.
(This is something the mods need to sort out as they don’t seem to give a damn about what goes on this board).
There’s also a lot of people who have an Ironman attitude or like Arashi, people who say EVERYTHING won’t work so they get to be the finger wagger with a holier than though bitter pessimistic attitude.
Again I don’t come here to subject myself to that crap.

This forum has some of the brightest guys right here who know there stuff but it is also renowned as a lunatic asylum for babyish behaviour.
Forum member will have to start either being more accountable or the ‘so called’ mods will have to start doing what they’re meant to.

[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by appleguy[/postedby]
Stop the demented childish bickering.

I’m amazed Nigam is still around after what he has had to put up with both aimed at him and how board members talk to one another.
I also fret sometimes that because of certain punks on this board they may drive him off or could have stopped other doctors from coming here in the first place.

I’ve seen members make posts and then cut down by others in the harshest way and the fact is I cringe, it’s utterly childish and would feel mortified acting like that to someone else.
Then it gets worse and everyone gangs up, seriously reading this kind of childish crap puts me right back in high-school.
People also seem to be gleefully sick in putting others down instead of acting in a responsible manner and talking about things like human beings.

Stop the naysayers and prophets of doom.
People who come and slag off the recent treatment and being wailing about how hair-loss is ruining their lives I DON’T CARE. I come here for information presented in a respectful fashion.
(This is something the mods need to sort out as they don’t seem to give a damn about what goes on this board).
There’s also a lot of people who have an Ironman attitude or like Arashi, people who say EVERYTHING won’t work so they get to be the finger wagger with a holier than though bitter pessimistic attitude.
Again I don’t come here to subject myself to that crap.

This forum has some of the brightest guys right here who know there stuff but it is also renowned as a lunatic asylum for babyish behaviour.
Forum member will have to start either being more accountable or the ‘so called’ mods will have to start doing what they’re meant to.[/quote]

I agree with this post. It simply isn’t in most of the clinicians/researchers interest to invest time in these forums for several reasons. Firstly they are met with an absolute torrent of abuse and condescending remarks from people with full anonymity. I echo your feelings regarding Dr Nigam, it is a miracle he hasn’t disappeared given the amount of abuse he has had to put up with.

At the end of the day these professionals are likely to see very little benefit from interacting with a dismal level of moderation. The results of their research is always going to be popular whether they waste their time conversing with forums or not. If it were me I wouldn’t have the desire to waste my time discussing semantics with desperate people who aren’t on the same page. Despite many posters delusions about their insight into the subject, very few people actually have the scientific knowledge to contribute to anything that the researchers are doing.

In Vivo trials online, although certainly not something they can use or condone, is certainly something that they will never likely get a chance to see otherwise or ever know for sure their research efforts in the end will have any real basis, is something that the forums do & can offer. They may end up using these to say hey look at this to other researchers, money grantors, or at conferences on slides if only as an intentional joke. I am particularly thinking of PGD2 and OC, Chromo, Iron Dragon etc… although they certainly would need better construct & material control.

I am speaking of Published Researchers and their staff in labs etc…not Broscience…

Note Dr. Nigam is already in talks to do clinical trials via his clinic,just because of the lack of red tape, and to think they could’ve come here long ago and networked with Dr.'s like him in other countries.

[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by FollicleSherlock[/postedby]
In Vivo trials online, although certainly not something they can use or condone, is certainly something that they will never likely get a chance to see or ever know for sure their research efforts in the end will have any real basis, is something that the forums do & can offer. They may end up using these to say hey look at this to other researchers, money grantors, or at conferences on slides if only as an intentional joke. I am particularly thinking of PGD2 and OC, Chromo, Iron Dragon etc… although they certainly would need better construct & material control.

Certainly this is only something they can share likely on a slide in a Conference given or share with other researchers or funders to say hey look at this…

Note Dr. Nigam is already in talks to do clinical trials via his clinic,just because of the lack of red tape, and to think they could’ve come here long ago and networked with Dr.'s like him in other countries.[/quote]

You’re right that forums do offer it but the outcomes of these make-shift home experiments is often poorly documented if at all. They also largely show very small gains at best and often no change whatsoever. I doubt they will base any further research on something they have ascertained from these forums; especially since the home experiments are always derived from the results of papers that are already published in the first place. The forums follow their work, not the other way around. There’s a chance they already do read the forums; but for all the reasons already discussed they won’t contribute to the discussion as they couldn’t be seen to be condoning potentially dangerous home experiments.

Dr Nigam seems to take suggestions on board, but he is a bit of a maverick; the rest of the scientific world is incredibly institutionalised and I really doubt they will all start interacting with us on a public forum. It is understandable that people want more contact with the people that might help progress in search of a cure; however in my mind it will only serve to benefit our curiosity and desire for more information than it will help them with their research.

I think the only way to do it would be via a more private forum for only serious discussions. Certain posters like Arashi and Ironman added nothing, and we currently have another such troll who attacks and abuses other posters. Thanks to this behavior, we see knowledgeable posters leave.

If there were private forums for serious researchers and only posters who have not initiated attacks were allowed to enter those forums then you might be surprised at who would be allowed in and who wouldn’t be allowed in.

Hairman

[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by KO[/postedby]
I think the only way to do it would be via a more private forum for only serious discussions. Certain posters like Arashi and Ironman added nothing, and we currently have another such troll who attacks and abuses other posters. Thanks to this behavior, we see knowledgeable posters leave.[/quote]

<edited - bickering post>

I don’t want this thread to be a place to settle online scores…
and no one can ever really be banned from an online forum due to
just signing up with new user names, servers etc…

Obviously there must be things we can do to invite these researchers here, as frankly I would expect 99.9% do not even know there is a "Clinical Trials Room"
that they can post and communicate with the world on about hair and not just some consumer site available.

Do we email them, likely just go to spam folder.

Best bet is to see if this conference which most I expect are still at for the upcoming weekend since they are dermatology researchers and the big conf. is this Thurs -Sat…

check this out the link below folliclesherlock. It’s from a new researcher who is experimenting with donor hair regeneration.

http://www.hairsite.com/hair-loss/board_entry-id-118179-page-0-category-1-order-last_answer-descasc-DESC.html

Let’s see if it can stay peaceful.

[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by FollicleSherlock[/postedby]
Realizing this hairsite forum can act as a world hub for the Dermatology Hair Researchers and Medical Community, since I am aware of no other forum for them to exchange ideas and material real time.

These scientist/researchers communicate already, that is the hair loss community we strive to be informed of by studies and we are just not privy to it, I don’t know what channels yet they communicate through.

Obviously conferences like the one currently.

Of immediate benefit is an electronic means of communication with not only the world to seek funding and internet buzz for patents and grants being sought, but also to proof idea’s and to seek new idea’s for papers they are required to turn out for their academic standing. Certainly for Dr.'s in the field this would present a marketing opportunity. For the Phd student, or Post Doc, it could serve as a means to establish valuable relationships with various labs & future employment perhaps.

Finally not worried about them staying once they come as chat is an Addictive part of Human Nature. they are always looking for ideas to do papers on, as they have to be original unpublished research each time, sure we could provide some ideas.

As well if we send out say 100 emails to presenters from the Hair Congress linking and inviting them here as well as asking a pertinent question for the forum and just get 5 or less that join here, well they create an automatic community here and have peers to communicate with as well, so there is no concern if everyone is not at their level.

Obviously much of this will happen word of mouth & by referral & creating a buzz.
Here is an example of putting a face to the type of individuals I am speaking of
http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/dermatology/research/basic_science/garza_lab/staff.html
What are your idea’s to make this forum one that is populated by researchers and professionals in the field?[/quote]

<edited - bickering post>

I don’t care about peoples arguments online.

of course not on the one that is for the Congress.

Some of the researchers may see the drama as entertaining once they are here for awhile…

What I am interested in is figuring out how we can connect the researchers with each other through this site.

Any ideas on how to get them to log in to at least share the announcements and findings from the Congress…

As one of the organizers of WCHR2013 may I contribute the discussion. My duties meant I didn’t get to as many of the sessions as I would have liked but I have a fair idea of what is going on so just a few thoughts in response to some of the points that have been raised in previous posts.

  1. Around 600 people attended the meeting but not all were researchers (e.g. dermatologists, trichologists, alopecians who are interested in the field but not actively involved in research). Hair research is a diverse field and not all those involved are working on AGA. These include those working on other clinical problems, such as scarring alopecia and alopecia areata, developmental biologists who use the hair follicle as a model, and cosmetic scientists to name some.
  2. Despite the popular concept, there is not a lot of money in hair research and I doubt any of the academics involved have got rich from doing it. Research is expensive and the money has to come from somewhere. Medical grant-giving bodies are very unlikely to fund research into male AGA so it comes either from piggy-backing on other projects or from commercial sources. Industry is only likely to provide funding if it sees a return on investment – this does happen but it’s not a very reliable source and, like everyone else, scientists have to make a living.
  3. Current medical treatments for male AGA probably act mainly on the early changes in hair cycling and, in my opinion, there is little or no evidence that we can reverse follicular miniaturization. To achieve this is a tall order as it essentially means reversing an ageing process, something not yet achieved in other biomedical fields. This does not mean it cannot be done but I do not see it as being imminent (or even within the oft-quoted 5 years). The Holy Grail is to induce new follicle formation e.g. using various modifications around cell culture techniques. This has also proved very hard to crack in humans (and I have the scars on my arms to prove it) but progress is being made. However, it will be one thing to induce a hair follicle or two, quite another to induce the thousands that will be needed on a bald scalp all arranged in a cosmetically acceptable pattern.
  4. We need to be realistic. In my view progress is more likely to be by evolution than revolution. Prevention rather than cure (although I know this will not be much comfort to posters on this site). Combination treatments (highlighted at the meeting) and new medical treatments that overcome some of the shortcomings of what is currently available offer some hope.
  5. Side effects are a major issue. There is no treatment for anything that is devoid of side effects but the nature of hair disease means that risk has to be very low. This limits what we can do and those indulging in such treatments must recognize this.
  6. Recognise that there are ethical scientists of the highest calibre trying to make progress. But it is a small community.
  7. The field is plagued by false claims. It can be hard to know what to believe but, even if we have been pretty useless at coming up with better treatments, we can at least try to be objective about what is achievable.
  8. A highlight of WCHR2013 was the contribution from people with alopecia areata. They recognize it is not easy. Like them you need to be actively involved, not just complaining about our perceived shortcomings.
    [left][/left]

Great posts. I agree with you. Funding is a huge problem for AGA research, and I believe it is THE most critical issue. Larger pharma firms have moved away from it and since it is a primarily cosmetic problem, it is likely tough to get grants, and it just doesn’t get enough attention from the broader community unless you can tie it into something else - hair follicle as a model for organ regeneration. We’ve seen some truly fascinating work like Cots’ wounding and PGD2 experiments, HM, and invitro hair follicles, but that needs to be translated into clinical research, and that needs capital which attracts talent. The end result is that the AGA community is very small. There needs to be more capital investment, which is one of the reasons we will need to look at alternative means, such as crowdfunding etc.

You’re wrong. There is probably already a cure on the planet and now we have to wait till we can get our hands on it. If there isn’t a cure on the planet already then there soon will be.

There is plenty of money going into hair loss research. Bill Gates has publicly complained that there is not enough money leftover for other medical research because hair loss research is sucking up so much of the available funding. Maybe the research funding has reduced dramatically as of late but that is only because they either have a cure or a cure is imminent so there
isn’t much reason to put much more money into basic research.

We already know for a fact that Histogen can give you back at least 40% more hair and they might be able to improve on even that if they can compound the results further. They have already established, with certainty, that two treatment dates improves the result significantly over just one treatment date. So what you are saying is a tall order is, in fact, already being done.
Progress will not be by evolution but is already in the pipeline thanks to science - what you call “revolution.”

I feel that your post contradicts the evidence and the facts, and I have no idea how it is that you are unable to figure out that hair loss is either cured or almost cured.

[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by AGM[/postedby]
As one of the organizers of WCHR2013 may I contribute the discussion. My duties meant I didn’t get to as many of the sessions as I would have liked but I have a fair idea of what is going on so just a few thoughts in response to some of the points that have been raised in previous posts.

  1. Around 600 people attended the meeting but not all were researchers (e.g. dermatologists, trichologists, alopecians who are interested in the field but not actively involved in research). Hair research is a diverse field and not all those involved are working on AGA. These include those working on other clinical problems, such as scarring alopecia and alopecia areata, developmental biologists who use the hair follicle as a model, and cosmetic scientists to name some.
  2. Despite the popular concept, there is not a lot of money in hair research and I doubt any of the academics involved have got rich from doing it. Research is expensive and the money has to come from somewhere. Medical grant-giving bodies are very unlikely to fund research into male AGA so it comes either from piggy-backing on other projects or from commercial sources. Industry is only likely to provide funding if it sees a return on investment – this does happen but it’s not a very reliable source and, like everyone else, scientists have to make a living.
  3. Current medical treatments for male AGA probably act mainly on the early changes in hair cycling and, in my opinion, there is little or no evidence that we can reverse follicular miniaturization. To achieve this is a tall order as it essentially means reversing an ageing process, something not yet achieved in other biomedical fields. This does not mean it cannot be done but I do not see it as being imminent (or even within the oft-quoted 5 years). The Holy Grail is to induce new follicle formation e.g. using various modifications around cell culture techniques. This has also proved very hard to crack in humans (and I have the scars on my arms to prove it) but progress is being made. However, it will be one thing to induce a hair follicle or two, quite another to induce the thousands that will be needed on a bald scalp all arranged in a cosmetically acceptable pattern.
  4. We need to be realistic. In my view progress is more likely to be by evolution than revolution. Prevention rather than cure (although I know this will not be much comfort to posters on this site). Combination treatments (highlighted at the meeting) and new medical treatments that overcome some of the shortcomings of what is currently available offer some hope.
  5. Side effects are a major issue. There is no treatment for anything that is devoid of side effects but the nature of hair disease means that risk has to be very low. This limits what we can do and those indulging in such treatments must recognize this.
  6. Recognise that there are ethical scientists of the highest calibre trying to make progress. But it is a small community.
  7. The field is plagued by false claims. It can be hard to know what to believe but, even if we have been pretty useless at coming up with better treatments, we can at least try to be objective about what is achievable.
  8. A highlight of WCHR2013 was the contribution from people with alopecia areata. They recognize it is not easy. Like them you need to be actively involved, not just complaining about our perceived shortcomings.
    [left][/left][/quote]

His post is a lousy post. He is totally wrong about virtually everything he said. There is plenty enough funding to finish the job of getting hair loss cured…indeed it may already be cured. If the fact that hair loss is cosmetic were a reason for drug companies not to get involved then they would have never been involved with hair loss cures but they used to be heavily heavily HEAVILY involved in hair loss cures. They are reducing their involvement recently for reasons other than that it is a cosmetic condition.

Pharma has moved away from it because it’s a highly competitive market and because pharma can see that cures is already on the planet, or soon will be.

Prior to revolutionary cures getting into the pipeline a cure for hair loss was one of the big prized of the medical community. The funding was so intense that researchers trying to get research funding for OTHER medical conditions were publicly complaining because hair research was sucking so much of the funding. I read interviews with cancer doctors who were complaining that hair loss was eating their research funding money up. That may be dying down now because the cure is finally on the planet or soon will be.

You are way too panicked. The threat is over. We just need the new treatments to come to market asap.

[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by KO[/postedby]
Great posts. I agree with you. Funding is a huge problem for AGA research, and I believe it is THE most critical issue. Larger pharma firms have moved away from it and since it is a primarily cosmetic problem, it is likely tough to get grants, and it just doesn’t get enough attention from the broader community unless you can tie it into something else - hair follicle as a model for organ regeneration. We’ve seen some truly fascinating work like Cots’ wounding and PGD2 experiments, HM, and invitro hair follicles, but that needs to be translated into clinical research, and that needs capital which attracts talent. The end result is that the AGA community is very small. There needs to be more capital investment, which is one of the reasons we will need to look at alternative means, such as crowdfunding etc.[/quote]

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

  1. Current medical treatments for male AGA probably act mainly on the early changes in hair cycling and, in my opinion, there is little or no evidence that we can reverse follicular miniaturization. To achieve this is a tall order as it essentially means reversing an ageing process, something not yet achieved in other biomedical fields. [/quote]

Hey, Alopecia Areata is reversible even after several years of someone being bald because of it. In Areata inflammation targets progenitor cells similar to how something targets progenitors cells in AGA. In both stem cells are preserved and progenitor cells attacked. In areata they knew it was the immune system and ways to stop it were already known. In AGA they are now finding ways I believe. I disagree with AGA being an aging process it can happen any time after puberty starts.

The below info is taken rom Histogen’s site. They are alleging about 40% increase in hair growth. They are accomplishing this with two treatment dates: one initial treatment date plus one repeat/follow-up treatment date. By adding a 2nd treatment date they achieved significantly better results than they did from a single injection date so this proves at least one layer of compoundability and leaves open the possibility that the treatment might be compoundable beyond one repeat/follow-up treatment date. For all we know results will get better and better as you do more and more treatment dates until you max out by getting back a full head of hair. There’s no reason to believe that it’s not compoundable beyond one repeat date. Indeed, if anything the fact that the treatment is, in fact, compoundable at least for a 2nd treatment that does tilt the evidence in favor of Histogen’s treatment being further compoundable. After all, Histogen has already demonstrated some compoundability. Anyway, check out this from Histogen:

Histogen Announces Initial Results from Phase I/II Clinical Trial of HSC
Data shows significant efficacy at all time points and all treated hair loss regions

SAN DIEGO, October 19, 2012 - Histogen, Inc., a regenerative medicine company developing innovative therapies based on the products of cells grown under simulated embryonic conditions, will present preliminary data from the ongoing clinical trial of its Hair Stimulating Complex (HSC) today at the International Society of Hair Restoration Surgery (ISHRS) Annual Meeting. Statistically significant improvement was seen across all targeted hair growth parameters in this Phase I/II clinical trial, with an 86% responder rate.
The double-blind Phase I/II clinical trial was undertaken to further examine the safety and efficacy of intradermal injections of HSC in 56 men with androgenetic alopecia. In addition to other safety outcome measures, clinical evaluation of blood serum chemistry, hematology and urinalysis showed no indication of toxicity over 12 weeks. The treatment was well-tolerated and no study-related adverse events have been reported.

In this second clinical trial of HSC, which was designed with an additional treatment timepoint, the increase in total hair count was 46.5% above that seen in the pilot HSC trial at 12 weeks.

Statistical significance was noted in all efficacy endpoints, which include increases in total hair count (p=0.0013), terminal hairs (p=0.0135), and hair thickness (p=0.026). A significant increase in vellus hair count (p=0.033) was seen for the first time, supporting the hypothesis that the HSC treatment rescues dying follicles, in addition to converting vellus to terminal hairs and increasing the number of hairs per follicle. Statistical significance continued to be seen at the 24 week time point.

“We are excited that HSC has not only continued to show unprecedented results, but that the addition of a second treatment time point in the Phase I/II clinical trial has resulted in even greater hair growth than the pilot study,” said Gail K. Naughton, Ph.D., Histogen CEO and Chairman of the Board. “Particularly compelling is the growth seen in more difficult types and stages of hair loss. Without limitations to treatment area, age or stage of balding, HSC has the potential to expand the hair restoration market by offering a successful option to those that currently have none.”

Available non-surgical treatment options for alopecia focus on younger patients in the earlier stages of hair loss, with a primary purpose of retaining existing hair and supporting limited hair regrowth. This is not the trend seen in the clinical trials of HSC. In both the pilot and Phase I/II clinical trial, HSC treatment has shown efficacy across age groups, with subjects age 40-59 seeing cosmetically significant results beginning at 12 weeks, including a mean increase of 39% in terminal hairs and 19.4% in total hair count in this age group in the current trial.

Importantly, the efficacy of HSC is not limited by hair loss region. The Phase I/II clinical trial has shown noted new hair growth in subjects treated in all regions of the scalp, including temporal recession, mid-scalp and vertex. Subjects receiving HSC in the temporal recession, which is known to be more difficult to treat than other areas of hair loss, saw marked improvement in terminal hair count, with a mean increase of 22.6% at 12 weeks and 25.2% at the 24 week time point.

In addition to the Phase I/II data, Dr. Naughton will present results from a Physician-sponsored IND of HSC conducted by Dr. Craig Ziering, an ISHRS member and leading hair restoration surgeon. Five men and five women received up to four treatments of HSC, with all subjects showing positive hair growth. Increased hair growth was seen as early as 6 weeks, with clinically and cosmetically relevant results seen as early as 18 weeks.

“The clinical data seen to date with HSC is very compelling,” said Dr. Craig Ziering, Founder and CEO of Ziering Medical. "Not only is the strong safety profile clinically important, but we have seen cosmetically significant results, with coverage of thinning areas, in a clinical setting. In addition, the response seen in women treated with HSC is unprecedented."
HSC is a complex of proteins and growth factors naturally secreted by multipotent cells under Histogen’s proprietary growth conditions. The proteins within HSC, such as KGF, VEGF, and follistatin, are involved in signaling stem cells in the body, and have been shown to be key in hair formation and the stimulation of resting hair follicles.

“Scalp Injection of Active Embryonic-like Cell-secreted Proteins and Growth Factors” will be presented by Dr. Naughton at the ISHRS Annual Meeting, taking place October 17-20, 2012, in the Bahamas.

This site could be great if the admin would step up. Do YOUR job admin and ban them. Some of these individuals must be 8 or 9 years old.

I fully agree with everything Tyler said… he seems to be the most sensible person on this site.