Hair loss is the manifestation of the body producing less cells, which leads to shorter and finer hairs, so it seems that if you inject more cells then those added cells should make up for the cells that the body stopped producing which should result in longer and thicker hairs. If less cells = shorter and finer hairs then how is it possible that adding more cells would not result in longer and thicker hairs?
Way over $100 million USD has been spent in the last decade on that same line of thinking, and we don’t have a commercially viable HM result yet.
genius.
get this man to Geneva
So then does that mean you find my logic unsound or did you just feel like doing some blowharding?
First post. MD at the ER at a univ hospital. Been visiting the forum since 2005 or so and have read alot of smart posts and alot of stupid but none more baffling than the ones by you Jarjar. You are crazy.
Jarjar’s comment makes sense ONLY if you assume that injected cells would naturally have a tendency to integrate into existing follicles, and existing follicles would have a natural tendency to incorporate those cells.
I think the reality of the situation is that this happens sometimes with injected cells – just enough to get us excited when we see “new” hairs growing at injection sites.
But underneath this, the reality is that this is such a random process, it happens only VERY rarely compared to the number of cells injected. In fact, injected cells have very little tendency to integrate into existing follicles, and existing follicles have very little tendency to incorporate injected cells. This might be on the order of 0.00001 percent of all cells injected. (I’m just throwing out an arbitrary number here, but the smallness of the number serves to demonstrate my point. The point is you almost always get a positive result, but it is a very paltry positive result.)
So it’s more of a “crapshoot” process, with a tiny fraction of injected cells being incorporated into follicles – the ones which just happen to be in the perfect place at the perfect time, under the perfect conditions.
THAT accounts for why results aren’t very good.
The upshot is we always see just enough hairs growing to get us excited about the prospects of cell injections, but never enough to say “WOW! This is a real cure for baldness.”
Do you know what an idiot and blowhard you are? You’re maxed out at both.
Even if the issues I’m raising are wrong it doesn’t warrant your over-reaction and name-calling as if you have never been mistaken about anything in your life retard. Even if I’m wrong that does not justify name-calling but of course you’re a dumb loudmouth punk on the internet who would never talk smack in person.
BTW, I was at my dentist’s office in Seattle today. He’s one of the top dentists in the USA. He’s bald. I told him I was looking at HM and that I’m hoping that some variation of HM may cure hair loss. I explained the process of HM to him. He understands all about biology and cells and all of this stuff. He’s a genius. He said that it might not work but he was also very interested. He said it sounded promising, and he asked me for more info about it because he wanted to read about it. He did not automatically conclude that there is no chance it will work. So I guess that since he didn’t immediately reject HM as unworkable you would call him “crazy” and you would blowhard about him being unintelligent and sh!t like that. And this shows what a retard and blowhard you are. The man is so far above you intellectually that it’s funny. You don’t get it sh!t-for-brains - even smart people can be wrong, but you aren’t smart enough to figure that out, you retard.
[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by viktor[/postedby]
First post. MD at the ER at a univ hospital. Been visiting the forum since 2005 or so and have read alot of smart posts and alot of stupid but none more baffling than the ones by you Jarjar. You are crazy.[/quote]
Jarjar, I knew where you were coming from, and I do think there was some scientific validity in your observation. You were just thinking outside of the box as a layman without a medical education and this fellow shouldn’t deride you for it. I have almost the same graduate education as he does, without postgrad training, plus an additional non-medical graduate degree, and I don’t think you were totally off-base conceptually, just qualitatively wrong. However you should leave this guy alone and not call names, if he wants to call lay people names then he must not respect his own patients when he’s trying to explain something to them. That is all.
Of course you’re right Roger_that. I should have ignored him and will do exactly that from now on.
You need to first assume that shrinking DP is the cause of the problem and not the consequence. Secondly you assume that injecting dissociated DP cells will immediately increase DP volume, when this may not be the case.
The thing is jarjar…apparently you are even too stupid to comprehend that the criticism was against you, not against HM. This guy was not putting down the idea of HM… he was simply laughing at you for being an the crazy person that you are… Your ideas which you consider smart are nothing more than statements of the obvious… in fact your brilliant theory can be summed up by a four year old as such:
few HF cells = no hair, many HF cells = hair.
Do you seriously think that this is some kind of genius idea which merits opening up a new thread? Absolutely ridiculous.
Also for your information a dentist, be he a genius or not (lol)… is not a person of expertise when it comes to HM. Tissue engineering has very little, close to nothing to do with dentistry. If you want expert advice then ask a biochemist, cell biologist or some other kind of tissue engineer. Talking to an MD has close to no value, they are virtually laymen in this field.
[quote]Do you know what an idiot and blowhard you are? You’re maxed out at both.
Even if the issues I’m raising are wrong it doesn’t warrant your over-reaction and name-calling as if you have never been mistaken about anything in your life retard. Even if I’m wrong that does not justify name-calling but of course you’re a dumb loudmouth punk on the internet who would never talk smack in person.
BTW, I was at my dentist’s office in Seattle today. He’s one of the top dentists in the USA. He’s bald. I told him I was looking at HM and that I’m hoping that some variation of HM may cure hair loss. I explained the process of HM to him. He understands all about biology and cells and all of this stuff. He’s a genius. He said that it might not work but he was also very interested. He said it sounded promising, and he asked me for more info about it because he wanted to read about it. He did not automatically conclude that there is no chance it will work. So I guess that since he didn’t immediately reject HM as unworkable you would call him “crazy” and you would blowhard about him being unintelligent and sh!t like that. And this shows what a retard and blowhard you are. The man is so far above you intellectually that it’s funny. You don’t get it sh!t-for-brains - even smart people can be wrong, but you aren’t smart enough to figure that out, you retard.
[postedby]Originally Posted by viktor[/postedby]
First post. MD at the ER at a univ hospital. Been visiting the forum since 2005 or so and have read alot of smart posts and alot of stupid but none more baffling than the ones by you Jarjar. You are crazy.
[postedby]Originally Posted by jarjarbinx[/postedby][/quote]
JarJar doesn´t think outside the box. JarJar doesn´t even know what the box looks like.
The cure for hairloss is a multibillion dollar industry. There are nobelprize winners trying to imagine how the box looks like.
I´m just really tired of this forum turning into a playground for trolls who belive they are special and spew out 10 new topics a week.
And to JarJar … that bit about your dentist … wtf man get on neuroleptics or something.
[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by Aran Linvail[/postedby]
You need to first assume that shrinking DP is the cause of the problem and not the consequence. Secondly you assume that injecting dissociated DP cells will immediately increase DP volume, when this may not be the case.[/quote]
Good points. I think a shrinking DP is part of the problem – likely it’s one of the important links in the chain of events that leads to miniaturization.
With respect to your other point, you’re right. HM is basically predicated on this assumption, and I think the assumption may be 80-90% wrong, in that while a few dissociated cells may end up increasing DP volume, most injected dissociated cells never do that. Hence the usual result – a positive, but disappointingly low “yield” for all HM attempts and trials we’ve seen.
Look at what’s happened – seminal companies down the drain or failing… Intercytex - gone. Replicel - spectacularly disappointing Phase I results. ARI - defunded and cut loose. Also, Gho - confusing results, no real evidence of success, and still shrouded in mystery and hype. Nigam - perhaps better results, good photos but probably still low yields, and the whole thing is still shrouded in confusing and controversial claims.
There’s a reason for all that.
I think we can safely say that the model where dissociated cells are injected, and then we HOPE that they’ll all somehow find their way into follicles, is mostly flawed. The vast majority of injected cells never do. What are we going to do now, develop some kind of nanotechnology to push the cells into the follicles? 
Can someone explain how injecting stemcells into a DP, and expecting them to do anything but go into apoptosis, works? I mean what about healty cells respecting borders? If a DP has residue cells then that would mean we have a crowding issue right? and if there are fibroblast … crowded right?
<edited - forum violation - multiple user accounts>
<edited - forum violation - multiple user accounts>
LOL
If ARI was just having low success numbers then they would have investigated the possibility of compounding their results up to something worth selling. A ton of trialists would eventually be enough to show a pattern developing. They would realize that more injections equals more results on average even if the progress is crawling & inconsistent for the individuals.
My point is this - if Washenik thought he could compound his way to cosmetically noteworthy results, on even just a few trialist, then IMO he probably would have done it. Probably even if the commercial viability of that specific approach was in question.
(What are probably) ARI’s best human results look just like Finasteride. That makes me suspect a more serious limitation.
<edited - forum violation - multiple user accounts>
[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by viktor[/postedby]
Can someone explain how injecting stemcells into a DP, and expecting them to do anything but go into apoptosis, works? I mean what about healty cells respecting borders? If a DP has residue cells then that would mean we have a crowding issue right? and if there are fibroblast … crowded right?[/quote]
To make a very complicated topic simple, I think the point is that they can’t be plain stem cells (i.e. undifferentiated HF bulge stem cells)… they have to be “activated” stem cells, i.e., progenitor cells. At least that’s what Dr. Nigam has said here.
I think the current consensus is as you’ve said, injecting just normal unactivated HF bulge stem cells probably won’t do anything.
Regarding Aderans et al., their trials initially involved injecting not stem cells, but DP cells themselves (and I believe in later trials protocols they moved to various mixes of cells including fibroblasts and/or keratinocytes).
I don’t recall anyone except Dr. Gho claiming that they were injecting pure undifferentiated HF stem cells. Even in Gho’s case, as I’ve pointed out, he had a very loose definition of the term "stem cells’, and was probably using the term misleadingly for marketing purposes.