[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by Frank[/postedby]
Well, I definitely have sebhorrea dermatitis so the drug might work for
someone like me.
Haven’t been here in a while and wonder if anyone’s tried a concoction of baking
soda and lemon juice (making a weak sodium salicylate) sprayed on the scalp to
inhibit mast cell degranulation which in turn should help inhibit pgd2.[/quote]
Frank, baking soda + lemon juice alone won’t create a sodium salicylate solution. That will just give you sodium citrate. You have to add crushed aspirin (acetyl salicylic acid).
[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by roger_that[/postedby]… It’s kind of like the people who claim that childhood measles, mumps and rubella vaccines cause autism.
[postedby]Originally Posted by bugler[/postedby] Have you read about the correlation between number of vaccines per child in a country and the number of cases of autism?
The key is the mercury (2nd most powerful neurotoxin) in vaccines. That mercury is included in vaccines is a well-known fact not open to debate.[/quote]
It used to be included in vaccines. Regarding its connection to autism, try debating the National Institutes of Health’s Institute of Medicine, the FDA, the Centers for Disease Control and World Health Organization. This is the conspiracy theory and controversy that just won’t die, I guess because so many people have personal connections to autism, either they’re autistic or have autistic kids, and simply won’t give up the idea that there is an easy answer complete with something simple to blame it on.
The compound that was (used to be) in vaccines is thiomersal, an organo-mercury compound, which just means a larger carbon-containing molecule that has a mercury ion in it. All the correlations with autism have been debunked repeatedly… As you can see from this part of the article on the subject from Wikipedia:
Thiomersal is an organomercury compound used as a preservative in vaccines since the 1930s to prevent bacterial and fungal contamination.[5] Following a mandated review of mercury-containing food and drugs, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) asked vaccine makers to remove thiomersal from vaccines as quickly as possible as a purely precautionary measure, and it was rapidly phased out of most U.S. and European vaccines.[6][7] In the context of perceived increased autism rates and increased number of vaccines in the childhood vaccination schedule, some parents believed the action to remove thiomersal was an indication that the preservative caused autism.[6]
The potential impact of thiomersal on autism has been investigated extensively. Multiple lines of scientific evidence have shown that thiomersal does not cause autism. For example, the clinical symptoms of mercury poisoning differ significantly from those of autism.[8] In addition, multiple population studies have found no association between thiomersal and autism, and rates of autism have continued to increase despite removal of thiomersal from vaccines.[3] Thus, major scientific and medical bodies such as the Institute of Medicine[2] and World Health Organization[9] (WHO) as well as governmental agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration[5] (FDA) and the CDC[10] reject any role for thiomersal in autism or other neurodevelopmental disorders. In spite of the consensus of the scientific community, some parents and advocacy groups continue to contend that thiomersal is linked to autism.[11]
[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by roger_that[/postedby]… It’s kind of like the people who claim that childhood measles, mumps and rubella vaccines cause autism.
[postedby]Originally Posted by bugler[/postedby] Have you read about the correlation between number of vaccines per child in a country and the number of cases of autism?
The key is the mercury (2nd most powerful neurotoxin) in vaccines. That mercury is included in vaccines is a well-known fact not open to debate.[/quote]
what about flu shots? I get my flu shot every year, do I need to worry about mercury?
[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by roger_that[/postedby]
I should just add and clarify that those who envision, or like to describe, AGA as a primarily immune or auto-immune disorder, or those who like to broadly characterize it in that way, are wrong. That idea is a misconception, but it’s popular among a lot of people who deal in pseudo-science. It’s kind of like the people who claim that childhood measles, mumps and rubella vaccines cause autism.
I think, when trying to answer this question, we have to be very careful. We do see inflammation, seborrheic dermatitis, and micro-fibrosis in people with MPB, but it’s not in all MPB patients and in fact it’s actually a minority, a relatively small subset of MPB patients. The majority of people with MPB never show these phenomena.
I am well aware of some research to the contrary, that suggests that most or all MPB patients have micro-fibrosis or “scarring” type alopecia, but that is not mainstream research and not accepted by the majority of scientists and doctors who are familiar with MPB pathophysiology.[/quote]
While you may not agree with what I posted (which by the way, is backed up by peer reviewed research), please, refute it with actual evidence, rather than attempts to discredit with allusions to conspiracy theories and pseudo-science.
Walrus, I’m definitely not refuting or disagreeing with what you posted. I think those are all legitimate studies. I’m just saying there’s a lot of talk in the hair loss community, and there has been for many years, mis-attributing MPB to some kind of auto-immune disorder or stating that it is in fact mainly an auto-immune disorder.
The studies you posted aren’t saying that, and I realize you aren’t saying that. What I am saying is that t here’s a slippery slope where people take one study and blow it out of context, and create sweeping generalized theories out of it – theories which are wrong, and misleading, and do a disservice to hair loss sufferers.
I am not saying you’ve done that, at all. I know full well what you’re sharing, and you’re right.
If MPB was really auto-immune problem then simply depressing the immune system would slow/reverse it. That obviously does not happen.
But I believe over the years people have accumulate evidence of both immune suppression AND immune boosting showing some amount of hair gains/effects. Not to mention the other indicators that Walrus pointed out. The immune system is clearly one of the players involved.
[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by cal[/postedby]
If MPB was really auto-immune problem then simply depressing the immune system would slow/reverse it. That obviously does not happen.
But I believe over the years people have accumulate evidence of both immune suppression AND immune boosting showing some amount of hair gains/effects. Not to mention the other indicators that Walrus pointed out. The immune system is clearly one of the players involved.[/quote]
As walrus pointed out with the links he posted, you can have isolated components of the immune system being involved, without there actually being an immune response or any immunologic triggers. There is no recognition of “self” or “anti-self”, no involvement of antibodies or immunoglobulins (IgG, IgE, etc.), no involvement of the Major Histocompatibility Complex, and very little (and very rare) involvement of cell-mediated immunity (e.g., T-lymphocytes), apart from Mast cells.
[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by roger_that[/postedby]
It used to be included in vaccines. Regarding its connection to autism, try debating the National Institutes of Health’s Institute of Medicine, the FDA, the Centers for Disease Control and World Health Organization. This is the conspiracy theory and controversy that just won’t die, I guess because so many people have personal connections to autism, either they’re autistic or have autistic kids, and simply won’t give up the idea that there is an easy answer complete with something simple to blame it on.
The compound that was (used to be) in vaccines is thiomersal, an organo-mercury compound, which just means a larger carbon-containing molecule that has a mercury ion in it. All the correlations with autism have been debunked repeatedly… As you can see from this part of the article on the subject from Wikipedia:
Thiomersal is an organomercury compound used as a preservative in vaccines since the 1930s to prevent bacterial and fungal contamination.[5] Following a mandated review of mercury-containing food and drugs, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) asked vaccine makers to remove thiomersal from vaccines as quickly as possible as a purely precautionary measure, and it was rapidly phased out of most U.S. and European vaccines.[6][7] In the context of perceived increased autism rates and increased number of vaccines in the childhood vaccination schedule, some parents believed the action to remove thiomersal was an indication that the preservative caused autism.[6]
The potential impact of thiomersal on autism has been investigated extensively. Multiple lines of scientific evidence have shown that thiomersal does not cause autism. For example, the clinical symptoms of mercury poisoning differ significantly from those of autism.[8] In addition, multiple population studies have found no association between thiomersal and autism, and rates of autism have continued to increase despite removal of thiomersal from vaccines.[3] Thus, major scientific and medical bodies such as the Institute of Medicine[2] and World Health Organization[9] (WHO) as well as governmental agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration[5] (FDA) and the CDC[10] reject any role for thiomersal in autism or other neurodevelopmental disorders. In spite of the consensus of the scientific community, some parents and advocacy groups continue to contend that thiomersal is linked to autism.[11][/quote] If you go the criminals for information don’t expect to be well inform.
The information is out there. You can read it or ignore.
So all these years in this site we read that arthritis drugs reverse baldness in some cases
does anyone have tried himself that kind of drugs and what was the result?
Interesting that the patient was seeing scalp & facial hair after TWO MONTHS, and it sounds like it was looking very good by 5 months. That is worth remembering if anyone starts wanting to experiment with this class of drugs.
I’m not sure off the top of my head, but I seem to remember the other Gefitnib regrowth cases were only a matter of several months too. It seems there is no need to think in terms of 2-year stints on any of these drugs to see results.
We don’t even know how this stuff is working yet but everyone is already confident that they know what it can’t do.
If Cotsarelis discovered an immune system link today he is still liable to hide it from us for another 5 years. Why should we put so much weight on his opinion in this situation? The guy has never been big on keeping us up to date and informed.
And since when does Cotsarelis dismiss a drug’s chance of treating MPB just because it isn’t likely to work on the MPB process itself? Follica’s whole deal with that class of drugs was trying to grow new follicles. One of the Gefitnib patients had hair on the end of their nose - did the drug need to reverse MPB damage for that to work?
I have a feeling Cotsarelis would be a lot more enthused about this new finding if he had been the one to find it.
[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by cal[/postedby]
We don’t even know how this stuff is working yet but everyone is already confident that they know what it can’t do.
If Cotsarelis discovered an immune system link today he is still liable to hide it from us for another 5 years. Why should we put so much weight on his opinion in this situation? The guy has never been big on keeping us up to date and informed.
And since when does Cotsarelis dismiss a drug’s chance of treating MPB just because it isn’t likely to work on the MPB process itself? Follica’s whole deal with that class of drugs was trying to grow new follicles. One of the Gefitnib patients had hair on the end of their nose - did the drug need to reverse MPB damage for that to work?
I have a feeling Cotsarelis would be a lot more enthused about this new finding if he had been the one to find it.[/quote]
I think the problem with this whole class of drugs (that includes Gefitnib, etc.) is not that they have no chance of growing hair. The problem is that the risk:benefit ratio is too high. I mean the risk of serious negative side-effects, that can’t be cleanly avoided, is too high for this category of drugs, hence you see no one seriously trying to develop them as hair restoration drugs for MPB. For alopecia totalis, it might be another story, because that disease is considered medically much more “serious” than MPB, so a greater degree of risk would be considered more acceptable. (I’m talking about in theory – we don’t know about how it would play out in actual practice.)
I’m not saying all of these drugs will kill you. I’m saying that the risk-to-benefit ratio is just unacceptable for pharma companies to think about developing them as hair loss treatments. It’s a cost-benefit analysis.
That might be a big part of Cotsarelis’ lack of interest, too, although he’s being too short in his answers and not explaining that fully. Maybe he doesn’t want to bore or confuse anyone with the finer details. I wish he would come out and say it, but that is what I suspect he’s getting at.
[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by cal[/postedby]
We don’t even know how this stuff is working yet but everyone is already confident that they know what it can’t do.
If Cotsarelis discovered an immune system link today he is still liable to hide it from us for another 5 years. Why should we put so much weight on his opinion in this situation? The guy has never been big on keeping us up to date and informed.
And since when does Cotsarelis dismiss a drug’s chance of treating MPB just because it isn’t likely to work on the MPB process itself? Follica’s whole deal with that class of drugs was trying to grow new follicles. One of the Gefitnib patients had hair on the end of their nose - did the drug need to reverse MPB damage for that to work?
I have a feeling Cotsarelis would be a lot more enthused about this new finding if he had been the one to find it.[/quote]
Cal,
You are correct. Cots seems to enjoy the limelight as the king of hair loss research. He seems to be self serving. It is about time for him to come out with some breaking news that amounts to nothing. He is as clueless as we are!
I’m not really advocating people start taking oral doses of these drugs for months to see what happens.
I’m just saying that Cotsarelis declaring it useless for MPB is bullsh*t. Nothing that puts massive amounts of hair on areas that have been long-balded or never had scalp hair is useless for MPB. I’ll listen to Cotsarelis’s dismissals as soon as he starts producing results 1/4th as good as these drugs are producing by accident. Literally.
The sooner we understand why this class of drugs works, the better. We never be able to take these drugs and have it work but the mechanism may be utilized some other, safer way.
But first the MPB research community has to take their heads out of their asses long enough to study this. Jahoda/Christiano are trying hard on something useful but that’s about it. We would be better served if everyone else in the MPB research game would stop what they are doing (including drugs in human trials) and begin studying what is happening with this class of drugs. And I was saying the same thing 5-6 years ago.
[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by cal[/postedby]
The sooner we understand why this class of drugs works, the better. We never be able to take these drugs and have it work but the mechanism may be utilized some other, safer way.
But first the MPB research community has to take their heads out of their asses long enough to study this. Jahoda/Christiano are trying hard on something useful but that’s about it. We would be better served if everyone else in the MPB research game would stop what they are doing (including drugs in human trials) and begin studying what is happening with this class of drugs. And I was saying the same thing 5-6 years ago.[/quote]
I am with Cal 100%. At first when I read that it was an alopecia universalis patient, I dimissed the whole thing as irrelevant for MPB but after seeing the outrageous regrowth on the patient, i think we are idiots not to investigate further.
We settle in and wait for the next shocking case of accidental regrowth from this class of drugs . . . each time, hoping the next case will finally spur some study on it . . .
Who knows? Maybe 3 years from now Cotsarelis will announce he discovered an immune system link to MPB (which he is currently denying). Probably in a study dated 5+ years previously.
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.