Hair Loss Forum

Ralphy 11.04.2016, 19:15	News on Follica (Hair Multiplication & Stem Cells Treatment)
	http://www.hairlosscure2020.com/follica-surprises-yet-again-and-targets-a-best-case-scenario-release-date-of-2018/#comments Ralphy is located in [NA] and he is available to meet: NO Post reply
Aran Linvail 22.04.2016, 21:42 @ Ralphy	News on Follica
	It's pretty interesting news. It looks like their Lithium Gluconate 8% Phase 2 Clinical Trials in Germany in 2010 must have failed. I do wonder if they proceed, which compound they will use. Aran Linvail is located in [NA] and he is available to meet: NO --- Poster formerly known as "KO" Post reply
Aran Linvail 22.04.2016, 21:47 @ Ralphy	Job Openings at Follica
	http://puretechhealth.com/careers.php?gh_jid=189236 http://puretechhealth.com/careers.php?gh_jid=189240 Aran Linvail is located in [NA] and he is available to meet: NO --- Poster formerly known as "KO" Post reply
roger_that MARYLAND, 23.04.2016, 14:37 @ Aran Linvail	News on Follica
	Originally Posted by Aran Linvail It's pretty interesting news. It looks like their Lithium Gluconate 8% Phase 2 Clinical Trials in Germany in 2010 must have failed. I do wonder if they proceed, which compound they will use. I thought it was well-known that their trials in Germany with Lithium had failed. Honestly, I think Follica is flogging a "technology" that is both immature and obsolete at the same time. When Dr. Cotsarelis wrote his paper about wounding tissue promoting hair growth, he immediately set out to "monetize" the idea before it was fleshed out and developed into a working technology. He sold the idea to Follica, then Follica patented it. But what did they really patent? All they patented was the concept of wounding tissue PLUS adding some "unknown", as yet untested compound -- Lithium, Zinc, plus a long, long list of other candidates -- none of which were conclusively proven to work with wounding to reliably produce hair. The only problem now is that the research has moved beyond this. Now researchers are able to grow induce pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs), enhance DP cell trichogenicity via genetics and culturing techniques, and isolate key growth factors secreted by hair follicle stem cells and progenitor cells. With all of the above advances (which are admittedly still being worked on), who needs wounding tissue now? Remember, the only advantage of wounding is that it releases certain growth factors which work with HF stem cells and DP cells to activate the follicle. Well, if all those things can be done independently now, why is wounding still needed? The other problem with wounding tissue is that, although it may have short-term effects of releasing growth factors, the LONG TERM effects of wounding are harmful to hair follicles. For wounding to be a real cure, it has to be done repetitively on the scalp (one session of wounding will not cure you for life). But the more you wound the scalp tissue, the more you will disrupt and damage existing follicles and create scar tissue. I think Follica is "stuck" with a bad idea, and now they feel they have to make good on it, because so many investors have given them money. So they're kind of desperate, looking for that "magic compound" that, together with wounding, will make them rich and famous. But, it's been what -- over 10 YEARS -- yes, Follica has been around flogging this same idea for over ten years (it was founded in 2005) -- and they still haven't found it and begun serious clinical trials yet??? As for the "2018" announcement in the PureTech prospectus -- if Follica had indeed discovered its magic compound, which, together with wounding, will grow lots of hair, THEY WOULD HAVE PUBLICLY ANNOUNCED THIS BY NOW. I think that date is just kind of a stalling tactic to keep investors at bay. What they really mean is that they have not yet found this compound, and they're using "2018" as a "soft date" by which they HOPE to have found it. The job announcement for VP of clinical development is just Follica casting its fishing pole into the water to see if some genius will show up to discover their magic compound and save the day. roger_that is located in MARYLAND and he is available to meet: YES email hairsite@aol.com to arrange a meeting. Post reply
cal 12.05.2016, 11:12 @ roger_that	News on Follica
	The other problem with wounding tissue is that, although it may have short-term effects of releasing growth factors, the LONG TERM effects of wounding are harmful to hair follicles. For wounding to be a real cure, it has to be done repetitively on the scalp (one session of wounding will not cure you for life). But the more you wound the scalp tissue, the more you will disrupt and damage existing follicles and create scar tissue. Derms & guys with MPB have known for years that a single instance of needling or dermabrasion can sometimes produce a few new hairs. New thick dark terminal hairs on shiny bald skin, and they last. Please explain how this fits with your assertion that skin wounding must be chronic to do us any real good. Follica may never amount to anything. Wounding-based regrowth may never be used if we find another hair regrowth method first. But wounding-based regrowth is still a real phenomenon. Follica was smart to pursue it. It has a real chance of working for us if we understood it better. cal is located in [NA] and he is available to meet: NO Post reply
roger_that MARYLAND, 12.05.2016, 19:35 @ cal	News on Follica
	Wounding has to be chronic because the perturbation of the skin just triggers temporary physiological changes which are associated with tissue healing -- release of growth factors, eosinophils, platelets, etc. These peak not too many days after the wounding incident and then gradually dissipate back down to baseline. But for a hair follicle to remain viable and cycling, and to resist re-miniaturization from DHT, it must have these growth factors present continuously. Otherwise the same miniaturization process that happened before will take hold again. The same principle applies with any drug therapy, by the way, like anti-androgens, minoxidil, etc. Triggering growth factor release via wounding is really no different, physiologically, from drug therapy. Both produce transient results and if withdrawn, the effect goes back to zero. roger_that is located in MARYLAND and he is available to meet: YES email hairsite@aol.com to arrange a meeting. Post reply
abcxyz 13.05.2016, 04:36 @ Ralphy	News on Follica
	Where is the link or article? abcxyz is located in [NA] and he is available to meet: NO Post reply
cal 13.05.2016, 08:43 (edited by cal, 13.05.2016, 09:04) @ abcxyz	News on Follica
	Wounding has to be chronic because the perturbation of the skin just triggers temporary physiological changes which are associated with tissue healing -- release of growth factors, eosinophils, platelets, etc. These peak not too many days after the wounding incident and then gradually dissipate back down to baseline. But for a hair follicle to remain viable and cycling, and to resist re-miniaturization from DHT, it must have these growth factors present continuously. Otherwise the same miniaturization process that happened before will take hold again. The same principle applies with any drug therapy, by the way, like anti-androgens, minoxidil, etc. Triggering growth factor release via wounding is really no different, physiologically, from drug therapy. Both produce transient results and if withdrawn, the effect goes back to zero. So you're saying the derms & guys who observe this phenomenon are ALL either mistaken or lying? I have a handful of full-strength terminal hairs in the middle of the shiny bald skin of my temples. They were created most of a decade ago after dermabrading the area. I have done essenatially zilch to maintain them besides get some Nizoral on them during hair washing. I have even been plucking some of them to try and kill them again because they are slightly odd. (Are these hairs "lifetime permanent?" I dunno. But they are worth at least a decade & multiple hair cycles after a single wounding incident. And that's for accidental creation and zero maintenance efforts from then on. That already blows every other commercial MPB treatment out of the water.) I am not alone in this at all. Look at the reports of scattered new terminals from guys who needle. Look at the occasional anecdotal stories of unusual regrowth after serious scalp wounds. Look at the Gefitnib cancer patients who grew thick dark patches of hair on areas that look like probable sunburn sites. Etc. This phenomenon is real. It may never do us any practical good in the foreseeable future. But it's real. With how far off everything else is looking for commercial HM these days, we would be wretchedly stupid to brush this off as imaginary just because we don't understand it. I have little faith in Cotsarelis's work restoring my hair in the next 20 years. I have absolutely no trust in his honesty. But he has been barking up the right tree for the most part. If the goal was commercially treating MPB rather than pure research then he definitely picked the smart thing to pursue a decade ago. It hasn't panned out yet, but neither has anything else. And most of the decent discoveries about hair during that time have Cots's fingerprints on them. cal is located in [NA] and he is available to meet: NO Post reply
roger_that MARYLAND, 13.05.2016, 11:54 @ cal	News on Follica
	Are you on any medication, e.g. dutasteride, finasteride, minoxidil? Those would tend to preserve any regrown hairs. roger_that is located in MARYLAND and he is available to meet: YES email hairsite@aol.com to arrange a meeting. Post reply
Ralphy 13.05.2016, 14:48 @ abcxyz	News on Follica
	http://bit.ly/1OrL1WE[/link] Ralphy is located in [NA] and he is available to meet: NO Post reply
Ralphy 13.05.2016, 15:03 @ Ralphy	News on Follica
	http://www.hairlosscure2020.com/follica-surprises-yet-again-and-targets-a-best-case-scenario-release-date-of-2018/#comments Ralphy is located in [NA] and he is available to meet: NO Post reply
cal 13.05.2016, 18:15 @ Ralphy	News on Follica
	I've been on small amounts of Fin and topical RU at various times in the past. But nothing for most/all of the time these scattered hairs have been surviving on my head. Just Nizoral shampoo for at least 6-7 years now. If these new hairs are succumbing to MPB then it's not happening very quickly. I might have been on Fin at the time I did the dermabrasion that helped create the hairs. I'm not sure off the top of my head. If I was, then the dosage would have been something tiny like 0.25mg EOD. Fin is not very dose-dependent so you have to get the dosage down pretty small before it's much less potent than the normal 1mg. (Hence they can prescribe 1mg for baldness and 5mg for prostate issues.) But the dose I was taking was small enough to feel far less potent than the standard 1mg/day. cal is located in [NA] and he is available to meet: NO Post reply
roger_that MARYLAND, 14.05.2016, 13:30 (edited by roger_that, 14.05.2016, 13:58) @ cal	News on Follica
	Cal, then my best assessment of why those hairs are still there is that your serum testosterone level is lower now than when you originally lost those hairs. People don't realize it but serum testosterone levels have a LOT to do with the rate of hair loss, and whether and for how long hair loss progresses at all after a certain age. After age 30, serum testosterone decreases on average 1% per year in men. Most likely, you lost the majority of hairs on your scalp (i.e., the ones you did lose) when your serum testosterone level was highest, and since then it's decreased. Even a modest decrease can push some people below the threshold necessary for further hair loss. A fraction above that level, and you'll continue to lose hair. A fraction below that level, and your hair loss stabilizes and you lose no more hair. Remember, the serum testosterone level DIRECTLY influences how much DHT can be created by the alpha-reductase enzyme. The more testosterone you have in your blood, all other things being equal, the more T will be converted into DHT. It is inborn cellular DHT-sensitivity, genetically programmed, that results in the MPB phenotype. Probably what happened with you is that you dermabraded your scalp and it was just enough to promote some "new" hair growth (actually not de novo, but revived miniaturized follicles). Meanwhile, your serum testosterone levels were dipping just below the threshold needed to cause terminal hairs to miniaturize, so those hairs you grew back were able to remain. But the fact is, dermabrasion and tissue wounding are not, and never will be, a magic bullet to cure hair loss. If you want a complete explanation from me, the next time I have about 2 free hours, I'll write it up or try to explain here. Trust me. The very short answer is that "there are too many variables at play." Wounding CAN promote some hair growth, but its effects are extremely anecdotal and case-specific, and it is NOT a sure thing. In fact it does the EXACT SAME THINGS as many other treatments which are under study right now and don't involve wounding at all (Histogen's HSC and others like that are just one example of a much more varied array of examples.) So the question then becomes, why even use wounding at all? And when you look at the downsides -- tissue damage, follicle damage, etc. when done chronically -- combined with the fact that you actually have to do it chronically for it to be part of anything you could rationally call a "cure" or "reliable treatment" -- not to mention that tissue wounding alone is evidently far too weak of a stimulus to reliably regenerate terminal hair -- all these things and more add up to the fact that it is effectively a dead-end "technology". Given that, when you assess the whole thing, wounding offers no "value added" to anything that's already on the table or in advanced stages of research right now. I feel confident that Follica -- even if they come out with something -- and they probably will, just for business purposes, to satisfy investors who have sunk millions into their work -- will never offer anything beyond what other companies will be able to do much better. roger_that is located in MARYLAND and he is available to meet: YES email hairsite@aol.com to arrange a meeting. Post reply
cal 14.05.2016, 15:03 @ roger_that	News on Follica
	The anecdotal hair growth appearances from dermabrasion stuff is normally quoted as "de novo follicle formation". Are the derms all wrong? I would guess that most dermabrasion in clinical settings is not being done on men and not being done on MPB'd skin areas at all. Besides, did one of the Gefitnib regrowth patients just "revive" a bunch of scalp hairs all over the tip of her nose? I saw the original photo years ago and that is what it was. It was not some wispy thin little scattered vellus peach fuzz. It was thick dark terminal hairs. They were densely packed like an aggressive HT doc would do it. There was absolutely no chance of that being anything normal. If those hairs had previously existed at any time in the patient's life then she sure as hell would have remembered it. cal is located in [NA] and he is available to meet: NO Post reply
roger_that MARYLAND, 14.05.2016, 15:38 @ cal	News on Follica
	Most likely it can have two effects, one de novo growth on hairless skin, and another effect of reviving miniaturized follicles on scalp skin that had succumbed to non-scarring alopecia. I think it's safe to say that most of the effect it has on people who dermabrade their scalps is in reviving miniaturized follicles. The question is, are people going to agree to have regular dermabrasion just to get the very marginal benefit of reviving a few hairs? If dermabrading is found to work much better in conjunction with some as yet unknown "magic" chemical, then to keep up the effect, you'd still have to get regular dermabrasion. Any effects of dermabrasion would be self-limited and transient. And that's not even considering the long-term deleterious effect it would have on the tissues. Just because something can grow hair in the short term, doesn't mean it also can't be harming the follicles in the long term. roger_that is located in MARYLAND and he is available to meet: YES email hairsite@aol.com to arrange a meeting. Post reply
cal 15.05.2016, 06:09 (edited by cal, 15.05.2016, 06:34) @ roger_that	News on Follica
	Most likely it can have two effects, one de novo growth on hairless skin, and another effect of reviving miniaturized follicles on scalp skin that had succumbed to non-scarring alopecia. I see absolutely no reason why the de novo effect would not be occurring on skin with existing hairs. And given how difficult it has always been to revive androgen-damaged hairs in any serious way, I find the de novo idea much easier to believe. I think it's safe to say that most of the effect it has on people who dermabrade their scalps is in reviving miniaturized follicles. Why? It might very well be true. But there is no more reason to assume it than to assume the de novo effect isn't there. Follica found it pretty easy to use skin wounding to provoke "proto follicle structures" and they didn't say the existing condition/history of the skin had any bearing on it. And let me throw in something else here: The Gefitnib patient who grew a patch of new hair on his long-balded head, got new hair without visble graying. The rest of his existing hair was decidedly salt-n-pepper looking. It doesn't necessarily prove anything but it's interesting IMO. The question is, are people going to agree to have regular dermabrasion just to get the very marginal benefit of reviving a few hairs? I am not now, and never have been, arguing that dermabrasion alone is a viable MPB treatment. The principle appears to work but the cost/benefit ratio isn't even in the ballpark. The combination of wounding + pharamceutical assistance could be a game-changer. That has always been my primary argument. One of the most respected hair researchers in the industry has spent the last decade getting investor money & making discoveries on the same original premise. I do complain that we've seen a lot of HM trials involving wounding ("skin perturbation" or "scalp stimulation" etc) and they brush that off as if it has no relevance to their successes. I think that's deceptive and I think they know it. If dermabrading is found to work much better in conjunction with some as yet unknown "magic" chemical, then to keep up the effect, you'd still have to get regular dermabrasion. Any effects of dermabrasion would be self-limited and transient. Your conjecture says this is the case. Many years of anecdotal evidence suggests that it's not. And that's not even considering the long-term deleterious effect it would have on the tissues. Just because something can grow hair in the short term, doesn't mean it also can't be harming the follicles in the long term. On this I agree. Superficial wounding is not the ideal way to provoke regrowth. I only support it because it has a far better track record than anything else. Lots of respected MPB treatments slow down the MPB process or reverse it very slightly for a few years. Skin wounding can produce fully thick pre-MPB-looking hairs. The hairs can last for years without even androgen-blocking maintenance. If we could harness the wounding effect in a usable way, it would be far more practical & effective than any other MPB treatment we have even attempted to do, let alone succeeded at doing. cal is located in [NA] and he is available to meet: NO Post reply
roger_that MARYLAND, 15.05.2016, 19:56 @ cal	News on Follica
	If we could harness the wounding effect in a usable way, it would be far more practical & effective than any other MPB treatment we have even attempted to do, let alone succeeded at doing. What if I told you that many of the treatments currently under development -- like Histogen's HSC, and like virtually all the treatments using stem cells -- are harnessing the very same "wounding effect", but without wounding? And that's part of my point. The only thing wounding does is prompt the release of certain growth factors. But usually it does this in quantities too minute to trigger hair growth. So, as a treatment to grow hair, the results are highly unreliable. HSC is nothing but a combination of the very same growth factors triggered by wounding -- but it delivers them in a much more reliable way. When HSC is injected, you know exactly how much of these things are being put into the skin. Activated stem cells are also associated with the release of the growth factors necessary for follicular activity and hair growth. Please understand what I'm saying here. You're focusing on wounding like it's some kind of unique, mysterious solution to regrowing hair, as if it can produce effects that are possible no other way. I'm saying that the underlying results of wounding are not mysterious at all -- they are all known, and now we're at the point where we can get the effects of wounding without actually doing the wounding -- in fact, much more reliably. roger_that is located in MARYLAND and he is available to meet: YES email hairsite@aol.com to arrange a meeting. Post reply
cal 16.05.2016, 14:56 @ roger_that	News on Follica
	Let's have a contest. You go get whatever growth factors you like. Inject them all over 1 square inch of your balding/receding hairline. I will dermabrade 1 square inch of my hairline. This will be a one-time treatment. No repeat treatments, no oral Finasteride, no topical Minox, nothing. In 5 years, we will meet up, with before/after pics, and compare who has regained more/thicker terminal hairs on that square inch. I don't give a s**t how well the subject appears to have been explained by existing research. They are still not producing the same end result with growth factors as nature does from wounding. Nature's end results are better than researchers' end results. Therefore the topic is not adequately understood by researchers. cal is located in [NA] and he is available to meet: NO Post reply
roger_that MARYLAND, 17.05.2016, 13:46 @ cal	News on Follica
	I'm interested in a practical, long-term solution, without drawbacks like having to regularly traumatize the skin. Your proposition is a straw man, because it's a one-time application. I'm not interested in comparing results of one-time applications of anything, because there's too much of a chance of the results being skewed by paradoxical and anecdotal responses. At this point, I'm interested in treatments that actually would form the basis of something like a viable cure, and which actually have a realistic chance of getting to market. roger_that is located in MARYLAND and he is available to meet: YES email hairsite@aol.com to arrange a meeting. Post reply
cal 22.05.2016, 19:08 @ roger_that	News on Follica
	I'm interested in a practical, long-term solution, without drawbacks like having to regularly traumatize the skin. Your proposition is a straw man, because it's a one-time application. I'm not interested in comparing results of one-time applications of anything, because there's too much of a chance of the results being skewed by paradoxical and anecdotal responses. I keep talking about potential gains from one-time wounding. You keep responding as if I'm advocating repeated woundings. Who is straw-manning here? My point is valid and you know it. I'm sorry if the implications of this conflict with your preferred idea of what wounding is capable of. At this point, I'm interested in treatments that actually would form the basis of something like a viable cure, and which actually have a realistic chance of getting to market. Neither of us knows of anything practical and near the market. Not me, and not you either. I'm just pointing out that the wounding avenue has more practicality & supporting evidence than it gets credit for. cal is located in [NA] and he is available to meet: NO Post reply
roger_that MARYLAND, 24.05.2016, 12:13 @ cal	News on Follica
	Cal, if you've grown hair from dermabrading your scalp in the past, why don't you continue to dermabrade it so you can grow more hair? roger_that is located in MARYLAND and he is available to meet: YES email hairsite@aol.com to arrange a meeting. Post reply
cal 24.05.2016, 17:23 @ roger_that	News on Follica
	If you have been reading anything I say on this thread then you already know the answer to that. You say we can get the wounding effects, and more reliably, with growth factors. But we can't. cal is located in [NA] and he is available to meet: NO Post reply
roger_that MARYLAND, 24.05.2016, 18:36 @ cal	News on Follica
	You've said a lot of things about a lot of issues relating to wounding here on the forum, but I don't remember you ever explaining clearly and concisely why you haven't tried more dermabrasion. roger_that is located in MARYLAND and he is available to meet: YES email hairsite@aol.com to arrange a meeting. Post reply
cal 25.05.2016, 07:14 @ roger_that	News on Follica
	Repeatedly wounding the same spot of skin for a few scattered hairs is not a viable MPB plan. You could safely re-dermabrade the same spot perhaps once a year at best. And in the long term that is already pushing it a lot more than I would care to. All for what? Maybe 0.25 hairs per square centimeter each time? 0.50 hairs? Even 1 hair per centimeter (which is too optimistic) is a slow-ass process. It's not going to cosmetically reverse MPB in this lifetime. Even if I wanted to go that route it wouldn't look right for a long time. It would spend decades looking more like a crappy HT than a natural reversal of the MPB process. Walking around with a raw sore head, and a bunch of random hairs sticking out of the area? Remember that wound-caused new hairs are not the kinds of hairs/coverage you get from the Big-3 medications. The meds give natural results that look like the MPB process backing up a few years. Medication-boosted hairs start coming into a balded area looking thin & wispy & full density. But the hairs you get from wounding/needling are more like donor-wreath-density hairs, appearing very sparsely on otherwise shiny-bald skin. cal is located in [NA] and he is available to meet: NO Post reply
roger_that MARYLAND, 27.05.2016, 15:59 @ cal	News on Follica
	Originally Posted by cal Repeatedly wounding the same spot of skin for a few scattered hairs is not a viable MPB plan. You could safely re-dermabrade the same spot perhaps once a year at best. And in the long term that is already pushing it a lot more than I would care to. All for what? Maybe 0.25 hairs per square centimeter each time? 0.50 hairs? Even 1 hair per centimeter (which is too optimistic) is a slow-ass process. It's not going to cosmetically reverse MPB in this lifetime. Great, explanation, cal... and I agree with you there 100%. Although I have to wonder if you're reading my entire posts, because I was saying basically the EXACT SAME THING. Repeated dermabrasion of the same spot of skin is NOT a viable plan, in fact it will eventually damage the tissue and REDUCE the viability of the follicles there, not increase it. What's left, then? A single-session, one-off treatment? That's not likely to work either, because we know that one-time dermabrasion produces very little hair, and whatever hair it does produce is not ensured -- it varies wildly from person to person. Therefore a one-time dermabrasion doesn't represent a reliable enough or consistent enough treatment for anyone to sell to investors or the general public, as the basis of a marketable MPB treatment. (This part goes without saying -- in fact, there is nothing to "sell" in the first place, because if one-time dermabrasions were widely known to grow cosmetically positive amounts of hair on bald scalps, millions of people would be getting this done this every year.) That leaves only one other possibility -- joining a one-time dermabrasion treatment with some as-yet unknown chemical or drug which will dramatically augment the effect of the dermabrasion. But how long has Follica had to come up with that? They have been beating the same horse for over 10 years. I can also see that if such a drug/chemical is ever found, the value will be in that drug or chemical itself... in other words, the value-added of the dermabrasion part will be minimal if not negligible. So they would still be left at square one with the wounding idea. It risks damaging the scalp as a repeated treatment, is not effective or reliable enough as a stand-alone treatment, and the likelihood of it being a key part of some combination treatment, joined with a drug, is low because any really effective drug will probably realize its effectiveness based on its own merits, not because of the dermabrasion. roger_that is located in MARYLAND and he is available to meet: YES email hairsite@aol.com to arrange a meeting. Post reply
cal 27.05.2016, 23:53 @ roger_that	News on Follica
	Yes, we agree that there is no existing practical way to use wounding to treat MPB. I think we just disagree on where wounding ranks in the hierarchy of things to explore further. IMO it still looks as promising as anything else that has been investigated. Wounding/medication stuff has frustrated us with a lack of incremental progress. But looking at the big picture, it remains the only method that has shown ANY evidence that it can reach the goal. Adding up all the companies, we have seen probably 200+ million dollars and 15+ years of R&D dumped into various cellular-type methods. We know more than we did about the problem. But what do we have to show for it? We still cannot even treat this problem in a lab setting, never mind the commercial sense. In a nutshell: 1. Show me any example of a nice thick pre-MPB hair shaft returning to long-balded skin on a human (without using sex-change levels of hormone manipulation). I will probably show you a wound-based situation. 2. We do not understand this, nor can we replicate it in a lab setting. 3. Therefore, I call the HM world collectively idiotic. They are collectively dumping most of their R&D into other things that have yet to show any capability of regrowing practical terminal hairs at all. It's been 15+ years and probably 200+ million dollars sunk into cell-based HM research, and they still cannot even do what wounding has done BY ACCIDENT. cal is located in [NA] and he is available to meet: NO Post reply
roger_that MARYLAND, 28.05.2016, 15:52 @ cal	News on Follica
	OK, I understand, but I think you and many other people have magnified the potential of wounding far beyond what it really deserves. Here's why I think that has happened: People give selective attention to things that seem "new" and "different". All of us have seen an endless stream of chemicals, topicals, lotions, solutions, drugs, and research into molecules that could be dissolved and injected into the scalp... and time and time again, we've been disappointed by these things. They include everything from pharmaceuticals that have been FDA approved and on the market for a long time (Minoxidil/Rogaine, and Finasteride), along with snake oil cures, home-brew mixes, hybrid mixes of legal snake oils and home-concocted regimens (palmetto oil, zinc, copper, allergy medications, antifungals, cayenne pepper, tapioca pudding, dog manure, etc.)... and time and again, these things may grow some hair here or there, but they never produce consistent, spectacular results. Cosmetically impressive hair growth -- with all these products -- legal and illegal, FDA-approved and unapproved, black market and readily available -- is ALWAYS both rare and anecdotal. I think that has caused a lot of people to have an inherent bias against drugs, chemicals and topicals -- and they're RIGHT. I should note, though, when you hold up wounding against everything else, and say only wounding has shown miraculous hair growth of terminal follicles sprouting out of nowhere -- that is just not true at all. Many of the treatments I listed above, and many more, have shown anecdotal results of pretty amazing hair growth. Think of: 1) Kevin Nguyen, who posted on YouTube and came here to HairSite a few years ago and showed amazing results, going from practically a Norwood 4-5 all the way back to Norwood 0, from just using a combination of Rogaine and a few other things. I totally believe his story -- it is spectacularly impressive. The problem is, and what is not sinking in for a lot of people, is that hair regrowth is incredibly idiosyncratic. Kevin Nguyen is the outlier of outliers. What works in a few outliers will not work in the vast, vast majority of people -- and that includes wounding. 2) All the thousands of people who have actually restored significant amounts of hair using only Rogaine, or only Finasteride or Dutasteride, or other anti-androgens (look at the story Jarjarbinx has told often here, about how he regrew almost all of his own hair about 10+ years ago using a certain high-potency (but unapproved) anti-androgen he purchased on the internet -- RU 5886 (or whatever). And then he lost all that hair again, because he was no longer able to purchase a reliable supply of the agent. The fact is, these anecdotal stories happen ALL THE TIME (relatively speaking) with many drugs and chemicals, because everyone's physiology is different, everyone's follicles are a little bit different, and everyone's hair loss is a little bit different. There are ALWAYS outliers who get amazing results. But the reason people don't go apesh*t about any of this is we all know that people respond differently and most people don't get spectacular results. We already know this has been reported thousands of times throughout the news media and the scientific press, so we don't latch on to any of these products and get obsessed over them. SO, when something that seems truly new and "different" comes along -- like wounding -- many people can display selective attention. They believe what they want to believe -- that because a treatment or idea is qualitatively "different" from everything else -- mechanical stimulation and perturbation of the SKIN instead of just slathering on another chemical or popping another pill -- they get fixated on the novelty of it. It's actually a psychological reaction at work here. Something that seems "new and shiny" to us provokes a subconcious bias in favor of it -- it's the novelty effect. We have selective attention for what seems really new and different. The problem is, wounding -- at the cellular and biochemical level -- is really no different at all from adding a topical or injecting a bunch of chemicals and growth factors like Histogen's HSC. NO DIFFERENT AT ALL, because what the f*dk do you think wounding actually does in the skin? What it does is stimulate the cells to release -- THE EXACT SAME LIST OF GROWTH FACTORS YOU GET FROM SOMETHING LIKE HISTOGEN'S HSC. So wounding is, at the cellular and biochemical level, NO DIFFERENT FROM ADDING OR INJECTING CHEMICALS TO THE SKIN. It's the same exact g^dddam thing as Histogen does. Let me put that in as clear terms as possible: WOUNDING = CHEMICALS And I don't mean, by that, something like "wounding is just as good as adding chemicals". I literally mean, wounding is the exact same thing, physiologically, as putting chemicals into your skin. Wounding is growth factors. Wounding is chemicals. Nothing wrong with that, of course -- but don't expect it to have any different qualitative or quantitative effects on hair growth. And Histogen actually does it more reliably, because with Histogen you know exactly how much of each chemical and growth factor you're adding. With wounding, it's a crapshoot because everyone responds differently to the wounding. There are some individuals -- and some follicles -- that are way up at the "terrific responder" end of the graph, and they respond really well -- but they're also a tiny minority, and always will be. I'm just saying, I'm sick and tired of the selective attention and novelty effect that this "wounding" thing has triggered. It doesn't deserve any of it. It's just an idea, with very slim real world results to back it up, and the research has already superseded it. roger_that is located in MARYLAND and he is available to meet: YES email hairsite@aol.com to arrange a meeting. Post reply
cal 29.05.2016, 04:49 @ roger_that	News on Follica
	What works in a few outliers will not work in the vast, vast majority of people -- and that includes wounding. How do you know this? This is sheer assumption on your part. And it's basically your whole point. The vast numbers of men who use something like Minox (and closely scrutinize the area treated to document progress) is astronomically higher than the number of men who test dermabrasion with that kind of precision. You're screaming in block letters that WOUNDING IS NO DIFFERENT THAN GROWTH FACTORS!! But repetition is not persuasion. Where are the examples of a single growth factor injection producing any full size terminal hairs on long-balded skin? The MPB world is full of guys who can point to an occasional thick terminal hair produced by needling. cal is located in [NA] and he is available to meet: NO Post reply
roger_that MARYLAND, 29.05.2016, 15:46 @ cal	News on Follica
	What works in a few outliers will not work in the vast, vast majority of people -- and that includes wounding. Originally Posted by cal How do you know this? This is sheer assumption on your part. And it's basically your whole point. How do I know this? Because if people had noticed that dermabrasion could reliably grow lots of hair, it would have become huge news long, long ago, and people would just be getting dermabrasion to cure their MPB, and we wouldn't even be here discussing this, because hair loss would be solved. roger_that is located in MARYLAND and he is available to meet: YES email hairsite@aol.com to arrange a meeting. Post reply
roger_that MARYLAND, 29.05.2016, 15:53 @ cal	News on Follica
	Where are the examples of a single growth factor injection producing any full size terminal hairs on long-balded skin? The MPB world is full of guys who can point to an occasional thick terminal hair produced by needling. Histogen. And I wish I had the time to discuss HSC further in my post above. Histogen has already showed us photographic evidence of what they believe is a combination of de novo (brand new hairs) and revived miniaturized follicles. They've shown photos of biopsy cross-sections, the same sections of scalp, before and after, and it clearly shows new hair growth -- and it's fairly impressive. Please note that I'm NOT saying that their actual results are amazing enough for their HSC product to be called a "hair loss cure". In fact I think the problem they are having is that its action is less consistent and predictable than they hope -- and the consistency problem probably accounts for the length of time it's taking for them to improve it and get it on the market somewhere. But just because you're fixated on wounding doesn't mean stuff like this should be off your radar. Histogen's HSC is an example of an injectible solution of growth factors and proteins which has resulted in brand new hairs, and regenerated hairs, growing in bald areas. Just as good as your 1/1,000,000 idiosyncratic response wounding anecdotes, in fact much much better because at least you can know and control the amount of growth factors you're adding -- it's not a wild crap shoot like wounding is. roger_that is located in MARYLAND and he is available to meet: YES email hairsite@aol.com to arrange a meeting. Post reply
cal 29.05.2016, 16:18 (edited by cal, 29.05.2016, 16:40) @ roger_that	News on Follica
	How do I know this? Because if people had noticed that dermabrasion could reliably grow lots of hair, it would have become huge news long, long ago, and people would just be getting dermabrasion to cure their MPB, and we wouldn't even be here discussing this, because hair loss would be solved. Here we go with the straw men again. But just because you're fixated on wounding doesn't mean stuff like this should be off your radar. Histogen's HSC is an example of an injectible solution of growth factors and proteins which has resulted in brand new hairs, and regenerated hairs, growing in bald areas. Just as good as your 1/1,000,000 idiosyncratic response wounding anecdotes, in fact much much better because at least you can know and control the amount of growth factors you're adding -- it's not a wild crap shoot like wounding is. Fair point. Histogen has apparently have seen some de novo hair growth. Their progress has been so little for so long that I've begun to forget about them lately, to be honest. But you are always bringing up your belief that their hairs aren't likely to last without repeated treatments. Have you changed your mind on that? Much of the reason we got into this debate is because you keep saying any gains from growth factors would need to be chronically boosted just to survive. There is nothing 1/1,000,000 about guys growing some occasional nice big terminals from needling. If you think that's rare then you just haven't been paying attention to people's experimentations with needling. It's not even unusual. What is unusual, but 100% possible, is people growing thick, dense patches of de novo scalp hairs from cancer meds. IMO that deserves understanding more than anything else. Those two cases were not 1/1,000,000 unless there have already been well over 2,000,000 people treated with Gefitnib. IMO it was likely caused by the drug + sunburns + other possible factors as yet unknown. Sure, maybe the scenario causing their growth is practically useless for treating MPB . . . but what if it's not? cal is located in [NA] and he is available to meet: NO Post reply
roger_that MARYLAND, 29.05.2016, 17:15 @ cal	News on Follica
	Fair point. Histogen has apparently have seen some de novo hair growth. Their progress has been so little for so long that I've begun to forget about them lately, to be honest. But you are always bringing up your belief that their hairs aren't likely to last without repeated treatments. Have you changed your mind on that? Much of the reason we got into this debate is because you keep saying any gains from growth factors would need to be chronically boosted just to survive. Yes, I do say that, and I believe it 100%. It goes along with everything I've learned in my rather advanced education in biochemistry and cell physiology (I'm also in a Master's program in Biotechnology right now, re-taking more updated versions of the Biochemistry and Cell Physio classes I took as an undergad and in a previous grad program). Let me be very clear on my positions: 1) I firmly believe that growth-factor mediated growth (i.e., by adding growth factors in whatever form or by whatever means, short of adding new cells), will absolutely have to be chronically re-booted, to maintain the growth of the new or regenerated hairs. 2) I am absolutely fine with the above, as long as the treatment doesn't involve anything traumatic or dangerous to the scalp and follicles, like chronic abrasion. As long as you have a reliable way of growing and maintaining cosmetically impressive amounts of hair, and there is no collateral damage to the tissues or cells, it makes no difference to me whatsoever that you have to do repeat treatments. I am all in! If any of what I've ever written about this subject made you think otherwise, you haven't really been close attention to what I've been writing. My negativity about chronic re-treatments are a caveat ONLY for those treatments which are problematic for other reasons -- like a worrisome tendency to promote cancer/tumor growth, or a tendency to traumatize the tissue. (By the way, Histogen isn't 100% in the clear on the former, to be sure -- though I'm still somewhat hopeful about its potential.) roger_that is located in MARYLAND and he is available to meet: YES email hairsite@aol.com to arrange a meeting. Post reply
cal 31.05.2016, 04:53 @ roger_that	News on Follica
	Okay, great. Fine. Maybe GF injections cannot produce lasting hairs. I have no problem with that concept. But wounding CAN produce lasting hairs. cal is located in [NA] and he is available to meet: NO Post reply
roger_that MARYLAND, 31.05.2016, 11:30 @ cal	News on Follica
	Originally Posted by cal Okay, great. Fine. Maybe GF injections cannot produce lasting hairs. I have no problem with that concept. But wounding CAN produce lasting hairs. But it seems like just a few, not on everyone, and not every time you do it. It's extremely rare. Otherwise, you'd try it again to get more hairs, right? Wouldn't you want to fill in the rest of that bald area? And if you don't want to try it again because you're worried about tissue/follicle damage, then... well, it's not really a solution for anyone after all, is it? roger_that is located in MARYLAND and he is available to meet: YES email hairsite@aol.com to arrange a meeting. Post reply
cal 31.05.2016, 12:01 @ roger_that	News on Follica
	Are we gonna repeat the whole thread now? I don't advocate wounding alone to treat MPB. I advocate the STUDY of wounding's hair generating effects. The HM industry is idiotic for spending $200+ million and 15+ years on other experimental stuff without figuring this out. cal is located in [NA] and he is available to meet: NO Post reply
roger_that MARYLAND, 01.06.2016, 22:36 @ cal	News on Follica
	OK, fair enough. I just think you can study wounding six days from Sunday and it'll always come back to the release of growth factors involved in wound healing. Nothing mysterious about it at all. It's not the Lost Ark or something. It's like, if some complete novice at golf, goes onto the green and shoots 1,000 golf balls and 999 go into the rough, but one lands a hole-in-one. And then someone wants to hold that guy up as the world's foremost expert to teach complete novices the world's best golf swing... instead of analyzing where he went wrong when he totally missed the other 999 shots. roger_that is located in MARYLAND and he is available to meet: YES email hairsite@aol.com to arrange a meeting. Post reply
cal 02.06.2016, 06:51 @ roger_that	News on Follica
	It's like, if some complete novice at golf, goes onto the green and shoots 1,000 golf balls and 999 go into the rough, but one lands a hole-in-one. And then someone wants to hold that guy up as the world's foremost expert to teach complete novices the world's best golf swing... instead of analyzing where he went wrong when he totally missed the other 999 shots. And where do you get the idea that 999 out of 1000 scalp wounds (of the correct types) never produce any new hairs? As far as I can tell you made this up out of thin air. I assume it's because conventional wisdom does not say hacking up the scalp regrows balded hair. That assumption is fairly logical at a glance. But its not exactly airtight proof. I don't think it's a solid enough reason to dismiss the possibility that I bring up. There *IS* a track record of wound-induced hair growth being observed. One of the most respected hair scientists on earth has spent a decade on research that began with this concept. cal is located in [NA] and he is available to meet: NO Post reply
roger_that MARYLAND, 02.06.2016, 11:42 @ cal	News on Follica
	And where do you get the idea that 999 out of 1000 scalp wounds (of the correct types) never produce any new hairs? That was meant as a metaphor -- not an exact statistical example. If anything, it's probably even less than that. roger_that is located in MARYLAND and he is available to meet: YES email hairsite@aol.com to arrange a meeting. Post reply
cal 02.06.2016, 17:59 @ roger_that	News on Follica
	So did Cotsarelis originally launch Follica to investigate the commercial application of some 1-in-10,000 freak event? I don't think so. He knew there was more to the wounding & hair growth phenomenon than that. cal is located in [NA] and he is available to meet: NO Post reply
roger_that MARYLAND, 02.06.2016, 20:46 (edited by roger_that, 02.06.2016, 21:19) @ cal	News on Follica
	Why are we still rehashing misunderstandings here that have been discussed and clarified before a hundred times? It was NOT Cotsarelis who launched Follica. He transferred part of his interest in the "discovery" elaborated in his wounding paper to Follica, which was launched by Daphne Zohar as part of PureTech Ventures. Follica was an entity quickly set up as a vehicle for his "wounding" concept, but it is not his company. Dr. Cotsarelis is (or was) a shareholder, and I believe a member of their medical advisory board, but he didn't launch the company and does not run it. (Although, to be sure, the company sometimes does press releases and other announcements which vaguely suggest and imply that it is somehow "his" company, by somehow associating him with the day-to-day operations of the company. I believe that when they do that, it is purely for public relations reasons.) I'm sure he made some money up-front, on the initial transaction with Follica, as well as still potentially standing to make more money if the continuing research ever does lead to a marketable treatment -- but that is VERY far from sure. To be honest, I don't think that Dr. Cotsarelis believes that Follica will come up with anything marketable at this point. Basically, he's already made something on the initial deal 10+ years ago, so at this point, he probably doesn't really have any more "skin in the game". He'd be a fool to sit around waiting for them. I'd guess he has absolutely nothing to lose if they fail (if shares worth 0 now are worth 0 in five years or when the company folds, he's not really out anything), and as we know he's busy researching a VERY long list of other hair regrowth ideas. And yes, it is about some 1/10,000 freak event -- or even less common than that, maybe 1/100,000 or something like that. The whole scientific model of Follica is NOT to commercialize some procedure which simply dermabrades or wounds the scalp. If it were that alone, they would never get anywhere. The whole model is based on finding some putative compound that COMBINED with wounding, would yield a lot of hair. Got that? And still, to this day, after more than 10 years from Follica's founding, there is still no public evidence they've found that compound. The one public trial of wounding in conjunction with some compound (in Germany) reportedly "failed". Bottom line -- if "wounding" really could grow thousands of terminal hairs on a bald scalp -- alone or combined with some exogenous compound -- we'd all know it by now. roger_that is located in MARYLAND and he is available to meet: YES email hairsite@aol.com to arrange a meeting. Post reply
cal 02.06.2016, 22:45 @ roger_that	News on Follica
	It was NOT Cotsarelis who launched Follica. He transferred part of his interest in the "discovery" elaborated in his wounding paper to Follica, which was launched by Daphne Zohar as part of PureTech Ventures. Follica was an entity quickly set up as a vehicle for his "wounding" concept, but it is not his company. Dr. Cotsarelis is (or was) a shareholder, and I believe a member of their medical advisory board, but he didn't launch the company and does not run it. (Although, to be sure, the company sometimes does press releases and other announcements which vaguely suggest and imply that it is somehow "his" company, by somehow associating him with the day-to-day operations of the company. I believe that when they do that, it is purely for public relations reasons.) I'm sure he made some money up-front, on the initial transaction with Follica, as well as still potentially standing to make more money if the continuing research ever does lead to a marketable treatment -- but that is VERY far from sure. To be honest, I don't think that Dr. Cotsarelis believes that Follica will come up with anything marketable at this point. Basically, he's already made something on the initial deal 10+ years ago, so at this point, he probably doesn't really have any more "skin in the game". He'd be a fool to sit around waiting for them. I'd guess he has absolutely nothing to lose if they fail (if shares worth 0 now are worth 0 in five years or when the company folds, he's not really out anything), and as we know he's busy researching a VERY long list of other hair regrowth ideas. The specific genesis of the Follica company has limited relevance to my point. I was shorthanding that "Cots founded Follica" because he was in there from the beginning serving as the primary driving force of the research arm. I know who Daphne Zohar is, and Follica's backstory, just like many other longtime forum members here. And yes, it is about some 1/10,000 freak event -- or even less common than that, maybe 1/100,000 or something like that. Yet the anecdotal picture has always suggested otherwise. The whole scientific model of Follica is NOT to commercialize some procedure which simply dermabrades or wounds the scalp. If it were that alone, they would never get anywhere. The whole model is based on finding some putative compound that COMBINED with wounding, would yield a lot of hair. Got that? I agree with this. Always have. And still, to this day, after more than 10 years from Follica's founding, there is still no public evidence they've found that compound. The one public trial of wounding in conjunction with some compound (in Germany) reportedly "failed". Bottom line -- if "wounding" really could grow thousands of terminal hairs on a bald scalp -- alone or combined with some exogenous compound -- we'd all know it by now. I agree, there is no evidence that they have found anything commercially useful. (But at the same time, I wouldn't trust Cotsarelis to inform us until years later even if they had.) The possible things to try for this (not just possible substances but possible protocols with them) is virtually endless. That's the reality of it. Granted, anything that works would almost certainly be something that was invented within the last generation or two. Any pre-industrial substance that did the job would have probably been discovered long ago - on that much we agree. We've had basically one company seriously looking for this, for under 10 years now. And they are a privately-funded group trying for something commercially sellable in the near term. This topic deserves more manpower. A lot more. cal is located in [NA] and he is available to meet: NO Post reply
Swooping 07.06.2016, 20:54 @ cal	News on Follica
	FYI, they will highly likely trial it either with minoxidil or PGF2A (or both) next clinical trial. Only if results are favorable they will proceed. Swooping is located in [NA] and he is available to meet: NO Post reply