Deprecated: The each() function is deprecated. This message will be suppressed on further calls in /home/hairsite/public_html/hair-loss/functions.php on line 155
Hair Loss Forum - FGF9: worst case scenario

March 2017 - Trending Topics in our new forum

 Stem cell hair restoration results - Dr. Cole vs Histogen vs RepliCel.
 Dr. Paul Kemp, CEO of HairClone answers questions about follicle banking.
 RepliCel year 2017 forecast for RCH-01 cell based hair regeneration.
 Dr. Cole to start stem cell hair restoration trial in the US.
 Dr. Umar's 6500 grafts life saving repair procedure for transplant victim.
 FUE donor harvesting, what you must know when choosing a clinic.
 Dr. Koray Erdogan raises the standard in FUE artistry skills.
 Dr. Arvind on how to formulate your own toxic free shampoo.
 Conference & FREE hair restoration consultations; cities worldwide.

This is a READ ONLY forum.
Access our brand new platform at HairSite New Forum to continue the discussion on these topics that you are interested in. All contents and discussions have been transferred to our new forum at
  HairSite New Forum

Log in | User | Register

roger_that

MARYLAND,
06.06.2013, 11:49
 

FGF9: worst case scenario (Hair Multiplication & Stem Cells Treatment)

Here's the worst case scenario of all this. I don't think this is necessarily the case, but it is something we have to think about...

All these "discoveries" by Dr. Cotsarelis (PGD2, Fgf9, etc.) may just be the result of his desperately testing out a huge number of different known compounds, sequentially, with a major goal being to keep the flow of money to his lab, and/or to pump up Follica by attracting new investors.

If he tests 100 or 1000 different compounds, obviously some will tend to increase hair growth (in mice or whatever) more than others. That doesn't necessarily mean that they're growing a lot of hair, or that they can grow a lot of hair on a human head.

Maybe PGD2 and Fgf9 are just two of the ones at the top of the list.

But that doesn't mean they really grow a lot of hair -- it just means they grow MORE hair than all the other possibly hundreds of compounds he's tested.

The rest falls together as PR and spin. You take that comparative result, and then sell it to the media as a potential "cure", like a "silver bullet", but all you really have is a couple of compounds that scored better than average at growing a little bit of hair in mouse tests.

Actually, I'm more optimistic, long-run, about PGD2, because the science seems to connect a lot of things (e.g. the centrality of prostaglandin metabolism to the hair cycle), and involves more than just that one Cotsarelis study (its connection with DHT is actually proven and demonstrated by people other than Cotsarelis).




roger_that is located in MARYLAND and he is available to meet: YES
email hairsite@aol.com to arrange a meeting.

hairman2

06.06.2013, 11:54

@ roger_that

FGF9: worst case scenario

I have not read the actual nature publication. Perhaps they give an indication in terms of figures as to how well it works compared to wounding without fgf9?


Originally Posted by roger_that

Here's the worst case scenario of all this. I don't think this is necessarily the case, but it is something we have to think about...

All these "discoveries" by Dr. Cotsarelis (PGD2, Fgf9, etc.) may just be the result of his desperately testing out a huge number of different known compounds, sequentially, with a major goal being to keep the flow of money to his lab, and/or to pump up Follica by attracting new investors.

If he tests 100 or 1000 different compounds, obviously some will tend to increase hair growth (in mice or whatever) more than others. That doesn't necessarily mean that they're growing a lot of hair, or that they can grow a lot of hair on a human head.

Maybe PGD2 and Fgf9 are just two of the ones at the top of the list.

But that doesn't mean they really grow a lot of hair -- it just means they grow MORE hair than all the other possibly hundreds of compounds he's tested.

The rest falls together as PR and spin. You take that comparative result, and then sell it to the media as a potential "cure", like a "silver bullet", but all you really have is a couple of compounds that scored better than average at growing a little bit of hair in mouse tests.

Actually, I'm more optimistic, long-run, about PGD2, because the science seems to connect a lot of things (e.g. the centrality of prostaglandin metabolism to the hair cycle), and involves more than just that one Cotsarelis study (its connection with DHT is actually proven and demonstrated by people other than Cotsarelis).





hairman2 is located in [NA] and he is available to meet: NO

hairman2

06.06.2013, 12:19

@ hairman2

FGF9: worst case scenario

All I have found so far is a 2-3 fold increase in the number of new follicles. I would imagine that in humans the number of de-novo generated hairs after wounding is extremely low, so that a 2 or 3 fold increase would still lead to very insignificant results. I dont really know what people are getting so excited about.

[source] http://www.sacbee.com/2013/06/03/5466520/new-study-identifies-the-role.html

[quote] Reducing Fgf9 expression decreased hair follicle formation, while overexpressing Fgf9 led to two to three-fold increase in the number of new hair follicles.


I have not read the actual nature publication. Perhaps they give an indication in terms of figures as to how well it works compared to wounding without fgf9?


Originally Posted by roger_that

Here's the worst case scenario of all this. I don't think this is necessarily the case, but it is something we have to think about...

All these "discoveries" by Dr. Cotsarelis (PGD2, Fgf9, etc.) may just be the result of his desperately testing out a huge number of different known compounds, sequentially, with a major goal being to keep the flow of money to his lab, and/or to pump up Follica by attracting new investors.

If he tests 100 or 1000 different compounds, obviously some will tend to increase hair growth (in mice or whatever) more than others. That doesn't necessarily mean that they're growing a lot of hair, or that they can grow a lot of hair on a human head.

Maybe PGD2 and Fgf9 are just two of the ones at the top of the list.

But that doesn't mean they really grow a lot of hair -- it just means they grow MORE hair than all the other possibly hundreds of compounds he's tested.

The rest falls together as PR and spin. You take that comparative result, and then sell it to the media as a potential "cure", like a "silver bullet", but all you really have is a couple of compounds that scored better than average at growing a little bit of hair in mouse tests.

Actually, I'm more optimistic, long-run, about PGD2, because the science seems to connect a lot of things (e.g. the centrality of prostaglandin metabolism to the hair cycle), and involves more than just that one Cotsarelis study (its connection with DHT is actually proven and demonstrated by people other than Cotsarelis).

Originally Posted by hairman2





hairman2 is located in [NA] and he is available to meet: NO

roger_that

MARYLAND,
06.06.2013, 12:34

@ hairman2

FGF9: worst case scenario

All I have found so far is a 2-3 fold increase in the number of new follicles. I would imagine that in humans the number of de-novo generated hairs after wounding is extremely low, so that a 2 or 3 fold increase would still lead to very insignificant results. I dont really know what people are getting so excited about.


Thanks, hairman. Good information there. That would tend to support my idea that what Cotsarelis is doing is just running through a long list and testing lots of substances one by one. (In fact, we know this. He's already admitted it. The question is, are any of these compounds he's singling out REALLY good at growing hair, or just comparatively good?)

He tests lots and lots of substances, and when he hits on one that seems to grow the "most" hair, he writes a paper and announces it to the media as a potential cure, but all we really have is a substance that, in comparison to hundreds of others tested, grew a few more hairs.

It doesn't mean that the amount of hair was anything close to spectacular. It may have been very meager. But it just grew MORE hair than everything else.

If this is true, it's very disturbing. We all obviously want to see REAL results, something that can safely switch on the hair-growing mechanisms of miniaturized follicles, or create new follicles, all in sufficient numbers to produce significant cosmetic results.

We don't need any more sophisticated "Rogaines" on the market.




roger_that is located in MARYLAND and he is available to meet: YES
email hairsite@aol.com to arrange a meeting.

superhl

06.06.2013, 19:58

@ roger_that

FGF9: worst case scenario

Agree! We need the truth. Remember when he first appeared on TV displaying the mouse with the white hair. If he really grew "lots of hair" on humans, he would have posted pictures all over the web. We have not seen one picture!!! Not one!




superhl is located in [NA] and he is available to meet: NO

KO

06.06.2013, 23:59

@ roger_that

FGF9: worst case scenario

Do you guys actually read any of the papers published on this? Just curious. Cotsarelis has spent his life studying HF stem cells and wound healing, and is one of the leading experts on this, it would be ludicrous to think he's simply injecting random chemicals in mice just to see a stray hair form.




KO is located in [NA] and he is available to meet: NO

KO

07.06.2013, 00:00

@ superhl

FGF9: worst case scenario

That is because clinical trials are CONFIDENTIAL. Why is this so hard to understand? I really don't get it.




KO is located in [NA] and he is available to meet: NO

roger_that

MARYLAND,
07.06.2013, 00:03
(edited by roger_that, 07.06.2013, 00:44)

@ KO

FGF9: worst case scenario

The results are confidential unless a company wishes to release them, which companies often do, at least in part. Of course the details with respect to individual trial patients are always confidential. We know that Aderans was reporting clinical trials results with a fair amount of detail, at least for a while. Replicel released clinical trials results even when they were bad.




roger_that is located in MARYLAND and he is available to meet: YES
email hairsite@aol.com to arrange a meeting.

roger_that

MARYLAND,
07.06.2013, 00:06
(edited by roger_that, 07.06.2013, 00:29)

@ KO

FGF9: worst case scenario

Originally Posted by KO

Do you guys actually read any of the papers published on this? Just curious. Cotsarelis has spent his life studying HF stem cells and wound healing, and is one of the leading experts on this, it would be ludicrous to think he's simply injecting random chemicals in mice just to see a stray hair form.


KO, did I say he was injecting "random" chemicals into mice?

If you think that's what I'm saying, you're completely mistaken.

Cotsarelis himself has said that he is trying out a number of chemicals, but I don't think any of them are random. There is definitely a method to it. He's testing molecules that he thinks have some potential to induce hair growth.

My impression, however, is that he's testing quite a number of chemicals. He's doing serial assays with many different substances which are, or may be, involved with hair growth... prostaglandins, cytokines, growth factors, etc.

Please go back to some of Cotsarelis' statements, or do I have to find them for you? If you look at one of his extended statements in regards to the PGD2 paper, in fact if you look at the PGD2 paper itself, he indicates as much.




roger_that is located in MARYLAND and he is available to meet: YES
email hairsite@aol.com to arrange a meeting.

HairlossCurse

07.06.2013, 03:15

@ roger_that

FGF9: worst case scenario

Originally Posted by roger_that

All these "discoveries" by Dr. Cotsarelis (PGD2, Fgf9, etc.) may just be the result of his desperately testing out a huge number of different known compounds, sequentially, with a major goal being to keep the flow of money to his lab, and/or to pump up Follica by attracting new investors.


This is TBC but after reading one of his patent it seems that the gene processing technique is done by a computer program and spits out all significant genes for him. Out of all the 1000s of genes he only mentions about 10 differentially expressed genes in his patent in which he picks PDG2 above all the rest.

In the WCHR 2013 abstracts(now free here:http://www.hair2013.org/news.asp?newsid=27) he still only mentions lack of progenitor cells/pdg2 so that seems to be the main focus for him. He seems to strongly believe in pdg2.

This new discovery is very odd, perhaps more important for wound healing (another big market cosmetic problem)Cotsarelis has stated that his research has bigger implications than just hair.




HairlossCurse is located in [NA] and he is available to meet: NO

jarjarbinx

07.06.2013, 03:31

@ HairlossCurse

What do you think about scenario?

Cotseralis favorite hypothetical treatment concept is PGD2 inhibition. He releases the PGD2 study to kind of ring the bell of the drug companies that have PGD2 inhibitors in clinical studies, and shake up the world. He then tries to work out a deal with the drug companies that have PGD2 inhibitors in clinical trials, but the talks doesn't go the way he wants things to go. So he decides to go with his 2nd favorite choice: growth factor mimics, wounding, and FGF9. This is why he releases the FGF9 study because he has finally settled on the treatment plan he will proceed with.



Originally Posted by roger_that

All these "discoveries" by Dr. Cotsarelis (PGD2, Fgf9, etc.) may just be the result of his desperately testing out a huge number of different known compounds, sequentially, with a major goal being to keep the flow of money to his lab, and/or to pump up Follica by attracting new investors.

Originally Posted by HairlossCurse


This is TBC but after reading one of his patent it seems that the gene processing technique is done by a computer program and spits out all significant genes for him. Out of all the 1000s of genes he only mentions about 10 differentially expressed genes in his patent in which he picks PDG2 above all the rest.

In the WCHR 2013 abstracts(now free here:http://www.hair2013.org/news.asp?newsid=27) he still only mentions lack of progenitor cells/pdg2 so that seems to be the main focus for him. He seems to strongly believe in pdg2.

This new discovery is very odd, perhaps more important for wound healing (another big market cosmetic problem)Cotsarelis has stated that his research has bigger implications than just hair.





jarjarbinx is located in [NA] and he is available to meet: NO

roger_that

MARYLAND,
07.06.2013, 03:40

@ jarjarbinx

FGF9: worst case scenario

What do you think about this possibility:

Cotseralis favorite hypothetical treatment is PGD2 inhibitor. He releases the PGD2 study to kind of ring the bell of the drug companies that have PGD2 inhibitors in clinical studies and shake up the world. He then tries to work out a deal with the drug companies that have PGD2 inhibitors in clinical trials but the talks doesn't go the way he wants things to go. So he decides to go with his 2nd favorite choice: growth factor mimics, wounding, and FGF9.


No, I think it's more like this. Cotsarelis announces his PGD2 discovery and gets into talks with pharmaceutical companies which are already doing trials for blockers, for other indications, so he can piggy back hairloss on top of their trials. He does a deal, but then Follica gets jealous and says "You're on our board, what have you done for us lately?" Follica is desperate because they haven't had good news or new financing in a while, and they're under tremendous pressure to show some kind of progress, anything. So Cotsarelis trots out this 3 year old news story again, recycles the info and pitches it to the Wall Street Journal and other papers.




roger_that is located in MARYLAND and he is available to meet: YES
email hairsite@aol.com to arrange a meeting.

alecbaldone

07.06.2013, 14:59

@ roger_that

FGF9: worst case scenario

I dont see why everyone is so down on Cotserelis. He did research, shared his findings that PGD2 inhibition was the route he tested and found positive results. meantime Iron-dragon whips out a batch of chromoglycate and Indomethacin and it stops hair loss in a matter of days!! Nothing has ever done this and IMO we are making great progress. At least we can stop shedding, this is huge. Next up figuring out how to properly use fgf9 in addition to some other compounds to regrow hair in deead, dieing follicles. I just dont think Dr. Cots is lying to us, he has shared his findings and that is more than most companies do. Alec




alecbaldone is located in [NA] and he is available to meet: NO

jarjarbinx

07.06.2013, 15:07
(edited by jarjarbinx, 07.06.2013, 15:26)

@ alecbaldone

FGF9: worst case scenario

Some of the stuff he's saying seem contradictory and I get the feeling that he's holding back. He's certainly not very transparent. He could learn a few lessons about openness from Histogen. Keep in mind that Cotseralis CHOSE to cater to bald people so he should be more forthcoming with us.


Originally Posted by alecbaldone

I dont see why everyone is so down on Cotserelis. He did research, shared his findings that PGD2 inhibition was the route he tested and found positive results. meantime Iron-dragon whips out a batch of chromoglycate and Indomethacin and it stops hair loss in a matter of days!! Nothing has ever done this and IMO we are making great progress. At least we can stop shedding, this is huge. Next up figuring out how to properly use fgf9 in addition to some other compounds to regrow hair in deead, dieing follicles. I just dont think Dr. Cots is lying to us, he has shared his findings and that is more than most companies do. Alec





jarjarbinx is located in [NA] and he is available to meet: NO

alecbaldone

07.06.2013, 16:12

@ jarjarbinx

FGF9: worst case scenario

of course some things he is saying are contradictory, he is learning as he goes along. I work at energy technology company, and we are always backtracking on something we said because we have learned a better way of doing something and we are constantly learning and improving, most smart people are. And yes I suppose he is holding back some stuff, he doesnt want competitors to make all of the money on cure based on all of his hard work.




alecbaldone is located in [NA] and he is available to meet: NO

jarjarbinx

07.06.2013, 16:32

@ alecbaldone

FGF9: worst case scenario

alec, I've been stumped by the goings-on but couldn't really crystalize and articulate what was bothering me regards to Cotseralis. Then I saw Mr. Z's post below and in his post Mr. Z effectively states a lot of what is troublesome for me about the goings-on with Cotseralis. Could you please respond to the issues raised by Mr. Z in the below link:


http://www.hairsite.com/hair-loss/forum_entry-id-119663-page-0-category-1-order-last_answer.html





Originally Posted by alecbaldone

of course some things he is saying are contradictory, he is learning as he goes along. I work at energy technology company, and we are always backtracking on something we said because we have learned a better way of doing something and we are constantly learning and improving, most smart people are. And yes I suppose he is holding back some stuff, he doesnt want competitors to make all of the money on cure based on all of his hard work.





jarjarbinx is located in [NA] and he is available to meet: NO

alecbaldone

07.06.2013, 17:51

@ jarjarbinx

FGF9: worst case scenario

Mr Z makes some good points, but I still do not think that Cots is untrustworthy or evil, just private. By the time these articles come out, I would think that they have already experimented a lot and have evidence that it works as their professional reputation is at risk. I think that baldness will be cured by guys like him or experimenters like us on a forum before the likes of Pfizer or some major company comes out with a cure. PDG2 and Fgf9 are the newest pathways to explore and we are closing in on a solution.




alecbaldone is located in [NA] and he is available to meet: NO

jarjarbinx

07.06.2013, 18:09
(edited by jarjarbinx, 07.06.2013, 18:34)

@ alecbaldone

FGF9: worst case scenario

Well, these issues that Mr. Z raised are the real issues that were bothering me and the issue of Cots's release being temporally close to the release by Histogen was just a case of me starting to pile on and get nitpicky because I was already bugged by the same issues that Mr. Z raised.

That aside, and keeping the issues raised by Mr. Z in mind, are you saying that you also think that given the amount of time since Cotseralis did the work for the study about FGF9 it's very possible that he has already done at least a little bit of human testing with FGF9, at least for safetey purposes?


Originally Posted by alecbaldone

Mr Z makes some good points, but I still do not think that Cots is untrustworthy or evil, just private. By the time these articles come out, I would think that they have already experimented a lot and have evidence that it works as their professional reputation is at risk. I think that baldness will be cured by guys like him or experimenters like us on a forum before the likes of Pfizer or some major company comes out with a cure. PDG2 and Fgf9 are the newest pathways to explore and we are closing in on a solution.





jarjarbinx is located in [NA] and he is available to meet: NO

roger_that

MARYLAND,
08.06.2013, 16:54

@ alecbaldone

FGF9: worst case scenario

I don't think Dr. Cotsarelis is evil. In fact he's undeniably our number one resource in terms of cutting-edge research.

However, I do have some questions about Follica and its corporate ethics. Anyone familiar with US start-up culture and US corporate culture in general knows that companies do a lot of things to pump up not only their share prices (if they're traded on the stock exchange), but also their valuations to position themselves for financing, etc. A lot of times what they do in this regard is of questionable ethics. They "pivot" and change business strategies and even products on a dime, and say a lot of distracting and conflicting things about their products, sometimes seeking to create all kinds of mistaken impressions which may serve their interests.

Another thing they do is file lots of patents often not based on anything that actually works, but to milk their intellectual property later by filing lawsuits against people who actually DO come up with workable ideas that area somehow similar to the original patent.

All of this keeps the founders of the start-up living off of investor money for years and years, without actually turning out any viable product.

Looking closely at the history of Follica, all its contradictory statements, its enthusiasm for filing lots of patents containing many "embodiments" of an idea, but not actually carrying through in commercializing these ideas (probably because they produce weak results)... and may other things they've done, they appear to follow this typical American "vaporware" start-up pattern very closely.




roger_that is located in MARYLAND and he is available to meet: YES
email hairsite@aol.com to arrange a meeting.

KO

08.06.2013, 17:57

@ roger_that

FGF9: worst case scenario

What contradictory statements has Follica made? People keep saying they've made "contradictory" statements, but I have not heard anything as such, and I've followed them pretty closely and read most of their patents and published literature.

Furthermore, all companies especially in biomedical sciences do the same thing regarding filing patents.

As for Histogen, Follica has nothing to learn in professionalism or ethics from Histogen. From the very beginning they've said they're not going to comment on anything, and they've held true to that, and any comment they've said about potential clinical application is very vague. Much like a government agency actually, "We will neither confirm nor deny".




KO is located in [NA] and he is available to meet: NO

120100 Postings in 12546 Threads, 6031 registered users
Hair Loss Forum | Admin contact

 
This is a READ ONLY forum.
Access our brand new platform at HairSite New Forum to continue the discussion on these topics. All contents and discussions have been transferred to
HairSite New Forum

Disclosure: This is an advertising site for our paid sponsors & advertisers. The contents, videos & photos on HairSite are provided by paid sponsors and are not endorsed by HairSite in any way. The recommendations, results, and representations made by our sponsors/advertisers do not reflect the opinions of HairSite. This site is 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 or complaint cases; comments of such nature, including external links, may be removed from the forum. Notify hairsite@aol.com any false, defamatory, misleading or inappropriate user generated contents for immediate removal from the forum. Also read Terms of Use & Privacy Statement |  HairSite advertisers: ASMED | Dr. Bhatti | Dr. Bisanga | Dr. Cole | Dr. Hakan Doganay | Dr.Epstein | Dr. Jones | Dr. Halder | Hasson & Wong | Dr. Klein | Dr. Madhu | Dr. Mwamba | Dr. Donald Ng| Dr. Poswal | Dr. Rahal | Dr. Razack | Dr. Reddy | Dr. Umar | Dr. Woods | DHI Global | HDC Clinic | |Lasercomb | Reviva Clinic | Ziering Medical|