Square1

Thanks. Might it be worthwhile to document all the specifics, such as dosages, application methods, results assessments, timelines, future steps etc?

Maybe it is an idea to create some kind of overview of all the trials that are going on / will take place with all of their specific details and insert it in this topic as a opening post? That way, everybody can quickly gauge the state of the research and its results. I would be happy to do that, but I am also a bit lost in all the details

My question is whether damaged hair / follicles (due to whatever reason) came back in their healthy state after wounding + verteporfin. If that is the case, I can see it working on balding areas. If not, I lean more towards the theory that verteporfin simply replicates the state before wounding. If the latter is the case, I can see it working several times on the same follicles.

The idea that wounding + verteporfin would produce results isn't farfetched, it's what the authors of the original study (https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aba2374) did on mice. They noted the following: Furthermore, we have shown that inhibition of YAP signaling prevents En1 activation during wound healing, thus encouraging ENF-mediated wound repair without fibrosis and with regeneration of secondary skin elements (hair follicles, sebaceous glands). It is however unclear to me what "regeneration" in this context exactly means. When skimming through this abstract I got the idea that they simple mean that the hair came back after the wounding without being impeded by a scarring process. I would be hard-pressed to really call that regeneration though. My idea of regeneration is that something that was, but disappeared, came back. In this case, follicles that were damaged / miniaturized by androgenetic alopecia or a similar condition returned in their un-miniturized form after the wounding. I am not sure if this is what happened here though.

The enthusiasm is great, but let's not be overdemanding of dr. Barghouthi. Besides running these experiments, he has a clinic to run, a private life etc. etc. I am much less optimistic about these sci-fi treatments as they are years / decades way with a high possibility of failure. Even if one of them makes it, they will take you to the bank to get it. Most won't be able to afford it. Verteporfin has the same promise (a full head of hair) but way quicker, cheaper, less artificial and safer. And it has some pointers of working in humans. The claim that Tsuji "has a cure" is one that I am very sceptical about. It has never shown any resemblance of working in humans that I am aware of. As he always fails to get investment, I think investors veel the same way.

They predicted wars over water. I think that countries will wage wars to secure the supplies of verteporfin for their balding populations.

It is already a great sign that such top doctors are willing to take the time to listen to Melvin and apparently want to participate in follow-up podcast after this video. They are sceptical, with is completely understandable because of the history of the hair loss industry and the 869483 supposed cures that all fell flat in the past. It doesn't help when there have been surgeons like Coen Gho, promoting obvious scams as the solution for hair loss. I couldn't hear all speakers that well, which is espacially unfortunately in the case of Dr. U as he is probably the most innovative doctor in this industry. Most if not all of the were not aware of this development but, despite their scepticism, seem to be persuadable if the right evidence would be presented. Very well done by Melvin as well, made the case and handled questions in a calm and enthousiastic, but not overly zealous, way.

Great work, Melvin. Much appreciated.

That is why we are all so grateful to dr. Barghouthi, as he is one of the few people in the industry that is actually interested in kicking the ball forward rather than writing papers or raking in investment cash.

Let's say that you would be able to achieve 100% regrowth, it still wouldn't matter much if the regrown grafts disappear gradually in 1-2 years, as tends to happen with minoxidil, microneedling etc.etc. That's why I think that permanence is a very important factor here. I don't think a mere regrowth of 10% would be visually that significant as what we say in the pictures. Dr. Barghouthi estimated it around 30% and let's assume that this is the percentage it is after all optimization, experiments etc. etc. If this regrowth is permanent, you could strategies like a first HT of 10.000 grafts, of which 3.000 grow back due to verteporfin. Then, you do a second of 10.000 grafts of which you use 7.000 to replace the lost donor of the first HT and 3.000 for the scalp. That is 13.000 grafts on the scalp for just 7.000 donorgrafts. If you could repeat the process with already moved grafts you could do HT's just to thicken the donor, but even if this is not possible, it would still be a colossal step towards beating baldness. So, great that new experiments are being done, but evaluating the long term of older experiments is in my view crucial for this therapy.

It is not proof in a scientific sense, but the pictures from dr. Barghouthi's last trial strongly indicate that regrowth has taken place. That's why (said it before, sorry for repeating, but I think this is key) I am interested if that visual difference in test and control site is still there. If it continues to hold, that would point towards permanent gains. Saying that that would be a huge deal, would be an understatement. (Of course, future experiments would have to confirm this finding and so on, but you get the point)

Is there a way to check in on the patient from the previous trial, just to see whether the test donor site still looks thicker than the control donor site? For that patient, the 12 month mark comes up. A lot of other treatments that initially produce regrowth lose their gains around this point in time, so if the test site is still visually better that might be an indication that these gains are permanent. And if so, that would be huge in my view.

There isn't a business model around it. Let's say a big player in pharma funds this and finds a way to get 100% regrowth. How will that make them money?

If the procedure leaves the patient with significantly more (healthy) hair after than before and can be repeated, that functionally is a cure right? Admittedly, a nw7 would have to undertake a lot of treatments, downtime, money and patience to get a full coverage again, but given those conditions are true, it should be possible.

The size of the area is too small I think to base meaningful conclusions on. Ideal would be to mark a spot of, say, 4 cm2, count the hairs / grafts before the procedure, record how many grafts are taken out and then do a recount 6 /12/ 24 etc months after te procedure. That way you can have an insight in how many grafts were regenerated and how many of them remain after the 6/12 months mark

How is it possible that the control site has hair follicles? So it is fair to say that the test site has 5 new hairs, which would be the work of 0.32 verteporfin. Where we expect the results of the 0.4 test site to be even higher I assume.

Beard Hair wouldn't have my preference though. I have seen some showcases of transplants with Beard but it rarely looks good. And it it does, it is still nearly impossible to manage due to the fact that it is so thick, strong and coarse. Nice if you want to increase your actual beard, but for the head it isn't a great option. I would first focus in how regeneration of scalp hair goes.

Great question. In addition to that, does the improved regrowth rate in the test-sites seem to hold? In other words, are the hairs / follicles grown from verteporfin (or at least we think) still there in numbers?

Is there an overview somewhere of how and when the next experiments will take place? Will the patient that was involved in the first trial be monitored? If the treatment site still looks more dense than the control site, we might have an indication that the new hairs don't vanish after a couple of weeks / months.

Just to demonstrate that there is more than money. Especially if you have a little bit of cash, other things are important too. I didn't know there was a fundraise going on. Where can I find detailed plans of where the money will be used for? If interesting and credible, I might throw a buck too.

Do you think Messi would want to win the World Cup even if he would get no money for it? Finding a workable cure for an age-old problem such as baldness would be such an honor that I think many would want to be a part of it even if it does not come with monetary benefits. Having said that, if vert proves to be a great addition to hair transplant surgeries the doc would gain such a boost in name recognition and status that it would almost certainly result in more business / demand for his services. What is the exact plan? What will happen, who will do it, with how many patients? How much money is needed and where is it needed for. Is it for buying verteporfin or are there more costs? When will this new trial take place?

Do you know if he currently has concrete plans to test vert?

I reckon you had an interview with him and convinced him of trying this. When was that exactly and, more importantly, was he aware of dr. Barghouthi's work before you brought it up?

This indeed and I don't see any particular reason to doubt the findings of dr. B. If it would be a company with a patented substance than I could understand scepticism but in this case, dr. B. wouldn't see a penny if verteporfin would prove to be a miracle drug and clinics around the globe would start using it. It is also not the case that he has a "special way" of applying the drug that he would charge for or something as everybody understands this is just first time use and protocols would need to be developed, tested and evaluated in order to agree on what the best one is.

I genuinely feel I am missing why others aren't excited. If someone knows, please feel me in.