CureSeeker

Yes, dissolved into 1X PBS solution via ultrasonic cleaner, and I used 30 Gauge 4mm mesotherapy needles and injected them at full depth.

Thanks, and no I'm not on any medication. I've done microneedling in the past, even deep microneedling, with no results and I consider that a good enough control.

If anyone's curious, I designed and printed that syringe dispenser to meter out specific quantities per press of the plunger: https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:5400166

Yes, I started it on Sunday, for a 2cm-diameter section on my scalp. 2mg/mL concentration, 0.7mg/cm² dosage, and then manually microneedled with a 12-pin cartridge. I did it manually so I could press the needles in to their deepest depth, and apply some rotational mechanical force. I also applied some benzocaine-ethanol solution to take the edge off any pain.

Just microneedling

I've tried microneedling in the past without success, in both areas.

There are a lot of people in this thread claiming to know how verteporfin treatment will work and even how the potential follicles will behave, despite it never being tested. If it hasn't been tested, you do not know. That's literally why we do tests. At any rate, I've procured some verteporfin and will be starting my own test on myself this week (deep microneedling of the thinning area).

On the topic of microneedling+verteporfin, here's a case where it regrew hair

Do you know what solvent he used? Like DMSO?

Does anyone know the concentration/molality of the verteporfin solution that Dr. Barghouthi was using?

This is what I meant by people not being able to get verteporfin. It sounded like you were saying there were ways to get ahold of some without a doctor's prescription. If so, I'd like to look into that.

Can you DM me details about the discord/telegram? The site won't let me DM you, probably because my account's newish.

I'm sure many people would be happy to test it at home themselves. The problem is people can't get verteporfin.

Yes, this exactly. We're in uncharted territory, so none of us really know. We can speculate on plausible results though. Not only have we not tested verteporfin much, we haven't even done tests with de novo follicle generation in human skin, because no therapy has successfully done that yet. Assuming verteporfin can, we don't know how those brand new follicles would behave in comparison to old, degraded follicles. It could be that any single follicle needs a decade of DHT exposure before it starts to miniaturize. That would be awesome.

Again, if verteporfin causes new follicles to be produced rather than rejuvenating old follicles, then the state of any existing follicles is less relevant. Also, the difference between follicles in the crown vs in the donor region is not their DNA. It wouldn't take DNA mutation to make the follicles resistant (I'm NOT saying verteporfin would do this, I'm just addressing your remark about mutation). All cells in the body, aside from things like gametes, have identical DNA. There can be some very small variations due to sporadic mutations or telomeres but those are negligible. The differences between those two hair follicle cells is in their states, such as their epigenetic configurations (i.e. DNA methylation, histone modifications), protein markings, etc, rather than the DNA itself. It's also how stem cells are differentiated and dedifferentiated.

Can you cite the studies you're referring to here? This one seems to suggest the opposite, titled "Antimicrobial hydrogel microneedle loading verteporfin promotes skin regeneration by blocking mechanotransduction signaling" and its abstract states:

This seems a bit misleading... why would you create large wounds? You would start out with a small area, and these would be tiny wounds, as in deep microneedling, which many men already do to themselves on a regular basis. Even if there was a significant risk of creating visible scars, you could find many balding men in the world (certainly at least one) who would be willing to take that risk if it has the potential to reveal a new effective hair loss treatment. That said, I don't think there would be a significant risk of visible scarring. Yes of course we should be, and are, very grateful. Nothing about this discussion would suggest otherwise.

The whole idea of verteporfin is that it prevents fibrotic scar tissue from forming, so the notion of causing too much scar tissue doesn't make much sense. We don't really know for sure either way (haven't tested it), but it seems to go against the basic idea. I don't know why anyone would claim that you need to remove miniaturized follicles before new follicles could be created. Again, that's just presuming you know how verteporfin works or how the body and follicles react to it. It might simply create new follicles, regardless of any miniaturized ones still present. More doctors exploring this would be great. Luckily there are many doctors in the world. I think most just aren't aware of this. We should consider reaching out to doctors in the US and asking if they'd be interested in running some informal experiments, and even offering ourselves as test subjects. Perhaps even some doctors would be willing to write a prescription for us to run experiments ourselves at home.

That's okay, you don't need to respond any more. Let me try explaining this again for anyone else following along, and I'll make it shorter: In the experiments you're referencing, those follicles are very OLD. They've lived on their scalps for decades. You could think of them as damaged by age. In the proposed experiment, these would be brand NEW follicles. OLD ≠ NEW OLD and NEW follicles may react differently to DHT, even if they have the same genetic makeup or DHT sensitivity. They have different states. You have not shown any experiment that tests it. You've only shown experiments that test OLD follicles.

Sorry, but you simply don't know at this stage whether those follicles would function like that. The only way we would know is by testing it, which no one has done. The experiments you're citing are not testing it, and you're inferring/extrapolating from them how this test would result, but that's just not how biology works. There are always more variables involved that we aren't even remotely aware of. I'm not saying it would be a cure either, or would even need to be a full-blown cure. It does have the potential to be a cure, which you're claiming is impossible ("it would not be a cure"). You don't know if it would require preventive medication. As I mentioned earlier, even if the new follicles were DHT-susceptible, it might only mean you need repeated treatments to maintain renewed follicles. For most men suffering from baldness, they would consider that effectively a cure, so long as it gives them a full head of natural hair. Whether or not it's technically a full blown "cure" isn't that important. What matters is if it's capable of producing real, natural hair. The tradeoffs of cost, side effects, upkeep, etc are all questions for the individual patient to weigh for himself. Someone absolutely should run this simple experiment.

Perhaps, but I don't think that's necessarily dispositive, and it would certainly be premature to write it off so early without testing it, especially considering the desperate lack of effective treatments, and the relative non-invasiveness and simplicity of the proposed treatment. A few points I want to make: First, his experiment used test subjects (castrated and mentally ill) that weren't very representative of the target population. Removing or disabling an organ in the body that produces hormones could have many side effects on the body that we don't know about or understand, which could have downstream effects on how the body functions or reacts to exogenous testosterone. His experiment provides some insight and shows an interesting connection between testosterone and balding, but trying to conclude from it that verteporfin-generated follicles on the scalp would be destined for failure is reading way too much into it. Second, it could be that follicles need years or decades of testosterone/DHT exposure before miniaturizing. Even in his experiment, many of those men probably went through their childhoods and adolescent years producing testosterone, and even after castration the body produces some in places like adrenal glands. That may have weakened their follicles over the decades, and then his experiment was enough to push them over the edge. If that's the case, then brand new follicles generated by verteporfin might begin with a “blank history” of exposure, and would themselves need decades before miniaturizing. Third, even if we assume that the new follicles are almost immediately susceptible to miniaturization, that might simply mean you would need maintenance treatments every few months or years. Many men would happily take that option if it meant having a full head of hair. Many already undergo treatments like PRP injections every few weeks or months, despite its poor results. I certainly wouldn’t deem it impractical. Fourth, there’s much we don’t know about both hair loss and verteporfin’s effects. For all we know, the new follicles could be like those found in the donor region (DHT-resistant), despite not being in the donor region. To be clear, I’m not saying verteporfin will be an absolute cure. But it could be. We just don’t know yet. And we don’t know which treatment mode will be the easiest or most effective. If microneedling+verteporfin on the scalp works, then I would certainly rather do that than undergo transplants. Balding men are suffering from a terrible, cruel disease and many are desperate to find a cure. So when a promising new treatment presents itself (especially an FDA-approved, non-systemic one), we should explore all the possibilities. It would be a shame to be so close to a cure (or easier treatment mode), yet miss it entirely because we weren’t willing to look.

I've been watching these verteporfin trials and find them very exciting. One thing I'm very interested in is whether hair could be regenerated simply by combining verteporfin with deep microneedling, or something similar. Or perhaps with tissue punches that are smaller than FUE punches and don't actually remove follicles, only skin tissue - like a more destructive needle. If it works and generates new follicles in the damaged are, then transplants may not be needed at all, and you could simply treat the balding area directly and repeatedly until fully regenerated. Performing an experiment to test it would likely be even easier and less risky since there's no transplant taking place. And if it doesn't generate new follicles, then the balding area will simply be unchanged.