HM: How solid is the science ???

[EpilepticSceptic]

Is this stuff a fluke, or is the science truly solid behind it ? In other words, is it just a matter of "when" and not of "if" ? If so, is the "when" likely to occur in the next 10-20 years ? I know for a long time (since early 2000s) people have been saying 5 more years. I'm not talking about gene therapy or stem cell injections (Histogen). To me that stuff will probably not be figured out in my lifetime (I'm 40).

 

But HM cloning of hair seems much more likely. Does anybody here have the inside scoop on this ? I'll be going for a transplant soon (strip), and am not an advanced norwood. My loss is stable, so I'm not some 20 year old guy with diffuse thinning NW 6 pattern looking to get my teenage hairline back and relying on HM being only "5 more years away". LOL

 

I just want to know if the science is solid enough that one could reasonably bet that in 10-20 years there is still a back-up plan for the very unlikely worst case scenario of me ending up a NW7 ? I've heard Dr. Hasson mention it as the next frontier in HT advancements, and I don't perceive him as someone who would claim that unless there was some solid science to back it up. He even seems to be pretty convinced it's only another 5-10 years away. What does he know that makes him believe that ?

[Bill - Seemiller]

labrat,

 

Based on everything I've read, the science appears solid. However, since it's not available and still undergoing testing, it's difficult to give any real information with any degree of certainty. While I'm optimistic that it will eventually become available as a treatment, I don't expect it will be for awhile. And upon first release, I expect it will be extremely expensive.

 

In my opinion, don't wait for hair multiplication to become available before starting to treat your hair loss.

 

Best wishes,

 

Bill

[EpilepticSceptic]

Hey Bill,

 

Thanks man!

 

I never posed the question about HM thinking that I would wait until it becomes available to treat my hairloss. I just wanted to know if there was much of a chance that it would never come to fruition in my lifetime (I'm 40). I'm talking about HM where they can make an infinite # of grafts from taking just a few from the back of your head.

 

I'm going to be getting a HT of 4000 FU grafts early this year. I am a NW 3 vertex, and it seems very unlikely that I will progress to NW6 as there is no family history of that happening at my age. So the chances are very slim IMO of that outcome; but if by chance that does happen in my 50s or 60s, I just wanted to know what the likelihood of HM being available in 2020-2030 would be ??

 

So many on this forum (and others) that sound the warning alarm about the risks of HTs (yes, even modern UR FUT) do so almost exclusively because of the issue of future thinning being inevitable and the donor supply not being enough. They always say you will look good for maybe 10-20 years with your HT if you are lucky, but then when you are in your 50s & 60s the donor area will thin out and then the HT surgery will become impossible to hide and you will REGRET IT !!! But if there is a strong likelihood that HM will become available then this would obviously nullify the need to be so concerned about the future loss.

 

If the science is indeed solid and HM is the next big frontier in HT surgery (like Dr. Hasson has stated), then someone like me getting a HT today should be able to feel even more comfortable about this life changing decision and the potential future implications of it. I understand that all the young 20 year olds who are heading to NW6 and go to someone like Dr. A to get 5000 grafts placed for the "wall of hair" teenage hairline whilst thinking that HM is just 5 years away are making a very risky and dangerous decision; but this is not where I am coming from with it.

 

It's just that if there is a 50% or higher chance that it will never be realized in my lifetime, then that will indeed have to weigh in on my decision to go through with the HT or how I go about placing the grafts. What if I'm in the minority that gets a cosmetically unacceptable strip scar even though all the best techniques were employed, making a 2nd strip surgery impossible ?

 

Originally posted by Bill - Associate Publisher:

labrat,

 

Based on everything I've read, the science appears solid. However, since it's not available and still undergoing testing, it's difficult to give any real information with any degree of certainty. While I'm optimistic that it will eventually become available as a treatment, I don't expect it will be for awhile. And upon first release, I expect it will be extremely expensive.

 

In my opinion, don't wait for hair multiplication to become available before starting to treat your hair loss.

 

Best wishes,

 

Bill

[hdude46]

my dad is 60 and his donor hair is thicker than a lot of people in their 20 and 30's on here. My grandpa is 82 and his hair could easily hide a scar. Obviously everyone is different, but people with donor thinning usually have very very extensive baldness. At 40 your life is likely halfway over, and your level of baldness, I wouldnt have any worries if I were you. Chances are it will look great for the duration of your life.

[EpilepticSceptic]

Thanks brother, and I appreciate your observations!

 

Some of the anti-HT screamers on the forums can sometimes really put the fear factor in us! I just have to keep reminding myself that these were all (without exception) guys who got their 1st HT in their 20s and who are dealing with the very unpleasent situation of trying desperately to find ways to hide the HT. But they can't hide it because they are heading to NW 6/7 and they were poor HT cantidates to begin with (thin hair, poor donor density, large areas to cover, tight scalps, etc.). Getting this information out of some of them was also like pulling teeth, because they just want to make blanket statements that even modern HTs will eventually turn out bad for most who are happy now. I guess the scare tactics somewhat worked on me too, because they had me worrying about donor thinning. My donor area is actually pretty excellent at 90 FUs per sq. cm.

 

As a solid NW3v at age 40 (and with a 50 yr. old brother who is still a NW3v) I must be pretty paranoid to worry about this stuff. The verdict is in at my age, and even Dr. Bernstein told me the chances of ending up a NW 6 if you've maintained NW3 or lower by age 40 are indeed very slim and seldom seen. I'm one of the lucky guys, so it's time for me to let this go and just trust in the skill of my doc and his staff.

 

Originally posted by hdude46:

my dad is 60 and his donor hair is thicker than a lot of people in their 20 and 30's on here. My grandpa is 82 and his hair could easily hide a scar. Obviously everyone is different, but people with donor thinning usually have very very extensive baldness. At 40 your life is likely halfway over, and your level of baldness, I wouldnt have any worries if I were you. Chances are it will look great for the duration of your life.

[windjc]

Originally posted by labrat69:

Is this stuff a fluke, or is the science truly solid behind it ? In other words, is it just a matter of "when" and not of "if" ? If so, is the "when" likely to occur in the next 10-20 years ? I know for a long time (since early 2000s) people have been saying 5 more years. I'm not talking about gene therapy or stem cell injections (Histogen). To me that stuff will probably not be figured out in my lifetime (I'm 40).

 

But HM cloning of hair seems much more likely. Does anybody here have the inside scoop on this ? I'll be going for a transplant soon (strip), and am not an advanced norwood. My loss is stable, so I'm not some 20 year old guy with diffuse thinning NW 6 pattern looking to get my teenage hairline back and relying on HM being only "5 more years away". LOL

 

I just want to know if the science is solid enough that one could reasonably bet that in 10-20 years there is still a back-up plan for the very unlikely worst case scenario of me ending up a NW7 ? I've heard Dr. Hasson mention it as the next frontier in HT advancements, and I don't perceive him as someone who would claim that unless there was some solid science to back it up. He even seems to be pretty convinced it's only another 5-10 years away. What does he know that makes him believe that ?

 

 

The interesting thing is they are already growing body parts and organs from scratch and transplanting them in bodies.

 

I heard on NPR a few days ago about a guy that needed an esophogus, so they GREW him one and then transplanted it into his body.

 

Seems like if we can already do that, we should be able to multiply hairs on the head.

 

In our lifetimes, organs of all shapes and sizes will be grown from stem cells and be used in transplants.

 

But I have less faith in HM. Maybe because its been 5 years away for 15 years already.

[EpilepticSceptic]

Yeah, I hear that!! I think they can already do it, but it's just the darn bureauracrocy making it take so long. It just sucks because probably in 5-10 years it will be available and (if you have the $) cutting strips from the back of your head will be thing of the past.

 

I have a dartboard with George W. Bush's face on it, and I throw darts at it everyday now for the past 9 years. Why ? Because his BS born again conservative christian bias resulted in 8 years of stem cell research and tissue cloning funding coming to a grinding halt. It is the fault of his administration that this stuff is not available today and we don't have infinite donor hair supply. And that SOB had a full head of hair so he didn't know what we are going through!!!!!!!!!!

 

Thank god for Obama who is progessive! The wheels of medical science are turning once again my brothers!!! When the next election comes around, even if you hate Obama for other reasons PLEASE vote him in again for this reason alone!!! If a conervative republican gets in again WE ARE DOOMED !!!

 

Originally posted by windjc:

Originally posted by labrat69:

Is this stuff a fluke, or is the science truly solid behind it ? In other words, is it just a matter of "when" and not of "if" ? If so, is the "when" likely to occur in the next 10-20 years ? I know for a long time (since early 2000s) people have been saying 5 more years. I'm not talking about gene therapy or stem cell injections (Histogen). To me that stuff will probably not be figured out in my lifetime (I'm 40).

 

But HM cloning of hair seems much more likely. Does anybody here have the inside scoop on this ? I'll be going for a transplant soon (strip), and am not an advanced norwood. My loss is stable, so I'm not some 20 year old guy with diffuse thinning NW 6 pattern looking to get my teenage hairline back and relying on HM being only "5 more years away". LOL

 

I just want to know if the science is solid enough that one could reasonably bet that in 10-20 years there is still a back-up plan for the very unlikely worst case scenario of me ending up a NW7 ? I've heard Dr. Hasson mention it as the next frontier in HT advancements, and I don't perceive him as someone who would claim that unless there was some solid science to back it up. He even seems to be pretty convinced it's only another 5-10 years away. What does he know that makes him believe that ?

 

 

The interesting thing is they are already growing body parts and organs from scratch and transplanting them in bodies.

 

I heard on NPR a few days ago about a guy that needed an esophogus, so they GREW him one and then transplanted it into his body.

 

Seems like if we can already do that, we should be able to multiply hairs on the head.

 

In our lifetimes, organs of all shapes and sizes will be grown from stem cells and be used in transplants.

 

But I have less faith in HM. Maybe because its been 5 years away for 15 years already.

[thanatopsis_awry]

You mention the "bureaucracy" being the culprit for HM taking so long, which I would agree with, and think to be pretty true.

 

Yet you anoint Obama the savior of HM/science, while he is an arch bishop of bureaucracy.

 

I disagree with your extreme, black/white causality that Obama = HM, Conservative = baldness, and would perhaps argue that the precise opposite is the case. An environment most conducive, if not outright necessary, to create a scientific advance like HM, let alone get it green-lighted for public consumption before you're in a retirement home, will take a glaring absence of bureaucracy and government intrusion.

 

Your optimism that The Anointed One will even make us NW1s is nice, however, and I hope I'm proven wrong.

 

I do believe the science to be indeed solid for HM, and at this point it will simply take the courage -- and extraordinary money and financial flow -- of entrepreneurs and big business in tandem with the scientific community to be allowed to unleash their brilliance and fruits of their labor throughout the American way of life. And our balded heads.

 

Also, Bush simply halted federal funding for *embryonic* research, which is a far cry from stem cell research and tissue cloning you said he put a halt to, particularly as it applies to HM.

[phil mascallpen]

Let's just stick with the facts:

 

Obama overturned an order signed by President Bush in 2001 that barred the National Institutes of Health from funding research on embryonic stem cells beyond using 60 cell lines that existed at that time.

 

Obama also signed a presidential memorandum establishing greater independence for federal science policies and programs.

 

No matter what you otherwise think of Bush and Obama these new policies clearly are more beneficial to organ and tissue cloning research.

[EpilepticSceptic]

Thanks Phil for clarifying that !!! And I'll be throwing some more darts tonight at Bush's face for sure !! The nerve of that stupid SOB just never ceases to get my head boiling over. The ONLY reason he supported all that anti-stem cell mullarky was because his voting base was the conservative christian crowd. He obviously had no morals or issues with being responsible for the brutal murder of several hundred thousand innocent Iraqis so his oil buddies and private contractors could make the big score.

 

I know he was the worst president this country ever had in most people's minds; but the fact that he stood in the way of HM makes it a very personal issue with me, and I'll NEVER forgive him for it !!!

 

Originally posted by phil mascallpen:

Let's just stick with the facts:

 

Obama overturned an order signed by President Bush in 2001 that barred the National Institutes of Health from funding research on embryonic stem cells beyond using 60 cell lines that existed at that time.

 

Obama also signed a presidential memorandum establishing greater independence for federal science policies and programs.

 

No matter what you otherwise think of Bush and Obama these new policies clearly are more beneficial to organ and tissue cloning research.

[Al - Moderator]

Just to throw something out there to think about:

Way back when I was a kid I watched a news item on TV about how there was a new vaccine coming out soon to prevent tooth decay. They said they expected all newborns to be getting vaccinated with it within 5 years. I just did a google search to see if I could get any results, so I typed in "tooth decay vaccine" and got a bunch of hits. The wikipedia one says "Development of a vaccine for tooth decay has been under investigation for more than 30 years. In 1972 a caries vaccine was said to be in animal testing in England, and that it would have begun human testing soon.[2] Intrinsic difficulties in developing it, coupled with lack of strong economic interests, are the reasons why no such vaccine is commercially available as of November 2009.". If you click some of the other search results you'll see that there has been various phase 1 and phase 11 trials and clinical studies and whatnot over the years and they all said it was sure to be out soon. Yet still nothing.

 

as I said, just something to think about when hearing that they are doing trials, testing, etc and hair cloning, multiplication, etc is very near.

[Balboa]

the way they are doing body parts is allot diffrent i think. also so the article with replaceing ones esophogus and they actualy used a diffrent esophogus cleaned it off to the bone so there was the basic shell left then grew the new guys cells arround it. so not quite the same princeiple however i do agree that it makes things look promising and i am one that is counting on all this

[windjc]

Originally posted by Balboa:

the way they are doing body parts is allot diffrent i think. also so the article with replaceing ones esophogus and they actualy used a diffrent esophogus cleaned it off to the bone so there was the basic shell left then grew the new guys cells arround it. so not quite the same princeiple however i do agree that it makes things look promising and i am one that is counting on all this

 

You may be right about this and if I exaggerated it was unintentional.

 

However, growing organs for transplantation is considered a science that is much closer than most people would imagine.