In case of Cure, what happens?

[gbhscot]

I like to try and be optimistic, and I believe that in the next five years, we will have a cure for hairloss, or rather, a means of re-generating hair on bald men. Currently there is a lot of interesting research being done (Follicum, Follicept to name just two) and I am cautiously optimistic that they will produce results in the end.

 

My question - Purely hypothetical at this stage - If we find a means of regrowing hair on bald areas, to the extent that they revert to original scalp density and hair characteristics, what does this mean for guys who have already undertaken Hair Transplant procedures? How will hair grow where follicles have been inserted already?

[mahhong]

It's an interesting question - but if decent density can be regrown (either by creation of new follicles or the "reawakening" of dead follicles) I don't think having had a HT would make that much of a difference. If you think that HTs usually replace maybe 1/4 to 1/3rd of the original density, then essentially that's still around 2/3rds to 3/4s of your scalp that remain "untouched". Somebody posted the math up once (I believe it was from Dr. Rassman's Balding Blog) and, essentially, the chances of destroying a dormant/dead follicle were pretty low.

 

If you're talking about how would you deliver the treatment in such a way you didn't end up with "too much" hair (imagine that!), I'm not sure, but ultimately I can't see it being a major factor.

 

I have the slightly less optimistic hope that within the next 5-8 years we may see a couple of treatments that do the same or slightly better than finasteride/minoxidil but with a reduced side effects profile. Of course, I'd love a cure, but I think honestly hair transplantation will remain a necessary part of the restoration process for many years to come. But of course if we can find a way to generally halt hair loss and maybe get better regrowth than we do currently (let's say 20-30% regrowth on average), that would still be a massive step forward. Being able to halt hair loss and regrow, combined with hair transplantation, could essentially be a "cure" for men in the lower Norwoods, and produce cosmetically excellent results even in higher Norwood men. It might also, in the long term, open up debates and opportunities with things like expanding the donor zone, meaning more grafts available for transplantation.

 

Either way I do hope and think within the next 5-10 years we'll be in a better place, but I'm trying not to think in terms of cure/no cure - I think it's more likely we will see gradual improvements and a better range of options, but I think men will still need to employ multiple strategies to achieve their goals - surgery likely remaining a part of those strategies for a while yet.

[voxman]

How will hair grow where follicles have been inserted already?

 

Well, two or more masses can not occupy the same space at the same time - and I will leave the sub-atomic and different planes of existence discussion to others - but all that would mean is (theoretically) some extra density of the re-born native hairs vs. the planted.

[Melvin- Admin]

I don't think a cure for baldness will ever occur unless it's donor regeneration, which would still mean the grafts would need to be implanted, but to answer your hypothetical question, why wouldn't the follicles grow where there isn't a follicle? Meaning someone with a hair transplant would just have a denser head of hair.

 

But in all honesty, there will never be a cure flat out. There is too much money involved think about how much money merck makers of finasteride make or rogaine, not to mention all of the hair restoration surgeons whose livelihood depends on men going bald, do you think all of these people with vested interest in hair loss would allow a cure to be sold? If you search back to threads from 2005, people back then said the same thing, that we our 5 years away from a cure, well it's 10 years and there is no cure in sight and there never will be, I think donor regeneration will occur, but that's not a cure technically. You would be surprised how many things have probably been cured but pharmacy companies will never allow the cures to come to light.

[Ashitaka]

I think that real question is: If they find a cure, what will be with hair restoration surgeons? Whar about all FUT vs FUE debates, what about millions of potential customers for them? Will all that dissapear and be solved by one simple cure and all potential money that you would spend on surgery and on life long supplies of finasteride and minoxidil stays in your pocket? What will wig salemans do for a living if a cure comes? What about fibres, hair supplements, all fake oils out there that costs a fortune? All that goes to history and we don't have to use any of that anymore?

 

Sounds great, but it won't happen. Too much money in the game. Sad but true...

[voxman]

A Dystopian view of the HT industry is in order.

 

(Apologies to The Walking Dead)

 

The "Cure" is found.

 

Slowly, thousands of potential HT patients become infected by the new cure and grow massive amounts of hair, and start really good guitar bands.

 

Dusting off their accordions, HT Docs start their own bands. But, alas, the trill of the warped reeds causes an outbreak of the chorus to 'Twilight Zone' by the Hair Bands.

 

The really smart docs, like let's say the ones from India, hire me to 'Band Rescue' them and they become rich and productive musicians.

 

Those who fail to adapt keep their doors open to appeal to the 'SteamFUSS' crowd but have to open parallel businesses to keep the doors open. A massive amount of 'Hair Transplant / UPS Shipping / Dry Cleaning" business open their doors. Sad.

[voxman]

I'm not done. I'll Answer the Thread Title Question.

 

The answer is always Robert Smith

[BadBeat]

Unlimited donor is the answer....win-win for everybody. We get to have our teenage hair back and the surgeons get rich!

[gbhscot]

Unlimited donor in terms of the ability to replicate follciles might be possible...regeneration of donor areas which have been harvested wouldn't make sense.

 

The reasons for my optimism about it is basically that all factors are there which could contribute to a means of regenerating hair. Bio tech start ups are buzzing, patents are running out, there have been several research breakthroughs in recent times, plus through the internet we are much better networked and will communicate what is working for us. Regardless how big pharma is,a networked economy can always subvert it, and for hair loss, the network is deeply involved, pre-established and has a high sense of ethics (I doubt many guys who have undergone hair loss and the emotional trauma with it would needlessly rip off others if they found a cure - make money from it, yes, but keep it obtainable too)

 

As Voxxman states though, two masses cannot occupy the same space at the same time. So I wonder, if you reawaken a follicle where a follicle has been implanted on top of it...what the hell happens?! Best case - Super thick hair occurs, worst case, ingrown hair leading to infection or something.

[mahhong]

Unlimited donor in terms of the ability to replicate follciles might be possible...regeneration of donor areas which have been harvested wouldn't make sense.

 

The reasons for my optimism about it is basically that all factors are there which could contribute to a means of regenerating hair. Bio tech start ups are buzzing, patents are running out, there have been several research breakthroughs in recent times, plus through the internet we are much better networked and will communicate what is working for us. Regardless how big pharma is,a networked economy can always subvert it, and for hair loss, the network is deeply involved, pre-established and has a high sense of ethics (I doubt many guys who have undergone hair loss and the emotional trauma with it would needlessly rip off others if they found a cure - make money from it, yes, but keep it obtainable too)

 

As Voxxman states though, two masses cannot occupy the same space at the same time. So I wonder, if you reawaken a follicle where a follicle has been implanted on top of it...what the hell happens?! Best case - Super thick hair occurs, worst case, ingrown hair leading to infection or something.

 

You make some good points, but one of the important factors to bear in mind about these things is that there is a major difference between research and the products they may or may not eventually turn into.

 

I think you're right in that a lot of the fundamental knowledge necessary to re-awaken dead follicles or to create new ones is there in principle. Although there is still work to be done, researchers like Jahoda and the team at Replicel and various other institutions have shown limited but promising progress in a whole variety of techniques - growing new follicles, stimulating old follicles etc. This research is by no means complete, but you get the sense the foundations are now firmly in place for several much more promising strategies to treating hair loss.

 

The problem is, as usual, money. And not just money in the sense of funding research. Any promising new treatment has to be able to demonstrate several things:

 

It has to be better, ideally substantially, than anything else in the marketplace.

 

It has to be safe and demonstrate long term efficacy (no point having great hair for 6 months).

 

It has to deliverable and cost effective in the marketplace as a product.

 

 

The latter point is the issue that a great amount of promising research has trouble with. Some of the technology/research that looks promising in the lab just won't make it out as a product for a long time. That's not just because they have to go through trials, it's also because of the cost of rolling out a product and creating a workable profit margin that will give investors a decent return. After all if Replicel is 15% better than finasteride but costs $20,000 - well, you can see the problem. And the creation and implantation of new follicles would, even if it were possible, at this point in time simply be un-affordable as a product. Investors would quickly suss out there is simply no business to be done for a while.

 

It's the same reason there are quantum computers hundreds or thousands of times more powerful than your desktop that you won't be able to buy for another 10 or 15 years. The technology in theory exists and is even being used in some senses, but as a product that could be sold at reasonable margins in a way that makes economic sense, we are a way from that.

 

I don't mean to be pessimistic, and in fact I'm not. But that's where I think the word "cure" is to be used with caution I feel. I do believe that hair loss research is at an exciting point and I do think we could see improvements to what is available fairly soon - and frankly even a 15-25% improvement in available medical treatment could, when combined with surgery, be very exciting. But I don't think we're particularly close to injecting a full head of hair, unfortunately!

 

Also, I don't really subscribe to some of the other suggestions by other posters that there is some kind of conspiracy to suppress a cure so surgeons can keep making money. Those kind of theories are always pushed - that doctors don't want to cure cancer or create exciting new stuff because it would jeopardize their practice. Things will move forward and progress will be made, but it takes time to turn ideas into research, research into workable treatment and, crucially, workable treatments into sellable products (whether we like it or not that's what everything has to end up being, particularly in cosmetics). Hair surgeons will be around for a while yet, but it's not down to any nefarious meddling on their part.

[SamHT1970]

will be interesting to see if cure happens soon!

 

-sam

[Spidey]

Imo, I think the only "cure" would be producing follicles via stem cells which would be transplanted the same way they are now, so HT Drs won't be "out of business" so to speak. Petri dish follicles.