Hair Loss Cure 2020 Fact or Fiction?

[LaserCap]

7 hours ago, hairlossPA said:

I think we should also clarify what we mean by “cure” lol. There are many different situations. 

1. completely bald man. confirmed all dead hair follicles. are we saying a cure would be to bring him back to a full head of hair everywhere? what sort of density? essentially making hair follicles from nothing

2. Typical NW 3 man. this “cure” holds onto his remaining hair permanently?(fin x 100 and no sides) but can’t bring anything dead back? cure returns miniaturize hair from weak to strong hairs

3. Typical NW 3 man. this “cure” doesn’t save/do anything to his current hair, but returns his frontal region to natural density?

just a few i thought of off my head. what do we think community?

If and when this happens, we will have figured out the hair gene.  At that point this should be cell based.  Come in the morning, we'll take a very small sample.  Return the same afternoon or the next day and inject millions of cells. Everyone will enjoy amazing hair......

[CosmoKramer]

2 minutes ago, LaserCap said:

If and when this happens, we will have figured out the hair gene.  At that point this should be cell based.  Come in the morning, we'll take a very small sample.  Return the same afternoon or the next day and inject millions of cells. Everyone will enjoy amazing hair......

The big concerning issue with this type of treatment of injection millions of cells it’s that there’s chance and propensity to form cancers/tumors on the skin, as it would be cells once injected would be uncontrollable on what they do, which is scary, and it would be a huge liability to any clinic or doctor if it occurred in a patient.

[Melvin- Admin]

Yea you definitely don’t wanna cure one condition and get a life-threatening illness like cancer

[harry_potter1]

To my knowledge there is nothing to suggest it will cause cancer. 

This is just a hypothesis and I think there is no proof for it.

That being said, you can never be sure about anything new not causing cancer until a decade or two of research

[Melvin- Admin]

That’s true, but I’d be weary about multiplying millions of cells, without modern medicine having the knowledge to stop cells from multiplying. 

[bismarck]

Medical cure priorities:

1) Cancer

2) Heart disease

3) Stroke

4) Obesity and diabetes

5) Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, Dementia

6) Autoimmune disease, lupus, multiple sclerosis

7) Emphysema

8 )  Mental health, depression, schizoprenia, bipolar, etc

9) Osteoporosis, fractures

----

100) Hair loss

 

So, no. There are far more serious and financially massive issues with health. It's just that most people on this forum are too young to have experienced them yet.

 

[harry_potter1]

10 hours ago, bismarck said:

Medical cure priorities:

1) Cancer

2) Heart disease

3) Stroke

4) Obesity and diabetes

 5) Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, Dementia

6) Autoimmune disease, lupus, multiple sclerosis

 7) Emphysema

8 )  Mental health, depression, schizoprenia, bipolar, etc

9) Osteoporosis, fractures

 ----

100) Hair loss

 

So, no. There are far more serious and financially massive issues with health. It's just that most people on this forum are too young to have experienced them yet.

  

This isn't how it works. 

For example, new generation of antibiotics is possibly top 3 if not the top priority as we are getting closer to a human catastrophe on so many levels without it .

But still not solved,why? because companies doesn't profit enough from it in comparison to chronic diseases so they invest in the later.

And pharmaceutical company that can achieve a cure for hair loss (especially if it is used over years) will make zillions. 

Money dedicates research. Not need unfortunately.

Only exception is when it is serious condition governments will subsidize it 

[harry_potter1]

16 hours ago, Melvin-Moderator said:

That’s true, but I’d be weary about multiplying millions of cells, without modern medicine having the knowledge to stop cells from multiplying. 

Kind of agree, I personally won't seek it for a couple of decades at least, after that I will be in my 50's (or a corpse) so not sure it will still be interesting. 

But would still wait to see details of it when it hits the market, because this seem to be an important question.

Actually, not just a cancer concern, but where will the cells stops? 

[Shifty]

Is it so crazy to think they find a cure while working on a completely different ailment? I feel like I see this quite a bit.

You're also  talking about a multi billion dollar industry, they probably have it already, it just doesn't make sense to make it public.

[Melvin- Admin]

50 minutes ago, Shifty said:

Is it so crazy to think they find a cure while working on a completely different ailment? I feel like I see this quite a bit.

You're also  talking about a multi billion dollar industry, they probably have it already, it just doesn't make sense to make it public.

It obviously wouldn't benefit big pharma to have a cure. However, realistically speaking even if there was a cure, how much would it cost and who would be able to afford it? Let's say there is a cure, it may be out of the general public's financial reach until a long time.

[hairman22]

23 hours ago, bismarck said:

Medical cure priorities:

1) Cancer

2) Heart disease

3) Stroke

4) Obesity and diabetes

5) Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, Dementia

6) Autoimmune disease, lupus, multiple sclerosis

7) Emphysema

8 )  Mental health, depression, schizoprenia, bipolar, etc

9) Osteoporosis, fractures

----

100) Hair loss

 

So, no. There are far more serious and financially massive issues with health. It's just that most people on this forum are too young to have experienced them yet.

 

i have a cure for obesity.

 

eat less food

[Shifty]

3 hours ago, Melvin-Moderator said:

It obviously wouldn't benefit big pharma to have a cure. However, realistically speaking even if there was a cure, how much would it cost and who would be able to afford it? Let's say there is a cure, it may be out of the general public's financial reach until a long time.

cant be more than an HT lol I mean Jesus

[harry_potter1]

5 hours ago, Melvin-Moderator said:

It obviously wouldn't benefit big pharma to have a cure. However, realistically speaking even if there was a cure, how much would it cost and who would be able to afford it? Let's say there is a cure, it may be out of the general public's financial reach until a long time.

It will benefit whoever is selling it.

It will basically take the whole market for itself

[Melvin- Admin]

2 hours ago, Shifty said:

cant be more than an HT lol I mean Jesus

You would be surprised. Back in the day surgeons used to charge $15 per graft and were talking about the days when 1,000 grafts was considered a mega-session. It's not until recently that prices have become a bit more reasonable. Think of it like electronics, do you remember how much a big screen TV used to cost? I remember as a kid in the 90's big screen televisions costing thousands upon thousands of dollars. Now you can buy a 60 inch TV for a couple of hundred bucks.

39 minutes ago, harry_potter1 said:

It will benefit whoever is selling it.

It will basically take the whole market for itself

There is more money in treating a condition than curing one. Like the saying goes " give a man a fish he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime"

[CosmoKramer]

On 6/14/2019 at 8:12 PM, Melvin-Moderator said:

That’s great dude, post your progress on here. Maybe I’m being a hater lol I’ve just never seen something remotely to as good as that with medication alone. Now surgery+medicine sure, but medicine alone i just haven’t seen it.

Here’s a couple screenshots I took using a usb microscope to see if the microneedling + minoxidil i have recently started is really actually creating new hair follicles ... 

Now it’s just coaxing them to grown stronger.

[Melvin- Admin]

Where did you buy this microscope?

[CosmoKramer]

21 minutes ago, Melvin-Moderator said:

Where did you buy this microscope?

On Amazon, pretty good price $20.

It’s the:  Jiusion 40 to 1000x Magnification Endoscope.

[Shifty]

16 hours ago, Melvin-Moderator said:

You would be surprised. Back in the day surgeons used to charge $15 per graft and were talking about the days when 1,000 grafts was considered a mega-session. It's not until recently that prices have become a bit more reasonable. Think of it like electronics, do you remember how much a big screen TV used to cost? I remember as a kid in the 90's big screen televisions costing thousands upon thousands of dollars. Now you can buy a 60 inch TV for a couple of hundred bucks.

 

imagine the cost drop of HT's though!

[harry_potter1]

19 hours ago, Melvin-Moderator said:

There is more money in treating a condition than curing one. Like the saying goes " give a man a fish he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime"

 

This is a bit of over simplification 

Right now there is no treatment for a genetic condition that is "take this bill for 10 days and it is all taken care of"

The medical option for those is either preventive treatment that is continuous or intervention, usually at later stage.

HT is simply one of those. And right now both exists with fin/Minoxi as preventive and HT as intervention 

Those are the same 2 paths that will be worked at. A cure is likely will be on the 2nd option. It will be something that simply "produce" hair. 

I doubt researches would stop in that regard because there is other option, if that was the case surgeries wouldn't have developed to what it was today.

HT is a prove of that, it is still evolving as time goes despite being a 2-3 procedure treatment at most. 

[Panamera13]

Some university etc (with no skin in the game aka HT Industry) should've come up with some sort of cloning of hair follicles. They cloned a whole animal in 90's...20 yrs later still nothing on hair follicles.

There's a lot of money to be made for who ever invents it vs continuing with status quo.

Edited June 19, 2019 by Panamera13

[bismarck]

On 6/17/2019 at 2:00 AM, harry_potter1 said:

This isn't how it works. 

For example, new generation of antibiotics is possibly top 3 if not the top priority as we are getting closer to a human catastrophe on so many levels without it .

But still not solved,why? because companies doesn't profit enough from it in comparison to chronic diseases so they invest in the later.

And pharmaceutical company that can achieve a cure for hair loss (especially if it is used over years) will make zillions. 

Money dedicates research. Not need unfortunately.

Only exception is when it is serious condition governments will subsidize it 

Hair loss is not, nor will ever be, as profitable as any of the diseases I listed for pharmaceutical companies. That is why research and development stopped with RU -- they went bankrupt, were bought out, and no one was willing to carry the product through the finish line. This is happening even with more serious illnesses -- Pfizer and Enbrel was literally mass murder on a corporate scale.

The reimbursements by insurance companies in the US are extrapolated from Medicare, which in turn are determined by the Policy & Steering Committee in Congress. Insurance companies are willing to pay more for life saving therapies than they are for cosmetic procedures. Wesley's research, for example, probably stopped because he ran out of funding, not because he wasn't getting results. Unfortunately, despite what anyone under 50 thinks, hair loss is small potatoes in the big scheme of things and at most an inconvenience compared to legitimately losing your health.

On 6/17/2019 at 6:40 PM, harry_potter1 said:

It will benefit whoever is selling it.

It will basically take the whole market for itself

You're exactly right. I'm tired of this "there's more money in chronic treatment than in a cure". This is a nonsense argument. Pharmaceutical companies don't think in terms of making money for the entire industry, they are selfish. They think of making money for themselves.

The single company that "cures" AIDS or cancer or heart disease will make hundreds of billions (along with a few Nobel prizes) and happily bury the chronic disease treatments that their competitors have come up with. A cure for hairloss is a logarithmic scale smaller, and will result in tens of billions in profit, but anyone that finds it will certainly take the prize.

 The reason chronic illnesses are not cured is because they are f*cking complicated, and very rarely do diseases get cured by a single magic bullet. Rather it takes several bullets, then dosing it with gasoline and lighting it on fire, then nuking the remains. Hair loss is incredibly complex, these binary arguments are oversimplistic and cater to the conspiracy theory crowd that always questions but never comes up with alternatives.

Edited June 19, 2019 by bismarck
adding hp's quote

[Al - Moderator]

On 6/17/2019 at 10:22 PM, Melvin-Moderator said:

Back in the day surgeons used to charge $15 per graft and were talking about the days when 1,000 grafts was considered a mega-session.

Yep. My first hair transplant session I paid $18.50 per graft for 60 grafts of size 3.75 mm each + $750 for a scalp reduction + $150 for a guarantee to double the amount of hair that I had, not have any scars, and never run out of donor hair. Yes they did a scalp reduction at the same time they did a FUT. They must have known there was no way the scalp reduction would work with a competing FUT trying to stretch it back... and they did that 5 times.

 

[Al - Moderator]

The biggest issue I think that holds back a cure for hair loss is that (at least in the USA) insurance doesn't cover it, so there is no incentive for the pharmaceutical industry to work on it or for anyone to seriously finance it because they won't be able to charge high prices that the insurance companies will pay for. There is only so much you can charge people before it will be priced out of most peoples range.

 

 

[LonelyGraft]

On 6/17/2019 at 7:22 PM, Melvin-Moderator said:

You would be surprised. Back in the day surgeons used to charge $15 per graft and were talking about the days when 1,000 grafts was considered a mega-session. It's not until recently that prices have become a bit more reasonable. Think of it like electronics, do you remember how much a big screen TV used to cost? I remember as a kid in the 90's big screen televisions costing thousands upon thousands of dollars. Now you can buy a 60 inch TV for a couple of hundred bucks.

There is more money in treating a condition than curing one. Like the saying goes " give a man a fish he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime"

Do you guys actually think pharmaceutical companies are making money on finasteride and minoxidil (both of which are generic) and can be bought for extremely cheap? I highly doubt it’s because they don’t want to release a cure in order to continue to sell these meds. I think it’s more an issue of:

 

a) hair loss is super complex and it doesn’t simply just come down to lowering dht as we’ve recently seen with the understanding of prostaglandins, immune response, calcification of scalp, etc.

b) funding

Edited June 23, 2019 by jj51702

[Al - Moderator]

13 hours ago, jj51702 said:

Do you guys actually think pharmaceutical companies are making money on finasteride and minoxidil (both of which are generic) and can be bought for extremely cheap? I highly doubt it’s because they don’t want to release a cure in order to continue to sell these meds. I think it’s more an issue of:

 

Both of those drugs were originally created for something else. Minoxidil was originally tested as an oral medication for high blood pressure and some of the test subjects were growing hair, so they decide to make a topical spray for hair loss. Since they had already developed the drug, why not make some extra money on it.

Finisteride was first used as to treat enlarged prostates and it was eventually realized that many of the men were regrowing their hair, so they did some trials to see if finisteride was in fact growing hair on men who took it. So again, the drug was already created and the company figured they can make more money with additional uses.