George Cotsarelis and upenn new article today

[hellouser]

ive been researching threads on follica and true hair multiplication and seeing people say "I'm just gonna stay on fin and hope it gets me through another 5 years until follica (or HM) comes out" and then I look at the posting date and it says 2007-2008. It really is quite ridiculous how we've been on repeat for years

7 god damn years for these biotechs to just SCREW with people. Disgusting.

[Morbo]

The only thing I get from this article is the word 'could'.
On a long term one of those thousand hypothesis about hair loss released each year should (or 'could') lead to a solution but on a short term I wouldn't lose my sleep over it. It just confirms the fact that there is still so much about hairloss that we still don't know.

[Thinning87]

Isn't histogen's HSC also based on wnt-something? I'm not much of an expert in the field

[Sogeking]

Isn't histogen's HSC also based on wnt-something? I'm not much of an expert in the field

I just wanted to post this. Basically HSC has folistatin, KEGF , VEGF (the last two are growth factors) and Wtn7a,. Now check the title of these study they say that they removed the inhibitor Dkk1 in order to make hair follicle proliferation better. The real question is if we actually remove Dkk1 inhibitor while applying HSC would that give us even better results.

Next point worth analyzing, at least for me, would be if the velus hair that people seem to get while dermaroling would actually benefit from this additional hair follicle proliferation by inhibiting Dkk1?

Are there any safe compounds or natural based "remedies" which can inhibit Dkk1?

Dr. Cotsarelis is doing basic long term research it is up to Follica to patent something and try to apply it in economical, feasible effective way as a treatment. But as we all know Follica is not in a hurry obviously...

And in the end I see this is a mostly beneficial type of a treatment in order to replace waxing, and too much hair on people...

[HairlossAt15]

Where can I find the paper?

[DepressedByHairLoss]

Whoop de do. Big f****n deal. Scientists have known since the late-90's the stimulation of the WNT and beta catenin pathways have stimulated hair growth in mice. This latest thing is just restating what other scientists have been restating over and over again for years.

[Pentarou]

**** me, we're really 20+ years from a viable post-finasteride, post-minox treatment, let alone anything approaching a 'cure'. **** me. No wonder this subforum is tumbleweed-strewn since Nigam was run out of town.

[beetee]

While Follica and UPenn are independent entities, they are not totally separate by any means. Dr. Cotsarelis is the Chair of Dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania's Perleman School of Medicine (all of the hair related work done there is done by Dr. Cotsarelis and his group), and Dr. Cotsarelis is also one of the founders of Follica, a company that was created largely to bring products to market based on the findings that develop out of his work at Penn. Penn has partial financial ownership for anything that comes out of Cotsarelis's lab at Penn.

For an example, from the news release that accompanied the FgF9-Follica work in June of this year: "Technology exclusively licensed by Follica Inc. from the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania has been used to demonstrate a new approach to regenerate hair follicles in adult mammals which could be used therapeutically in humans."

Follica had to license it from Penn, as Penn in part "owned" the results of the research, but the fact that it was exclusively licensed to Follica is because of Dr. Cotsarelis.

[walrus]

Pessimistic posters should note that science does not owe anyone a favour. It will take as long as it takes. You should be thankful that research is actually being done at all in this field.

[beetee]

Yeah, I don't get the pessimistic posting either. It seems that the only research that would mean anything would be the absolute final step: a total cure. But why do you demand the endpoint but reject every single step that would be required to get to that point?

It's like someone telling another person "I want you to build a bridge over this river" and then after the person starts building it, putting in all of the supporting structures that are necessary for a bridge to function, the requester ask to see the progress, the person shows it to them, and they say "It''s not totally completed at this very second? Then I don't care about any of the progress you made and all of your efforts are worthless."

There's no reason to think there will ever be a cure, and no genuinely respectable scientist ever told anyone there would be. Therefore, there's no reason to be disappointed when research comes out that is something less than a total cure. Progress is being made, but it's still unclear if anything will ever lead to that ultimate endpoint. I for one am appreciative of all the real scientists that are working on finding a solution.

[hellouser]

Yeah, I don't get the pessimistic posting either. It seems that the only research that would mean anything would be the absolute final step: a total cure. But why do you demand the endpoint but reject every single step that would be required to get to that point?

It's like someone telling another person "I want you to build a bridge over this river" and then after the person starts building it, putting in all of the supporting structures that are necessary for a bridge to function, the requester ask to see the progress, the person shows it to them, and they say "It''s not totally completed at this very second? Then I don't care about any of the progress you made and all of your efforts are worthless."

There's no reason to think there will ever be a cure, and no genuinely respectable scientist ever told anyone there would be. Therefore, there's no reason to be disappointed when research comes out that is something less than a total cure. Progress is being made, but it's still unclear if anything will ever lead to that ultimate endpoint. I for one am appreciative of all the real scientists that are working on finding a solution.

There are limits as to how long it should take... decades is unacceptable.

[walrus]

There are limits as to how long it should take... decades is unacceptable.

Unacceptable to who? Is it unacceptable that man has yet to set foot on Mars? That we don't fully understand dark matter/energy? That there is no cure of dementia? These are all major scientific goals. We all want to see a cure here, but we are not OWED it. A false sense of entitlement and belittling genuine steps along the way achieves nothing.

[HairBane]

Unacceptable to who? Is it unacceptable that man has yet to set foot on Mars? That we don't fully understand dark matter/energy? That there is no cure of dementia? These are all major scientific goals. We all want to see a cure here, but we are not OWED it. A false sense of entitlement and belittling genuine steps along the way achieves nothing.

to whom. I agree with your sentiment though. That said, I think AA research suffers from an almost unique lack of empathy, funding and sense of urgency with regards to bringing things to market. I don't think we should blame researchers and doctors who are genuinely trying though - blame the regulatory process, blame the FDA, blame lack of funding and the fact that bald people are not considered to be suffering a serious deformity but are the laughing stocks of modern aesthetics.

[walrus]

to whom. I agree with your sentiment though. That said, I think AA research suffers from an almost unique lack of empathy, funding and sense of urgency with regards to bringing things to market. I don't think we should blame researchers and doctors who are genuinely trying though - blame the regulatory process, blame the FDA, blame lack of funding and the fact that bald people are not considered to be suffering a serious deformity but are the laughing stocks of modern aesthetics.

I agree that there is a lack of empathy. At the end of the day donating money to a cancer charity (for research) will always be seen as a more noble thing than giving to a hypothetical hair loss charity.

[hellouser]

I agree that there is a lack of empathy. At the end of the day donating money to a cancer charity (for research) will always be seen as a more noble thing than giving to a hypothetical hair loss charity.

I wouldnt even donate to cancer research. Billions of dollars and uncountable man hours have gone into it with nothing to show for it. Like I said before, it almost seems as if the researchers and taking the funds to sustain themselves with a career.