Human lung created in the lab

[Molten]

That's totally NOT saying what you think it says. They say that DP cells can't be cultured. Cause all experiments thus far had caused the DP cells to lose their follicle inducing capability (unlike mouse cells). Jahoda was the first EVER last year to culture DP cells retaining their hair follicle inducing capability. That's what the abstract says.

No, that's exactly consistent with what I was saying earlier. They have not at all addressed any of the cell structure/stability issues that engraftment would cause, which is exactly what I was trying to demonstrate.

I don't think you seem to understand what I'm saying. I'm not saying any of these laboratory techniques they hope to accomplish won't pan out, rather, what I'm saying is implementing these techniques and actually transplanting these cells into a scalp will always yield poor results unless there is some unforeseen major breakthrough that changes all of this.

[Molten]

TBH, I strongly believe that everyone's entitled to their opinions and arguing against them will only put them in a defensive position that makes it even harder to have a real conversation. SO, I do respect your standpoint and I must say there is a possibility we may never have a cure in our lifetime. For example, we may find that there is a risk of cancer when these mini-organs are transplanted (although unlikely but there is a possibility). Such an event would set cell therapy back 10-20 years!

But I also believe that no successful entrepreneur or research scientist ever faced a challenge with a pessimistic attitude. You must remain positive and believe in a given goal in order to attain it. Hope plays a very powerful role and is the driving force behind the 'Cutting Edge/Future Treatments' section of this forum.

This section of forum has inspired many of our younger members to take on studies in Medicine, Developmental Biology, Medicinal Chemistry and even stem cell research. If our posts and discussions can at least put some more feet on the ground in the research field, we will be having a much better pool of therapies in the pipeline and that my friend is the best thing we could have achieved in these forums.

I think hope is very important, and I apologize to those members that feel I'm crushing their hopes. I'm just so disillusioned by the failed promises and tabloid headlines over the years of an mpb cure being just around the corner, when it really isn't. I remember reading an article back in 2007 when I was in high school and that was alleging how some breakthrough is going to cure baldness. I thought baldness would be cured by now and in the very small chance that I were to lose my hair, I wouldn't have to worry about it.

From what I seen, I don't think we're really any closer to a true cure today than we were back in 2007. I hope I am proven wrong and I am hoping the skepticism displayed by myself and others only serves to motivate those who think it can be done and will be the first to accomplish it. Being optimistic is good, but it must be tempered with doses of scientific reality every now and again. Otherwise, we will descend to the level of credibility as exhibited by the DailyFail and other tabloid trash. Skepticism is the most important quality all aspiring scientists need to have.

[burtandernie]

I agree skepticism is a part of science and good thing. That being said cant follow the argument that scientific proof like this which happened in the last year is not any sign of being closer to a cure then we were in 2007 as you said above. This seems a very important and concrete step in the right direction. That being said I think we are 10+ years away at the very least. My opinion is you really cant put a reliable timeline on this kind of stuff.

published october 2013 by numerous other sources

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/10/21/cure-for-baldness-researchers-create-new-technique-for-growing-new-human-hair/

[cookies]

Really simple gene therapies such as the ones you that simply alter enzyme levels are absolutely nothing in comparison to the truly complex gene therapy that would be required to cure baldness. For starters, we have a complete understanding of what causes lipoprotein liapse deficiency and it's been well known for years to be caused by a mutation.

For baldness, we have no idea what combination of genes causes it, and there's no reason to think we will anytime soon. Also, there's no reason to think that even if we do, we'll instantly know which genes to manipulate without causing a real permanent damage.

The fact you think Glybera means gene therapy as a whole is just around the corner demonstrates your complete lack of understanding of the problems and genetics as a whole.

Why is there no reason to think we will know anytime soon what combination of genes causes MBP? What makes MBP different from, let's say, type 1 diabetes? Can you look in the future to see what will, and will not be published?

Where did I say that gene therapy as a whole was around the corner? You were misreading me. I was just saying that gene therapies are coming on the market right now, so I don't see why it will take 300 years for a MBP gene therapy. Next time, try to be a little less condescending, hunty.

[cookies]

It's not "random numbers and estimations" but a good understanding of the underlying science and how incremental our understanding of the problem has been for the past century. I have admitted again that I cannot foresee major breakthroughs, but it's very unlikely such a breakthrough will occur.

Practically every scientist and doctor not working in this field would agree with me. You think they have no clue of what they are talking about as well?

Could you name them, and link to articles they've writting about this?

[Molten]

Why is there no reason to think we will know anytime soon what combination of genes causes MBP? What makes MBP different from, let's say, type 1 diabetes? Can you look in the future to see what will, and will not be published?

Obviously no one can predict what is going to go on in the future or any unforeseen breakthroughs, but if the past 30 years is any indicator of future progress, then a complete understanding of the genes and the mechanisms in which they interact that end up causing MPB to be established anytime soon is an utter fantasy.

Where did I say that gene therapy as a whole was around the corner? You were misreading me. I was just saying that gene therapies are coming on the market right now, so I don't see why it will take 300 years for a MBP gene therapy. Next time, try to be a little less condescending, hunty.

You simply don't understand the difference between simple gene therapies such as Glybera and the daunting challenges facing a potential gene therapy to cure baldness. Saying that because one gene therapy is on the market means other gene therapies must not be that much more difficult demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the problem at hand. It's not unlike comparing the technical challenges of atomic bombs and controlled fusion, and simply saying fusion isn't as far off back in the 1950s because we already have "split the atom".

[Molten]

Could you name them, and link to articles they've writting about this?

I can't cite any articles at this time, but feel free to email any of the scientists working within the fields of molecular biology and genetics about what they think of this research. I have some established ones as professors, and they all think it's a big waste of time and find the methods to be completely barbaric and primitive. One of them even compared these methods of transplanting the hair stem cells to the ignorant days of medicine where leeches were often used.

[burtandernie]

Those must be some scientists comparing scientific progress to the ignorant days of medicine. I would be curious to see what they have contributed because its probably not that significant if they bad mouth other researchers for trying other approaches.

[ytterligare]

Probably they're all NW0 scientists.

[hellouser]

Probably they're all NW0 scientists.

Have you seen Dr. Roland Lauster?

[Arashi]

I don't think you seem to understand what I'm saying. I'm not saying any of these laboratory techniques they hope to accomplish won't pan out, rather, what I'm saying is implementing these techniques and actually transplanting these cells into a scalp will always yield poor results unless there is some unforeseen major breakthrough that changes all of this.

That's the first thing I agree with: I really have no clue what you're talking about. And I highly doubt you do have that yourself. Again, if it works on human foreskin, why wouldn't it work on human scalp ? If anything, we can grow hair on our dicks and then transplant it onto our scalp. LOL. But on a serious note, really, what you're saying makes no sense at all.

[hellouser]

That's the first thing I agree with: I really have no clue what you're talking about. And I highly doubt you do have that yourself. Again, if it works on human foreskin, why wouldn't it work on human scalp ? If anything, we can grow hair on our dicks and then transplant it onto our scalp. LOL. But on a serious note, really, what you're saying makes no sense at all.

It's weird... a follicle that has all of the same properties as any other follicle anywhere on the scalp; side, top, back, etc. should grow in any of those place just like a transplanted follicle.

[Molten]

That's the first thing I agree with: I really have no clue what you're talking about. And I highly doubt you do have that yourself. Again, if it works on human foreskin, why wouldn't it work on human scalp ? If anything, we can grow hair on our dicks and then transplant it onto our scalp. LOL. But on a serious note, really, what you're saying makes no sense at all.

Oh, I know what I'm talking about. You, on the other hand, seem to have nothing more beyond a layman understanding cellular biology and are mostly getting your information/science from these experiments.

The scalp and foreskin are completely different structures. They have completely different tissues, blood flow, cellular integrity, etc. and it's laughable you think experiments on foreskin translate nicely to the scalp. For one thing, because of the relatively simplistic structure of foreskin, the damage rendered to the follicles by engraftment is largely irrelevant. This is why hardly anyone in the scientific community outside of these select few researchers are at all impressed with these results.

[fred970]

Is it allowed to tell complete nonsense like that on this forum?!

Even hair from a hair transplant stay permanently.

[Molten]

Is it allowed to tell complete nonsense like that on this forum?!

Even hair from a hair transplant stay permanently.

For the 584874914746527th time, a hair transplant using your native hair follicles is vastly different than the artificially generated hair in the laboratory. If they were even comparable, then we wouldn't even be having this discussion.