Human lung created in the lab

[cookies]

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.

I'm not saying the complete pathway will be established soon (although there are already several genes found involved in MPB, such as PGD2 and FGF9), but it won't take 200-300 years.

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".

Once again, you have trouble interpreting what I wrote, and conclude bullshit from that. Yes, I do understand that creating a gene therapy for a only partially understood multifactorial disease is much more difficult, and will take longer then something like Glybera, but I think it's ****ing idiotic to claim that this will take 200-300 years.

[UK_]

You keep saying that man. And when asked to back up these bald claims you simply say:

[Arashi]

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.

You keep saying that man. And when asked to back up these bold claims you simply say:

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.

That's ridiculous. YOU are the (only) one making these bold claims. Proving them is therefore up to you, not to us. That's how it generally goes in science. You're full of it. You come here to these forum with a new account, pissing at all current progress, saying it's totally irrelevant, that there won't be a cure in our lifetimes and then when we ask to back up your claims you say you can't and that we should email 'scientists'. May I remind you that it were 'scientists' who got to these breakthroughs in the first place ? Scientists like Jahoda, who said they were confident to start clinical trials, based on these breakthroughs, 'soon'. ?

It almost makes me think you have an agenda. You said people shouldn't hold off on current treatments because of hope of a future cure. It almost makes me think you're a doctor selling transplants. Why else would anyone blurt out all that nonsense here, trying to rip all hope apart based on lies ?

[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.

[fred970]

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

Even hair from a hair transplant stay permanently.

[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.

[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.

[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]

Probably they're all NW0 scientists.

Have you seen Dr. Roland Lauster?

[ytterligare]

Probably they're all NW0 scientists.

[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.

[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.

[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".

[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?

[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.