Human lung created in the lab

[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 ?

[UK_]

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

[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.

[Molten]

That's ridiculous. YOU are the (only) one making these bold claims. Proving them is therefore up to you, not to us.

Sorry, but that's just not how it works. The skeptical position is not something that "needs" to be proved. Rather, it is for these researchers to demonstrate that modern science has it wrong and all the textbooks written in cell-biology are wrong by demonstrating they can use these methods to grow full heads of hair. All of my claims are in line with everything we know and is currently written in these texts.

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'.

I've already shown the enormous problems that these researchers would face. Of course, you don't have the scientific expertise to understand the magnitude of these problems so you ignore it and think it's simply a minor detail. Everything I've claimed is easily supported by everything we know about cell-biology, and this is why practically no scientists are at all interested in these results. Why is it these articles aren't being written in Nature or other reputable scientific media instead of the tabloid trash that has been saying for every year "baldness has been cured!"?

The fact of the matter is, most scientists don't care enough about these results to publish their skepticism which is why I ask you email them for their own opinions. This is what real journalists do when something major has been published just so they could get an idea of how supportive or skeptical the other experts are. I've certainly asked my professors (some of which are renowned experts and have published highly cited papers) about this and they all think it will never work.

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'. ?

I don't doubt the competence of scientists such as Jahoda and others working on this and I'm sure they are well aware of the daunting challenges I've proposed in this thread already. For one reason or another, they have not mentioned how they plan to get around these issues or even begin solving them. Either they are currently in the process of working these out or think it's a minor detail that doesn't really matter in the end. In both cases, they will find that their methods simply will not work at all.

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 ?

Ah, yes. Let's accuse the skeptic of being a shill working from the inside. This is not exactly a new tactic.

If I have no idea what I'm talking about, why then do my words seem to frustrate you so much?

[Arashi]

Sorry, but that's just not how it works. The skeptical position is not something that "needs" to be proved. Rather, it is for these researchers to demonstrate that modern science has it wrong and all the textbooks written in cell-biology are wrong by demonstrating they can use these methods to grow full heads of hair. All of my claims are in line with everything we know and is currently written in these texts.



I've already shown the enormous problems that these researchers would face. Of course, you don't have the scientific expertise to understand the magnitude of these problems so you ignore it and think it's simply a minor detail. Everything I've claimed is easily supported by everything we know about cell-biology, and this is why practically no scientists are at all interested in these results. Why is it these articles aren't being written in Nature or other reputable scientific media instead of the tabloid trash that has been saying for every year "baldness has been cured!"?

The fact of the matter is, most scientists don't care enough about these results to publish their skepticism which is why I ask you email them for their own opinions. This is what real journalists do when something major has been published just so they could get an idea of how supportive or skeptical the other experts are. I've certainly asked my professors (some of which are renowned experts and have published highly cited papers) about this and they all think it will never work.




I don't doubt the competence of scientists such as Jahoda and others working on this and I'm sure they are well aware of the daunting challenges I've proposed in this thread already. For one reason or another, they have not mentioned how they plan to get around these issues or even begin solving them. Either they are currently in the process of working these out or think it's a minor detail that doesn't really matter in the end. In both cases, they will find that their methods simply will not work at all.



Ah, yes. Let's accuse the skeptic of being a shill working from the inside. This is not exactly a new tactic.

If I have no idea what I'm talking about, why then do my words seem to frustrate you so much?

Haha. So again, you basically just say you cant prove it but that it's common knowledge (yet you cant even find a single article to support your claims) and that we're just stupid for not believing you. Ok good for you man. Thanks for joining this forum, these kinds of 'contributions' are really helping.

[Molten]

Haha. So again, you basically just say you cant prove it but that it's common knowledge (yet you cant even find a single article to support your claims) and that we're just stupid for not believing you. Ok good for you man. Thanks for joining this forum, these kinds of 'contributions' are really helping.

What silly logic. By your reasoning, anything that doesn't have an article written on why it cannot be done is therefore possible.

Is this how you would respond to a scientist who disagrees with you and displays skepticism? If that is the case, then don't bother emailing them. All I can do is outline the problems as I did above, like any scientist would, but just because there isn't an actual published article outlining these reasons doesn't mean it's not true. At best, you'll be referred to textbooks in the field if you actually want to understand the problem because you clearly do not have the scientific knowledge to do so at this time.

No one has the time to publish articles to the laymen on why a given process or product is either impractical or completely impossible. You're more than free to contact these scientists for their opinion, but they simply are too busy to write articles. Not to mention the fact that scientists aren't in the business of writing articles and it's a completely different profession.

[Arashi]

What silly logic. By your reasoning, anything that doesn't have an article written on why it cannot be done is therefore possible.

Sigh. Not sure why I'm even arguing with you here. You talk a lot about scientists but it seems you've never even seen a university from the inside. Cause if you write a scientific thesis, you ALWAYS have to name the source for ALL of your claims. That's how science works. If it wouldnt work that way anybody could claim anything and people would just 'have to believe him'. Like you suggest.

[Molten]

Sigh. Not sure why I'm even arguing with you here. You talk a lot about scientists but it seems you've never even seen a university from the inside. Cause if you write a scientific thesis, you ALWAYS have to name the source for ALL of your claims. That's how science works. If it wouldnt work that way anybody could claim anything and people would just 'have to believe him'. Like you suggest.

Writing a paper is a completely different thing than writing on a forum saying "I don't think they're onto a cure" and listing very valid scientific reasons for why that is the case. The fact that you think the two are comparable shows you yourself have never seen a university from the inside.

Are you so ridiculous as to ask me to cite the entire field of cell-biology? You're basically requesting me to cite "prove to me the cell is built in the way you say it is". Thousands of experiments done have proven time and time again what we know about cell-biology thus far is correct and it's all in the textbooks. It's not my job to defend the current status quo and what is established science. The burden of proof is on you, Jahoda, and the other researchers to demonstrate why these problems which are easily derived from a basic understanding of cell-biology are not real problems.

[Arashi]

Writing a paper is a completely different thing than writing on a forum saying "I don't think they're onto a cure" and listing very valid scientific reasons for why that is the case. The fact that you think the two are comparable shows you yourself have never seen a university from the inside.

Are you so ridiculous as to ask me to cite the entire field of cell-biology? You're basically requesting me to cite "prove to me the cell is built in the way you say it is". Thousands of experiments done have proven time and time again what we know about cell-biology thus far is correct and it's all in the textbooks. It's not my job to defend the current status quo and what is established science. The burden of proof is on you, Jahoda, and the other researchers to demonstrate why these problems which are easily derived from a basic understanding of cell-biology are not real problems.

All I'm asking you is to show evidence to support your claim that HF inductivity on human foreskin is a pretty bad prediction to as if that can happen on scalp skin. Uptil now you've only been posting some nonsense about 'cell engraftment'. And that we just have to believe you or ask 'scientists'. Well I am a scientist (not in biology though), yet your comments make 0 sense to me.

[Molten]

All I'm asking you is to show evidence to support your claim that HF inductivity on human foreskin is a pretty bad prediction to as if that can happen on scalp skin. Uptil now you've only been posting some nonsense about 'cell engraftment'. And that we just have to believe you or ask 'scientists'. Well I am a scientist (not in biology though), yet your comments make 0 sense to me.

Let me ask you this: If some layperson of your field were to ask you a highly specialized question and you were to then answer and explain the reasons for your answer, and then that layperson were to ask you for evidence for these reasons (which are often quite elementary and something you learn in first or second year of your field of study), what other option do you have than refer them to the textbooks to learn about the science behind it all for themselves?

If you disagree with me, that's a good thing. Disagreements are what make science progress. I'd just like to see some scientific objections as to why you disagree with the problems I have posed.

[Arashi]

Let me ask you this: If some layperson of your field were to ask you a highly specialized question and you were to then answer and explain the reasons for your answer, and then that layperson were to ask you for evidence for these reasons (which are often quite elementary and something you learn in first or second year of your field of study), what other option do you have than refer them to the textbooks to learn about the science behind it all for themselves?

A professor at my university once said: if you can't explain complex matter to a layman, then you don't understand it yourself in the first place.

[greatjob!]

Sorry, but that's just not how it works. The skeptical position is not something that "needs" to be proved. Rather, it is for these researchers to demonstrate that modern science has it wrong and all the textbooks written in cell-biology are wrong by demonstrating they can use these methods to grow full heads of hair. All of my claims are in line with everything we know and is currently written in these texts.



I've already shown the enormous problems that these researchers would face. Of course, you don't have the scientific expertise to understand the magnitude of these problems so you ignore it and think it's simply a minor detail. Everything I've claimed is easily supported by everything we know about cell-biology, and this is why practically no scientists are at all interested in these results. Why is it these articles aren't being written in Nature or other reputable scientific media instead of the tabloid trash that has been saying for every year "baldness has been cured!"?

Colin A. Jahoda is a professor at Durham University in the School of Biological and Biomedical Sciences. Here's a list of his publications:


Higgins, C.A., Chen, J.C., Cerise, J.E., Jahoda, C.A.B. & Christiano, A.M. (2013). Microenvironmental reprogramming by three-dimensional culture enables dermal papilla cells to induce de novo human hair-follicle growth. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 110(49): 19679–19688.

Higgins, CA, Westgate, GE & Jahoda, CA. (2011). Modulation in proteolytic activity is identified as a hallmark of exogen by transcriptional profiling of hair follicles. Journal of Investigative Dermatology 131: 2349-2357.

Petukhova, L., Duvic, M. Hordinsky, M. Norris, D. Price, V. Shimomura, Y. Kim, H. Singh, P. Lee, A. Chen, W.V. Meyer, K.C. Paus, R. Jahoda, C.A., Amos, C.I. Gregersen, P.K. & Christiano, A.M. (2010). Genome-wide association study in alopecia areata implicates both innate and adaptive immunity. Nature 466(7302 ): 113-117.

Higgins, Claire A., Westgate, Gillian E. & Jahoda, Colin A. B. (2009). From telogen to exogen: mechanisms underlying formation and subsequent loss of the hair club fiber. Journal of Investigative Dermatology 129: 2100-2108.

Richardson, GD, Bazzi, H, Fantauzzo, KA, Waters, JM, Crawford, H, Hynd, P, Christiano, AM & Jahoda, CA (2009). KGF and EGF signalling block hair follicle induction and promote interfollicular epidermal fate in developing mouse skin. Development 136(13): 2153-2164.

Wojciechowicz, K, Markiewicz, E & Jahoda CA (2008). C/EBPalpha identifies differentiating preadipocytes around hair follicles in foetal and neonatal rat and mouse skin. Experimental Dermatology 17(8): 675-680.

Reynolds A.J. & Jahoda C.A.B. (2004). Cultured human and rat tooth papilla cells induce hair follicle regeneration and fiber growth. Differentiation 72(9-10): 566-575.

Jahoda, CAB, Kljuic, A, O'Shaughnessy, R, Crossley, N, Whitehouse, CJ, Robinson, M, Reynolds, AJ, Demarchez, M, Porter, RM, Shapiro, L & Christiano, AM (2004). The lanceolate hair rat phenotype results from a missense mutation in a calcium coordinating site of the desmoglein 4 gene. Genomics 83(5): 747-756.

Fliniaux I., Viallet J.P. Dhouailly D. & Jahoda C.A.B. (2004). Transformation of amnion epithelium into skin. Differentiation 72: 558-565.

Kljuic, A, Bazzi, H, Sundberg, JP, Martinez-Mir, A, O'Shaughnessy, R, Mahoney, MG, Levy, M, Montagutelli, X, Ahmad, W, Aita, VM, Gordon, D, Uitto, J, Whiting, D, Ott, J, Fischer, S, Gilliam, TC, Jahoda, CAB, Morris, RJ, Panteleyev, AA, Nguyen, VT & Christiano, AM (2003). Desmoglein 4 in hair follicle differentiation and epidermal adhesion: Evidence from inherited hypotrichosis and acquired pemphigus vulgaris. Cell 113(2): 249-260.

Jahoda, CAB, Whitehouse, CJ, Reynolds, AJ & Hole, N (2003). Hair follicle dermal cells differentiate into adipogenic and osteogenic lineages. Experimental Dermatology 12(6): 849-859.

Lako, M., Armstrong, L., Cairns, P.M., Harris, S., Hole, N. & Jahoda C.A.B. (2002). Hair follicle dermal cells repopulate the mouse haematopoietic system. Journal of Cell Science 115(20): 3967-3974.

W. Busby, N. R. Cameron & A. B. C. Jahoda (2002). Tissue engineering matrixes by emulsion templating. Polymer International 51(10): 871-881.

Jahoda, CAB & Reynolds, AJ (2001). Hair follicle dermal sheath cells: unsung participants in wound healing. Lancet 358(9291): 1445-1448.

Robinson, M., Reynolds, A.J. , Gharzi, A. & Jahoda, C.A.B. (2001). In vivo induction of hair growth by dermal cells isolated from hair follicles after extended organ culture. Journal of Investigative Dermatology 117(3):

Gharzi, A., Reynolds A.J. & Jahoda, C.A.B. (2003). Plasticity of hair follicle dermal cells in wound healing and induction. Exp. Dermatol (12): 126-136.

Whitehouse, C.J., Huckle, J.W. & Reynolds, A.J.and Jahoda C.A.B. (2002). Genes that are differentially expressed in rat vibrissa follicle germinative epithelium in vivo show altered expression patterns after extended organ culture. Exp. Dermatol (11): 542-555.

Robinson, M., Reynolds, A.J., Gharzi, A. & Jahoda, C.A.B. (2001). In vivo induction of hair growth by dermal cells isolated from hair follicles after extended organ culture. J. Invest. Dermatol (117): 596-604.

Jahoda, C.A.B., Oliver, R.F., Reynolds, A.J., Forrester, J.C., Gillespie, J.W., Cserhalmi-Friedman, P.B., Christiano, A.M. & Horne, K.A. (2001). Transplanted human hair follicle dermal papillae induce hair growth in the mouse. Exp. Dermatol (10): 229-237.

Ferraris, C., Chevalier, G., Favier, B., Jahoda, C.A.B. & Dhouailly, D. (2000). Adult corneal epithelium basal cells possess the capacity to activate epidermal, pilosebaceous, and sweat gland genetic programs in response to embryonic dermal stimuli. Development (127): 5487-5495.

Reynolds, A.J., Lawrence, C., Cserhalmi-Friedman, P.B., Christiano, A.M. & Jahoda C.A.B. (1999). Trans-gender induction of hair follicles. Nature (402): 33-34.

Reynolds, A.J. & Jahoda, C.A.B. (1996). Hair matrix germinative epidermal cells confer follicle-inducing capabilities on dermal sheath and high passage papilla cells. Development (122): 3085-3094.

Jahoda, C.A.B., Horne, K.A., Mauger, A., Bard, S. & Sengel, P. (1992). Cellular and extracellular involvement in the regeneration of the rat vibrissa follicle. Development (114): 887-897.

Reynolds, A.J. & Jahoda, C.A.B. (1992). Cultured dermal papilla cells induce follicle formation and hair growth by transdifferentiation of an adult epidermis. Development (115): 587-593.


All of which are published in peer reviewed journals, not tabloids. He is as real a scientist as it gets.

The fact of the matter is, most scientists don't care enough about these results to publish their skepticism which is why I ask you email them for their own opinions. This is what real journalists do when something major has been published just so they could get an idea of how supportive or skeptical the other experts are. I've certainly asked my professors (some of which are renowned experts and have published highly cited papers) about this and they all think it will never work.




I don't doubt the competence of scientists such as Jahoda and others working on this and I'm sure they are well aware of the daunting challenges I've proposed in this thread already. For one reason or another, they have not mentioned how they plan to get around these issues or even begin solving them. Either they are currently in the process of working these out or think it's a minor detail that doesn't really matter in the end. In both cases, they will find that their methods simply will not work at all.



Ah, yes. Let's accuse the skeptic of being a shill working from the inside. This is not exactly a new tactic.

If I have no idea what I'm talking about, why then do my words seem to frustrate you so much?

I'm curious what is your background and in what field do you work? You sound like someone who thinks they're a scientist but is way out of their depth, like a sophomore student majoring in some form of biological sciences.

I'll leave you with something a genomics professor sent me during my undergrad and has stuck with me for a long time because it seems fitting in this conversation:

[Arashi]

Agreed, greatjob, I think this Molten guy isnt even an academic.

[Molten]

All of which are published in peer reviewed journals, not tabloids. He is as real a scientist as it gets.

And, where did I say "he's not a real scientist"? Do you have reading comprehension issues?

I'm curious what is your background and in what field do you work? You sound like someone who thinks they're a scientist but is way out of their depth, like a sophomore student majoring in some form of biological sciences.

I fail to see how this is relevant at all, and usually people who request others' credentials typically means they have no solid argument to begin with and are planning to use ad-hominem fallacies.

All you need to know is that I've taken all of the undergraduate courses on the science behind these breakthroughs and have actually done research and published with professors for the past 4 years. That definitely qualifies me somewhat as a "scientist".

I'll leave you with something a genomics professor sent me during my undergrad and has stuck with me for a long time because it seems fitting in this conversation:

Yes. Let's defer to the expertise of a science-fiction writer and his silly "laws". Usually when people (mostly layman such as yourself) cite these "laws", it means you can no longer debate the practicalities and science convincingly. Most real scientists scoff at Clarke's Three Laws.

[Arashi]

All you need to know is that I've taken all of the undergraduate courses on the science behind these breakthroughs and have actually done research and published with professors for the past 4 years. That definitely qualifies me somewhat as a "scientist".

I don't know if that's true. I do know that you're not very good at making a point (saying "just ask scientists" isnt really helpful you know).

Anyway I guess we will know quite soon. Those Taiwanese are starting clinical trials right now and if Jahoda's news is as good as it sounds (we'll know in 3 months), then I'm sure they'll start clinical trials soon too. He already said he was planning that. I have a lot more faith in them than in some anonymous guy on a forum who can't even make meaningful argumentation for his statements.