adipose-derived stem cell protein extract

[hgs1989]

@hgs1989

what do you(and others) think about this treatment?

http://integratedskincare.net/files/63390656.pdf

the ingredients listed are the same in a topical called renokin. I my self tried and it didn't work. the ingredients have been shown to b related to hair follicle development. maybe as an injection it will perform better. it is hard to say. if the price is good, you can try it yourself.

[Haircure]

Here is what they said about the ALL of the test patients:

Results: All patients experienced increased hair growth
from the treatments with ADSC-CM. Four treatment sessions
performed within 3 to 4 months provided especially good
results. Scores on the visual analog scale increased with
treatment frequency. Statistical signifi cance was determined
by Friedman’s 2-way analysis of variance (P < .01) and
Wilcoxon’s signed rank test (P < .01).

They ALL grew hair. All of them. Did some grow more hair than others? It would appear so, but it would also appear that the ones who got lesser results are the ones who got less treatments. That just goes to show that you should use it at least once a month but I would use it once every 2 weeks for the first 4 months and then after that I would use it once every 4 to 6 months for maintenance. I think it is the best potential solution we have for the near-term, and I also think that if it turns out that injecting fat cells will not work even though injecting the growth factors from fat cells appears to work then it will take science years to figure that out and then years from now they will say "Well, the fat cells won't work, it's back to the drawing board." Is it possible that the fat cells could work? Yes. But we don't know that yet. And there's something else to keep in mind: it is not just any fat cells. it's a very specific group of fat cells that are needed.

I don't think you have much experience reading scientific articles, or maybe you just have difficulty understanding them. First off, VAS is a self report method, and is filled out by the patient, and therefore is a SUBJECTIVE report. This means that they score what they believe is results, rather than actual quantitative evidence such as trichoscan hair counts, density, etc. yes they said all of the he patients experienced growth, but did you even read my post? Or did you just simply cherry pick through my arguments? I did not question the validity of the study, I question it's effectiveness. That means that I want to know how well it works, and not just based on a small trial of 12 men, because we do not know the success rate or the quantifiable average hair growth over the treatment period.

You previously called this THE SOLUTION, and began to call out other members as being weak and wasting their lives whining about their hair loss rather than taking an AAPE treatment. Now you claim that this MIGHT be a treatment, which is a stark contrast to your former juvenile post.

I'd like to offer some genuine advice again, shorten your posts and SUMMARIZE, clogging up a thread with numerous consecutive page long replies isn't doing you any favours.

[zeos]

the ingredients listed are the same in a topical called renokin. I my self tried and it didn't work. the ingredients have been shown to b related to hair follicle development. maybe as an injection it will perform better. it is hard to say. if the price is good, you can try it yourself.

yeah , M.Booster Hair has the renokin ingredients and you have to combine M.Booster Hair with Dermaheal Stem C’rum HL or Dermaheal HL,
here can you see the list of their ingredients(what do you think ?):

http://dermahealproducts.com/stem-c-rum-hl-anti-hair-loss.html

http://dermahealproducts.com/dermaheal-hl-anti-hair-loss-solution.html

[Xabi]

Hi again guys,

It's very interesting all that you speak. They haven't responded me yet, for me the key question is: "what can you show me to trust you?."

The first courageous patients' experiences will be our best test, all we need is time, as always.

In case that it will be okay, my main concern is side effects specially shock loss.

I let you know my experience if I´ll make it.

Best,
Xabi

[nameless]

I don't think you have much experience reading scientific articles, or maybe you just have difficulty understanding them. First off, VAS is a self report method, and is filled out by the patient, and therefore is a SUBJECTIVE report. This means that they score what they believe is results, rather than actual quantitative evidence such as trichoscan hair counts, density, etc. yes they said all of the he patients experienced growth, but did you even read my post? Or did you just simply cherry pick through my arguments? I did not question the validity of the study, I question it's effectiveness. That means that I want to know how well it works, and not just based on a small trial of 12 men, because we do not know the success rate or the quantifiable average hair growth over the treatment period.

You previously called this THE SOLUTION, and began to call out other members as being weak and wasting their lives whining about their hair loss rather than taking an AAPE treatment. Now you claim that this MIGHT be a treatment, which is a stark contrast to your former juvenile post.

I'd like to offer some genuine advice again, shorten your posts and SUMMARIZE, clogging up a thread with numerous consecutive page long replies isn't doing you any favours.

* I used to read studies a lot but don't anymore. I admit that I did not know what VAS meant. Thanks for telling me. It doesn't matter. I liked the pics, and i liked what the study said. As evidence goes, it was good enough for me. The people involved seem highly HIGHLY credible because they aren't even trying to sell anything.

* I notice you didn't mention the 2nd study involving the same treatment.

* I notice you also didn't mention that Yale research into fat cells supports the concept that AAPE is based on.

* I notice that you did not mention that Histogen proved to grow some hair, and Histogen did not inject as frequently as the AAPE study researchers did. Also, the AAPE study growth factors/proteins, while similar to Histogen growth factors/proteins, could be more ideal because AAPE growth factors/proteins are the exact growth factors/proteins that nature set up in the fat cells to grow hair whereas Histogen's similar growth factors/proteins are derived from a different source.

* I notice you also didn't mention that Dr. Gardner's (Part of Jahoda's team) and Dr. Jahoda's plan to use fat cells supports the concept that AAPE is based on.

My optimism is based on all of this evidence collectively, plus the study you value. Based on all of this evidence I assert my position that AAPE is a very VERY promising treatment for hair loss and it's the best near-term treament idea that we have right now. Everything is a joke except injecting fat cells, although that might not work because injected fat cells may not end up in the key locations of the follicles.

Of course you want to devalue my idea because you want to continue your idea of griping like a girl for years and accomplishing nothing. My idea has a lot more hope and promise than your idea does. Your idea is guaranteed not to grow even one hair because your idea is to sit and gripe for years on end.

[nameless]

* I used to read studies a lot but don't anymore. I admit that I did not know what VAS meant. Thanks for telling me. It doesn't matter. I liked the pics, and i liked what the study said. As evidence goes, it was good enough for me. The people involved seem highly HIGHLY credible because they aren't even trying to sell anything.

* I notice you didn't mention the 2nd study involving the same treatment.

* I notice you also didn't mention that Yale research into fat cells supports the concept that AAPE is based on.

* I notice that you did not mention that Histogen proved to grow some hair, and Histogen did not inject as frequently as the AAPE study researchers did. Also, the AAPE study growth factors/proteins, while similar to Histogen growth factors/proteins, could be more ideal because AAPE growth factors/proteins are the exact growth factors/proteins that nature set up in the fat cells to grow hair whereas Histogen's similar growth factors/proteins are derived from a different source.

* I notice you also didn't mention that Dr. Gardner's (Part of Jahoda's team) and Dr. Jahoda's plan to use fat cells supports the concept that AAPE is based on.

My optimism is based on all of this evidence collectively, plus the study you value. Based on all of this evidence I assert my position that AAPE is a very VERY promising treatment for hair loss and it's the best near-term treament idea that we have right now. Everything is a joke except injecting fat cells, although that might not work because injected fat cells may not end up in the key locations of the follicles.

Of course you want to devalue my idea because you want to continue your idea of griping like a girl for years and accomplishing nothing. My idea has a lot more hope and promise than your idea does. Your idea is guaranteed not to grow even one hair because your idea is to sit and gripe for years on end.

I was at work when I typed/posted the above so I made some typos. The two typos both come into the next to the last paragraph above. In one case I said, "My optimism is based on all of this evidence collectively, plus the study you value" and I mean to say "devalue" instead of "value." Also, in the same paragraph I said, "Everything is a joke except injecting fat cells" and i meant to say "Everything else near-term is a joke except injecting fat cells."

[Haircure]

* I used to read studies a lot but don't anymore. I admit that I did not know what VAS meant. Thanks for telling me. It doesn't matter. I liked the pics, and i liked what the study said. As evidence goes, it was good enough for me. The people involved seem highly HIGHLY credible because they aren't even trying to sell anything.

* I notice you didn't mention the 2nd study involving the same treatment.

* I notice you also didn't mention that Yale research into fat cells supports the concept that AAPE is based on.

* I notice that you did not mention that Histogen proved to grow some hair, and Histogen did not inject as frequently as the AAPE study researchers did. Also, the AAPE study growth factors/proteins, while similar to Histogen growth factors/proteins, could be more ideal because AAPE growth factors/proteins are the exact growth factors/proteins that nature set up in the fat cells to grow hair whereas Histogen's similar growth factors/proteins are derived from a different source.

* I notice you also didn't mention that Dr. Gardner's (Part of Jahoda's team) and Dr. Jahoda's plan to use fat cells supports the concept that AAPE is based on.

My optimism is based on all of this evidence collectively, plus the study you value. Based on all of this evidence I assert my position that AAPE is a very VERY promising treatment for hair loss and it's the best near-term treament idea that we have right now. Everything is a joke except injecting fat cells, although that might not work because injected fat cells may not end up in the key locations of the follicles.

Of course you want to devalue my idea because you want to continue your idea of griping like a girl for years and accomplishing nothing. My idea has a lot more hope and promise than your idea does. Your idea is guaranteed not to grow even one hair because your idea is to sit and gripe for years on end.

Here's what I notice:

You say you used to read studies, but that's completely different from understanding them, which clearly you do not, and apparently you can't read very well either, since you seem to skim through the article about AAPE and simply didn't think it was worth the time to understand it. Rather it's quite obvious you look for information to confirm and support your own ideas (Confirmation Bias) rather than simply looking at the study itself and all that it details. It was very clearly stated what the VAG method was, and what it meant. It isn't a very useful study due to response bias. This means that the subjects who were given self-reports (VAG) may well have overestimated their satisfaction in order to generate the "desired" results which the researchers were looking for. There are other biases, that I didn't mention, but you get the idea, anytime you use a self-survey method, which is based on subjective observations, these things need to be accounted for.

In response to Histogen, Dr. Gardner's/Jahoda's research, and the Yale study, all of these are simply Concepts, ideas, theories, educated assumptions, which as far as I know have not yet been studied via clinical tests on people. They may be good ideas, and then again they may present some problems, the point is we don't know yet.

What you need to to understand is that you cannot make claims such as "AARP is the solution" without even knowing it's effectiveness. We do not know how well it works, if it is better than fin or minox, because the study didn't supply the data. You say you are impressed by some pictures, fine if that's all what you merit to be compelling evidence, that's your own opinion, albeit a flawed perspective, especially in the hair loss industry. But the main problem I have with you is, you simply are to narrow-minded to consider the many missing variables and seem to latch on to every treatment that gives you some pretty pictures and claim it's the answer and call others to do it, otherwise we are some whiny girls losing our hair.

[nameless]

Here's what I notice:

You say you used to read studies, but that's completely different from understanding them, which clearly you do not, and apparently you can't read very well either, since you seem to skim through the article about AAPE and simply didn't think it was worth the time to understand it. Rather it's quite obvious you look for information to confirm and support your own ideas (Confirmation Bias) rather than simply looking at the study itself and all that it details. It was very clearly stated what the VAG method was, and what it meant. It isn't a very useful study due to response bias. This means that the subjects who were given self-reports (VAG) may well have overestimated their satisfaction in order to generate the "desired" results which the researchers were looking for. There are other biases, that I didn't mention, but you get the idea, anytime you use a self-survey method, which is based on subjective observations, these things need to be accounted for.

In response to Histogen, Dr. Gardner's/Jahoda's research, and the Yale study, all of these are simply Concepts, ideas, theories, educated assumptions, which as far as I know have not yet been studied via clinical tests on people. They may be good ideas, and then again they may present some problems, the point is we don't know yet.

What you need to to understand is that you cannot make claims such as "AARP is the solution" without even knowing it's effectiveness. We do not know how well it works, if it is better than fin or minox, because the study didn't supply the data. You say you are impressed by some pictures, fine if that's all what you merit to be compelling evidence, that's your own opinion, albeit a flawed perspective, especially in the hair loss industry. But the main problem I have with you is, you simply are to narrow-minded to consider the many missing variables and seem to latch on to every treatment that gives you some pretty pictures and claim it's the answer and call others to do it, otherwise we are some whiny girls losing our hair.

I understand the studies better than you realize.

My main problem with you is that you are a "paralysis by analysis" time-wasting girly-man griper. Guys like you don't move forward because you waste too much time. Even now you foolishly talk about how the fat cells information gathered by Yale and being put into clinical research by Jahoda, Gardner, and many other researchers is nothing but a "concept idea." of course this means that now you're griping because it's not fully vetted. And when is it going to be fully vetted? Oh in about 4 or 5 years. So right off the bat this is another example of your silly "paralysis by analysis" time-wasting. And what will you be doing during the 3, 4, or 5 year delay while researchers fully vet "concept idea" for you? Well, you will be going to websites like tb.t to gripe like a girl how there's nothing available.

You're a weak person and you waste time because of your weakness.

Open up your eyes! AAPE is nature's very own version of Histogen's HSC. That's the point. AAPE is Histogen made by mommy nature. Combined with other ingredients it turns into HARG.

Histogen owns HSC so you can't make it or get it until Histogen says OK. But you could possibly get AAPE/HARG except for the fact that you're too busy griping like a girl and "paralysis by analysis" wasting time.

The evidence is sufficient. We should not waste years while Science gathers more proof that AAPE/HARG should solve our problem. We already have enough info to realize that unless we are of the nature to fritter away years griping like girls and "paralysis by analysis" delaying.

You need to get your head on straight! You need to stop over-analyzing things. You need to stop trying to "Play" a scientist at hair websites and instead start doing the smart thing to get your hair back instead.

[nameless]

Here's what I notice:

You say you used to read studies, but that's completely different from understanding them, which clearly you do not, and apparently you can't read very well either, since you seem to skim through the article about AAPE and simply didn't think it was worth the time to understand it. Rather it's quite obvious you look for information to confirm and support your own ideas (Confirmation Bias) rather than simply looking at the study itself and all that it details. It was very clearly stated what the VAG method was, and what it meant. It isn't a very useful study due to response bias. This means that the subjects who were given self-reports (VAG) may well have overestimated their satisfaction in order to generate the "desired" results which the researchers were looking for. There are other biases, that I didn't mention, but you get the idea, anytime you use a self-survey method, which is based on subjective observations, these things need to be accounted for.

In response to Histogen, Dr. Gardner's/Jahoda's research, and the Yale study, all of these are simply Concepts, ideas, theories, educated assumptions, which as far as I know have not yet been studied via clinical tests on people. They may be good ideas, and then again they may present some problems, the point is we don't know yet.

What you need to to understand is that you cannot make claims such as "AARP is the solution" without even knowing it's effectiveness. We do not know how well it works, if it is better than fin or minox, because the study didn't supply the data. You say you are impressed by some pictures, fine if that's all what you merit to be compelling evidence, that's your own opinion, albeit a flawed perspective, especially in the hair loss industry. But the main problem I have with you is, you simply are to narrow-minded to consider the many missing variables and seem to latch on to every treatment that gives you some pretty pictures and claim it's the answer and call others to do it, otherwise we are some whiny girls losing our hair.

All we have to do is start an AAPE/HARG clinic in The Bahamas and we can put a lot of our nightmare behind us. We gripe about big companies and researchers but it is our own failure to act that is keeping us bald. The evidence just keeps piling up while we twiddle our thumbs:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20203417

TEXT:

Adipose-derived stem cells (ADSCs) and their secretomes mediate diverse skin-regeneration effects, such as wound-healing and antioxidant protection, that are enhanced by hypoxia. We investigated the hair-growth-promoting effect of conditioned medium (CM) of ADSCs to determine if ADSCs and their secretomes regenerate hair and if hypoxia enhances hair regeneration. If so, we wanted to identify the factors responsible for hypoxia-enhanced hair-regeneration. We found that ADSC-CM administrated subcutaneously induced the anagen phase and increased hair regeneration in C(3)H/NeH mice. In addition, ADSC-CM increased the proliferation of human follicle dermal papilla cells (HFDPCs) and human epithelial keratinocytes (HEKs), which are derived from two major cell types present in hair follicles. We investigated the effect of hypoxia on ADSC function using the same animal model in which hypoxia increased hair regrowth. Forty-one growth factors in ADSC-CM from cells cultured under hypoxic or normoxic conditions were analyzed. The secretion of insulin-like growth factor binding protein (IGFBP)-1, IGFBP-2, macrophage colony-stimulating factor (M-CSF), M-CSF receptor, platelet-derived growth factor receptor-beta, and vascular endothelial growth factor was significantly increased by hypoxia, while the secretion of epithelial growth factor production was decreased. It is reasonable to conclude that ADSCs promote hair growth via a paracrine mechanism that is enhanced by hypoxia.

[ShookOnes]

how much would this cost over a lifetime?

[nameless]

There's a place in Shanghai, China that also uses Adipose Stem Cells for hair loss! See here:

http://www.stellen.com.cn/Eng/Mira.aspx?id=7

I wonder what their before and after photos look like for patients who get adipose derived stem cell implants for hair growth. This could be a cure if the treatment is legitimate. If they give you what they say they're giving you.

[nameless]

Great man. What is their method then? They extract it, seperate it and immediately inject it or what? Btw, how hard is it do yourself? Is there anyone here with lab experience, obviously you would need the equipment etc. But seems like it is rather easy? 5000 euro is alot, very curious what it will cost through this swiss lab.

I think they should be cultured in hypoxic conditions

[nameless]

Where in Korea can you get this treatment?

[nameless]

Of course you are right but some of the guys will get substitutes, it won't work, and then they''ll say AAPE doesn't work even though they never got real AAPE formulated, packaged, stored, and shipped correctly.

[nameless]

It appears that they're not from fat cells but they're part of fat tissue.