Cotsarelis Presentation - PGD2 inhibition was reversed with blocker
Collapse
X
-
I would just like to know if they have a topical that works and when we can expect it. Don't know why it's important for them to keep EVERYTHING under wraps. I would no longer be on these forums, or on fin and give a crap about hair loss because I wouldn't have to.
Such bloody nonsense all of this is.Leave a comment:
-
-
-
-
-
Nice find! I wish I had the ability to hack follica just too see what's going on. Would ease a lot of anxiety.Maybe I don't understand well this news but I see the end of project of Cotsarelis will be on 2018
source: https://grantome.com/grant/NIH/R01-AR055309-07Leave a comment:
-
HOW did you find that?! Thank you!Maybe I don't understand well this news but I see the end of project of Cotsarelis will be on 2018
source: https://grantome.com/grant/NIH/R01-AR055309-07
Leave a comment:
-
Maybe I don't understand well this news but I see the end of project of Cotsarelis will be on 2018
source: https://grantome.com/grant/NIH/R01-AR055309-07Leave a comment:
-
DHT - PGD2 - The One Two Punch
DHT and PGD2 are like a "one-two punch". My take is, DHT reduces the fatty layer that Valerie Horsley (Yale Hair Study) cited as necessary for signaling an adequate release of blood platelet growth factors. The lack of growth factors, sends the hair into telogen where it gets the "two" punch from prostaglandin D2. I believe, PGD2 plays a role in apoptosis which is a normal part of the hair cycle. Cotsarelis believes in MPB, the hair cycles are out of balance tipping heavily toward telogen.
So if hair were a lawn, a lack of sufficient platelet growth factors would be like grass not getting enough nitrogen, phosphorus, or potassium. PGD2 in the case of a lawn would be like spraying the lawn with Monsanto's Roundup (glyphosate) after starving the lawn of necessary nutrients.
Some doctors claim that the immune system comes into play once the follicles are thoroughly hammered with PGD2 and treat the dying follicles like a foreign body.Last edited by 35YrsAfter; 02-22-2015, 06:19 PM.Leave a comment:
-
Agree to disagree. They were able to give a mouse AGA by increasing PGD2 production, and there have been papers published by Garza which basically say yes, it's PGD2.Leave a comment:
-
Look, there are hundreds of people in the clinical trials involved of GPR44 blockers. There is 99% chance that someone or more people in these clinical trials is suffering from AGA to an extent. If it would work, it would show up as an "side-effect" and you would already hear from it. Simple as that. You would definitely hear from it too, no way that that could be kept secretive especially with the information system we have going on globally.So you're still basing this assumption that because we don't have any news on it, it doesn't work. What I do know is that Cots and his team have been standing by this theory as recently as 2014. If you saw my earlier post about their patent inhibiting pgd2 in 2008, which means they've been sticking to their guns for over 6 years. I guess their reputations as scientists/doctors don't mean jack to you because you didn't a news clip of an asthma medication benefitting people with hair loss in trials.
It comes down to that you refuse to believe there's anything going on because you're not getting the piece of news you want. They proved that PGD2 causes AGA, and with all their research, found the right receptor to block.
Secondly, I don't know if you are aware but there are people who have tried OC459 and it definitely did not provide substantial results. Not even that, there are pathways upstream of PGD2 like COX-2 etc. There have been many medicines altering these signalling cascades which (indirectly) change PGD2 levels.
And they definitely didn't proof that PGD2 causes AGA, that is just your interpretation.Leave a comment:
-
Why I am even going back and forth with you? They proved that PGD2 inhibition was reversed with a blocker in the videoLeave a comment:
-
So you're still basing this assumption that because we don't have any news on it, it doesn't work. What I do know is that Cots and his team have been standing by this theory as recently as 2014. If you saw my earlier post about their patent inhibiting pgd2 in 2008, which means they've been sticking to their guns for over 6 years. I guess their reputations as scientists/doctors don't mean jack to you because you didn't a news clip of an asthma medication benefitting people with hair loss in trials.There is to much evidence for it not working indeed. If "any" compound is going to cure AGA in a clinical trial not hair related it's going to be all over the news, never will that be able to kept secret. If it won't go official it will go through the people involved in the clinical trials etc. Considering that many GPR44 compounds have/are in clinical trials we can indeed draw a conclusion that it is not the cure we are hoping for.
It comes down to that you refuse to believe there's anything going on because you're not getting the piece of news you want. They proved that PGD2 causes AGA, and with all their research, found the right receptor to block.Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: