Printed skin with follicles

[hellouser]

http://www.gizmag.com/hydrogel-skin-...e-burns/20876/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qc3fPeNZooA

I don't mean to bump up a thread that is almost 3 months old yet since I've been gone from the forums for like 6 months, I am reviewing many of these threads for the first time.

Both of the above links describe how skin was able to be grown. The first, albeit on mice, deals with the growth of fully functioning skin with hair follicles, and using a natural concoction that shouldn't require rigorous FDA trials. The second deals with the growth of fully functioning skin on an actual human being. Yet despite this innovative and apparently effective method, burn victims still need to endure the painful and scarring procedures of skin grafts and debridements. The status quo of traditional treatments remains, despite so many innovations that could make medicine much more effective.

Doesn't that make you wonder? What the hell is going on with the advancements NEVER being brought to practical use??

[Vox]

Perhaps I misunderstand something, but what about printing hair follicles on already existing and healthy skin? Would not it be more simple?

[nameless]

Sounds like you have a lot to say about this method you know almost nothing about.

The process could be irrelevant to MPB but it also could result in sheets of skin complete with follicles that could be harvested for implantation into bald scalp. I don't know. So I'm wondering out loud and speculating and asking questions while you sit there with your finger up your ass?

[97nasa]

My philosophy is why re-invent the wheel as growing hair on bald men has been done several times.

Two cases in which two men who took Benoxaprofen in 1982 and these two MPB grew hair one was 45 and the other 72 years old. It was said the 72 year old had a severe sun burn, grew new skin. Then 1986 a MPB 78 year old man fell head first into a campfire and grew a full set of hair, saw the pictures on this website. I cannot help but wonder if he had taken an Arthritis drug.

Thus I strongly feel that it takes NEW SKIN Plus a specific Arthritis Drug Benoxaprofen/Ruxolitinib and you get a Full Head of Hair.

The problem is doctors apply drugs to skin that has been ruined by DHT from growing hair. Like trying to get water through 50 year old rusted steel plumbing pipes. You need new pipes to get water through. And that is why drugs never work. It takes New Skin and Ruxolitinib sparks the skin to grow hair. Like a doctor spanks a new borne to get it to breathe. And, I believe the drug only needs to spark the New Skin to grow hair and does not need to be used for long.

I think we have everything right now (actually for the past 26 years) to grow new full hair on MPB. Just cause New Skin to grow on the head while using Beno/Rux. I'm not sure best way to grow new skin and Be no might be too dangerous but Rux is less.

Does this sound right?

All is my opinion.

[hellouser]

My philosophy is why re-invent the wheel as growing hair on bald men has been done several times.

Two cases in which two men who took Benoxaprofen in 1982 and these two MPB grew hair one was 45 and the other 72 years old. It was said the 72 year old had a severe sun burn, grew new skin. Then 1986 a MPB 78 year old man fell head first into a campfire and grew a full set of hair, saw the pictures on this website. I cannot help but wonder if he had taken an Arthritis drug.

Thus I strongly feel that it takes NEW SKIN Plus a specific Arthritis Drug Benoxaprofen/Ruxolitinib and you get a Full Head of Hair.

The problem is doctors apply drugs to skin that has been ruined by DHT from growing hair. Like trying to get water through 50 year old rusted steel plumbing pipes. You need new pipes to get water through. And that is why drugs never work. It takes New Skin and Ruxolitinib sparks the skin to grow hair. Like a doctor spanks a new borne to get it to breathe. And, I believe the drug only needs to spark the New Skin to grow hair and does not need to be used for long.

I think we have everything right now (actually for the past 26 years) to grow new full hair on MPB. Just cause New Skin to grow on the head while using Beno/Rux. I'm not sure best way to grow new skin and Be no might be too dangerous but Rux is less.

Does this sound right?

All is my opinion.

I've been thinking along the same lines that Chlorine Dioxide and Tofacitinib/Ruxolitinib might do the trick.

[briandesigns]

My philosophy is why re-invent the wheel as growing hair on bald men has been done several times.

Two cases in which two men who took Benoxaprofen in 1982 and these two MPB grew hair one was 45 and the other 72 years old. It was said the 72 year old had a severe sun burn, grew new skin. Then 1986 a MPB 78 year old man fell head first into a campfire and grew a full set of hair, saw the pictures on this website. I cannot help but wonder if he had taken an Arthritis drug.

Thus I strongly feel that it takes NEW SKIN Plus a specific Arthritis Drug Benoxaprofen/Ruxolitinib and you get a Full Head of Hair.

The problem is doctors apply drugs to skin that has been ruined by DHT from growing hair. Like trying to get water through 50 year old rusted steel plumbing pipes. You need new pipes to get water through. And that is why drugs never work. It takes New Skin and Ruxolitinib sparks the skin to grow hair. Like a doctor spanks a new borne to get it to breathe. And, I believe the drug only needs to spark the New Skin to grow hair and does not need to be used for long.

I think we have everything right now (actually for the past 26 years) to grow new full hair on MPB. Just cause New Skin to grow on the head while using Beno/Rux. I'm not sure best way to grow new skin and Be no might be too dangerous but Rux is less.

Does this sound right?

All is my opinion.

start another dermaroller community trial but this time add the arthritis drug?

[hellouser]

start another dermaroller community trial but this time add the arthritis drug?

Would likely have to be more severe wounding.

[DepressedByHairLoss]

Doesn't that make you wonder? What the hell is going on with the advancements NEVER being brought to practical use??

It makes me wonder and it's been making me wonder ever since I became a member here more than 3 years ago. With all of the advancements that clearly have had marvelous results on humans that are not brought to mainstream use, I really believe that the treatment of ailments and diseases is nearly solely monetarily-driven.

I remember when I first started noticing my own hair loss more than 3 years ago, I somewhat naively e-mailed tons of these "researchers", asking if any of the results of their experiments would be made available for human application anytime soon. Most of them never got back to me, but the ones that did, said that the results of their lab experiments were not being made available for human application anytime soon. The more than I think about it, the more I believe that these "researchers" are there to simply "research", and not develop any cure or adequate treatment for human application.

[hellouser]

It makes me wonder and it's been making me wonder ever since I became a member here more than 3 years ago. With all of the advancements that clearly have had marvelous results on humans that are not brought to mainstream use, I really believe that the treatment of ailments and diseases is nearly solely monetarily-driven.

I remember when I first started noticing my own hair loss more than 3 years ago, I somewhat naively e-mailed tons of these "researchers", asking if any of the results of their experiments would be made available for human application anytime soon. Most of them never got back to me, but the ones that did, said that the results of their lab experiments were not being made available for human application anytime soon. The more than I think about it, the more I believe that these "researchers" are there to simply "research", and not develop any cure or adequate treatment for human application.

Which begs the question:

If they're just sitting around doing research and nothing else... whats the point? Why should our tax dollars give them grant money if we dont get any benefits? You might as well hire a bunch of people to clean your car 10 times a day just for the hell of it.... and you know what? We'd still be at the same pathetic point with progress: NOWHERE.

[DepressedByHairLoss]

Which begs the question:

If they're just sitting around doing research and nothing else... whats the point? Why should our tax dollars give them grant money if we dont get any benefits? You might as well hire a bunch of people to clean your car 10 times a day just for the hell of it.... and you know what? We'd still be at the same pathetic point with progress: NOWHERE.

I totally agree with you. Researching hair loss all of these years has really sharpened my bulls**t detector when it comes to code words like "research" that the medical industry loves to bandy about so much. I hear all of the time about donating to "cancer research" yet I wonder how much of that "research" is actually involved in finding a cure or just employing a huge segment of the population. Hell, in your home country of Canada, scientists may have found a cure for cancer (dichloroacetate) yet clinical trials cannot be adequately funded because the entities with the largest sums of money (pharmaceutical companies) have no interest in developing a compound that they cannot patent, and therefore make huge amounts of money from.

[Swooping]

It makes me wonder and it's been making me wonder ever since I became a member here more than 3 years ago. With all of the advancements that clearly have had marvelous results on humans that are not brought to mainstream use,I really believe that the treatment of ailments and diseases is nearly solely monetarily-driven.

I remember when I first started noticing my own hair loss more than 3 years ago, I somewhat naively e-mailed tons of these "researchers", asking if any of the results of their experiments would be made available for human application anytime soon. Most of them never got back to me, but the ones that did, said that the results of their lab experiments were not being made available for human application anytime soon. The more than I think about it, the more I believe that these "researchers" are there to simply "research", and not develop any cure or adequate treatment for human application.

I totally agree with you. Researching hair loss all of these years has really sharpened my bulls**t detector when it comes to code words like "research" that the medical industry loves to bandy about so much. I hear all of the time about donating to "cancer research" yet I wonder how much of that "research" is actually involved in finding a cure or just employing a huge segment of the population. Hell, in your home country of Canada, scientists may have found a cure for cancer (dichloroacetate) yet clinical trials cannot be adequately funded because the entities with the largest sums of money (pharmaceutical companies) have no interest in developing a compound that they cannot patent, and therefore make huge amounts of money from.

Totally agree with you. It's sad but true.

[97nasa]

Look at how many HT doctors there are with nice paying jobs. Look at how much Minoxidol and other drugs have fleeced out of our pockets. Litter ally billions every year spent from us and for what? Absolutely nothing. Sorry nothing works except for Ruxolitinib and that other drug for AA (auto immune) hair loss And Think Why Does Is It Cure That Type Of Hair loss Since The Discoverer Dr. Christian has That Type Of Hair loss. That She Needed A Real Cure. It Is That Simple.

I have concluded that no one is going to help us but ourselves. I feel as if I am right and try and argue against me if you feel I am wrong. Hair loss should have been solved 26 years ago with a simple interview with three men who had MPB AND who regrew nice hair (at least the one with the photo) the articles said they grew dense hair but only one photo of one person.

I hope you guys saw the photo of the regrowth from 78 year old who fell head first into campfire and regrew hair - no idea but I would guess that he was on a special Arthritis Drug and when he got NEW SKIN he got New Hair.

That has been the missing key You Have To Have New Skin. Then the Ruxolitinib my guess either stops a signal from proteins or DHT telling the new skin not to grow hair OR the Arthritis Drug spanks the new skin (like turning on a faucet) tells the skin to start to grow hair. From then on you probably do not need to take drug for very long.

As a test. Hypothetically I think if someone used Rux/Tin as a cream on a small spot for 1-2 months and then had a very small area severely damaged skin (very very small area) and used cream for another couple of months that they should see thick new hair in that one area.

NO ONE SHOULD EVER DAMAGE THE SKIN ALL OVER THEIR HEAD AS THEY WOULD HAVE SCARRING.

I am not a medical doctor. I am just guessing, putting two and two together.

As previously stated. It was said (not sure if true and would need research but not sure true information can be found) that one of the two guys on Benoxaprofen, the 72 year old, had fallen asleep in the sun and had a severe sunburn. What do you get from a severe sunburn? Your skin peels and you get New Skin. In his case they said when he grew new hair it was as thick as that where he did have hair on the side of his head. Not sure if the other guy on Benoxaprofen, he was 45 years old, if or how he had any new skin. Someone said he too had too much sun (but both sun burn stories may not be true or they could be true).

Now in 1986 (4 years after those other two guys) a 78 year old fell head first into a campfire and had severe burns to his head and grew New Skin. Then he Grew New Thick Hair when before he was MPB. I can only guess (do not know why researchers could not sit down with him for 5 minutes to ask him things to figure out why he GRE hair) that it is New Skin Plus (in the two Benoxaprofen) that it is also being on Arthritis drug (not sure if guy who fell into campfire was on arthritis drug but he was 78 years old thus it is possible) and the last possible variable could be some or a lot of sun. But guessing, I think it is just Arthritis Drug AND New Skin = dense new hair.

I looked at 78 year old pictures in browser blown up 400% it looked like his hair was thick and the before pictures he only had a little hair plus and it did say he was MPB before got new skin.

We just need proof of concept. Small area of New Skin Plus arthritis drug Rux/Tin/Beno (probably as a cream as it should be safer) for 5 months. Then we know.

But ALL of this should be for medical researchers to try. That one famous researcher has been talking about skin perturbation And whatever type of drug he experiments with not sure but he seems to be the only one working this area.

Please do not try damaging your skin it should be for medical researchers. I am only guessing. You cannot grow a great crop in toxic dirt but you can in fresh new dirt and that is why I think nothing has worked before. Argue why I am wrong?

All is my opinion.

[Vox]

I hope you guys saw the photo of the regrowth from 78 year old who fell head first into campfire and regrew hair

In fact, no, I haven't. If you have any photos, links to this and similar stories, please post them here.

[Swooping]

In fact, no, I haven't. If you have any photos, links to this and similar stories, please post them here.

[Justinian]

I totally agree with you. Researching hair loss all of these years has really sharpened my bulls**t detector when it comes to code words like "research" that the medical industry loves to bandy about so much. I hear all of the time about donating to "cancer research" yet I wonder how much of that "research" is actually involved in finding a cure or just employing a huge segment of the population. Hell, in your home country of Canada, scientists may have found a cure for cancer (dichloroacetate) yet clinical trials cannot be adequately funded because the entities with the largest sums of money (pharmaceutical companies) have no interest in developing a compound that they cannot patent, and therefore make huge amounts of money from.

It's tough to blame the companies with the system in place. They have to spends tens of millions on trials, and then wouldn't make any money because any company could then sell the product. Then, if an adverse effect is found, they have to spend millions on lawsuits. It's pretty risky to ask that of a company. IDK of a better system, though.