Hair Loss Science

[DepressedByHairLoss]

I'm really beginning to think that a lot these so-called hair loss researchers are just in business to make money and gain exposure for their novel research and they really don't give a damn about developing a cure for baldness. I've been searching like crazy over the internet for so-called hair loss cures and all I've seen are studies and experiments about how certain substances and complexes grew hair on mice, but are never applied to grow hair on humans. I've noticed that since 1990 it has been known that wnt and noggin proteins are involved in increased hair growth, so why is it that since then, only one company (Histogen) has attempted to develop a drug that uses this principle to develop a marketable drug to regrow hair. So many other growth factors, such as hepatocyte growth factor (HGF), beta catenin, and the LEF-1 transcription factor, have been known for about 20 years to induce hair growth, yet no one has even attempted to create a drug based on these principles that would be beneficial to humans. I am aware that too rapid of growth induced by these chemicals could cause benign tumors to occur, but you would think that after all these years, there would be a way to overcome this.
A lot of the top hair loss scientists do not suffer from baldness themselves, so they have no real incentive to create an effective remedy for hair loss. They just publicize all of these so-called hair growth discoveries in mice to bring more attention, exposure, and ultimately more money to their labs and themselves. I don't know, maybe I'm just cynical because I see all of these supposedly novel and interesting discoveries related to hair loss, yet all that has been produced so far are marginally effective (at best) remedies like Rogaine and Propecia, and ineffective hair transplants.

[gmonasco]

I'm really beginning to think that a lot these so-called hair loss researchers are just in business to make money and gain exposure for their novel research and they really don't give a damn about developing a cure for baldness.

Every year for decades now, Jerry Lewis has been raising millions of dollars for muscular dystrophy research, yet there's still no cure in sight. Do you suppose that all that money goes to uncaring, lazy scientists who simply blow it on whatever strikes their fancy, or is it perhaps more likely that they're dealing with a very complex biological issue with no easy or obvious solution?

A lot of the top hair loss scientists do not suffer from baldness themselves, so they have no real incentive to create an effective remedy for hair loss.

Was the polio vaccine developed by a doctor with polio? Do you suppose every single cancer researcher himself suffers from cancer? Do you think that no one conducting research into hair loss knows someone (a colleague, a friend, a relative) who suffers from hair loss? Or is it maybe possible that people can be motivated by something other than their direct personal circumstances?

[RichardDawkins]

Thank you guys for your Opinion, much ahhhh appreciated

[DepressedByHairLoss]

It's not that I think a lot of these scientists are lazy and uncaring. I just think that if they personally felt the devastating effects of male pattern baldness, then they would be more eager to put a product out on the market, instead of saying that they have POSSIBLY found a hair loss cure that will be available within the next 10 YEARS. It's just frustrating that there are all of these proven hair growth agents like WNT, noggin, the LEF-1 transcription factor, and hedgehog agonists, yet no one seems to have attempted to bring a product using these principles to the market. Sure, there may be risks associated with these treatments, but I would accept these risks and try some type of WNT or noggin treatment in a second in order to grow my hair back. I mean, everyone already knows that a million and a half things produce hair growth in mice, but they don't mean a damn thing unless they're tried out on humans.
There are some other stem cell type treatments out there like PRP and Adipose Stem Cell Therapy, yet none of these treatments has been proven to even remotely generate as much hair as the methods that I mentioned in the first paragraph.

[johnnyboots]

the reason is, to my knowledge no one has died from mpb.

[gmonasco]

It's not that I think a lot of these scientists are lazy and uncaring. I just think that if they personally felt the devastating effects of male pattern baldness, then they would be more eager to put a product out on the market

Do you recall this recent article about researchers' having "grown the world’s first hair follicle using stem cells"?

http://www.thelocal.de/sci-tech/20101214-31797.html

The primary research scientist cited in the article was Dr. Roland Lauster. This is a picture of Dr. Lauster:

http://www.pressestelle.tu-berlin.de/fileadmin/a70100710/Fotos/TU_intern/2009/Februar/03_Lauster-6.jpg

The frustration of waiting for a solution to hair loss is quite understandable, and frustrated people naturally seek someone (or something) to blame. But I think placing the blame on scientists is misdirected. Of all the factors that might hold back a hair loss solution, I think the notion that scientists simply don't care ranks very, very low.

[DepressedByHairLoss]

I not blaming anybody. I just think that it's kind of fishy when I see like a million "potential cures" that grow hair on mice but have never been tried on humans. It would be more believable at least some of these techniques were tried on humans but none of them ever are. All of those techniques that I have mentioned in previous e-mails have been tried on mice for 20 years yet have never been even tried on humans. You can do a search on the internet and find a hundreds of so-called cures that have grown hair on mice, but have never been tried on humans.
I think that a lot of these drug companies realize that drugs that cure something provide much less of a profit than drugs that people constantly need to take for the rest of their lives. A "cure", you need to take only once or a handful of times and then you are "cured" and don't need to take it anymore. These drugs that "treat" a certain disease or condition need to be taken for the rest of a person's life, and therefore generate a lot more profits for the drug companies. Look at Rogaine, it doesn't do a damn thing yet it generates billions of profits and people need to continuously take it in order for it to work.
Even Chris Rock (albeit jokingly) touched on it in his comedy routine, saying that the pharmaceutical industry is not interested in curing anything because that's not where the money is. Instead we have to deal with this crap like Rogaine, Propecia, and hair transplants which really don't do a damn thing.

[gmonasco]

I not blaming anybody.

Saying that "I'm really beginning to think that a lot these so-called hair loss researchers are just in business to make money and gain exposure for their novel research and they really don't give a damn about developing a cure for baldness" sounds like blame to me.

I just think that it's kind of fishy when I see like a million "potential cures" that grow hair on mice but have never been tried on humans.

There are literally thousands and thousands of discoveries made every day through experimentation on rodents, in all areas of medical science. The problem is that mice and rats are very different than humans, and only a tiny percentage of those discoveries have any potential applicability to human beings. Exploring any one of those potentialities takes a good deal of time and money, so it's just not possible to pursue more than a tiny handful.

All of those techniques that I have mentioned in previous e-mails have been tried on mice for 20 years yet have never been even tried on humans.

You can't just try them on humans without performing a whole lot of other forms of intermediate trials and experimentation first. Scientists don't get use human subjects as if they were lab rats. (And, in fact, the vast majority of medical experimentation is found to lead to dead ends long before it's actually tried on human beings.)

And how do you even know that these avenues you reference haven't been explored? The press doesn't run stories like "Baldness cure fails to pan out," because nobody's interested in reading them.

I think that a lot of these drug companies realize that drugs that cure something provide much less of a profit than drugs that people constantly need to take for the rest of their lives. A "cure", you need to take only once or a handful of times and then you are "cured" and don't need to take it anymore.

The conspiracy theory approach is rather old and tired. And among many other flaws, it falsely assumes that any new hair loss discovery would be mutually exclusive (rather than complementary) with existing treatments and would necessarily be a "one-and-done" cure rather than something that might require repeated application.

Even Chris Rock (albeit jokingly) touched on it in his comedy routine, saying that the pharmaceutical industry is not interested in curing anything because that's not where the money is.

And what more proof could you want than that a comedian said it?

Plenty of people can now live normal lives with ailments such as asthma and diabetes because medical science has discovered treatments that manage their symptoms even though they don't technically "cure" the underlying conditions -- those people still have to undertake repeated applications of albuterol or insulin or whatever. How do you know that a breakthrough medical discovery for hair loss won't follow the same pattern -- that someone will come up with a drug that will prevent or reverse the effects of MPB, but will require repeated application to remain effective? In fact, I think that's probably one of the more likely scenarios.

[RichardDawkins]

I support this. i think the treatments will last for a few years and then you have to take it again like a flu shot or so

[DepressedByHairLoss]

First off, I really am not blaming anybody. If my claims happen to cast a negative light on pharmaceutical companies, it's not blaming them, it's just me stating what could be the truth. There aren't thousands and thousands of discoveries made on rodents every day in all medical fields; you have no evidence of that and there is no evidence of that. And if rodents weren't similar to humans in their genetics, then why would people even investigate on them in the first place to attempt to "cure" diseases? Rodents have 85% of the same genes that humans do, and 90% of the genes implicated in rodent diseases are the same as those genes that cause those diseases in humans. Also, a lot of studies that don't work are actually reported, for example Curis's potential cure for baldness (although I still think that hedgehog agonists do have potential).
The proof that many of these potential cures for hair loss (WNT and noggin proteins) are not just one-time novelties that did not pan out is evidenced by the fact that such potential cures are "discovered" and referenced over and over again throughout the years by many different scientists. And I'm not getting these "discoveries" from assinine magazines like Men's Health who use cutesy language ("lustrous locks", "shiny pates") and jokes to marginalize the issue of baldness. I'm reading about these so-called discoveries in scientific journals and in research papers, sources that don't report every little stupid thing and claim that it "might", "may", or "could" lead to a cure for baldness.
Also, I've referenced in previous posts that scientists who actually suffer from baldness could better empathize with the cause and perhaps be more motivated to offer a potential cure. People who live with a certain disease or condition can personally empathize and relate to how it affects people in every aspect of their lives. And maybe they'd start offering treatments without going through the whole lengthy process of clinical trials so that their treatment can effectively be deemed a "treatment" by the FDA. I know plenty of people, including myself, who would gladly risk side-effects in order to be cured of this terrible disease/condition, whatever you want to call it.

[gmonasco]

First off, I really am not blaming anybody. If my claims happen to cast a negative light on pharmaceutical companies, it's not blaming them, it's just me stating what could be the truth.

You seem to be operating under a radically different definition of the word "blame" than the rest of the English-speaking world.

There aren't thousands and thousands of discoveries made on rodents every day in all medical fields; you have no evidence of that and there is no evidence of that.

Really? Do you think the articles in the thousands of medical and scientific journals published all over the world in dozens of different languages are all faked?

And if rodents weren't similar to humans in their genetics, then why would people even investigate on them in the first place to attempt to "cure" diseases?

Because experimenting on organisms that have some basic similarities to (but are less complex than) humans is a good starting point for testing the feasibility of various approaches.

Rodents have 85% of the same genes that humans do, and 90% of the genes implicated in rodent diseases are the same as those genes that cause those diseases in humans.

And that remaining 15% makes a huge difference. Claiming that rats and humans are very close because they share 85% of their DNA is like saying that The Great Gatsby and Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire are similar books because they use 85% of the same words.

What works in rodents may work (with a good deal of additional refinement and testing) in humans. There's no guarantee of getting from one to the other, and it's usually the case that it doesn't happen.

Also, a lot of studies that don't work are actually reported, for example Curis's potential cure for baldness

And the only reason it was "reported" was because, unlike the vast majority of experimental studies, huge corporate concerns had bought into it and started promoting it.

The proof that many of these potential cures for hair loss (WNT and noggin proteins) are not just one-time novelties that did not pan out is evidenced by the fact that such potential cures are "discovered" and referenced over and over again throughout the years by many different scientists.

Then obviously, contrary to your assertions, there continues to be interest and experimentation in those approaches.

I'm reading about these so-called discoveries in scientific journals and in research papers, sources that don't report every little stupid thing and claim that it "might", "may", or "could" lead to a cure for baldness.

But you erroneously infer that the lack of follow-up articles means nobody has pursued them. In general, researchers publish articles when they've discovered something potentially useful; they don't publish articles simply to announce their failures.

Also, I've referenced in previous posts that scientists who actually suffer from baldness could better empathize with the cause and perhaps be more motivated to offer a potential cure.

Male pattern baldness affects the majority of men; about 25% of them start balding in their 20s. Do you think scientists are immune to the effects of male pattern baldness? Or do you think that, by amazing coincidence, only the minority of men who won't eventually end up experiencing male pattern baldness become scientists?

[chewytorch]

Male pattern baldness affects the majority of men; about 25% of them start balding in their 20s. Do you think scientists are immune to the effects of male pattern baldness? Or do you think that, by amazing coincidence, only the minority of men who won't eventually end up experiencing male pattern baldness become scientists?

Maybe they use the cure amongst themselves.

[HairyHair]

You seem to be operating under a radically different definition of the word "blame" than the rest of the English-speaking world.



Really? Do you think the articles in the thousands of medical and scientific journals published all over the world in dozens of different languages are all faked?



Because experimenting on organisms that have some basic similarities to (but are less complex than) humans is a good starting point for testing the feasibility of various approaches.



And that remaining 15% makes a huge difference. Claiming that rats and humans are very close because they share 85% of their DNA is like saying that The Great Gatsby and Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire are similar books because they use 85% of the same words.

What works in rodents may work (with a good deal of additional refinement and testing) in humans. There's no guarantee of getting from one to the other, and it's usually the case that it doesn't happen.



And the only reason it was "reported" was because, unlike the vast majority of experimental studies, huge corporate concerns had bought into it and started promoting it.



Then obviously, contrary to your assertions, there continues to be interest and experimentation in those approaches.



But you erroneously infer that the lack of follow-up articles means nobody has pursued them. In general, researchers publish articles when they've discovered something potentially useful; they don't publish articles simply to announce their failures.



Male pattern baldness affects the majority of men; about 25% of them start balding in their 20s. Do you think scientists are immune to the effects of male pattern baldness? Or do you think that, by amazing coincidence, only the minority of men who won't eventually end up experiencing male pattern baldness become scientists?

gmonasco made some clear points. And to say that there are no "thousands and thousands of discoveries made on rodents" may mean he hasn't done quite a lot of reading yet. I think when you type in "treatment for hair loss" onto Google, you'll get articles with "mice" and "hair loss" in the search results.

[saniaa83]

Hair Loss: The Science of Hair
Hair is far more complex than it appears on the surface. We all know that it not only plays a vital role in the appearance of both men and women, but it also helps to transmit sensory information as well as create gender identification.

The Origins of Hair

By week 22, a developing fetus has all of its hair follicles formed. At this stage of life there are about 5 million hair follicles on the body. There are a total of one million on the head, with one hundred thousand of those follicles residing on the scalp. This is the largest number of hair follicles a human will ever have, since we do not generate new hair follicles anytime during the course of our lives.

Most people will notice that the density of scalp hair is reduced as they grow from childhood to adulthood. The reason: Our scalps expand as we grow.

Hair Follicles

Hair has two distinct structures - first, the follicle itself, which resides in the skin, and second, the shaft, which is what is visible above the scalp.

The hair follicle is a tunnel-like segment of the epidermis that extends down into the dermis. The structure contains several layers that all have separate functions. At the base of the follicle is the papilla, which contains capillaries, or tiny blood vessels that nourish the cells. The living part of the hair is the very bottom part surrounding the papilla, called the bulb. The cells of the bulb divide every 23 to 72 hours, remarkably faster than any other cell in the body.

Two sheaths, an inner and outer sheath, surround the follicle. These structures protect and form the growing hair shaft. The inner sheath follows the hair shaft and ends below the opening of a sebaceous (oil) gland, and sometimes an apocrine (scent) gland. The outer sheath continues all the way up to the gland. A muscle called an erector pili muscle attaches below the gland to a fibrous layer around the outer sheath. When this muscle contracts, it causes the hair to stand up which also causes the sebaceous gland to secrete oil.

The sebaceous gland is vital because it produces sebum, which conditions the hair and skin. After puberty our body produces more sebum but as we age we begin to make less sebum. Women have far less sebum production than men do as they age.

Hair Shafts

The hair shaft is made of a hard protein called keratin and is made in three layers. This protein is actually dead, so the hair that you see is not a living structure. The inner layer is the medulla. The second layer is the cortex and the outer layer is the cuticle. The cortex makes up the majority of the hair shaft. The cuticle is a tightly formed structure made of shingle-like overlapping scales. It is both the cortex and the medulla that holds the hair's pigment, giving it its color.