Tweet
I dunno, I'm always skeptical about these "all-natural" hair loss treatments. I've heard in the past about B.S. like cayenne peppers or emu oil regrowing hair. That being said, I think this may be more legit and I'd be willing to try it, and after all, 42% is a hell of a lot more than Rogaine could ever accomplish. Anyone know where you can get this tocotrienol?
-
-
Very skeptical that vitamin E does that. It's part of the post-op recovery treatment for HT so it is good for healing but everyone would know about it already I would assume.Comment
-
You cant compare hair loss treatments to gadgets and spaceships! They are technologies that are older and more matured then the current and future hair-loss treatments, at least in terms of years / age. People were on the moon decades ago well before even Propecia existed - and definitely before there were things like stem cell research. In fact space tech seems to be stagnating while hair loss solutions seem to be being researched more and more
Unlike you Im married and had to stop due to the side effects. Id rather be bald, even with scars then loose my family. Just say'n..
That said Im not happy with our situation. I absolutely want these technologies now (yesterday) but I am a realist and we all just have to be patient and hope for the best.*Comment
-
See, I believe you can absolutely compare the progress of today's technologies to a comparable lack of progress in growing hair. Certain technologies like iPods, the internet, blackberries, and GPS devices not only weren't even around 20 years ago, many people would have viewed them as inconceivable. Technologies like these have moved at an exponential rate over this past decade, yet methods of hair regrowth have been at a virtual standstill. The main reason that hair regrowth has lagged so far behind is because nobody was even trying to cure human hair loss beyond fiddling around with mice in a laboratory. If scientists and pharmaceutical companies were really serious about curing hair loss, they would have made serious efforts to do so. That's the reason that inconceivable technologies like iPods, the internet, and blackberries have become a reality: because there were serious efforts to make them a reality.
And I believe that constructing these types of technologies are so much more complex than actually regrowing hair. Hell, hair regrowth has even been achieved by accident through minoxidil and finasteride, drugs that weren't even developed to regrow hair in the first place. Although this hair growth was very, very minimal, imagine some one creating an iPod or a blackberry by accident!
Actually certain methods for potential hair regrowth have been around for a while, yet no one has ever tried to make them a reality. For example, if minoxidil has been determined to be a hair growth promoter (albeit a very, very weak one), why haven't companies tried to create a stronger version of minoxidil? Or how come Merck hasn't tried to create a version of finasteride that only affects the levels of DHT in the scalp and not in one's entire body? Kiwi, if Merck actually worked to develop something like that, then you would maybe be able to keep taking finasteride in that form (one that lowers DHT in the scalp and not in the entire body) and wouldn't need to worry about side effects. As a side note, that really sucks that you needed to stop taking Propecia due to the side effects, and run the risk of losing the hair around your transplanted hair. I feel bad for you, man. That's actually one of the reasons why I won't get a hair transplant. Because then you need to make a lifelong commitment to taking Propecia so that the hair around the transplanted hair doesn't fall out. And I'm experiencing side effects from the drug so I don't intend to be taking it for the rest of my life. I would much rather shave my head than worrying about covering up a scar(s) on my head for the rest of my life by possibly exhibiting a horseshoe pattern hairstyle. I just get so pissed off because in today's day and age, we really should have MUCH MUCH better options than the crappy ones that we have now.
*****Side note - it seems like every time I talk about scientists only testing on mice and not bringing their discoveries to human application, people mistakenly think that I'm advocating testing on humans first, rather than mice. Nothing could be further from the truth. What I'm saying is that after scientists determine many times that certain substances can regrow hair in mice without complications, then they never bother to attempt to try to use these substances to regrow hair in humans. What the hell is the purpose of that?Comment
-
You are wrong about the technology. There is a law in Computing about computer transistors that essentially says the size of CPUs half and the speed doubles each year (moores law). For people who undertand this (i.e. guys like Steve Jobs) it was inevitable that you would get a computer in your pocket, such as the iPhone eventually.... its not even hard for them. Its just electronics man.
Understanding the human body, how cells work, how we grow, how we heal, how stem cells work, all that stuff is infinitely more complex then predictable computing.
Anyway thank you for your kind words about my own situation. Lifes a bitch. Then you die. Hopefully we all die looking sexy with hair on our heads - hopefully they hurry the **** up this happens sooner rather then later :PComment
-
Umm, no. The basics of all those technologies have been around for 40+ years or so; the applications of them have just gotten smaller, more efficient, and more affordable.
In the 1870s, many people found technologies such as the telephone, which wasn't around 20 years ago, to be inconceivable. By your reasoning, therefore, we should have had a baldness cure in the 19th century.
You continue the error of equating computing technology with biological/medical advancement. They are vastly different areas of endeavor.Technologies like these have moved at an exponential rate over this past decade, yet methods of hair regrowth have been at a virtual standstill.
Scientists have spent billions of dollars many decades of effort on finding cures for AIDS, cancer, muscular dystrophy, etc., without success. Is it more likely they are just not "serious" about what they're doing, or that those goals are extremely difficult to accomplish?If scientists and pharmaceutical companies were really serious about curing hair loss, they would have made serious efforts to do so. That's the reason that inconceivable technologies like iPods, the internet, and blackberries have become a reality: because there were serious efforts to make them a reality.
In fact, a number of technological breakthroughs have been discovered by accident. See, for example:Hell, hair regrowth has even been achieved by accident through minoxidil and finasteride, drugs that weren't even developed to regrow hair in the first place. Although this hair growth was very, very minimal, imagine some one creating an iPod or a blackberry by accident!
How do you know they haven't?For example, if minoxidil has been determined to be a hair growth promoter (albeit a very, very weak one), why haven't companies tried to create a stronger version of minoxidil?
How do you know they haven't?Or how come Merck hasn't tried to create a version of finasteride that only affects the levels of DHT in the scalp and not in one's entire body?
How do you know they haven't?What I'm saying is that after scientists determine many times that certain substances can regrow hair in mice without complications, then they never bother to attempt to try to use these substances to regrow hair in humans.Comment
-
I'm not wrong about the technology. I'm familiar with Moore's Law, hell I work in IT field. Except Moore's Law is all theoretical, it's not based on indisputable facts. Much of it is simply based upon prevailing trends that exist within the computer industry. If there were no efforts to innovate, then Moore's Law would fall flat on its face. And Moore's Law was only made possible because of constant innovation by people and companies to move technology forward.
You're definitely wrong about the computing process not being hard at all for guys like Steve Jobs. It's not at all just simple electronics. The process of creating an actual computer (and especially a smaller variation of one) and software and applications that make a computer run properly is about complex as you can get. As a matter of fact, these companies cannot even hire normal people with advanced computing degrees perform these tasks. The processes of developing a computer, and particularly developing the software and applications that make a computer run properly need to be completed by ridiculously intelligent people; people with almost savant-like genius levels of intelligence.
Therefore, the science of the human body is not infintely more complex than computing. OK, maybe certain aspects are, like genetics. But in terms of growing hair, I don't think the solution is at all more complex than the awesome innovation that we have in the computing/technological field. The main difference is that so many companies and people are working to make advances in the IT field, while only a small handful are attempting to work to regrow hair in humans.Comment
-
GMonasco, maybe a very raw version of a computer/computing existed 40 years ago, but it was absolutely nothing compared to the computers and other computer-related devices that exist today. That many years ago, there weren't any such thing as mp3's, intricate software languages like Java, or most importantly, the internet. Sure, some aspects of computing were derivative (though very distantly) of basic computing premises, but the vast majority of them were developed fairly recently and within a very short period of time.
But in a way this argument is irrelevant because had scientists actually attempted to cure hair loss many years ago, then perhaps we would have a cure today. But no one has made any kind of viable and significant attempt to cure hair loss until fairly recently. And even now, only a small handful of companies are attempting to do so. At least 40 years ago people attempted to build computers; the same cannot be said for attempting to cure hair loss.
Comparing today's innovations to the invention of the telephone is like comparing apples and oranges. Comparing the 1870's to today's technological and scientific age is like comparing a compact car to a horse and buggy. Back then, you did not have even nearly the amount of technological and scientific innovation that you have now.
You're right about one thing: that great efforts have been undertaken to cure such diseases as AIDS, cancer, muscular dystrophy, etc. Due to those efforts, people can live normal lives with AIDS and many former cancer patients can live normal lives with the cancer in remission. The problem is that the efforts to cure hair loss just pale in comparison to the efforts to cure other diseases. Sure, more money should be put into curing diseases that could cause death like AIDS or cancer, but hair loss still majorly screws up people's lives and there has been practically nothing being done to cure it. If there were widespread attempts to cure hair loss, but they somehow failed, then I wouldn't be so angry. But until very recently, no one has been doing anything to cure hair loss and regrow hair. And I don't believe that curing hair loss is nearly as complicated as curing such diseases as AIDS or cancer.
Sure, several scientific breakthroughs are achieved by accident, but most breakthroughs are achieved through a concerted effort put forth to tackle a specific problem or cure a specific disease.
Finally, I can't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that pharmaceutical companies haven't been trying to come up with a much more potent version of minoxidil or a version of finasteride that inhibit DHT only in the scalp, but there is no evidence whatsoever that any of these pharmas are creating any such a thing. If they were working to create something like this, then where is the news of clinical trials? Where is the publicity so that they can secure funding from investors to move forward with such potential products? And I can just about tell you for sure that these scientists who test all of these chemicals on mice have not even bothered to attempt to use these chemicals to regrow hair in humans. If they did, then there would have been news about their attempts to recruit people for clinical trials. News of these trials need to be made public so that they can attract subjects. Hell, these trials would've been listed on the federal government's website that lists all clinical trials.Comment
-
Dude why is it everything you say seems to be based off your ideas of how it is as opposed to how it is.
I run a company that makes iPhone games and before that games for the old black and white nokias running symbian. Savant like genius is not required to make good apps and operating systems for mobile devices. Just a computer science degree and an obsession with problem solving.
I also first learnt to write software using punch cards and I have submitted patches to the linux kernal before. Again not rocket science.
I wouldnt have a ****ing clue where to start on the human body especially growing back hair and messing with nature.
Comparing hair loss innovations with tech and softwate just shows us that you're guessing a lot of this stuff.Comment
-
Computers, networks, programming languages, magnetic storage, and other building blocks of the Internet and related technologies all existed decades ago. The primary breakthrough has been that the component parts have become steadily faster, cheaper, and more efficient, allowing us to do more with them. We could have had MP3s thirty or forty years ago, but computing speeds were too slow and memory costs were too high for them to be practical. It's not as if we suddenly developed the genius to do something like digitize and compress music only in the last few years.maybe a very raw version of a computer/computing existed 40 years ago, but it was absolutely nothing compared to the computers and other computer-related devices that exist today. That many years ago, there weren't any such thing as mp3's, intricate software languages like Java, or most importantly, the internet.
Actually, it's not difficult to find many accounts of scientists' attempts to cure baldness going back to the 19th century. Just because you're not aware of them doesn't mean they don't exist.But in a way this argument is irrelevant because had scientists actually attempted to cure hair loss many years ago, then perhaps we would have a cure today. But no one has made any kind of viable and significant attempt to cure hair loss until fairly recently.
In fact, scientists were attempting to cure hair loss long before they were attempting to build electro-mechanical computers.At least 40 years ago people attempted to build computers; the same cannot be said for attempting to cure hair loss.
Wrong. You falsely equate "less developed technology" with "lower level of innovation." They ain't the same thing.Comparing the 1870's to today's technological and scientific age is like comparing a compact car to a horse and buggy. Back then, you did not have even nearly the amount of technological and scientific innovation that you have now.
You've completely skipped over the main point, which is that the lack of success in curing diseases into which vastly more resources have been poured demonstrates that the answer isn't as simple as you keep proclaiming it to be.The problem is that the efforts to cure hair loss just pale in comparison to the efforts to cure other diseases.
Continually repeating a false statement doesn't make it any less false.But until very recently, no one has been doing anything to cure hair loss and regrow hair.
Your belief and scientific reality are two very different things.And I don't believe that curing hair loss is nearly as complicated as curing such diseases as AIDS or cancer.
You can't even provide a single piece of evidence to back up such assertions, much less "prove them beyond a shadow of a doubt."Finally, I can't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that pharmaceutical companies haven't been trying to come up with a much more potent version of minoxidil or a version of finasteride that inhibit DHT only in the scalp
You err in assuming that every research effort necessarily leads to clinical trials. They don't. A whole lot of background research and work has to be performed in developing new treatments long before they're ready for the clinical trial stage, and most of them fail to pan out before reaching that stage.If they were working to create something like this, then where is the news of clinical trials?
Again, you err in assuming that scientists can simply move from testing treatments on mice to performing clinical trials on humans. They can't. There's a whole lot of work to be done in between those steps, and most efforts fail to pan out long before reaching the clinical trial stage.And I can just about tell you for sure that these scientists who test all of these chemicals on mice have not even bothered to attempt to use these chemicals to regrow hair in humans. If they did, then there would have been news about their attempts to recruit people for clinical trials.Comment
-
I've uploaded a copy of a newspaper article from 1926 describing scientists' efforts to grow hair on bald mice in pursuit of a hair loss cure:
Now, do you want to try to tell us yet again that "until very recently, no one has been doing anything to cure hair loss and regrow hair"?Comment
Comment