Hydrogel promotes the formation of blood vessels and skin, including hair follicles

[Kiwi]

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:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/8708315@N06/6562378995/

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"?

That is totally awesome. I can't believe you found that

[DepressedByHairLoss]

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.

What makes you think that you know how it is, and I only think I know how it is? I disagree that constructing these apps or gaming systems or the complex innovation that goes on in computing systems is simple at all. When I went to graduate school for IT, one our brightest students set out to create a computer game as his final project and didn't even come close to achieving anything significant. Maybe people with just a computer science degree can write certain programs, but in terms of actually creating programming languages like Java or SQL: that is extremely complex and does require some one with Savant-like knowledge create the aforementioned languages. People with computer science degrees can write certain programs only because Savant-like geniuses came up with the programming languages in order to write the programs with.
You say that you wouldn't have a ****in clue where to start when trying to regrow hair on the human body. Well, I have the perfect idea. How about these scientists start with the chemicals that they've been testing on mice all the time, yet never attempt to bring to human application; chemicals like Noggin, lgr6 proteins, Nestin, or the countless other chemicals that have been proven time and time again to safely regrow hair in mice but have never been attempted to be brought to human application.

[Kiwi]

What makes you think that you know how it is, and I only think I know how it is? I disagree that constructing these apps or gaming systems or the complex innovation that goes on in computing systems is simple at all. When I went to graduate school for IT, one our brightest students set out to create a computer game as his final project and didn't even come close to achieving anything significant. Maybe people with just a computer science degree can write certain programs, but in terms of actually creating programming languages like Java or SQL: that is extremely complex and does require some one with Savant-like knowledge create the aforementioned languages. People with computer science degrees can write certain programs only because Savant-like geniuses came up with the programming languages in order to write the programs with.
You say that you wouldn't have a ****in clue where to start when trying to regrow hair on the human body. Well, I have the perfect idea. How about these scientists start with the chemicals that they've been testing on mice all the time, yet never attempt to bring to human application; chemicals like Noggin, lgr6 proteins, Nestin, or the countless other chemicals that have been proven time and time again to safely regrow hair in mice but have never been attempted to be brought to human application.

I'm talking about stuff that I know - that is computing.

You keep talking about science like you know what you're talking about but you don't.

I honestly believe you have a great overview of the Hair Loss world but when it comes to any of the finer details and the science you're just speculating and guessing. You don't really know. None of us do...

[DepressedByHairLoss]

Monasco, I remember debating this with you several months ago; I was wondering when you'd be back. Some "building blocks" of today's computing technologies may have existed decades ago but they were so rudimentary that they barely even resemble today's computing technologies. And there are so many aspects of computing for which the building blocks were created decades ago. For instance, before the internet even existed, there wasn't even any mechanism that even closely resembled certain aspects of the internet, like the ability to access websites, e-mail, or the ability to instantaneously communicate through methods like instant message. The computing technology now compared to decades ago is like comparing night and day.
Congratulations! You found some supposed effort to cure baldness from 1927or whenever. The thing is that I'd be willing to bet that that discovery was never tested beyond mice and that is huge. When I made my points in my earlier posts, perhaps I should've been clearer and made a distinction between "efforts to regrow hair in humans" and "efforts to regrow hair in mice". I'm not disputing you that these mice experiments have been conducted for a long time, but they've never been attempted to be brought to human application. You may have found some "hair regrowth in mice" discovery from 1927, but we'll never know if these discoveries work for human regrowth until they're tested on humans. And no one's been willing to do that until very recently. Some chemicals have been proven to regrow hair safely and effectively on mice countless times, but until some effort is made to test them on humans, then we will never know if they can regrow hair on humans.
I'm not falsely equated "less developed technology" with "lower levels of innovation" or whatever. But comparing technology or innovation from 1870 to 2010 is like comparing night and day. Today's methods of innovation are more rapid, intricate, and complex than ever, and are changing and moving forward on literally a daily basis. The same certainly could not be said for 1870.
There certainly aren't enough efforts being made to cure hair loss today. If there were, then more than 4 companies in the entire world would be making an effort to cure hair loss. That much is blatantly obvious.
I can certainly prove that these pharmaceutical companies aren't trying to come up with a more potent version of minoxidil or a version of finasteride that only curtails levels of DHT in the scalp and not in the entire body. I can certainly make a better case that they are not doing anything of the sort more than you can prove that they are. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that they are even coming up with such a thing. If they were, they would have gone public in order to acquire investor money to support thier efforts and to make people aware of potential upcoming clinical trials so that they could gain potential participants.
Sure, more money has been allocated to cure such diseases as cancer, rather than hair loss. But when you have only 4 companies committed to cure hair loss compared to hundreds if not thousands of companies that exist to cure cancer, then an alarming disparity exists that raises tons of red flags.

[DepressedByHairLoss]

I'm talking about stuff that I know - that is computing.

You keep talking about science like you know what you're talking about but you don't.

I honestly believe you have a great overview of the Hair Loss world but when it comes to any of the finer details and the science you're just speculating and guessing. You don't really know. None of us do...

How do you know I don't know what I'm talking about when it comes to science? You don't know me so don't make judgments. Anyway, I know about computing myself too since I work in the IT field. You're kind of right that we're all speculating to a certain degree in terms of what treatments will work and what ones won't, but I think that's just because we all have such vested interests in finding a cure to this hair loss crap. And it's all so frustrating and aggravating. That in this modern era, the only treatments we have for hair loss are those that really don't do too much at all. That being said, we all may disagree on certain issues, but I think our hopes are all in the same place: hoping that a cure for hair loss will be found as soon as possible so we can all live better and happier lives.

[Kiwi]

How do you know I don't know what I'm talking about when it comes to science? You don't know me so don't make judgments. Anyway, I know about computing myself too since I work in the IT field. You're kind of right that we're all speculating to a certain degree in terms of what treatments will work and what ones won't, but I think that's just because we all have such vested interests in finding a cure to this hair loss crap. And it's all so frustrating and aggravating. That in this modern era, the only treatments we have for hair loss are those that really don't do too much at all. That being said, we all may disagree on certain issues, but I think our hopes are all in the same place: hoping that a cure for hair loss will be found as soon as possible so we can all live better and happier lives.

Because what you are saying about science doesnt make sense to me - and because I dont know you I can only judge you on what you say. Anyway judging sounds too harsh a term because while I dont see myself ever agreeing with you about this science and how I see the world... i definitely think there are more important things to be thinking about, especially at this time of year.

Merry christmas my balding brother. Lets bicker more in the NY.

-kiwi

[RichardDawkins]

Its about Hydrogel and not about wo has the biggest E-Dick.

In the long run everyone is correct in some ways.

Facts are in the past they dont had the tools, correct tools to pursue stuff further.

For example take a look at many of those early drafts and concepts of air planes and/or cars, they had visions but not the tools for pursuing this for another decade.

Same with hair loss, a few years back people didnt know about Progenitor cells and believed that a human going bald is totally due to dieing follicles.

Also progress in te hair loss field is very fast, compare this to cancer research and you cry, because cancer takes way longer then fixing hair loss

[Follicle Death Row]

While we're on this whole technology sidetrack I have to say the aeroplane concepts are interesting. I say that because Leonardo Da Vinci felt he was extremely close to making one but it didn't happen until the Wright brothers so who knows how this is all going to pan out. Anyway, enjoy the festive season guys.

[gmonasco]

For instance, before the internet even existed, there wasn't even any mechanism that even closely resembled certain aspects of the internet, like the ability to access websites, e-mail, or the ability to instantaneously communicate through methods like instant message.

Umm, people were writing programs to exchange text messages and engage in real-time chat on computers back in the early 1960s. Perhaps you should read up on the history of computing (and history in general) before making any more erroneous pronouncements about the timelines of various technologies.

Congratulations! You found some supposed effort to cure baldness from 1927or whenever. The thing is that I'd be willing to bet that that discovery was never tested beyond mice and that is huge.

Whether it was ever tested on humans is irrelevant. The article is direct proof that as far back as 85 years ago, scientists were indeed conducting research and experiments involving hair growth, with an eye towards applications for human hair loss. This irrefutably contradicts your repeated assertions that research into curing human hair loss is purely a recent phenomenon.

I'm not disputing you that these mice experiments have been conducted for a long time, but they've never been attempted to be brought to human application.

Continually repeating this false statement doesn't make it any less false.

I'm not falsely equated "less developed technology" with "lower levels of innovation" or whatever. But comparing technology or innovation from 1870 to 2010 is like comparing night and day.

You're the one who erroneously claimed that the presence of technologies which didn't exist 20 years earlier and which many people once found unimaginable was proof of rapid technological development. I'm not wrong for correctly pointing out that the very same thing could have been said about 19th century technologies.

I can certainly prove that these pharmaceutical companies aren't trying to come up with a more potent version of minoxidil or a version of finasteride that only curtails levels of DHT in the scalp and not in the entire body.

You've been going on about it for a long time, but you have yet to offer a single piece of evidence.

There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that they are even coming up with such a thing. If they were, they would have gone public in order to acquire investor money to support thier efforts and to make people aware of potential upcoming clinical trials so that they could gain potential participants.

You erroneously assume that every outfit engaged in such research needs to publicly solicit investor funds before proceeding. Do you really think that a company like Merck holds a public fund-raising effort for every new treatment they research?

And you continue to repeat, ad nauseum, the erroneous assertion that the absence of clinical trials is proof of an absence of research and effort. It isn't. Clinical trials are an end result of a very long process of research and development, and most such efforts fail to pan out long before they reach the clinical trial stage.

Sure, more money has been allocated to cure such diseases as cancer, rather than hair loss. But when you have only 4 companies committed to cure hair loss compared to hundreds if not thousands of companies that exist to cure cancer, then an alarming disparity exists that raises tons of red flags.

Nobody's disputing that more money goes towards trying to cure diseases like cancer than goes into finding a cure for human hair loss, so your statement is a straw man. And it's hardly a "red flag" that more money and effort goes towards researching cures for crippling and terminal diseases than into fixing a problem that is essentially cosmetic.

And you've once again completely ignored the fact that we aren't close to a cure for many diseases despite the decades of effort and billions of dollars that have poured into finding them, so quite apparently bio-medical research isn't nearly as simple as you keep proclaiming it to be.

[RichardDawkins]

Well then Mission accomplished!

What are you doing here if no cure will come in your lifetime. You succesfully destroyed some peoples christmas.

Enjoy it its the best you can win in your life.

This whole debate is useless unless we get the results in 2012

[gmonasco]

Also progress in te hair loss field is very fast, compare this to cancer research and you cry, because cancer takes way longer then fixing hair loss

Since there still is no effective treatment for hair loss, you can't really make any assessment about the relative speeds of finding cures for hair loss vs. cancer. Nobody really even knows if current efforts in hair loss research are on the right track.

[RichardDawkins]

Proof of concept. Do you know what this means boy?

If you can create one follicle or grew one single hair on a bald head, its a PROOF of Concept.

Gho was proven as a working concept by Cooley and Cole for example.

So seriously what is your problem? Are you so bitter that you wanna force the bitternes on other people? Even knowing that docs with a good reputation say that its not that much into the future anymore.

Oh and when you come with the mice argument that mice grew follicles easily, then explain to me why they did grew hair in the Replicel study in different masses dependending on cell type.

Some cell types sparse hair at best and others uniform hair in correct pattern of growing.

I know its ****ed up when you have to realise something comes along and you now need to save money, rather then discuss at forums.

Guess what Shit happens we all have to save money now for the treatment.

Btw you must be a very sad desperate person that you google for hair science in the year 1926 only to proof your point, very desperate and to me this is a full blown LOSER Attitude as IronMan would say.

Facts are they couldnt conduct any further studies because they lack all the needed tools back those 80 or 90 years ago, because they didnt understand hair loss but this minor detail is not even adressed by you.

Sorry but you can tell those bitterness things to your shrink, i think this person will listen to you, while other people (even those with hair loss) will laugh about your stuff.

I mean you only get clappings from Kiwi, someone who insults people and says thank you for your link from 1926 because also he is so desperate and needs others to be on his level, even knwoing he is a self proclaimed Big Boss with a lot of companies and workers, right in the internet you are god.

Oh and your whole paraphrasing and RED THUMB DOWN thing is just plain childish and stupid, only weak little boys use this thumb to express their arguments or to try to underline them.

[gmonasco]

Proof of concept. Do you know what this means boy?

Indeed I do. You apparently don't, however.

If you can create one follicle or grew one single hair on a bald head, its a PROOF of Concept.

Yes, it's proof that you can create one follicle or grow one hair, nothing more. You cannot extrapolate from that that it's necessarily possible to use the same method to grow a full head of terminal hairs.

So seriously what is your problem? Are you so bitter that you wanna force the bitternes on other people?

I'm not bitter at all. Perhaps you're projecting your own bitterness onto others.

Even knowing that docs with a good reputation say that its not that much into the future anymore.

Many, many scientists with good reputations have predicted the imminent arrival of things that still don't exist. Even the best scientists don't have immunity against being wrong.

Oh and when you come with the mice argument that mice grew follicles easily, then explain to me why they did grew hair in the Replicel study in different masses dependending on cell type.

If you could phrase your question in a comprehensible manner, I could probably answer it.

I know its ****ed up when you have to realise something comes along and you now need to save money, rather then discuss at forums.

I don't need to save money for anything, thank you.

Btw you must be a very sad desperate person that you google for hair science in the year 1926 only to proof your point, very desperate and to me this is a full blown LOSER Attitude as IronMan would say.

If facts disturb you so much, this probably isn't the discussion for you.

Facts are they couldnt conduct any further studies because they lack all the needed tools back those 80 or 90 years ago, because they didnt understand hair loss but this minor detail is not even adressed by you.

There's no guarantee we have the right tools now, either. Maybe we do, and maybe we won't have them for another 20 years.

Sorry but you can tell those bitterness things to your shrink, i think this person will listen to you, while other people (even those with hair loss) will laugh about your stuff.

Perhaps you could ask your shrink to explain the concept of "psychological projection" to you during your next visit.

[DepressedByHairLoss]

Because what you are saying about science doesnt make sense to me - and because I dont know you I can only judge you on what you say. Anyway judging sounds too harsh a term because while I dont see myself ever agreeing with you about this science and how I see the world... i definitely think there are more important things to be thinking about, especially at this time of year.

Merry christmas my balding brother. Lets bicker more in the NY.

-kiwi

Fair enough, man. Hope you had a Merry Christmas and have a Happy New Year as well. Maybe Santa can bring us some much-needed hair (--:

[DepressedByHairLoss]

Monasco: Whether these efforts were tested on humans is absolutely relevant; it's probably the whole point of this discussion. These substances like Noggin or lgr6 proteins could be the hair loss cures that we're looking for but we're never gonna know whether they can cure hair loss because they're never ever tested on humans. So that 1927 article that you posted is not at all some contradiction of my assertions, and it doesn't mean a damn thing. I never said that scientists haven't been testing on mice for a long time now. I said that the problem is that these substances were never being tested on humans. We're never gonna have a cure for hair loss from testing on mice constantly, but never doing anything for human application. As I've said before, we're never gonna know for sure if a substance can cure human hair loss if it is not tested on humans in the first place.
Also as a sidenote: when I started losing my hair, I was determined simply not to accept it and I was not satisfied with the current methods of hair regrowth (minoxidil, finasteride) or hair transplants (which isn't even regrowth anyway). So I started e-mailing over 100 of these scientists that I saw in research papers whose experiments regrew hair in mice. I only heard back from some of them, but all of the ones who responded said that they weren't testing their discoveries on humans. I think that a lot of these scientists realize that just about anything regrows hair on mice so they keep experimenting on these mice to tout these mouse hair regrowth results to the media as some kind of huge discovery.
You say that I cannot provide any kind of evidence that there is work being done to make a much more potent version of minoxidil or a version of finasteride that only inhibits DHT in the scalp, yet you definitely cannot offer any proof to the contrary. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that these pharmaceutical companies are working on those aforementioned potential treatments whatsoever. This is not a false statement whatsoever. You say that I cannot provide any evidence that these companies are not working to create those aforementioned treatments, but my evidence of this is simply the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever that these companies are working on such treatments. And I sure as hell am not going to assume that they are, given the dishonest nature of the pharmaceutical industry. After all, we can look no further than the claims of Rogaine and Propecia to prove their dishonesty. The makers of Rogaine claim that 85% of men experienced hair regrowth (which is absolutely false), while the makers of Propecia claimed that only about 3% of people experience side effects. That is also false; there are plenty of people on this very message board that have experienced side effects, including myself.
I don't buy your argument at all that these supposed effort cure hair loss simply fail to pan out before they reach clinical trials. Most of the aforementioned substances have been proven time and time again to regrow hair in mice without any complications, so I don't see what kind of massive complications could arise that these potential hair regrowth treatments could not be brought to clinical trials. I read all over the internet about all of these potential hair regrowth treatments that have regrown hair in mice without complications, yet I've never seen any kind of evidence that these treatments just simply did not pan out before the clinical trial stage. And I'm absolutely not gonna assume the best from the pharmaceutical industry, which has been known to screw people over time and time again.