It seems that according to a new study by Cotsaerlis that PGD2 is involved in the inhibition of hair loss seen in men with MPB.
What could make this extra good news is that there is already a couple of treatments in phase 3 that are aimed at blocking the PGD2-receptor. Meaning that if these findings are significant - we could have a working treatment out quite soon.
As usually - time will tell...
03-21-2012 03:57 PM
kaandereli
no mention about dht.so we are dumping the dht thesis?
or maybe we will combine finasteride with the new drug
03-21-2012 04:18 PM
Mojo Risin
My trolling friend strikes again.
Guess who's behind a treatment ? Merck.
Love this industry.
03-21-2012 05:41 PM
Scoots
Here's an interview from Cotsarelis on the recent discovery. I don't want to get my hopes up too quickly, but if these medications in phase 3 could work in a topical solution like he predicts might be possible...it would be like a miracle out of nowhere.
''It'll take a while to figure out but we'll have to partner with a company to generate more research funding so we can answer that question.''
Typical Cotsarelis.
03-21-2012 05:50 PM
clandestine
May, might, maybe; Meh.
03-21-2012 06:53 PM
Kirby_
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaandereli
no mention about dht.so we are dumping the dht thesis?
IIRC, it's known that DHT is involved in causing MPB, somehow, rather than known to be specifically the trigger for it. If that makes sense.
03-21-2012 07:08 PM
Maradona
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirby_
IIRC, it's known that DHT is involved in causing MPB, somehow, rather than known to be specifically the trigger for it. If that makes sense.
if this works you won't even have to wait for the product...after the release the details of their studies people will find a way to make their own solutions like in ************.
:D
hopefully it buy us some time.
edit: hair loss talk is a bad word lol.
03-21-2012 07:56 PM
Smega
Was going to post this story. Check it out here too:
im so happy that they found this out. SO MUCH MORE POTENTIAL NOW
03-21-2012 11:49 PM
Gubter_87
This does not in any way exclude DHT from the picture - as hormones are involved in regulating genexpression. It could very well be DHT that regulates PGD2 synthesis in the follicles that are prone to MPB.
03-22-2012 12:51 AM
Mojo Risin
This won't give hair back to a Norwood 7.
Just a minoxidil on steroids.
03-22-2012 03:14 AM
Gubter_87
Mojo: What makes you say that?
Truth is we have no idea what significance this will have today. If the hair follicles are actively inhibited by PGD2, and we are able to inhibit that inhibition - then there is no saying if the hair will grow back or not.
It could give a NW7 a full head of hair, and just as well it could be of minimal significance to hair loss.
There is no logic in comparing this to minoxidil, which stimulated potassium channels. They have nothing in common.
Come on guys, are you really going to fall into Cotsarelis trap again ? Isn't it obvious enough that the guy is just seaking easy fundings ? Seriously we're more intelligent than that, I'm not buying into Cotsarelis BS again. The guy comes out every year or so with a new piece of the puzzle ...
He comes up with a new hypothesis every year or so ... it gets so redundant. I just have no reason to trust this guy honesty anymore.
Couple weeks ago, someone tried to get Cotsarelis in an interview to talk about Follica ... and he refused. And now all of a sudden, he's all over the media. Come on ...
03-22-2012 03:42 AM
Pate
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gubter_87
There is no logic in comparing this to minoxidil, which stimulated potassium channels. They have nothing in common.
Actually they have a lot in common, namely the fact they act on prostaglandins. We know the potassium channels aren't the cause of hair growth in minox because other K channel drugs and other vasodilators have no hair growth effects. It is thought that minox regrows (some) hair because... surprise surprise, it stimulates a certain prostaglandin. Latisse stimulates another one. This discovery is about inhibiting a third.
I think this is fascinating. No immediate joy for hair loss sufferers, even these asthma drugs in Phase III will need to go back through clinical trials for hair loss. The only real benefit is probably that they won't have to do the pre-clinical toxicology research etc, plus there will be less red tape with the FDA.
But Cotsarelis is doing some amazing work. This led directly from his discovery about the inactivated stem cells. They figured something be preventing the activation of the stem cells so they went out and looked for it, and in a pretty short space of time found something.
It just sucks this work isn't likely to lead to viable treatments in time for most of us.
03-22-2012 03:55 AM
Mojo Risin
And aren't you guys tired of seeing every single findings getting reported by media as a POTENTIAL CURE FOR BALDNESS. I mean ... it gets so frustrating. How many times did we read that in the past 10 years ?
03-22-2012 04:14 AM
Pate
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mojo Risin
And aren't you guys tired of seeing every single findings getting reported by media as a POTENTIAL CURE FOR BALDNESS. I mean ... it gets so frustrating. How many times did we read that in the past 10 years ?
Sure. But that's the media's fault, not Cotsarelis's. The media don't give a damn about prostaglandin inhibitors and their effect on GPR44 receptor. All they care about is that they can print POTENTIAL CURE FOR BALDNESS and watch the paper sales and the advertising revenue roll in.
I think you're picking on the wrong target. Before fully effective treatments of hair loss can be developed we need to know the exact mechanisms that cause it. Cotsarelis is working on this and doing some groundbreaking research. And if he can ensure continued funding for his research with the occasional media press release, then I say good on him. I'd much rather that than that his centre goes bust through lack of funds, hair loss research comes to a dead end and Cotsarelis goes off to study the life cycle of earwigs, or something.
03-22-2012 05:28 AM
Thermal
Sodium cromoglycate (SCG) found to inhibit prostaglandin D2 (PGD2)
i think inhibiting pgd2, would yeild really good results at the temples/hairline!
03-22-2012 07:54 AM
UK_
So... After they tested the hair follicle that was immune to the effects of PGD2... was it still affected by DHT?
I can't believe after all this time, this is the best Follica can come out with - I thought back in 2008 they were "just around the corner" lol - another 5 years I take it now? so we're all set for 2017? What happened to the lithium study?
Im guessing Histogen will be releasing some Phase II data at the medical convention this May.
03-22-2012 08:09 AM
sausage
Please someone hurry up with a cure. Having a bad day today. Need hair now!
You can have all my money if you can get all my hair back. You can have my Xbox and all my clothes take everything and give me hair.
03-22-2012 08:17 AM
elvispresley
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thermal
Sodium cromoglycate (SCG) found to inhibit prostaglandin D2 (PGD2)
I'm gonna try it! Doesn't look like a particularly toxic substance if it is safe enough to put into eyes.
let me understand you are going to try to put some eye drops on the bald spot , i understood correctly? i can also try depending on the cost of the eye drops... let me know thx :)
03-22-2012 08:47 AM
bananana
Quote:
Originally Posted by elvispresley
let me understand you are going to try to put some eye drops on the bald spot , i understood correctly? i can also try depending on the cost of the eye drops... let me know thx :)
Damn this is exciting!
Guys - I would try the same thing but with added scalproller - I guess it would improve the penetration. :)
03-22-2012 09:02 AM
gutted
i dont think this new to george and people at UPENN
heres a patent filled in 2007 by them, describing the use of prostglandins to treat mpb, acne, rosacea, prostate cancer, and benign prostatic hypertrophy.
"Up to ten drugs have been identified that can stem PGD2’s activity and may soon be available to buy as creams or ointments."
How soon, if drugs already exist what are they currently treating and why can't we just take them?
or is it a case that they need to refine the drug to suit male pattern baldness and want to market as a hairloss cure including having packaging specific to hairloss?
It is not known if the drug would regrow hair but it should stop it. Hopefully it can grow hair otherwise it won't be much use to me. Although if I kept what I have it would be easier for me to have a HT as i'd have enough donor.
so guys lets make a list of product who contain the SCG . i would like to try
do u think it could be dangerous and have side effects?
03-22-2012 12:01 PM
UK_
Quote:
Originally Posted by clandestine
Title is hilarious; "Cure for baldness in could be on sale within five years"
Hear that? Only 5 more years, guys!
I know ... tell me about it.
03-22-2012 12:18 PM
Losing_It
Now where did I leave that time machine? 2017 here I come. Cotsarelis, the original internet troll :)
03-23-2012 02:07 AM
Mojo Risin
The study was funded by the NIH, the Skin Disease Research Center, the Pennsylvania Department of Health, the Edwin and Fannie Gray Hall Center for Human Appearance at University of Pennsylvania Medical Center, the American Skin Association, the Dermatology Foundation, and L'Oreal.
Cotsarelis and one of his co-authors are co-inventors of a patent owned by the University of Pennsylvania describing the PGD2 pathway as a target for inhibiting hair loss, among other claims. One of the other study authors is an inventor of a patent owned by the Gillette Corporation to use PGD2 to inhibit hair growth. One of the authors works for Merck and another works for Allergan.
03-23-2012 02:10 AM
Maradona
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mojo Risin
The study was funded by the NIH, the Skin Disease Research Center, the Pennsylvania Department of Health, the Edwin and Fannie Gray Hall Center for Human Appearance at University of Pennsylvania Medical Center, the American Skin Association, the Dermatology Foundation, and L'Oreal.
Cotsarelis and one of his co-authors are co-inventors of a patent owned by the University of Pennsylvania describing the PGD2 pathway as a target for inhibiting hair loss, among other claims. One of the other study authors is an inventor of a patent owned by the Gillette Corporation to use PGD2 to inhibit hair growth. One of the authors works for Merck and another works for Allergan.
so we are *&@!ED? :D
03-23-2012 02:29 AM
Mojo Risin
Does it mean only those companies have the right to work on something with PGD2 ? If so, yeah, we're f*cked.
In a capitalist system, there's just no interest whatsoever to permanently cure baldness ... or any disease for that matter.
03-23-2012 05:46 AM
BoSox
This is huge, regardless of how negative people are on these forums. Not going to visit this site anymore for a long time, it's healthier that way. Baldness will soon be cured, i have faith.
03-23-2012 06:10 AM
Artista
BoSox,
I'm in complete agreement with you but I myself will stick around and I think you should, as well.
There will always be pessimistic naysayers in life no matter the topic. Its unfortunate I know, but a fact of life.
Even with cancer research. There are those who would want to believe that international corporations prefer not to cure cancer because without a cure cancer it is a huge money maker. A very flawed philosophy for many many reasons.
Spencer, chime in on this one.
03-23-2012 06:14 AM
krewel
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoSox
This is huge, regardless of how negative people are on these forums. Not going to visit this site anymore for a long time, it's healthier that way. Baldness will soon be cured, i have faith.
Do! I haven't been on this forum for over a month because of the same reasons. Just revisited this forum because of this news I heard and I'm already sick of the posts here again. Not that they're only incredibly stupid, uninformed people believe the stuff they say and get disappointed.
Huge finding, period
bye
03-23-2012 05:13 PM
yeahyeahyeah
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mojo Risin
Does it mean only those companies have the right to work on something with PGD2 ? If so, yeah, we're f*cked.
In a capitalist system, there's just no interest whatsoever to permanently cure baldness ... or any disease for that matter.
Why not?
Baldness can cause depression, which in turn can cause men from not being productive at work, which in turn causes companies to lose money.
Forget about a cure, but I am sure that drug companies can, if they are, as you say you are, create something that is considerably better then minox and propecia. That way, they will keep on raking income in by having products which people will without any hesitation use.
And even if say they do cure baldness, you know what, there will always be bald/balding people with every new generation. This is such a huge market, stupid to think otherwise.
03-23-2012 06:36 PM
Pate
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mojo Risin
Does it mean only those companies have the right to work on something with PGD2 ? If so, yeah, we're f*cked.
I doubt it. Patents need to be specific, you can patent a compound or a process that works via the PGD2 pathway but you can't patent the pathway itself.
Since there are already several drugs in development that act on PGD2 I don't think this patent will stop anyone else working on it.
To be honest I'd rather have Merck and Allergan owning these patents than some two-bit biotech start-up. At least Merck has the resources to develop it if it's worth developing.
03-23-2012 08:08 PM
maxhair
So, I am using a 0.75mm dermaroller with minoxidil anyway, which I hope is not allowing too much minox into bloodstream, and I am all for experimenting with some topically applied Optrex Allergy on a small spot for a few months. I don't want that getting into the bloodstream either.
Do you think a 0.75mm is the right length then?
Is Umar right about it probably not going to work?
03-24-2012 01:17 AM
bananana
Quote:
Originally Posted by maxhair
So, I am using a 0.75mm dermaroller with minoxidil anyway, which I hope is not allowing too much minox into bloodstream, and I am all for experimenting with some topically applied Optrex Allergy on a small spot for a few months. I don't want that getting into the bloodstream either.
Do you think a 0.75mm is the right length then?
Is Umar right about it probably not going to work?
0.75 mm is a big bastard. :)
Does it make your scalp bloody or very red?
I use 0.5 and sometimes it hurts when I press it harder.
Anyways, I was looking into eye drops prices, and I don't know how economical it is because 10 ml costs around $10 + shipping. 10 ml wouldn't last very long.
How often and how long should one use it to see some results?
Any guesses?
