what do people on this site need for a cure?

Im just curious where most people on here consider for a personal cure. Obviously a real cure would either prevent hair-loss from ever occurring or regrow any lost hair but thats a long ways off imo.

So im curious what you guys and girls are reasonable expecting from histogen, aderans, follica, replicel? what regrowth per cm2 would you personally need to be "cured" (satisfied)

Due to how much hostility and just childish bickering have stopped really following the second to second goings on in this world lol so im out of the loop i guess.
If any of these companies is able to produce a density of 30 new hairs per cm2 I think I would be done with all the forums and rejoin society lol

based on all the info on these companies does that % seem on the low end, the reasonable expectations or never gonna happen side of things?

For me, it would either be:

1) 50% of original density, which gives the illusion of a full head of hair

or

2) enough regrowth that in combination with a hair transplant will give 50% density

I'm sure others will have a different opinion, but this would effectively be a "cure" in my eyes.

A true "cure" would immunize hair follicles from the damaging effects of DHT. Once that is achieved, the rest will follow. Since we now know that hair follicles do not die, once they are immunized from DHT they can more eaily be repaired and restarted because you are no longer fighting against the effects of DHT. Attempting to do this without immunization is going to be a very steap uphill battle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tracy C

A true "cure" would immunize hair follicles from the damaging effects of DHT. Once that is achieved, the rest will follow. Since we now know that hair follicles do not die, once they are immunized from DHT they can more eaily be repaired and restarted because you are no longer fighting against the effects of DHT. Attempting to do this without immunization is going to be a very steap uphill battle.

---

That's not true, castration doesnt regenerate hair - immunizing hair follicles against DHT wont help those at NW4,5,6,7 etc - how do you expect to "repair" the damage done to the existing follicles? I can tell you now, your own body wont give a shit - dont listen to all the Follica research nonsense about "existing stem cells in the scalp" - Follica act like they've found the cure ever 3 years or so, come out in the media waving their arms about & then retreat back into their offices where they're probably all sitting around watching porn.

A cure [holy grail] is exactly what it says on the tin, it's an affordable safe treatment that grows new sustainable limitless amounts of hair.

To the OP, the following website is a great resource to help in the quest for answers for such enigmatic enquiries:

http://www.giyf.com/

PS...anyone know where RichardDawkins has gone?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tracy C

A true "cure" would immunize hair follicles from the damaging effects of DHT. Once that is achieved, the rest will follow. Since we now know that hair follicles do not die, once they are immunized from DHT they can more eaily be repaired and restarted because you are no longer fighting against the effects of DHT. Attempting to do this without immunization is going to be a very steap uphill battle.

---

i though hair follicles die, however the cells that produce them do not

I find it sad that the person with the most posts on here would be more positive and helpful. UK is just a defeated windbag whos only joy in life is forums like this and trying to get a rise out of people.

He again didnt answer anything or give anything even remotely constructive. just decided to bash Tracy's post and then.

I didnt realize google would be able to tell me whats inside the people on this forums heads but thanks.:rolleyes: I didnt ask what the companies were predicting but rather what members here thoughts were.

I cant get mad because uk is too far gone.

I agree with Tracy that a real cure would be immunization. Though, I'm not sure I agree that reactivating the dormant follicles of long term sufferers of baldness would be easy.

Though, solving the cause of the problem is the hardest part and once this is complete and immunization is possible then surely it will be much easier job to work on reactivating dormant follicles. Plus, millions of people will benefit from the prevention and halting of hair loss. And in theory all future generations.

For me at my stage, my personal ideal cure would be immunization to halt baldness.

I think the actual real cure of anything would be to go right to the genes that make hair loss possible. Though baldness is very common there are many people who do not experience any signs of it even at the age of 70+. They must still have similar levels of DHT and hair follicles would have been exposed to a lot of it throughout their life but their genes allow their hair follicles to be resistant to it. So it's possible

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CAlex

I find it sad that the person with the most posts on here would be more positive and helpful. UK is just a defeated windbag whos only joy in life is forums like this and trying to get a rise out of people.

He again didnt answer anything or give anything even remotely constructive. just decided to bash Tracy's post and then.

I didnt realize google would be able to tell me whats inside the people on this forums heads but thanks.:rolleyes: I didnt ask what the companies were predicting but rather what members here thoughts were.

I cant get mad because uk is too far gone.

---

well...what hes saying is true??

castration does not cure baldness, immunizing follicles against dht would probably result in less overall body hair growth and scalp hair growth (including frontal/crown and back and sides)

i think these hairloss companies or another not for profit organisation needs to pump some money into research, rather than "regenerate" hair, the body is fully capable of regenerating hairs on its own, it does this after every telogen cycle.

in thinning hair, something is inhibiting its regeneration. (no, not dht...)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scorpion

go nw1 or go home! Simple as dat' homie!

---

\wow you only consider one of these current contenders or a future company that can give full original density and nw1 to be a cure/success?

Im wondering how many people have that mentality because it sure would explain the tirades after replicels latest report. Scorpion those are some serious expectations my friend.

I'm with Scoots. 50% of original density is my target.

There is a difference between an effective treatment and a cure. Ideally I would like a cure - to be able to be a NW2 with full density - but I recognise that is almost certainly going to come too late for me.

If I can get 50% of original density with Histogen, and then a drug like CB-03-01 or ASC-J9 to protect both my regrown hair and my original hair, then I will consider my hairloss battle won.

I'm not even that bothered if it doesn't regrow my slick-bald NW3 area, as long as I get 50% on my NW6 area. Then if I want I could get FUE to get to NW2, although to be honest I'm not even really bothered about NW3. One of the reasons my hair loss progressed as far as it did was because I absolutely didn't give a toss when I was a NW3, so I never bothered treating it until it progressed to NW4+.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CAlex

\wow you only consider one of these current contenders or a future company that can give full original density and nw1 to be a cure/success?

Im wondering how many people have that mentality because it sure would explain the tirades after replicels latest report. Scorpion those are some serious expectations my friend.

---

Hell, I'm surprised Scorpion didn't say it had to bring him to NW 0.5 with twice his original denisty to count. Though I have to agree with him in a way. I wouldn't give something such a gracious name as "cure" until it gave back every hair that I lost. But to answer the question, I'd be perfectly happy with 50% density, with even a heavily "mature" looking hairline.

Personally, I liked the receded hairline look. I thought it looked distinguished. And in nerdier moods, I thought it looked like Vegeta. I'm lookin' closer to Krillian since I started shaving, but that's fine for now. As long as I look like some DBZ character, eh? So yeah, I'd totally settle for that (50% with even a high hairline) and be very happy, but I wouldn't quite call it a "cure."

http://chzsomuchpun.files.wordpress....a6ba1450c2.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WillhasWill

I agree with Tracy that a real cure would be immunization. Though, I'm not sure I agree that reactivating the dormant follicles of long term sufferers of baldness would be easy.

Though, solving the cause of the problem is the hardest part and once this is complete and immunization is possible then surely it will be much easier job to work on reactivating dormant follicles. Plus, millions of people will benefit from the prevention and halting of hair loss. And in theory all future generations.

For me at my stage, my personal ideal cure would be immunization to halt baldness.

I think the actual real cure of anything would be to go right to the genes that make hair loss possible. Though baldness is very common there are many people who do not experience any signs of it even at the age of 70+. They must still have similar levels of DHT and hair follicles would have been exposed to a lot of it throughout their life but their genes allow their hair follicles to be resistant to it. So it's possible

---

Immunization isnt the "holy grail".... did you miss my post? - are we discussing what we define as the holy grail or just throwing in more ideas of what an ideal next step in the fight against hair loss would be?... im confused, according to the original post its the former so why would immunization be the holy grail to someone who's a NW2 onward? You're forgetting probably 90% of the balding population - how is that the "holy grail"??? How does one "immunize" a hair follicle against DHT?.... any suggestions??? ANYONE?? It's like trying to immunize your liver against Vitamin A.

The "holy grail" is am umbrella term that also includes people suffering from AA and AU... not just MPB - how will "immunization" help those people?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UK_

That's not true, castration doesnt regenerate hair...

---

Castration does not immunize hair follicles from the damaging effects of DHT. If that were the case, women would not suffer with hereditary hair loss. Yet women do suffer with it as well as men.

You are not looking at the whole picture. I do not know why you are so narrow minded but you need to step back and look at all the pieces of the puzzle instead of just one or two pieces.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Davey Jones

http://chzsomuchpun.files.wordpress....a6ba1450c2.jpg

---

I wouldn't normally condone this, but he should consider using some of his widow's peak as donor for his temples.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UK_

Immunization isnt the "holy grail".... did you miss my post?

---

Did you miss the title of this thread?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tracy C

Castration does not immunize hair follicles from the damaging effects of DHT. If that were the case, women would not suffer with hereditary hair loss. Yet women do suffer with it as well as men.

You are not looking at the whole picture. I do not know why you are so narrow minded but you need to step back and look at all the pieces of the puzzle instead of just one or two pieces.

---

Yes it does - if I castrated myself my hair loss would stop indefinately but the hair ive lost would not grow back - so how is immunization a cure? What about the millions of NW 234567 men out there? How will immunization magically grow their lost hair back? LOL

You claim I am not looking at the bigger picture... the HOLY GRAIL would also address people suffering from AA, AU and scarring alopecia - even TE .. clearly, being immune to one hormone wont do a thing for all these people - so how on earth can you tell me I am not looking at the bigger picture?

You're talking absolute horse shit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UK_

Yes it does.

---

Castration does not immunize hair follicles. You are absolutely not looking at the big picture. Open your mind. Read valid legitimate information, listen and learn. Start by looking up the definition of of the words "cure" and "immunization".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tracy C

Castration does not immunize hair follicles. You are absolutely not looking at the big picture. Open your mind. Read valid legitimate information, listen and learn. Start by looking up the definition of of the words "cure" and "immunization".

---

Yes I KNOW it doesnt "immunize" the hair follicles LMFAO *face palm* - did I ever say it did EXACTLY that? I only used it as an example to help you understand that being free from the effects of DHT does not equate to what is often termed "THE CURE/HOLY GRAIL".... You said in your original post that "immunization IS the cure" - SORRY..... but that's utter horse shit - there's people out there suffering from COMPLETE hair loss... there's chemotherapy patients suffering from COMPLETE hair loss - Alopecia Areata patients suffering from COMPLETE HAIR LOSS - to even suggest "being immune to DHT" alone as "THE CURE FOR HAIR LOSS"... is probably the most ignorant and narrow minded statement I have read in the past 3 years on this site. You were talking ABSOLUTE HORSE SHIT in your first post lmfao & now it looks like you're trying to worm out on semantics - pathetic, truly and utterly pathetic.

P.S. I think we forget sometimes that this is a HAIR LOSS site - not a Male Pattern Baldness site.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pate

I'm with Scoots. 50% of original density is my target.



If I can get 50% of original density with Histogen, and then a drug like CB-03-01 or ASC-J9 to protect both my regrown hair and my original hair, then I will consider my hairloss battle won.

---

do you think any of the current companies were watching will be able to hit those percentages? thats upwards of 100 hairs cm2 which is a big leap from where we currently stand.

Im glad a few people have posted some reasonable expectations as for what would leave them happy to finally be done with these forums and start living their lives to the fullest again.

I think I have pretty modest parameters compared to most on here for what my own "personal cure" is. I think I would be happy with anything ranging from 30 - 50 new hairs per cm2.

For me there are two definitions. If you're already bald then it should give you 50% density in a respectable pattern, anything more is just being greedy. If you are not already bald then it should be a simple procedure or treatment that will save your hair forever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WashedOut

For me there are two definitions. If you're already bald then it should give you 50% density in a respectable pattern, anything more is just being greedy. If you are not already bald then it should be a simple procedure or treatment that will save your hair forever.

---

The holy grail is hair multiplication, it could be used for everyone and anyone.

Imagine taking a few hundred cells from your scalp and a month later being able to transplant over 12,000 new hairs, giving you that hair line you had at 17 even.

That's the f&*%$£g holy grail - not "immunization" lmfao - if only Anthony Atala were working on HM - we'd all be cured by now! That guy can grow over 20 different body organs in the lab.

I can accept that you do not agree with what a true cure means to me. You are not looking at all the pieces of the puzzle and I can accept that - but you are trashing me just for the sake of trashing me. Is there even a slight chance that you could even try to be a decent human being?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tracy C

Castration does not immunize hair follicles from the damaging effects of DHT. If that were the case, women would not suffer with hereditary hair loss. Yet women do suffer with it as well as men.

---

Tracy, women do produce testosterone and therefore are subject to hairloss from DHT but not to the same degree as a man. They produce less testosterone then a man and likewise they lose less hair then a man...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UK_

The holy grail is hair multiplication, it could be used for everyone and anyone.

Imagine taking a few hundred cells from your scalp and a month later being able to transplant over 12,000 new hairs, giving you that hair line you had at 17 even.

That's the f&*%$£g holy grail - not "immunization" lmfao - if only Anthony Atala were working on HM - we'd all be cured by now! That guy can grow over 20 different body organs in the lab.

---

Dude, Anthony Atala's lab has been on my radar too and I actually e-mailed them a couple of months ago to ask them if they are working on growing hair, explaining in my e-mail the devastation of hair loss, the very limited options we have out there now, and real need for a cure for hair loss. They basically said that hair regeneration is not something that they are currently working on. All I know is that in order to achieve a hair loss cure, there have got to be a helluva lot more companies/people working to cure it, and not just a bunch of people whose sole job it is to tinker with mice and nothing else. If I can count on one hand the number of companies in the entire world who are working to cure hair loss, then something is terribly wrong!! This makes me think of another alarming fact. There are probably thousands of doctors today practicing hair transplantation yet far less than 10% of the hair loss population opts for a hair transplant. Yet I can guarantee you that far more than 10% of hair loss population would jump at a more effective, and non-invasive cure for hair loss, yet I can only count on one hand the number of companies looking for this cure. When you have thousands of hair loss professionals practicing a treatment that most hair loss sufferers don't even want to get, yet you have only a handful of hair loss professionals working on a potential treatment that the majority of hair loss sufferers would want, then that illustrates that there is something seriously wrong with the hair loss industry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Horseshoe

Tracy, women do produce testosterone and therefore are subject to hairloss from DHT but not to the same degree as a man. They produce less testosterone then a man and likewise they lose less hair then a man...

---

You haven't seen my mother or her sisters. Fewer women suffer with hereditary hair loss. However, some can suffer just as much or even more than most men. My mother and my aunt's are living examples of that.

DHT is just the trigger for hereditary hair loss - but it is not the root cause. The sensitivity of follicles to the damaging effects of DHT is the root cause. Not all hair follicles are sensitive to the same degree as others. In the case of women's hereditary hair loss, those who suffer with it have hair follicles that are hyper sensitive to DHT. Therefore even the small amount of DHT in their bodies is enough to trigger hereditary hair loss.

The only way to truly "cure" any problem is to resolve the root cause. Therefore the only way to truly "cure" hereditary hair loss is to find a way to immunize hair follicles from the damaging effects of DHT. Once that is achieved, the rest will follow. There is no magic. More work will still need to be done to repair damaged follicles and get them started back up - but that work will be significantly easier to achieve once concern over DHT is out of the equation.

It is most likely that a true “cure” will be a multi-part treatment approach of immunizing hair follicles and repairing damaged hair follicles. Though some hair follicles will be able to heal and repair with little help, others will need extra help. Cell based multiplication should be able to achieve both those very important goals eventually – if the cells being multiplied are taken from DHT resistant follicles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UK_

PS...anyone know where RichardDawkins has gone?

---

RichardDawkins was banned, he is now back at Hairsite under the name MikadoMan..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CAlex

do you think any of the current companies were watching will be able to hit those percentages? thats upwards of 100 hairs cm2 which is a big leap from where we currently stand.

---

Only if the treatments are compoundable and not too vulnerable to the 'law of diminishing returns.'

For myself, I'm about 80-90% miniaturised in my thinnest patches. So I have let's say 15% of my terminal hair left in that area. Histogen would need to give me a 233% increase in hair to get to 50%.

A couple of their patients did get over 100% increase in total hair count IIRC, but 233% terminal hair increase really is a lot to hope for from one treatment. So I'd probably need two or three treatments. We will have a better idea from the results of the latest trials which explore the compoundable nature of the treatment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UK_

The holy grail is hair multiplication, it could be used for everyone and anyone.

---

If you're going to use a lofty term like "holy grail", I'd say my version of that would be a one time application cream that has you wake up with a full head of hair. It costs a dollar in the pharmacy isle, and there's a 50% off coupon for it in Sunday's paper. You may say that's not realistic, but neither is the Holy Grail...

Hair multiplication would be d*mn nice too though. I feel like I've heard of people cloning hair follicles a few times throughout the years. Why do I never hear about that later? What goes wrong? Isn't that process basically figured out, or am I remembering incorrectly?

And on the argument you're having, I think Tracy C is just considering a different definition of the word "cure." It seems like she wants someone to actually fix the head. Hair multiplication seems more along the lines of the ultimate Jerry rigging for the scalp. Aesthetically though, I don't think a "real cure" or "the ultimate Jerry rigging" would look any different, so either is fine by me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Davey Jones

I think Tracy C is just considering a different definition of the word "cure." It seems like she wants someone to actually fix the head.

---

You got it. Once that is achieved, the rest will follow because it will be much easier to achieve.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tracy C

You got it. Once that is achieved, the rest will follow because it will be much easier to achieve.

---

Yeah, and personally, I would way prefer this too. Something about it. I just want THAT hair back. But I see where he's coming from too. Once you immunize hair follicles, there is still the hurdle of repairing the damage that is done.

Hair multiplication wouldn't be a "cure", but it would be a one step fix that immunizing follicles couldn't be without figuring out how to reactivate the follicles. I wouldn't argue with someone that wanted to call that a cure, 'cause it's all just semantics as far as how you look cares.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tracy C

I can accept that you do not agree with what a true cure means to me. You are not looking at all the pieces of the puzzle and I can accept that - but you are trashing me just for the sake of trashing me. Is there even a slight chance that you could even try to be a decent human being?

---

Your original quote was that immunization would be "the cure" and once a patient is immune to DHT it will be "easier to re-grow lost hair"....<<< what the **** does that even mean? Please explain how it would be easier to re-grow hair if the patient was PHYSICALLY immune to the effects of DHT.... YOU CANT!!! YOU'D STILL HAVE THE SAME ****ING PHYSIOLOGICAL PROBLEMS!!!

Not only will it still be impossible, but YOU BELIEVE this would be "THE HOLY ****ING GRAIL" LMFAO!!!!

What you're saying in essence is that it would be easier to re-grow a patients hand if he took it out of the blender, that by doing so, it becomes a physiologically feasible endeavour in which the scientific/physical barriers to re-growing a completely new hand are suddenly mitigated BECAUSE the cause of his injury is suddenly removed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DepressedByHairLoss

Dude, Anthony Atala's lab has been on my radar too and I actually e-mailed them a couple of months ago to ask them if they are working on growing hair, explaining in my e-mail the devastation of hair loss, the very limited options we have out there now, and real need for a cure for hair loss. They basically said that hair regeneration is not something that they are currently working on. All I know is that in order to achieve a hair loss cure, there have got to be a helluva lot more companies/people working to cure it, and not just a bunch of people whose sole job it is to tinker with mice and nothing else. If I can count on one hand the number of companies in the entire world who are working to cure hair loss, then something is terribly wrong!! This makes me think of another alarming fact. There are probably thousands of doctors today practicing hair transplantation yet far less than 10&#37; of the hair loss population opts for a hair transplant. Yet I can guarantee you that far more than 10% of hair loss population would jump at a more effective, and non-invasive cure for hair loss, yet I can only count on one hand the number of companies looking for this cure. When you have thousands of hair loss professionals practicing a treatment that most hair loss sufferers don't even want to get, yet you have only a handful of hair loss professionals working on a potential treatment that the majority of hair loss sufferers would want, then that illustrates that there is something seriously wrong with the hair loss industry.

---

My thoughts exactly - thanks for taking the time to email them, Atala is very talented & has a unique flair for this area of research - he's already implanted fully functioning urethras so young children can urinate properly - did you hear about the rabbits back in 2003? lol haha the guy is a living genius.

For those that haven’t heard of Anthony Atala:

http://singularityhub.com/2011/03/15...-ted-audience/

UK,

I have not even once used such nasty language while talking to you. I absolutely do not deserve the trashing you insist on giving me. Not from you or anybody else. Stop being such a dang rotten person. Clean up your act and grow up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UK_

Your original quote was that immunization would be "the cure" and once a patient is immune to DHT it will be "easier to re-grow lost hair"....<<< what the **** does that even mean? Please explain how it would be easier to re-grow hair if the patient was PHYSICALLY immune to the effects of DHT.... YOU CANT!!! YOU'D STILL HAVE THE SAME ****ING PHYSIOLOGICAL PROBLEMS!!!

Not only will it still be impossible, but YOU BELIEVE this would be "THE HOLY ****ING GRAIL" LMFAO!!!!

What you're saying in essence is that it would be easier to re-grow a patients hand if he took it out of the blender, that by doing so, it becomes a physiologically feasible endeavour in which the scientific/physical barriers to re-growing a completely new hand are suddenly mitigated BECAUSE the cause of his injury is suddenly removed.

---

I don't think you deserve a response with the way you post here but I disagree with you and agree with Tracy so I will.

The immunization of hair follicles to baldness. Note I say baldness and not DHT. Whatever it takes so hair follicles are immune to baldness is the cure to baldness. This is simple. Growing hair that has already been lost is a secondary and separate problem in reality. Once baldness is essentially cured, then stimulating and regrowing the follicles that have been destroyed is a separate issue. But baldness would be cured.

Also, your last statement about the fact that it would be easier to regrow a patients hand if he took it out of the blender is very true. The most advanced science in the world that would regrow any limb, would be worthless is that limb was constantly in a blender!

Hence hair loss, we need to focus on curing the cause of hair loss before we focus on regrowing the hair.