Dr.Angela Christiano

[johnsmith]

while I have no idea whether a real cure will materialize...

That's exactly right. You have no idea, which was my original point.

I wouldn't count on new hair in the next five or even ten years...

Nor would I, but we can hope we're wrong.

...but it's not far away for sure.

You may hope that it's not far away, as many of us do, but back to the original point that you restated, you have no idea whether a real cure will materialize or not. Meanwhile, viable human cloning is so close to reality that most world governments banned all funding for it to slow down the science to give the ethical debates more time to catch up. In contrast, there is obviously a very long way to go before a viable hair restoration process is realized, approved and sold.

Maybe in another 30 years, someone else will be along to say, "Well, we're getting closer all the time! Prospects have never looked this great! Just 2 to 5 more years and we'll have this disease cured!"

When a real cure comes along, we'll all know it and no one will have to debate the "we're almost there!" timelines in this forum while we watch "2 to 5 years" elapse over and over again without a legitimate cure brought to the market.

[bananana]

You cant beat the argument that in last few years we came to know more about MPB proccess than in last 500+ years,
so the graph on mpb understanding would look something like this.

[englishman]

Well guys lemme ask a question if you don't mind. If it's all in vain and hopeless why are you still her making comments on these topic. Well just get over it stop being in this forum, yeah. My perception is that your innermost wish is to have a cure but you know then stop being' realistic'or sensible. This platform is made for people who are hopeful and yeah I know it's a sticky wicked. We may have it within the next 5-10 or may not or may have it never. But I'll be better off being hopeful than negative. ..:/

[hellouser]

You cant beat the argument that in last few years we came to know more about MPB proccess than in last 500+ years,
so the graph on mpb understanding would look something like this.

Great. But we still don't have a cure... not even a solid treatment. Why is that?

[johnsmith]

Well guys lemme ask a question if you don't mind. If it's all in vain and hopeless why are you still her making comments on these topic.

Show me where I said or implied that "it is all vain and hopeless." You cannot. That is hyperbole that you imagined.

I have been following this issue very closely for over 27 years. During that time, I have personally observed numerous optimistic, forward-looking statements that hinted that a cure or an effective treatment was just "2 to 5 years away".

Despite this, a cure/treatment never came to fruition. Today, we also see new forward-looking statements that suggest that a cure or effective treatment is about "2 to 5 years away".

My previous point was to suggest that one should not get too excited by any forward-looking statements from research companies that suggest the issue will be resolved or largely mitigated in 2 to 5 years. If one does, he will probably be disappointed in 2 to 5 years.

We are currently in the year 2014. Go back to 2009 and examine statements that indicated that a cure/treatment would be ready by now. Well, is a cure/treatment ready now? Do the same for 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, etc. Was a cure/treatment ready 5 years after those years, as indicated in multiple forward-looking statements?

Perhaps someday a cure/treatment will be found, but if you are always counting on the suggestion that it will happen in just 2 to 5 more years, you may be disappointed.

Well just get over it stop being in this forum, yeah. My perception is that your innermost wish is to have a cure but you know then stop being' realistic'or sensible. This platform is made for people who are hopeful and yeah I know it's a sticky wicked. We may have it within the next 5-10 or may not or may have it never. But I'll be better off being hopeful than negative. ..:/

Perhaps a cure/treatment will be found and brought to market, eventually. I would certainly would welcome it. With that said, it wouldn't surprise me if genetic-engineering to correct DNA flaws were to transpire first, which could solve many of our human impairments beyond hair loss.

By the way, is English your primary language?

[sdsurfin]

Show me where I said or implied that "it is all vain and hopeless." You cannot. That is hyperbole that you imagined.

I have been following this issue very closely for over 27 years. During that time, I have personally observed numerous optimistic, forward-looking statements that hinted that a cure or an effective treatment was just "2 to 5 years away".

Despite this, a cure/treatment never came to fruition. Today, we also see new forward-looking statements that suggest that a cure or effective treatment is about "2 to 5 years away".

My previous point was to suggest that one should not get too excited by any forward-looking statements from research companies that suggest the issue will be resolved or largely mitigated in 2 to 5 years. If one does, he will probably be disappointed in 2 to 5 years.

We are currently in the year 2014. Go back to 2009 and examine statements that indicated that a cure/treatment would be ready by now. Well, is a cure/treatment ready now? Do the same for 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, etc. Was a cure/treatment ready 5 years after those years, as indicated in multiple forward-looking statements?

Perhaps someday a cure/treatment will be found, but if you are always counting on the suggestion that it will happen in just 2 to 5 more years, you may be disappointed.



Perhaps a cure/treatment will be found and brought to market, eventually. I would certainly would welcome it. With that said, it wouldn't surprise me if genetic-engineering to correct DNA flaws were to transpire first, which could solve many of our human impairments beyond hair loss.

By the way, is English your primary language?

I understand your skepticism but your understanding of where different techniques in science are at is weak at best. Go back over the last hair congress, and you can pretty easily discern that regenerating hair is not very far away, many of the steps have been taken, and this progress has sped up enormously over the past 5 years. Pick any disease, and people have been saying the "5 years away" line for a long time. It's a cliche with baldness because so many people don't want to go bald.

Aside from antibiotics, cures in general and definitely regenerative medicine are not something that progressed much prior to 1990, and every decade the growth of technical expertise is exponential. This is true with technology, and especially true of regenerative medicine, and has to do with what our scientific instruments and what computers can do. That being said, unlocking genes and using manipulation to alter and clone humans is a bit further on the horizon. The basic blocks are there, but figuring out the combinations of genes that act in certain ways, and really controlling those pathways is still quite complicated, and the ethical and regulatory boundaries are huge. Hair regeneration on the other hand, is something that is pretty well figured out at this point, its just a matter of trying different combinations of cells etc, and two decades is a very realistic timeline for its development, if not much less. It's not about being hopeful, just analytical. this timeline goes for regenerative medicine of all types. we are on the doorstep- that's just how it is, and hair is no exception. 5 to 10 years really means nothing ever, because one small hurdle in the process can either take a decade or a month. We saw this with alopecia areata recently- when someone figures out the basic keys to making a new follicle (and all the tools are there now- which they weren't just 10 years ago), the development will be fast.

[sdsurfin]

Another two good examples are HIV and ebola. Just 10 years ago, science did not have the tools to cure these diseases. Now, they are both treatable, and it has very much to do with the exponential evolution of technology and the tools that we use to examine and manipulate things like viruses and cells. You cannot realistically dispute that the 5 to 10 year estimate for baldness becomes more realistic every single year. The argument that we could be 50 years down the road and saying the same thing is nonsense. If nothing else they will have completely figured out the chemical pathways (your claim that genetic science is so far advanced only backs this up, since figuring out the genes also gives us knowledge of what chemicals and cells are affected) , and a combination of drugs will let you keep your hair forever. We are already possibly very close to this reality, as 4 or 5 novel pathways for hair growth are being tested at this very moment. unfortunately the androgen pathway has been problematic, but depute what some people on here say, propecia already is very effective for most users.

[johnsmith]

I understand your skepticism but your understanding of where different techniques in science are at is weak at best.

I understand that the differing techniques are further along than five years ago, which were further along than 30 years ago. In five more years, the science will be further along than today. None of that is not in dispute. The fact remains that no one can say when a cure or viable treatment is forthcoming. Assigning timelines to the prospect of a viable cure or treatment is meaningless, unless one is content to continue issuing statements such as, "In 10 years, we will be closer."

Yes. In 10 years, I'm sure the science will be further along, but will a cure or treatment be available?

The bottom line is that you are celebrating progress in the science, but you have no idea when a viable cure/treatment will be reached. Celebrating progress in the science won't replenish the hairs on one's head. Where's the viable cure and treatment? When will it be marketed? Where may one go to be cured/treated? You cannot answer these questions because there is no viable cure or treatment and no one knows when or if one will be available.

[englishman]

Yes it's my primary language I'm from Plymouth England. I often type and write my message very quickly . I beg your pardon for that if my grammar is inappropriate. But why are you asking?

[englishman]

I read my post again which I've sent a few days ago. It's horrible ....sorry I was really in a hurry please excuse my language. ..:/

[inbrugge]

All this discussion is pointless. The fact is 99% people on these boards are losing hair rapidly and there's no treatment for it what's so ever. Forget about growing 1 single strand, with allthese advancements we can't even stop hair loss succesfully. We're looking at CB in 2 years which is quite mediocre, or Fin/Dut which will give you man tits and kill your boner with no guarantee to stop hair loss. There is some hope in Replicell, etc and this is why I come here but we're look at best 2-3 years. I'm gonna be already bald by then. This really sucks and is depressing.

hellouser is right about a few things like no scientists trying some obvious things like that medicine that cures AA not even being tried once for AGA

[DepressedByHairLoss]

Dr. Christiano also found a way to cure/treat Alopecia Areata 2 years ago with Tofacitnib and despite it's links to Androgenetic Alopecia she has NOT done a case study for AGA/Male Pattern Baldness.

Listen englishman, I see you're frustrated, but you need a dose of reality; men with baldness are not worthy of sympathy or even empathy. I'd recommend firing off an email to Dr. Christiano directly but you'll likely get ignored because of what I said earlier.

Now, if you were a woman with alopecia, you'd have the world support. Good luck though.

Take a look at this article: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0414134547.htm. Now take a look at the 4th paragraph, which explains at least some similar genetic basis for alopecia areata and androgenetic alopecia. A lot of professionals in the hair loss industry seem to immediately dismiss even trying successful alopecia areata treatments for androgenetic alopecia as they spout the same tired cliches about how the two afflictions are not the same. Now take a look at this article: http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/20/health...cure-alopecia/. These results are amazing and although Cotsarelis adamently refutes any hopes of trying this treatment in people with regular MPB, Dr. King entertains the possibility that this could work for people with MPB, and is WILLING TO TRY it on people with MPB. Most professionals within the hair restoration community are not even WILLING TO TRY these new treatments to see if they will work.

[hellouser]

Take a look at this article: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0414134547.htm. Now take a look at the 4th paragraph, which explains at least some similar genetic basis for alopecia areata and androgenetic alopecia. A lot of professionals in the hair loss industry seem to immediately dismiss even trying successful alopecia areata treatments for androgenetic alopecia as they spout the same tired cliches about how the two afflictions are not the same. Now take a look at this article: http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/20/health...cure-alopecia/. These results are amazing and although Cotsarelis adamently refutes any hopes of trying this treatment in people with regular MPB, Dr. King entertains the possibility that this could work for people with MPB, and is WILLING TO TRY it on people with MPB. Most professionals within the hair restoration community are not even WILLING TO TRY these new treatments to see if they will work.

Because they don't care.

And I wonder about Dr. King. I sent him TWO emails months apart from two different accounts asking if he's done or going to do a case study on JAK inhibitors for AGA and I havent heard back. But i know about the connection with JAK inhibitors and AGA, I've done the research, there's lot of similarities. If Canada Customs didn't seize my tofacitinib a couple months back, I would have been on it already. I'm pretty pissed.

[97nasa]

I believe that it also takes NEW SKIN Plus Ruxolitinib (that sparks the new skin to grow hair).

The key element that has been missing is new skin as old skin is too damaged to grow hair that is why the hair shrinks over time. You do not have any damage to new skin and it is ready to grow hair from a spark (Ruxolitinib).

Because they don't care.

And I wonder about Dr. King. I sent him TWO emails months apart from two different accounts asking if he's done or going to do a case study on JAK inhibitors for AGA and I havent heard back. But i know about the connection with JAK inhibitors and AGA, I've done the research, there's lot of similarities. If Canada Customs didn't seize my tofacitinib a couple months back, I would have been on it already. I'm pretty pissed.

[inbrugge]

how to get new skin lol?