Is it agreed that there will be a cure

[gmonasco]

Castrating would NOT cure hair loss.

It also won't absolutely stop hair loss. It may prevent the development of MPB, but it won't prevent the natural thinning of hair that occurs with age.

[Dan26]

It also won't absolutely stop hair loss. It may prevent the development of MPB, but it won't prevent the natural thinning of hair that occurs with age.

Word b, these bomboclatts dunnoe.

[clarence]

Castrating would NOT cure hair loss.

: puts scalpel away :

And I was already getting excited...

[mjolnir]

I'm afraid to admit that I would have to say no. Its like trying to cure ageing. We can fight to keep what we have and promote some growth of that which was lost but to halt it completely and have it unaffected by DHT? I'd say no.

Gene therapy - if you can alter you cells to get rid of the genes responsible for hair loss, then you're not going to have hair loss. That might be a vaccine more than a cure, and of course it would be a bit extreme just to keep your hair.

[mjolnir]

I don't understand people who refer to histogen... If it can grow 20% density, it can also regrow 40% or so density with 2 treatments? Am I wrong? 20 40 60... 50,000,000% why stop? Assuming HSC isn't bullshitting, a dozen or so treatments should bring you a full head of hair.

Reasons why it would be compoundable:
The hair persists long after injections have been made, and so it's reasonable to assume that the follicles are actually being repaired, rather than just temporarily stimulated as is the case with something like rogaine. If one injection can turn a bad follicle into an ok follicle, or an ok follicle into a great follicle, then two injections should be able to turn a bad follicle into a great follicle.

Reasons why it wouldn't be:
Basically, if the 'repairs' made to the follicle aren't perfect. So instead of reverting the follicle to what it looked like at an earlier stage of hair loss, it gets reverted to something that's still better, but not a valid starting point for further treatment. One injection can turn a bad follicle into an ok follicle with flaw X, or an ok follicle with flaw Y into a great follicle, but flaw X is different enough from flaw Y that a second injection on the bad follicle won't get you to the great one.

At this point my plan is to hold on until we have a better idea of what histogen can do. If it turns out that it is compoundable, and can get you back to say a NW2 from a NW4, then I'll try to hold on a bit longer until it makes it to market. If it looks like it really will just be a supplement to hair transplants, then I'll probably just say 'to hell with it' and shave off whatever I have left. At a certain point it's not worth the effort any more to keep caring. Live your life and find someone who cares about you for who you are. I mean anyone you're going to end up with, even if you're maintaining for now, you're going to have to tell about all the medications and cosmetics you use - if they're ok with the idea of you losing your hair in a few years (because lets face it, no one really knows what's going to happen), then they'd probably also be ok with you being bald now.

[WarLord]

Castrating would NOT cure hair loss.

You seem to be a great expert. Like all the visitors of this forum.

[WarLord]

Hair loss is not only androgen driven, there are many other factors. I assume you are just being a troll, but fin/dut does not work for everyone. If you think we know the long term effects of being on fin/dut at a young age you are clueless. These are NOT great medications. A small amount of DHT reduction is actually healthy, for the prostate and for longevity. But if you feel 'happy' about reducing DHT in your body by 70-95%, then you really don't understand the hormone and it's importance. If it was the only option I had, I would take fin at a low dose. But it isn't.

"Don't we already have very effective medications, anti-androgens like dutasteride that can virtually annihilate DHT in your body? working in the majority of people" - Warlord

*Troll of the year bro!*

If 86% efficiacy in 113 patients over 10 years is not sufficiently persuasive (finasteride 1 mg/day), then no medication can be regarded as a "cure". I see that there is a bunch of certain whining guys going to internet forums, where they feed each other with fallacies and misinterpretations. These forums are supposed to inform and help people, but instead, they often offer only false information.

"But if you feel 'happy' about reducing DHT in your body by 70-95%, then you really don't understand the hormone and it's importance."

The fact that testosterone levels increase only slightly after the suppression of DHT can tell you, how "important" this hormone is. Even small doses of anti-estrogens will boost testosterone levels much more than high doses dutasteride. The body really doesn't miss DHT too much.

DHT is useless during adulthood, and brings only negative effects like baldness and prostate problems.

[Dan26]

DHT is useless during adulthood, and brings only negative effects like baldness and prostate problems.

I need one of those cool .gif's of Michael Jordan or some other celebrity laughing...

[WarLord]

I need one of those cool .gif's of Michael Jordan or some other celebrity laughing...

Yes, this is such a fundamental hormone that after ereadicating it, the number of impotent men increases from 1% to 2%. With it, the number of balding men increases from 0% to 60% at the age of 60 years. A great trade-off! LOL

[BaldinLikeBaldwin]

I think it's a bold statement to make..

the human appendix and palatine tonsils were believed to be pretty much "useless"

even disregarding DHT's role in the body, a decrease will pretty much guarantee changes in free testosterone, total testosterone, estradiol and other hormones so yeah..