Dr Lauster's Team (Berlin University of Technology)

[hgs1989]

Just to give you guys a perspective of when this might get to market(given that they actually produced a terminal hair by the end of 2014), milwakee made the discovery that started replicel in (2003) 11 years later and replicel still did not launch and with a release date of 2017 japan and probably 2019 - 2020 USA (17 years). histogen and the wnts; it is known that wnts can induce hair growth since 1999 (oldest study I found that relates hair and wnt: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10049570). 16 years later and nothing came out till now. when did we first hear about lauster and 3d spheroids(2010 I am not sure) you guys do the math now. they seem to have what you might call a cure. rememebr that they still need to produce a temrinal hair, a technology to streamline the production of the hair follicle to be implanted, to start a company (tissUSE might be that company) and finally to find investors. do the math guys we will not have this one before 10 yearsand this is being optimistic about it. I am personally wanting replicel to be the cure(given that DSC can induce hair follicle formation after injection). I want this to happen but I don't know it always sucked for men with MPB. a combination of replicel and histogen might be a groundbreaking treatment. you have all the element to induce hair follicle formation(GF+DSC) or maybe cancer . what do you think guys?

[Kudu]

^ I agree, treatments like these are at least a decade away, but the endgame nonetheless. Histogen and especially Replicel should at least help us maintain our hair for years, and I still think think they will be more effective than what we have seen. There's still a whole lot that goes on that we don't know about in my opinion. Hopefully they will both be released in Asia at an affordable price within the next couple of years

[nameless]

So why not do fat grafting along with cultured DP or DSC cells?

I don't know why they're not adding fat grafting to their protocols. It seems like it might solve the problem. Why is nobody trying this?

[macbeth81]

I recall watching a video with Dr. Cole mentioning taking less tissue with the graft. This resulted in less ridging; I think that was the term used. If the theory is that the supporting tissue including the fat layer is what makes hair transplants work, then wouldn't taking less tissue be risky? Not saying fat grafting shouldn't be tried, but that seem contradictory.

It is actually funny, these last two years my biggest sheds coincided with weight loss. Do I need to be gaining more weight to save my hair?

[nameless]

I recall watching a video with Dr. Cole mentioning taking less tissue with the graft. This resulted in less ridging; I think that was the term used. If the theory is that the supporting tissue including the fat layer is what makes hair transplants work, then wouldn't taking less tissue be risky? Not saying fat grafting shouldn't be tried, but that seem contradictory.

It is actually funny, these last two years my biggest sheds coincided with weight loss. Do I need to be gaining more weight to save my hair?

Your own words explain it macbeth. Dr. Cole did not say he would use NO tissue, he said he would use less tissue. If Lauster's team using follicles without doing fat grafting then they will be using follicles with NO tissue. Mistake! Bzzzttt!!! And for all we know Cole would get better results if he used more tissue. In other words, maybe his results are damaged a tad because he reduces tissue a little. And if the results aren't damaged a tad maybe it's because he adds growth factors or other growth stimulants to his transplant technique that makes up for the lost tissue.

[sdsurfin]

^ I agree, treatments like these are at least a decade away, but the endgame nonetheless. Histogen and especially Replicel should at least help us maintain our hair for years, and I still think think they will be more effective than what we have seen. There's still a whole lot that goes on that we don't know about in my opinion. Hopefully they will both be released in Asia at an affordable price within the next couple of years

Yeah I think this is the unfortunate reality. I think if a technique like lauster's came out in 15 ears it would still be amazing, i would guess probably more like 20 yrs for this to all pan out. that's an actual cure though, and whether i care enough at that point is another story, but still good for the next generation.

Vis a vis cole, I still am not sure how much the surrounding tissue matters. at one point Dr. Xu mentioned to me that the surrounding environment is not crucial. Dr. Gardner seemed to think otherwise. Dr. Cole seemed to be basically stripping the follicle of almost all surrounding tissue, and its possible that the DP and DSC cells send signals to create new fat cells and epithelial cells, so who the hell knows. I'm not even sure the researchers have a unified idea of what is necessary for new follicle growth or healthy hair. My guess is that the hair cells themselves are the most important control center for what happens in the scalp, and that maybe fat cells etc play a smaller part. In any case, once someone gets a terminal hair to grow in scalp then keeping it healthy should be a smaller issue. Basic Epithelial and fat cells can be made from scratch. It seems as if a few teams are trying to induce growth with a variety of cell types, so at some point they will find out what needs to be there and what doesn't. not much we can do to figure it out except for giving these guys a lot of money if you have it, because funding is definitely a hurdle in every research field.

[brocktherock]

Ten years ago hair transplants sucked and that has evolved a lot if we can get something better than finasteride that'd pretty much be a cure. Not every step of clinical trials is on the front page of google look at the cure for aa. That seemed to be an overnight success. I think it will come out suddenly and with a hell of a bang.

[nameless]

Yeah I think this is the unfortunate reality. I think if a technique like lauster's came out in 15 ears it would still be amazing, i would guess probably more like 20 yrs for this to all pan out. that's an actual cure though, and whether i care enough at that point is another story, but still good for the next generation.

Vis a vis cole, I still am not sure how much the surrounding tissue matters. at one point Dr. Xu mentioned to me that the surrounding environment is not crucial. Dr. Gardner seemed to think otherwise. Dr. Cole seemed to be basically stripping the follicle of almost all surrounding tissue, and its possible that the DP and DSC cells send signals to create new fat cells and epithelial cells, so who the hell knows. I'm not even sure the researchers have a unified idea of what is necessary for new follicle growth or healthy hair. My guess is that the hair cells themselves are the most important control center for what happens in the scalp, and that maybe fat cells etc play a smaller part. In any case, once someone gets a terminal hair to grow in scalp then keeping it healthy should be a smaller issue. Basic Epithelial and fat cells can be made from scratch. It seems as if a few teams are trying to induce growth with a variety of cell types, so at some point they will find out what needs to be there and what doesn't. not much we can do to figure it out except for giving these guys a lot of money if you have it, because funding is definitely a hurdle in every research field.

So of course this means that Yale University's evidence that fat cells produce the signals the follicular growth and nothing other than these signals from fat cells are required to grow hair is irrelevant to you.

Thank God we have you here! We don't need to worry about the things the researchers prove to us because we've got sudsurfin.

If it's all the same with you I'm going with Dr. Gardner and Yale University instead of something that you interpreted the meaning of by Xu, however long ago. Some casual statement by Xu, perhaps said before the study by Yale was produced, means nothing compared to an actual study and I don't really trust your interpretation of what Xu said to you given your established incredulity. For all we know Xu said that to you before the Yale study and now Xu is fully on board with the idea that fat tissue is required to prompt follicular growth.

[sdsurfin]

So of course this means that Yale University's evidence that fat cells produce the signals the follicular growth and nothing other than these signals from fat cells are required to grow hair is irrelevant to you.

Thank God we have you here! We don't need to worry about the things the researchers prove to us because we've got sudsurfin.

If it's all the same with you I'm going with Dr. Gardner and Yale University instead of something that you interpreted the meaning of by Xu, however long ago. Some casual statement by Xu, perhaps said before the study by Yale was produced, means nothing compared to an actual study and I don't really trust your interpretation of what Xu said to you given your established incredulity. For all we know Xu said that to you before the Yale study and now Xu is fully on board with the idea that fat tissue is required to prompt follicular growth.

All I said is the researchers don't seem to have a consensus about which cells are necessary. It is all one big chain and all cells give specific signals. You might need only healthy dsc cells or only healthy DP cells or maybe you need everything. Sometimes by fixing one link in a chain you keep the whole thing from falling apart. Given the focus on the hair cells that these teams have exhibited, I doubt fat cells are all that is needed. Something also tells me that fat cells in different areas in the scalp are all the same, but that balding DP and other hair cells reduce the number of fat cells in balding areas. People like dr. Cole transplant with a negligible amount if fatty layer, but the non balding follicles probably signal the fat later to stay intact in that area. That is simply my guess based on what the researchers have said. Could be wrong, I don't know enough. These teams are all trying induction with different combos of cells.

Either way You are like the most annoying broken record ever man, you latch onto an idea because if some flawed obsessed pseudo logic and then hammer at it forever. No one on this forum is going to solve hair loss, so why don't you go out and get a life and work on your obsessive compulsiveness instead of your hair. Even if you were intelligent, which you aren't, you do not have enough knowledge of this science to fix hair loss or know how something works when the top researchers in the field aren't sure themselves.

[Haircure]

Either way You are like the most annoying broken record ever man, you latch onto an idea because if some flawed obsessed pseudo logic and then hammer at it forever. No one on this forum is going to solve hair loss, so why don't you go out and get a life and work on your obsessive compulsiveness instead of your hair. Even if you were intelligent, which you aren't, you do not have enough knowledge of this science to fix hair loss or know how something works when the top researchers in the field aren't sure themselves.

+1

Completely nailed it. Once JarJarbinx aka nameless sets his eyes on something it's impossible for any rational discussion to occur, examples being his previous obsessions over Nigam then Pilox and now AAPE treatments. Pushing his agenda down the throats of other forum members, flooding threads with his numerous consecutive posts, and dismissing any form of valid argument as a sign of weakness of being a man is his trademark.

[nameless]

+1

Completely nailed it. Once JarJarbinx aka nameless sets his eyes on something it's impossible for any rational discussion to occur, examples being his previous obsessions over Nigam then Pilox and now AAPE treatments. Pushing his agenda down the throats of other forum members, flooding threads with his numerous consecutive posts, and dismissing any form of valid argument as a sign of weakness of being a man is his trademark.

1. Nigam - at that time the only doctor that any one of us could have possibly gotten to give experimental treatment early. He can no longer do this so I'm no longer interested in him. However when he was agreeable to experimenting on patients commercially he WAS the only hair doctor I was aware of being willing to do so. You still haven't found another doctor who was willing to do so. So my idea was that maybe if they cured hair loss we could get Dr. Nigam to do the treatment early on us whereas your idea was to wait 10 + years to get the treatment from mainstream doctors. If India's laws didn't change to outlaw cell-based treatments, and if a cell-based cure was disclosed today, then Dr. Nigam would have started using the new methods, grown lots of hair on lots of people and sooner or later you would have been standing outside his door waving money in his face and begging for treatment rather than wait 10 years for mainstream doctors to bring it to market. Otherwise you would have had to wait 10 years for mainstream doctors to bring it to market, which would have been fine with me and I would have taken care of the women for you while you sat on the bench for 10 years. Anyway, I'm not discussing Nigam further because India has outlawed cell based therapies so he can no longer commercialize early cell-based therapies.

2. Pilox - all I ever said about Pilox is that we should give it a fair evaluation. I decided months ago that it's useless. I guess you *assumed* right from the beginning that it's useless. You turned out to be right but I disagree with your methods. I think your methods are lame. You reject treatment methods before they've been proven not to work. I think that's stupid.

3. AAPE. It is not proved yet that AAPE does not work. There is no evidence yet that AAPE does not work. I'm still thinking that it might be my best change at hair growth.

4. I base my conclusion that fat cells are key to hair growth on the evidence produced by Yale University.

Lastly, some other forum members agree with what I'm saying. And as far as the ones that don't agree with me go, it doesn't matter to me. They can do whatever they want to do. I could care less. For example, you can bald forever for all I care. But those who agree with me, I ask them to help figure out ways to get things that we want. I don't ask you to help. I know you aren't smart enough to help. And sdsurfin really he's of no help or use at all. His latest posts look like he's saying that we really know nothing and the researchers know nothing so they're all looking at different ideas. But that is not exactly accurate because there is a lot of agreement among the researchers despite the variation in their treatment ideas. For example, both Yale and Gardner and by extension Jahoda all agree that fat cells are key. And of course this is what I'm saying. And of course this is what you and sdsurfing are arguing against.

Let me make this clear: Your opinion, sdsurfin's opinion, mean sh!t to me. Yale, Jahoda, and Gardner, their opinions mean a lot more to me.

Lastly you can go to the hot place for all I care.

[macbeth81]

Found the video with Dr. Cole I referenced earlier. Discusses why he receives donor regeneration at about 7:40. He states, "You don't need adipose, or fat, to generate hair. You need hair follicles to generate hair." Although he also states the stem cells left behind from the follicle in the donor extraction site, in conjunction with Acell, is what causes regeneration. Others do not receive regeneration because they are removing the stem cell containing, surrounding tissue with the hair follicle. That is contradictory. He is removing the hair follicle. No follicle is left, only the stem cells left behind from the follicle in the adipose. So you don't need a follicle to generate hair, if his method works. At the same time, if the fat was essential to sustain the hair, then why does the implanted hair survive? He says he leaves he surrounding tissue behind. This may be an over simplification and there is sill some tissue, enough so that is needed to sustain the hair at the recipient site. It would imply that not much fat is required though. If the surrounding fat tissue is all that is required though, then why is Acell required at all? He mentions lower yield when the Acell "oozes" out. The Acell must stimulate the stems cells the follicle left behind to reconstruct the follicle. Wonder if they can implant some fat, plus Acell, to miniaturized hairs to rejuvenate them? My guess is no, the residual stem cells from the non-miniaturized hair is all that matter, but probably worth trying.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khVm4wSpzjo&list=UUf3bYuBt1lHSrVTZjW1TReA

[nameless]

+1

Completely nailed it. Once JarJarbinx aka nameless sets his eyes on something it's impossible for any rational discussion to occur, examples being his previous obsessions over Nigam then Pilox and now AAPE treatments. Pushing his agenda down the throats of other forum members, flooding threads with his numerous consecutive posts, and dismissing any form of valid argument as a sign of weakness of being a man is his trademark.

-1

1. My interest in Nigam was only insofar as he would have been willing to give us a cell-based treatment AS SOON AS the mainstream researchers discovered one and publicized the information. He was the only doctor I'm aware of who would have been willing to do so. As far as I know all other doctors would have waited until the mainstream researchers brought the new treatment to completion of human trials. India has changed its' laws and Nigam can no longer commercialize experimental cell-based therapies hence my interest in Nigam is gone. However, if the mainstream researchers disclosed a breakthrough cell-based treatment (which they haven't yet done) , and if cell-based therapies were still legal in India, then Nigam would commercialize it, and many of us would get it from Nigam. That would be our right but you don't seem to get that.

2.My interest in Pilox was only to watch the evidence play out, which is of course the smart thing to do. I guess you were one of those guys who rejected it from day one but that does not make you smart. That makes you foolish because one of these days you are going to reject a treatment from day one that actually does work. About 3 months ago I concluded that Pilox was a bust but I came to that conclusion after letting the evidence play out. I don't go for old-wives-tales or snap decisions based on nothing. I like evidence.

3. As far as AAPE goes there is still to this day no evidence that it does not work and there is evidence that it does work. As a matter of fact, just a day a day or two ago Alias supplied more evidence that coupled with another agent AAPE grows hair. So now of course I would like to try AAPE along with that other ingredient. I'm just following the evidence Haircure, just following the evidence.

4. I do not respect what you or sdsurfin say. I respect what Yale and Gardner say.

5. Bite the wall.

[JayM]

Dr Lauster's Team (Berlin University of Technology) - Has there been any more developments from this? I have no idea which "new" treatments are coming from where.