Minoxidil works on the hairline...

[Phatalis]

I keep seeing posts on this. I don't know how rare it is.. but minoxidil definitely works on the hairline. I'll take pics if necessary but it basically almost replaced mine.

Now if only I could ball up and take Propecia.. and maintain this until "the cure" comes out.

[KeepTheHair]

very happy for you...


Hope tiw orks for me!! dammit i hope

[Fixed by 35]

It apparently works on the front hair line in about 4% of users. Congratulations, you are indeed a very lucky young man!

[KeepTheHair]

4%?!

gdammit

[Fixed by 35]

At least that's what I've read. Products are generally much better at maintenance than regrowth and if the hair loss becomes more aggressive, even maintenance becomes a pipe dream.

I'm getting fed up of all this. It's ridiculous that there isn't a cure for baldness yet. I have to pay vast amounts of tax every year to a bloated National Health Service who then waste that money on IVF treatments for people who are sterile for a good reason; breast enhancement(far more boob jobs (thousands) on the NHS than hair transplants (fourteen) for 'self esteem'); keeping terminally ill people alive who should be allowed to die in peace and even sugar pills for time wasters. All a big squanderance of money and yet here I am with two equally important medical conditions (short sightedness and baldness) and neither are covered so I get sod all back from the NHS.

If they're not going to treat all people in Britain equally under the NHS banner, they might as well just close it down. What's the point in an NHS when all it does is discriminate against some conditions in favour of others, especially when those others include keeping heroin addict chavs alive?

[Phatalis]

I agree man. I mean, I don't want to go into all the other stuff...


But with all that aside... Baldness seems like something that should've been cured years ago.

Here we are 2010...

We cna perform open brain surgury and stuff... but baldness is still... a big question mark for a cure. Doesn't make sense.

All these "new" cures coming out seem like.... well... bullshit. I mean, I hear a lot... but don't see anything.

Histogen. Trichoscience...etc etc...

It's a lot of talk but I don't see squat.

Is it because of the politics? I don't know. I'm a computer science student but sometimes I think I should've changed my field... just so I could cure my hair problem lol.

[Fixed by 35]

I think the problem is that hair is part of an organ. Creating new hair is like trying to create a new heart or liver, I guess.

I just wish someone would focus on something that would work in the next few years whilst the real cures are finalised. Artificial hair implants are a good idea, they should work on making them safe - it's easier than creating new organs.

They just need to figure out a way to make the hair fibres accepted by the scalp, which demands proper scarring.

[UK_]

At least that's what I've read. Products are generally much better at maintenance than regrowth and if the hair loss becomes more aggressive, even maintenance becomes a pipe dream.

I'm getting fed up of all this. It's ridiculous that there isn't a cure for baldness yet. I have to pay vast amounts of tax every year to a bloated National Health Service who then waste that money on IVF treatments for people who are sterile for a good reason; breast enhancement(far more boob jobs (thousands) on the NHS than hair transplants (fourteen) for 'self esteem'); keeping terminally ill people alive who should be allowed to die in peace and even sugar pills for time wasters. All a big squanderance of money and yet here I am with two equally important medical conditions (short sightedness and baldness) and neither are covered so I get sod all back from the NHS.

If they're not going to treat all people in Britain equally under the NHS banner, they might as well just close it down. What's the point in an NHS when all it does is discriminate against some conditions in favour of others, especially when those others include keeping heroin addict chavs alive?

I know you made this comment a while back, and I dont know if you're still on this site - but I couldnt agree more - the NHS is inherently feminist - just like cancer research UK... remember the faulty PIP breast implants? The tax payer was forced to front the costs to have them removed... and we're not talking about helping the needy here, we're talking about upper-middle class self-absorbed greedy women who were rich enough to travel to Paris and have breast implants with a private plastic surgeon but not rich enough to sort things out when it all went (excuse the pun) tits up.

Cancer research UK is the worst of the lot, they'll focus only on womens issues and totally disregard men - prostate cancer occurs in almost exactly the same number as breast cancer - but the difference in Government funds that go into breast cancer is in the millions, in-fact, ill bet you no other cancer gets more awareness and funds from the Government than breast cancer.

[Fixed by 35]

I know you made this comment a while back, and I dont know if you're still on this site - but I couldnt agree more - the NHS is inherently feminist - just like cancer research UK... remember the faulty PIP breast implants? The tax payer was forced to front the costs to have them removed... and we're not talking about helping the needy here, we're talking about upper-middle class self-absorbed greedy women who were rich enough to travel to Paris and have breast implants with a private plastic surgeon but not rich enough to sort things out when it all went (excuse the pun) tits up.

I live in Australia now so the problem has gone away, at least to some extent. There was a furore here when Medicare wouldn't fund the treatment for faulty PIP breast implants but I think the government stuck to their guns and quite right too.

It's not just the NHS that is inherently feminist (by which I mean biased in favour of women rather than a gender equal organisation) but society more generally. Everything from pension inequality to the 'funny' adverts on your TV evidence that. That's not to say men cannot ingratiate themselves into this society, but inherently male stereotypes are ridiculed. Of course, baldness is one of the few disadvantages (I will avoid calling it a disease although it is a permanently scarring skin condition) that society is still permitted to ridicule. The higher likelihood of women having bladder leakage at a much younger age than men on the other hand is one of those things that are a comedy taboo (and not only because it really isn't very funny).

Cancer research UK is the worst of the lot, they'll focus only on womens issues and totally disregard men - prostate cancer occurs in almost exactly the same number as breast cancer - but the difference in Government funds that go into breast cancer is in the millions, in-fact, ill bet you no other cancer gets more awareness and funds from the Government than breast cancer.

I will have to point out a problem with your argument here. An important difference between the two cancers is that breast cancer tends to occur in much younger women. I don't think anyone can disagree that cancer does hit society harder when it kills a child's mother rather than their grandfather.

In Australia, breast cancer gets a little less visibility for the same reason because of a more virulent cancer that affects many people at an even younger age. That is of course skin cancer.

[UK_]

You're correct about the age difference in breast cancer and prostate cancer. Prostate cancer risk rises at age 50+ whereas breast cancer risk begins to rise at 40+, nearly half of all breast cancer cases are diagnosed in the 50 - 59 age category and cases in the teens and 20's are very few.

But, a 10 year gap in age risk doesnt justify an almost 500 million $ black hole in prostate/testicular cancer funds.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNcADwJs0zI

[Fixed by 35]

I agree the difference in funding shouldn't be as significant. One recent example that troubled me was when the Bobby Robson Foundation which exists to fund the research of all cancers ran an event and inexplicably gave 50% of the fundraising to breast cancer research. Quite frankly I would have preferred that an adult cancer did not get the lion's share of fundraising when cancers common in children did not get a similar weighting.

However, a lot of this has to do with how much noise is made about each cancer. Women make a lot of noise about breast cancer and get the funding accordingly. Similarly, there are now vaccinations for some female cancers; I like to think that's because it was possible and not because of skewed funding (i.e. other possibilities were lower down in the pile) but I'm not a scientist and I can't validate that.

Regardless, all of this debate will soon become mute when my parent's generation exhaust the NHS of all its resources!