Its f*****g 2018 And We Dont Have Anything To Stop This f*****g Minutarization

[Toby0823]

Bcs nobody takes the common baldies seriously. I mean, we buy and cheer for laser helmets and Italian hair lotions for f*** sake. There’s no balding awareness month, bcs nobody cares. General public cares more about fat asses that have no self discipline than baldies with no hope.

It’s very frustrating considering hairloss has affected men before any disease/cancer was discovered.

 

[kiwipilu]

I just can't believe people in the future will fly through galaxies and teleport themselves
with norwood 0. fml

 

[Toby0823]

Some of youare so depressing and child like. If you care so much about it to call dermatologists, who have spent years in training and research, "pathetic" than why dont you try yourselves to do some research? Dont blame other people for your hair loss. No one owes you anything.

Secondly, its unfortunate that its not immediate but new treatments are on the brink of arriving. Follica, shiseido, polichem, breezula, fevipirant are all in or about to commence pivotal trials. There's tsuji and the korean team who will come out with news soon too.

Yeah, its a shame that finasteride hasnt worked for you or caused sides, but it is a drug that stops hair loss in 80-85% of men. Hair transplants have also come an awful long way. Dont act like there are current treatment options available are awful just because youre a non responder.

Bcs none of us were born bald or knew at a young age we’d be bald. If I knew In kindergarten that I’d go bald by 25, then I may have prioritized becoming a scientist. But that’s not the case, my profession involves something else. A profession I take pride in which benefits the general public. If my work is not up to par, I expect criticism.

These scientists/researchers accepted the role and responsibility to take on these tasks. They will get the fame and $ when they succeed but they damn sure will get criticized for sitting on their *** (growing hairs on mice).

Fast food workers don’t owe me anything, but if my fries are burnt I’m damn sure going to want a word with them. Why? Bcs they took that job/responsibility.

 

[Iah11]

Bcs none of us were born bald or knew at a young age we’d be bald. If I knew In kindergarten that I’d go bald by 25, then I may have prioritized becoming a scientist. But that’s not the case, my profession involves something else. A profession I take pride in which benefits the general public. If my work is not up to par, I expect criticism.

These scientists/researchers accepted the role and responsibility to take on these tasks. They will get the fame and $ when they succeed but they damn sure will get criticized for sitting on their *** (growing hairs on mice).

Fast food workers don’t owe me anything, but if my fries are burnt I’m damn sure going to want a word with them. Why? Bcs they took that job/responsibility.

Thats exactly the issue. Its not that theres not enough effort, its that its not a big research area so, like yourself, not many people are actually studying it. Add to this that being a cosmetic yet complex disease, it is not well funded relatively. So whilst you can make excuses for yourself not going into hair loss research, dont you see thats why research in this field moves so slowly? Why would a scientist that can earn fame and money studying cancer or dementia or any of thousands of diseases that kill people on a daily basis, study hair loss instead?

I dont think its an accident that a lot of the research progression in hair loss comes accidentally, through studies on wound healing or cancer.

 

[Hate da Bt]

Hope died today..Or,maybe yesterday;..I can't be sure.

Meursault
Hahahahahaha

 

[Toby0823]

Thats exactly the issue. Its not that theres not enough effort, its that its not a big research area so, like yourself, not many people are actually studying it. Add to this that being a cosmetic yet complex disease, it is not well funded relatively. So whilst you can make excuses for yourself not going into hair loss research, dont you see thats why research in this field moves so slowly? Why would a scientist that can earn fame and money studying cancer or dementia or any of thousands of diseases that kill people on a daily basis, study hair loss instead?

I dont think its an accident that a lot of the research progression in hair loss comes accidentally, through studies on wound healing or cancer.

Bcs there’s far less competition, that’s why researchers/scientists go into hair loss field.

 

[That Guy]

Bcs there’s far less competition, that’s why researchers/scientists go into hair loss field.

*Citation needed.

Generally speaking, whenever people think there is going to be less competition in any given field, they flock to it thinking they're the early bird.

But that's clearly not the case with hair research.

If anything, most doctors who research this stuff specifically are probably held in low esteem by their peers in other fields. As far as I'm aware, there are like...maybe a dozen doctors/teams putting serious effort into this.

 

[abcdefg]

I remember reading about propecia like 15 years ago on hair loss forums, and propecia was basically the go to treatment. My hair loss was very slow and gradual so I thought well ill wait and in another 5 years or so they might improve on propecia or have something better.
Here we are 15-20 years later and its exactly the same. Nothing is different, and lately im really debating starting the propecia I always avoided because I Honestly think nothing better will come out anytime soon enough for me.
Propecia is the closest anyone has come to stopping hair loss from progressing. Is it too much to ask to simply keep the hair I have right now? IM m not even asking to regrow any just literally keep the hair that is on my head right now that simplest its ever going to get. The process of miniaturization, and stopping it.

 

[sunchyme1]

I remember reading about propecia like 15 years ago on hair loss forums, and propecia was basically the go to treatment. My hair loss was very slow and gradual so I thought well ill wait and in another 5 years or so they might improve on propecia or have something better.
Here we are 15-20 years later and its exactly the same. Nothing is different, and lately im really debating starting the propecia I always avoided because I Honestly think nothing better will come out anytime soon enough for me.
Propecia is the closest anyone has come to stopping hair loss from progressing. Is it too much to ask to simply keep the hair I have right now? IM m not even asking to regrow any just literally keep the hair that is on my head right now that simplest its ever going to get. The process of miniaturization, and stopping it.

what Norwood are u

 

[Toby0823]

*Citation needed.

Generally speaking, whenever people think there is going to be less competition in any given field, they flock to it thinking they're the early bird.

But that's clearly not the case with hair research.

If anything, most doctors who research this stuff specifically are probably held in low esteem by their peers in other fields. As far as I'm aware, there are like...maybe a dozen doctors/teams putting serious effort into this.

Disagree.

You mean to tell me that the researcher that finds the cure for baldness won’t win the noble prize lol? Researchers from all fields would be kissing his/her ***! Plus we have to understand, these people are professionals. If one wanted to get into dermatology, they would. The experience and knowledge they have to go through just to be a scientist, some petty high school peer pressure wouldn’t affect their decision.

Everyone of them knows, finding a cure for anything that hasn’t been cured yet will put them in another league. Why be one of the many monkeys trying to cure obesity, when you can be one of the very few and find the cure for baldness. You’ll be above everyone else.

 

[d3nt3dsh0v3l]

*Citation needed.

Generally speaking, whenever people think there is going to be less competition in any given field, they flock to it thinking they're the early bird.

But that's clearly not the case with hair research.

If anything, most doctors who research this stuff specifically are probably held in low esteem by their peers in other fields. As far as I'm aware, there are like...maybe a dozen doctors/teams putting serious effort into this.

You probably shouldn't say "Citation needed*" and then suggest the reverse conclusion without proving a citation. That's just embarrassing. There are clearly cultural, financial and other considerations at play and it doesn't make sense to trivialize the situation by just giving your opinion. That's the part where the citation, actual investigation, would be needed, remember?

 

[That Guy]

Disagree.

You mean to tell me that the researcher that finds the cure for baldness won’t win the noble prize lol?.

...yeah. I do mean to tell you that.

You greatly overestimate the scientific community's care about hair.

If Tsuji wins any awards for his work, it will be because of its implications for his endgame: The regeneration of more complex organs; not hair.

You probably shouldn't say "Citation needed*" and then suggest the reverse conclusion without proving a citation. That's just embarrassing. There are clearly cultural, financial and other considerations at play and it doesn't make sense to trivialize the situation by just giving your opinion. That's the part where the citation, actual investigation, would be needed, remember?

LOL

He makes a claim that doctors are in this field because there isn't much competition and this is how they'll find glory.

What doctor out there researching this sh*t has EVER said that? Find me even one example.

Conversely, it is a stone-cold fact that when a business opportunity arises in which people believe they will have no competition in a market in which there is demand, they capitalize on it and this often leads to a saturated market. This is true in literally every industry; it's basic economics.

It is ALSO true, that most of these researchers are only on hairloss because of some chance discovery they made. Cots has even gone on record saying he never expected to be "the baldness guy" but keeps on trucking because why the hell not? Look it up if you don't believe me.

So no, the burden of proof here lies on the OP; there's no reason to believe his claim is correct.

 

[DoctorHouse]

@Xander94, you should not be mad at doctors. It's the lawyers who are to blame. If you could never sue a doctor if the treatment goes wrong(bad side effects) and gives you cancer or does not work, we would have alot of treatments available by now. Look what happened to Dr Kevorkian.

 

[d3nt3dsh0v3l]

LOL

He makes a claim that doctors are in this field because there isn't much competition and this is how they'll find glory.

What doctor out there researching this sh*t has EVER said that? Find me even one example.

The point of my reply wasn't to suggest that OP was obviously right and that I side with him, so no, I am not going to find an example of anything. That's not my problem. Again, the part where you asked for a citation and then told OP he was wrong and that the opposite was right, while explicitly not providing a citation, was what I was pointing out.

Conversely, it is a stone-cold fact that when a business opportunity arises in which people believe they will have no competition in a market in which there is demand, they capitalize on it and this often leads to a saturated market. This is true in literally every industry; it's basic economics.

Yeah, people also seek and extinguish arbitrage - you don't have to convince me of that. But basic economics is not the whole story, especially when the original inquiry is about whether or not there are researchers in a particular field - that's just misinformed. Academic research is primarily about elucidating phenomena; making a business out of your work is not a requirement. The entities who fund the research do not just become stakeholders and make the project about commercialization. Research is not basic economics. Citation: I'm a researcher at a university.

If anything, most doctors who research this stuff specifically are probably held in low esteem by their peers in other fields. As far as I'm aware, there are like...maybe a dozen doctors/teams putting serious effort into this.

It is ALSO true, that most of these researchers are only on hairloss because of some chance discovery they made. Cots has even gone on record saying he never expected to be "the baldness guy" but keeps on trucking because why the hell not? Look it up if you don't believe me.

Yeah so as you have correctly pointed out, perhaps being "the baldness guy" isn't exactly as charming as being "the cancer guy," showing that there are some non-negligible social forces that also factor into whether or not one enters the field. One could easily argue that Cots is staying in the field due to his initial success, which is what you are indeed saying. And why do I have to look up anything you claim at all? Are you sure you know how the burden of proof works? Just post it yourself, as you should have, if you want me to see it. I'll happily take a look.

So tl;dr a combination of financial, cultural and perhaps other forces would explain why researchers choose to engage in or avoid the hairloss field for their careers. Further studies are required to conclusively suggest why. Studies that one could cite to buttress one's online arguments, hopefully.

So no, the burden of proof here lies on the OP; there's no reason to believe his claim is correct.

Absolutely there is no reason to believe that OP's claim is correct - he didn't provide evidence, and the burden of proof is on him.

But here's the kicker - not only did you reject his claim, but you stated that the opposite is true, without providing evidence - the burden of proof for showing the opposite is on you and by the same token there is no reason to believe your claim is correct either. And you go on to try to explain your case by saying that the doctors are "are probably held in low esteem" and "basic economics" all the while not providing the level of evidence you demand.

If you're trying to tell me that he needs a citation to make a claim, but that you can claim that the opposite of OP's claim is true, because of how economics probably works this way and how there hair loss research is probably not held in high regard, then even if your stance on OP's inquiry is closer to the truth, you're certainly in the wrong now.

The problem here is that OP disagrees with you, so he needs a citation to "show" that he is right, but you agree with yourself, so, well...just stitch an observation or two together and you can feel that you are "probably" right. But that's not how it's going to work.

 

[CopeForLife]

its fullhead conspirancy

 

[17AndBalding]

Yeah it is BS. Noticed that now my crown is also getting thinner, sh*t makes me depressed as all hell.

 

[Xander94]

@Xander94, you should not be mad at doctors. It's the lawyers who are to blame. If you could never sue a doctor if the treatment goes wrong(bad side effects) and gives you cancer or does not work, we would have alot of treatments available by now. Look what happened to Dr Kevorkian.

You sue the company not the doctor.

If Brotzu lotion gives us cancer we sue Fidia not Brotzu.

What are you talking about ?

 

[DoctorHouse]

You sue the company not the doctor.

If Brotzu lotion gives us cancer we sue Fidia not Brotzu.

What are you talking about ?

True, but most people will look to sue the doctor and the company at the same time.

 

[donyell]

The cure has been out for decades boys: dutasteride + hair transplant

 

[Xander94]

The cure has been out for decades boys: dutasteride + hair transplant

you just lose dick and get scars no biggie