Discussion: If Successful, Is Hair Cloning / Regeneraion (stem Cell Based) A True Cure?

[NeverBaldEver]

If you can take fina you don't need hair cloning.

Fina in most cases only slow down (don't even stop) hairloss, and the efficacy may drop or disappear some time. For many people (like me) they are too late to start taking the medication and don't have a decent density to keep, which makes taking the risks less worthy.

 

[NeverBaldEver]

It's been like 10-15 years since I read some of this stuff and I don't have the sources all nicely stacked in front of me. Sorry.

I was thinking of the pseudohermaphrodite guys born with the 5-apha-reductase deficiency, and the research done on them. (Dominican Republic) IIRC it was demonstrated that with the DHT deficiency during puberty, they didn't get androgenic hair loss later in life even if DHT levels were later restored.

Androgen levels are pretty low in older men, falling since puberty, and yet we still continue to grow balder during the later half of life. On the other hand we get bombarded with high androgens early on, and yet even most guys with balding susceptibility can make it through their teens & early 20s before it's showing. The rate of loss does not really match the androgen levels during different stages of life. But it does suggest a pattern of follicles growing more susceptible to androgen damage as it worsens. Snowball effect.

This also explains why there is a wide spread of difference in how much baldness hits different men. Some men get little or no hair loss despite doing absolutely nothing about it, ever. Others are fighting an epic battle against the process (decades of Finasteride, etc) and still can't even stop the loss. The snowballing of androgen sensitivity has a severe 'leveraging' effect on the process once it gets rolling. But as the non-balding man is getting older, his androgen levels are falling fast enough that the snowball can never get going.

Looking for the source is to find out if what you quote is correct, and also if you correct remember what you read. (I am not the right person to say this since I cannot find the source of my statements. LOL)
"pseudohermaphrodite guys"
I don't think what you quote is correct.
https://tophairlosstreatments.com/dht-hair-loss/
What goes to normal is T level, not DHT.

"older men"
It is true that the androgen level of older men decreases, but the level of DHT remains almost the same. The decrease corresponds to other down stream chemicals that T converts to, which doesn't include DHT.

 

[NeverBaldEver]

Do you know what these words mean? "Insignificant", "no", "miniaturization", and "hair loss". Read the link I posted, aging most certainly does shrink the follicle. There's a difference between making hair strands thinner, and making them so miniaturized that they disappear.

1. Senescent alopecia has been defined as non-androgen-dependent hair thinning found in those over 60 years of age. (your quote)
2. Among people having hair loss (even for people over 60), senescent alopecia is only a very small proportion.
3. Your paper only says senescent alpoecia exists, BetaBoy's paper show how prevailing this type of hair loss is. (quite rare).
4. What I don't understand is that once your citations contradict others', you can directly claim yours are correct but others' are false. Once your claims contradict others', you use papers to justify your claims; once your citations contradict others', you again please use higher level evidence to prove your citations correct. Otherwise the issue remains unsolved.

 

[pegasus2]

1. Senescent alopecia has been defined as non-androgen-dependent hair thinning found in those over 60 years of age. (your quote)
2. Among people having hair loss (even for people over 60), senescent alopecia is only a very small proportion.
3. Your paper only says senescent alpoecia exists, BetaBoy's paper show how prevailing this type of hair loss is. (quite rare).
4. What I don't understand is that once your citations contradict others', you can directly claim yours are correct but others' are false. Once your claims contradict others', you use papers to justify your claims; once your citations contradict others', you again please use higher level evidence to prove your citations correct. Otherwise the issue remains unsolved.

So basically you think that my claim is that ageing causes baldness. You will want to reread my posts more slowly if that's what you took away from them. There is no contradiction on this point. I think he and I, and our sources are all in agreement here. Baldness from aging is rare, but the diameter of the hair shafts diminishes from ageing in nearly everyone. The hair doesn't fall out, but it's size drops from maybe 180µm down to maybe 100µm. I don't know the numbers, I'm just using that as in illustration so that maybe you'll better understand what I'm saying since you seem to think I'm saying aging causes a chrome dome.

From Paul Kemp at HairClone:

"Banking follicles is just one step in the process. It isn’t mandatory.

I can answer two of your questions with one reply as I have just returned from two days presenting to potential investors (It is a long involved process as I have explained in other blog replies) and this is from one of the slides I presented.

1) Cryopreserving early “stops the clock” and reduces follicle ageing. It is known hairs go through ageing deterioration as well as hormonal loss. Banking now can potentially make use of ‘younger’ hair.

 

[BetaBoy]

Do you know what these words mean? "Insignificant", "no", "miniaturization", and "hair loss". Read the link I posted, aging most certainly does shrink the follicle. There's a difference between making hair strands thinner, and making them so miniaturized that they disappear.

Not being funny or anything but that paper is a joke how are we supposed to take it seriously when they are presenting in figure 1 a patient with clear as day norwooding as a patient supposedly suffering with "senescent alopecia". How are they possibly able to rule out that androgens aren't the driver of his miniaturisation?

 

[NeverBaldEver]

So basically you think that my claim is that ageing causes baldness. You will want to reread my posts more slowly if that's what you took away from them. There is no contradiction on this point. I think he and I, and our sources are all in agreement here. Baldness from aging is rare, but the diameter of the hair shafts diminishes from ageing in nearly everyone. The hair doesn't fall out, but it's size drops from maybe 180µm down to maybe 100µm. I don't know the numbers, I'm just using that as in illustration so that maybe you'll better understand what I'm saying since you seem to think I'm saying aging causes a chrome dome.

From Paul Kemp at HairClone:

"Banking follicles is just one step in the process. It isn’t mandatory.

I can answer two of your questions with one reply as I have just returned from two days presenting to potential investors (It is a long involved process as I have explained in other blog replies) and this is from one of the slides I presented.

1) Cryopreserving early “stops the clock” and reduces follicle ageing. It is known hairs go through ageing deterioration as well as hormonal loss. Banking now can potentially make use of ‘younger’ hair.

"So basically you think that my claim is that ageing causes baldness. You will want to reread my posts..." #31 by you
I am not sure if you are playing with the word choices or what.
"They (hair follicles) still miniaturize due to aging." #2 by you

Statement from HairClone
Again, it only points out that this kind of hair loss exists, but doesn't not tell how prevailing it is. Up to now in our discussion only BetaBoy's citation provides this detail: "It can be inferred from the analysis outlined herethat most significant hair loss in the elderly is androgendriven. The few patients with deteriorating, diffuse alopeciaappear to be the exception. Old age may not be a significantcause of hair loss."
Also, this statement has strong conflict of interest with the method of the company, giving reason to create a "bank of follicles" which other hair cloning treatment plans do not include. For a long time it didn't have the technology to clone hair (not sure if it is still true now) and the only business is this "bank of follicles".

 

[pegasus2]

Yes, I said they miniaturize, as in going from maybe 180µm to 100µm, not that they miniaturize to the point of vellus hair or worse. This is what I said in the very next sentence after that one you took out of context, "As for people losing transplanted hairs completely, that's not demonstrated" You've been arguing with me from the position that I claimed ageing causes you to lose these hairs completely when in fact I said the opposite. I'm done with this discussion now. It's annoying.

One more thing though, keep in mind that when we talk about things like this we are talking about the fringe, rare cases. People who claim their transplanted hair thinned or fell out are rare, extreme, fringe cases, so you can attribute rare, extreme, fringe responses to those cases.

 

[NeverBaldEver]

Yes, I said they miniaturize, as in going from maybe 180µm to 100µm, not that they miniaturize to the point of vellus hair or worse.

If you are so careful about word choice, you should notice the article says "hair loss".

 

[disfiguredyoungman]

Not really, I'm on finasteride and yes,it stopped my hair loss, but this doesn't mean I'm satisfied with my current density...

Get a transplant then, no need to clone your hair.

 

[coolio]

Looking for the source is to find out if what you quote is correct, and also if you correct remember what you read. (I am not the right person to say this since I cannot find the source of my statements. LOL)
"pseudohermaphrodite guys"
I don't think what you quote is correct.
https://tophairlosstreatments.com/dht-hair-loss/
What goes to normal is T level, not DHT.

No, I was thinking of research where docs artificially restored DHT levels to normal after puberty. Hair loss did not happen. The heavy androgen exposure during puberty is a necessary part of the process.

 

[pegasus2]

Scalp theory is actually the only sensible one. I’ve ten out of ten cases of alopecia including mine where after birth we all had the misaligned scalp situation, very thin hair, no hair in front and some had dermatitis too (it’s common with babies).

Claiming transplanted hair may fall due to thyroid and stress is as stupid of a claim as it gets because it’s completely vague. Like what, thyroid soldiers go and attack follicles? And what is stress exactly? You refer to cortisol? Changes in hormones? Imbalance? Cellular level? What?

I think people need to finally realize we are almost in 2020 and we have ABSOLUTELY NO CLUE as to the actual root cause of alopecia or a cure whatsoever. And by cure we mean reversal. We don’t mean grow tits and become a woman.

I’m not attacking you right now but the amount of false advertising is absurd in this field. It’s also very naive from members here to believe that people spend a decade of their time and millions in order to restore their hair. No. It’s purely marketing, it’s taking a stab in this business and making tons of money. That’s it. Take a look at every single treatment that came out. They are all useless yet they have a TON of push. All great names, great promises yet here we are, having a single protocol that involves turning a man into a woman. Great stuff. Now that I have gotten used to shaving my head (more like trimming actually) and I’m a good looking fella, I see reality for what it is.

There have been many memes out there but the Tsuji one is gonna be the single biggest meme of all time. Wait a bit longer and you’ll see. The fact that there are people here actually believing that someone will inject them a tiny magic ball that will spread and grow 100k follicles is beyond ridiculous. Not only that, there are members here that complain about the thickness and color of them, like are you people serious??? I mean there are members here “losing hair” for five years and they’re the same. I bet you half of you don’t even have alopecia, you’re just f*****g around with your temples. Alopecia, actual Androgenetic Alopecia, is ten years. That’s it. First two years your temples are gone, then two more years your entire crown gets fuzzy, thin, curly, hair even changes color (hello thyroid). Then another five years where it empties out. The cycle stops, every hair that falls grows back tiny. Simple. It never stops but you’re bald by 30 as bald as you’re gonna be (some have high bridges, others don’t lose their sides, others bald af).

This forum needs a reality check. One example of a guy WITH Androgenetic Alopecia is that bridgeburn guy I read about recently. And he wasn’t even in a BAD stage when he decided to take drugs, so he managed to reverse it.

Leave the Tsuji memes at the door, as well as the diet memes (I’m having a better diet than most of you if not all) and the drug experiments. Two things mess you up: thyroid and scalp development, that’s it. DHT and inflammation come later as a result. And we are married to this fact for ever. It will take at least 150 more years until the cloning phase even gets remotely close and who knows its efficacy.

Those with hair, enjoy your life. Those with advanced alopecia (who just buzz/shave), embrace life and move on.

I don't even know what to say to this. This sounds like some real east Indian medicine stuff right here. If this is what you really think then ok, but all of Western medicine disagrees with you, and we've proven to have the superior approach to medicine.

 

[NeverBaldEver]

No, I was thinking of research where docs artificially restored DHT levels to normal after puberty. Hair loss did not happen. The heavy androgen exposure during puberty is a necessary part of the process.

I am really interested in that research. That could solve my questions and this thread could be closed if you can find it.
But before I really see that, I am very skeptical.

 

[NeverBaldEver]

Back on topic: What exactly is your point? Because my point is that hair cloning is in fact a cure. What say you?

This is a direct response to your "So basically you think that my claim is that ageing causes baldness...."
My points is you are the first person who should read what you and others write again.

 

[NeverBaldEver]

Scalp theory is actually the only sensible one. I’ve ten out of ten cases of alopecia including mine where after birth we all had the misaligned scalp situation, very thin hair, no hair in front and some had dermatitis too (it’s common with babies).

Claiming transplanted hair may fall due to thyroid and stress is as stupid of a claim as it gets because it’s completely vague. Like what, thyroid soldiers go and attack follicles? And what is stress exactly? You refer to cortisol? Changes in hormones? Imbalance? Cellular level? What?

I think people need to finally realize we are almost in 2020 and we have ABSOLUTELY NO CLUE as to the actual root cause of alopecia or a cure whatsoever. And by cure we mean reversal. We don’t mean grow tits and become a woman.

I’m not attacking you right now but the amount of false advertising is absurd in this field. It’s also very naive from members here to believe that people spend a decade of their time and millions in order to restore their hair. No. It’s purely marketing, it’s taking a stab in this business and making tons of money. That’s it. Take a look at every single treatment that came out. They are all useless yet they have a TON of push. All great names, great promises yet here we are, having a single protocol that involves turning a man into a woman. Great stuff. Now that I have gotten used to shaving my head (more like trimming actually) and I’m a good looking fella, I see reality for what it is.

There have been many memes out there but the Tsuji one is gonna be the single biggest meme of all time. Wait a bit longer and you’ll see. The fact that there are people here actually believing that someone will inject them a tiny magic ball that will spread and grow 100k follicles is beyond ridiculous. Not only that, there are members here that complain about the thickness and color of them, like are you people serious??? I mean there are members here “losing hair” for five years and they’re the same. I bet you half of you don’t even have alopecia, you’re just f*****g around with your temples. Alopecia, actual Androgenetic Alopecia, is ten years. That’s it. First two years your temples are gone, then two more years your entire crown gets fuzzy, thin, curly, hair even changes color (hello thyroid). Then another five years where it empties out. The cycle stops, every hair that falls grows back tiny. Simple. It never stops but you’re bald by 30 as bald as you’re gonna be (some have high bridges, others don’t lose their sides, others bald af).

This forum needs a reality check. One example of a guy WITH Androgenetic Alopecia is that bridgeburn guy I read about recently. And he wasn’t even in a BAD stage when he decided to take drugs, so he managed to reverse it.

Leave the Tsuji memes at the door, as well as the diet memes (I’m having a better diet than most of you if not all) and the drug experiments. Two things mess you up: thyroid and scalp development, that’s it. DHT and inflammation come later as a result. And we are married to this fact for ever. It will take at least 150 more years until the cloning phase even gets remotely close and who knows its efficacy.

Those with hair, enjoy your life. Those with advanced alopecia (who just buzz/shave), embrace life and move on.

You are no better, or even worse than pegasus2. pegasus2 could provide academic articles to support his points, thought there are also papers contradicting his opinions. What you are doing is to expand your anecdote to several paragraphs of trash talk. I don't think I need that.

 

[pegasus2]

This is a direct response to your "So basically you think that my claim is that ageing causes baldness...."
My points is you are the first person who should read what you and others write again.

Which is something I never said, but you keep claiming I did. smh

 

[NeverBaldEver]

Which is something I never said, but you keep claiming I did. smh

#31

 

[NeverBaldEver]

Lol, what happened to the site?

Dying with HLC2020，LOL

 

[NeverBaldEver]

This is that entire post. Please tell me exactly which sentence you read as meaning that ageing causes baldness. I never claimed such a thing. I claimed that ageing causes some reduction in the diameter of the hair shaft, which is a fact. You must have a very low IQ.

I don't know if you are on purpose or not. You keep "misunderstanding" my words (in different ways: once I clarify you "misunderstand" it in a new way), so beating the straw man.

I DID NOT MISUNDERSTAND WHAT YOU SAID.
YOU CLAIMED "So basically you (=NeverBaldEver, or maybe also include) think that my (=pegasus2's) claim is that ageing causes baldness", which never happened. THE TERMS I USED REGARDING AGEING WERE SENESCENT ALOPECIA and HAIR LOSS.

PLEASE FIRST TELL ME WHICH OF MY (=NeverBaldEver's) SENTENCE(S) BEFORE YOUR(=pegasus2's) #31 THOUGHT YOUR (=pegasus2's) CLAIM IS THAT AGEING CAUSES BALDNESS in the first place.

FACT: you (= pegasus2) keep saying ageing causes hair loss like androgen, while BetaBoy and I think the otherway around, i,e. the impact of ageing alone is / may be insignificant.

 

[NeverBaldEver]

God you're retarded. Everything I said means that I think ageing is insignificant. You clearly misunderstood what I said if you believe otherwise. I never said ageing causes hair loss like androgens. I said it causes the hair shaft diameter to be reduced in size, but not to completely miniaturize to the point of baldness. I'm not even replying to you anymore because this is just asinine.

No matter what you say to me describes you the best.
You not only play with word choices, but also concepts. Here is an example:
"...but not to completely miniaturize to the point of baldness..."
What is "the point of baldness"? 0% density, 20% or 40%? Losing 50% of density is very significant but still not to the point of baldness. (Words in blue are my judgments.)

"...but it's size drops from maybe 180µm down to maybe 100µm. I don't know the numbers..." #31 by pegasus2
I can understand the numbers are not real, but they are still conceptual. This miniaturization represents >40% loss of diameter and ~70% loss of hair weight (which is proportional to d square). Yes, not to the point of (complete) baldness. And you think this is insignificant?

What you said about ageing is much more significant than you think. But you still think you are right, because you are picky about others but generous about yourself.

 

[jxlegend]

I think around 55-60% density is when you start looking "balding".

But finasteride is de way.