- Reaction score
- 198
how so?
Don't Be Delusional, There Won't Be Anything Better For The Next 30 Years. Deal With It.
H
Senior Member
- Reaction score
- 775
That's it? I'm trying to help your life out Bilbo and that's all I get? I'm insulted.
- Reaction score
- 198
Well, there of course might be some hidden & secret research that we don't know about and in 3 years Merck or Pfizer will announce the breakthrough. But we don't know that.
According to what we know, a breakthrough in the next 5 - 10 years is very unlikely, most implausible...
Everyone, who is actively working in biological and chemical research, knows about timetables and how long it takes from theory, to laboratory, to clinical trials, to marketed product. It's called foresight. What makes you believe that there will be a cure within 5 - 10 years? It's not me to give you proofs, it's up to you! Nothing points to a cure within 5 - 10 years. All you do is boarding the hype train & self-calming, because you are afraid of the prospect that there might not be a cure within your active lifetime...
- Reaction score
- 198
You should be.
50 years ago men landed on the moon.
Today we are not able to do so..
- Reaction score
- 198
Why should an Admin ban me? Only because you don't agree with what I am saying? This is the western hemisphere and not Soviet Russia. Free speech and so.... you know? Let your Kindergarden teacher teach you about that stuff.
Who said you were crazy?
No, you can f*** off. I stay.
- Reaction score
- 3,605
hahaha, This thread is entertaining
I am not sure if that is actually true or how anyone could know this, but I don't like when people make these types of comparisons. Heart and lung disease is considered very serious while hair loss is treated as a joke. The amount of funding that goes into these treatments for common deadly diseases is infinitely more than hair loss treatments. Also just because we are able to cure some serious disease, does not mean we will be able to cure hair loss. People assume just because hair loss is a "cosmetic issue" that it should be an easier cure than many of these deadly diseases. Hair loss is EXTREMELY complicated, and honestly we still don't have a very good understanding of how it works.
I am hopeful there will be better treatments in the near future, but there is not a chance that I am going to just sit here and wait for these future treatments. Putting off taking the Big 3 in hopes of better treatments in the near future is a very bold move. If you're losing hair take advantage of what's available now, don't rely on what may be out there in a couple years.
Last edited:
I was thinking the exact same thing lol
Except they stated in a recent email to this very site that they are still on course to begin trials in 2019.
Sounds like they plan to proceed regardless and they don't have to be able to expand the cells indefinitely to test it in humans.
Not from them anyway, but they aren't the only ones working on it and there is the matter of wounding, which does cause neogenesis and doesn't require any cell culturing. With improvement of that technique, that can be a functional cure — whether hair "cloning" happens or not.
- Reaction score
- 387
We can, there's nothing in it for us though. It's just a moon. When we did it, it was to stick it to the Soviets. That's all. Just like making a part of Japan a parking lot was also to beat the Soviets to it.
US isn't trying to beat any country to the punch anymore. They've gotten lazy in just about every aspect of science, research, space exploration, education. Except military spending. Military spending is #1 in US budget.
H
Senior Member
- Reaction score
- 775
Why are you here?
- Reaction score
- 387
Sometimes things seem like they will never happen and it is almost unbelievable. But then it happens and it feels surreal. I think something better than finasteride/min will come soon. Maybe it will have adverse affects, but it will be better, it will actually stop hair loss and regrow hair. And when that time comes it will feel almost unreal, because many of us don't expect it. Many of us don't believe something will come soon. It won't be perfect, but it will work better than what we have now, and it's coming soon I can feel it.
You don't need to feel it. Look at the pipelines xD
- Reaction score
- 214
50 years ago men landed on the moon.
Today we are not able to do so..[/QUOTE]
What a flat earther is doing on a hair loss fourm?!!
Today we are not able to do so..[/QUOTE]
What a flat earther is doing on a hair loss fourm?!!
NorwoodGuardian
Established Member
- Reaction score
- 184
Why everyone is feeding the troll? His intention is very clear, to provoke us but we fall into his trap foolishly. Come on we lost our hairs but we don't lost our brain. Stop feeding the troll is the best weapon to this clown. A balding guy won't argue with other baldies for his desperate view. He may be a NW0 that come to tease on us, or he may be a hair transplant shill that is trying to persuade you to give up waiting and have a hair transplant, I just can't understand a genuine baldy would do so even though you are pessimistic. He has a purpose I am sure.
It's the same research. You do realize that Tsuji is really not interested in hair, they are working on hair first so they can move on to creating vital organs. Nobody is saying to put off treatment. I hate when people put words in people's mouths. Don't do that.
- Reaction score
- 1,709
Look, OP, you're right in that 5 years away is a lofty goal given the fact that 1) hair loss research is not well funded and 2) bringing a product to the market is a difficult and time-consuming endeavor and 3) the fundamental underlying mechanism of hairloss remains elusive yet.
So if an advancement of state of the art were to be available in the next 5 years, it would necessarily be something we already know about right now. Thus, an argument about whether or not something will be released "soon" comes down to how you evaluate the strategies currently being pursued as products. That would be Shiseido, Tsuji, Brotzu, Follica, etc.
IT IS PERFECTLY REASONABLE TO BE SKEPTICAL OF ANY OF THESE APPROACHES. Everyone, especially the enthusiasts in the Brotzu thread, should know this. But I think it is important to note that that skepticism and discussion does not necessarily objectively inform us whether or not to be optimistic or pessimistic - that comes from one's interpretation of the state of the art. At the end of the day, considering that we are dealing with an unknown mechanism, and employing drugs and strategies that may or may not have to act selectively, and that may or may not be difficult to deliver, and that may or may not result in unforeseen and undesirable side-effects, on top of balancing the additional constraints of being able to deliver a scalable, cost-effective product that provides benefit over the incumbent technology and also sustains benefit for years to come....there are many unknowns.
In my opinion, what that means is that you can speculate all you want, but there is a lot of merit in actually running the experiment and seeing the results. Not just because we would then gain definite objective insights into the treatments, but also because THE DATA FROM TRYING NEW THINGS WILL IN TURN TEACH US SOMETHING NEW ABOUT THE PROBLEM AT HAND, THEREBY ADVANCING THE STATE OF THE ART. This IS how things progress, because when you try something it doesn't work, well now you know what won't work and why! Yes at the end of the day, nobody gives a sh*t about the mechanism - they just want their hair. But to have a really good, safe product and to claim that humanity has bested a problem that people have been discussing and lamenting for LITERALLY MILLENNIA, I think you actually have to lay out the groundwork and know what the f*** is going on. Yes there are serendipitous discoveries like minoxidil but then again, people complain about some side effects of minoxidil and it doesn't appear to work for everyone; the problem with such a serendipitous discovery is that when you don't know how it works, it is very difficult to improve. So the way we really beat the problem forever is by understanding it.
Ok so suppose that you do not like any of the current products that are the closest to market and you think they do not work. Fine, but even if hairloss is not well funded, that doesn't mean research in this arena cannot advance quickly.
In general, the peripheral technologies that we know and love today - gaming consoles, iphones, homes, cars, clothes - were founded on the backbone of large advancements given to us by the industrial revolutions. Listed in order, they are as follow:
(early 1800s) First I.R.: agriculture, machines/factories/manufacturing/mining,
(early 1900s) Second I.R.:chemical industries/petroleum, automotive industry, electrical industries (analog electronics and power generation)
(mid-late 1900s) Third I.R.: Digital revolution (most electronics we interact with today), internet; (i.e. personal computers, information technology)
(soon in future) Fourth I.R.: Autonomous vehicles, biotechnology, nanotechnology, AI, 3D printing, quantum computing, the internet of things, and sort of a combination of some of the previously mentioned areas - robotics.
The broad advancements listed above are what enabled the thousands of products we interact with today. Advancements in the arenas listed above are probably the best gauge of how quickly our technology is advancing. And the thing is, if you look at the timeline shown above - we went from NO FACTORIES to present day in ~200 years. The point is that the advancement is exponential and exponential growth is not trivial to predict. Think of when the iPhone hit the market. That wasn't that long ago. We went from flip phones to watching youtube videos on the go. We have a black box in our pockets that can bring us answers to any questions we have, wherever we are. In absolute terms, that's a pretty fast change.
Moore's law is a gauge of how quickly computation and memory storage advanced. The most important thing to note about Moore's law is that it is exponential - that's why we are in 2017 with amazing graphics on our phones when our parents played pong on a tube T.V. to kill time.
And here is the cost of sequencing a genome as a function of time. It appears to be exponential on an already logarithmic scale!
The truth is biotechnology has only begun to flourish because 1) people have spent the last few decades grinding and learning a lot about the fundamental chemistry and physics behind biology and 2) the COST OF RUNNING EXPERIMENTS HAS GONE DOWN A LOT.
The second thing is the MOST important thing. It will cost LESS to investigate hair loss as a problem as backbone technologies improve. Hairloss will become an increasingly easier problem to solve, as it becomes more and more reasonable to rapidly and cost-effectively probe the underlying mechanism behind hairloss. Additionally, everything we try now will add to our growing knowledge of what will work and what won't so the solution to the problem will grow in a compounded manner. The eventual cure is inevitable. I'm sure most people see it this way also.
The final point, which addresses the main issue with the thread - whether or not a technology will be out in 5 or 10 or 15 years - since things are improving exponentially, progress may appear to feel "linear" on a year-to-year basis but it is not. It's not that trivial to predict what the state of the art will be like in 5 years, especially if the technology is very close to one of the exponentially growing backbone technologies. For example, I wager that it will be very difficult to describe what phones will be like 10 or 15 years from now. We know we are rapidly advancing.
Hairloss would be solved for a very long period of time if we could do one of two things:
1) Selectively deliver drugs. We know several antiandrogens that will work if we can prevent them from going systemic.
2) Fabrication/autologous transplantation, i.e. follicle regeneration. If we can make follicles or parts of them, we know how to put them back in the body.
Both of those problems sit at the heart of biotechnology because solving either would have very broad and transformative effects on society and medicine. Even if people work on those problems in other systems, for example, selectively delivering drugs to cancer cells or fabrication of organs for transplantation, the advances in those fields will carryover to hair loss.
It's exactly as he says, check out this book that Tsuji worked on: https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-1-4939-6949-4. It's a cookbook for how to make different organ tissues in lab. This was published this year. Here is my favorite bedtime story from that book:
Functional Tooth Regeneration
by Masamitsu Oshima, Miho Ogawa, and Takashi Tsuji
They transplanted a ball of cultured cells into a bony hole made in the mouse's jaw and it assembled into a tooth and erupted as normal.
It is guaranteed that we in this generation will see more technological advancement in our lifetime, than any human being in the past has experienced in their lifetimes. And since alopecia falls within the types of problems we are interested in solving today, and aligns with the rapid advances we predict in biotechnology, the chances of significant advancements in near future, in my opinion, are high. There will likely be an advancement within our lifetime.
So if an advancement of state of the art were to be available in the next 5 years, it would necessarily be something we already know about right now. Thus, an argument about whether or not something will be released "soon" comes down to how you evaluate the strategies currently being pursued as products. That would be Shiseido, Tsuji, Brotzu, Follica, etc.
IT IS PERFECTLY REASONABLE TO BE SKEPTICAL OF ANY OF THESE APPROACHES. Everyone, especially the enthusiasts in the Brotzu thread, should know this. But I think it is important to note that that skepticism and discussion does not necessarily objectively inform us whether or not to be optimistic or pessimistic - that comes from one's interpretation of the state of the art. At the end of the day, considering that we are dealing with an unknown mechanism, and employing drugs and strategies that may or may not have to act selectively, and that may or may not be difficult to deliver, and that may or may not result in unforeseen and undesirable side-effects, on top of balancing the additional constraints of being able to deliver a scalable, cost-effective product that provides benefit over the incumbent technology and also sustains benefit for years to come....there are many unknowns.
In my opinion, what that means is that you can speculate all you want, but there is a lot of merit in actually running the experiment and seeing the results. Not just because we would then gain definite objective insights into the treatments, but also because THE DATA FROM TRYING NEW THINGS WILL IN TURN TEACH US SOMETHING NEW ABOUT THE PROBLEM AT HAND, THEREBY ADVANCING THE STATE OF THE ART. This IS how things progress, because when you try something it doesn't work, well now you know what won't work and why! Yes at the end of the day, nobody gives a sh*t about the mechanism - they just want their hair. But to have a really good, safe product and to claim that humanity has bested a problem that people have been discussing and lamenting for LITERALLY MILLENNIA, I think you actually have to lay out the groundwork and know what the f*** is going on. Yes there are serendipitous discoveries like minoxidil but then again, people complain about some side effects of minoxidil and it doesn't appear to work for everyone; the problem with such a serendipitous discovery is that when you don't know how it works, it is very difficult to improve. So the way we really beat the problem forever is by understanding it.
Ok so suppose that you do not like any of the current products that are the closest to market and you think they do not work. Fine, but even if hairloss is not well funded, that doesn't mean research in this arena cannot advance quickly.
In general, the peripheral technologies that we know and love today - gaming consoles, iphones, homes, cars, clothes - were founded on the backbone of large advancements given to us by the industrial revolutions. Listed in order, they are as follow:
(early 1800s) First I.R.: agriculture, machines/factories/manufacturing/mining,
(early 1900s) Second I.R.:chemical industries/petroleum, automotive industry, electrical industries (analog electronics and power generation)
(mid-late 1900s) Third I.R.: Digital revolution (most electronics we interact with today), internet; (i.e. personal computers, information technology)
(soon in future) Fourth I.R.: Autonomous vehicles, biotechnology, nanotechnology, AI, 3D printing, quantum computing, the internet of things, and sort of a combination of some of the previously mentioned areas - robotics.
The broad advancements listed above are what enabled the thousands of products we interact with today. Advancements in the arenas listed above are probably the best gauge of how quickly our technology is advancing. And the thing is, if you look at the timeline shown above - we went from NO FACTORIES to present day in ~200 years. The point is that the advancement is exponential and exponential growth is not trivial to predict. Think of when the iPhone hit the market. That wasn't that long ago. We went from flip phones to watching youtube videos on the go. We have a black box in our pockets that can bring us answers to any questions we have, wherever we are. In absolute terms, that's a pretty fast change.
Moore's law is a gauge of how quickly computation and memory storage advanced. The most important thing to note about Moore's law is that it is exponential - that's why we are in 2017 with amazing graphics on our phones when our parents played pong on a tube T.V. to kill time.
And here is the cost of sequencing a genome as a function of time. It appears to be exponential on an already logarithmic scale!
The truth is biotechnology has only begun to flourish because 1) people have spent the last few decades grinding and learning a lot about the fundamental chemistry and physics behind biology and 2) the COST OF RUNNING EXPERIMENTS HAS GONE DOWN A LOT.
The second thing is the MOST important thing. It will cost LESS to investigate hair loss as a problem as backbone technologies improve. Hairloss will become an increasingly easier problem to solve, as it becomes more and more reasonable to rapidly and cost-effectively probe the underlying mechanism behind hairloss. Additionally, everything we try now will add to our growing knowledge of what will work and what won't so the solution to the problem will grow in a compounded manner. The eventual cure is inevitable. I'm sure most people see it this way also.
The final point, which addresses the main issue with the thread - whether or not a technology will be out in 5 or 10 or 15 years - since things are improving exponentially, progress may appear to feel "linear" on a year-to-year basis but it is not. It's not that trivial to predict what the state of the art will be like in 5 years, especially if the technology is very close to one of the exponentially growing backbone technologies. For example, I wager that it will be very difficult to describe what phones will be like 10 or 15 years from now. We know we are rapidly advancing.
Hairloss would be solved for a very long period of time if we could do one of two things:
1) Selectively deliver drugs. We know several antiandrogens that will work if we can prevent them from going systemic.
2) Fabrication/autologous transplantation, i.e. follicle regeneration. If we can make follicles or parts of them, we know how to put them back in the body.
Both of those problems sit at the heart of biotechnology because solving either would have very broad and transformative effects on society and medicine. Even if people work on those problems in other systems, for example, selectively delivering drugs to cancer cells or fabrication of organs for transplantation, the advances in those fields will carryover to hair loss.
It's exactly as he says, check out this book that Tsuji worked on: https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-1-4939-6949-4. It's a cookbook for how to make different organ tissues in lab. This was published this year. Here is my favorite bedtime story from that book:
Functional Tooth Regeneration
by Masamitsu Oshima, Miho Ogawa, and Takashi Tsuji
They transplanted a ball of cultured cells into a bony hole made in the mouse's jaw and it assembled into a tooth and erupted as normal.
It is guaranteed that we in this generation will see more technological advancement in our lifetime, than any human being in the past has experienced in their lifetimes. And since alopecia falls within the types of problems we are interested in solving today, and aligns with the rapid advances we predict in biotechnology, the chances of significant advancements in near future, in my opinion, are high. There will likely be an advancement within our lifetime.
Last edited:
- Reaction score
- 387
Pipelines don't mean anything to me. I've seen phase I's, II's and III's come and go over the years, with nothing to show for. I go with how I feel.
IMO I think something like brotzu or CB will cross the finish line in the next 5 years and be similar to current options like finasteride.
Beyond that I think its not even worth guessing. I will say im more in the cynical camp long term because I think this stuff takes longer than people think it will
Beyond that I think its not even worth guessing. I will say im more in the cynical camp long term because I think this stuff takes longer than people think it will