*that* it works in human is pretty much established. As amazing as it sounds that hair can be created spotaneously, it's apparently real - even without adding a EGFR-inhibitor, as Follica is doing.
So I'm not really worried about about it working, but rather if it's working consistently. Mice are different in humans purely aesthetically speaking (regarding their hair). You don't need much fur to get decent coverage. I'm a little worried that the Follica-treatment will require 3-4 passes over a bald (or heavily balding) head before you can get some substantial results. And with that comes prohibitive cost.
Anyway, my real reason for posting was to ask if any of you know about dermabrasion acids? My very moderate results with Wnt-signaling is encouraging enough to move on to EGFR-inhibitors, which arguably are more important. Apparently, WnT is relased in pretty healthy doses when the skin is damaged (if you're a relatively young and healthy person) - EGFR-inhibitors is not.
This is probably why Follica seemed to drop the Wnt-signaling from their "kit" they recently patented. I'm going to toy around with some topical caffeine (in lack of anything better), and if it works better than lithium, I'm thinking it could give me some coverage if I'm patient enough. Naturally, some kind of mild acid that destroys the outermost layer would be preferable, as trying to scrape small areas between hairs is incredibly tedious. I doubt I'd have energy enough to do that over half my head 4-5 times.
So, anyone know of any acid that destroys skin but leaves hair standing? Or perhaps such a thing does not exist. I'm guessing very few dermabrasion-tools are made for scalp-use.
EDIT: Btw, not to get off the topic I just made, but here's a link to some new company that's doing something analog to Follica, but empathizing WnT-signaling instead.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/prweb/20080516/ ... UACCvNybYF
What jumped out to me, is that when they tried the gel on humans after laser-dermabrasion (for 8 days I believe), their skin healed up quicker and nicer. But when they talk about trying it out for hair-loss, they demonstrate it with a mouse model. I may be speaking out of my ***, but this switch-a-roo with presenting positive data, seems - atleast to me- to substantiate Follicas theory, in that elevating WnT in humans is not nearly as important in terms of new hair-growth, as it is in animals. If it created hair in the humans they tried the gel on, surely they would say something about it, atleast in some vague wording.
Or perhaps I'm jumping to conclusions. It's just a non-scientific article, after all, and god knows you can't trust them for any kind of detail.
In any case, if you don't want to be a sourpuss, it looks like we might have a second company - Histogen - to compete with Follica through pretty similar methods. I don't see how this is not good news in the long run. Should one fail, the other can pick up the slack.
Good times.
