Follica - Good News!
- Thread starter bobs
- Start date
this is a open forum, Im sure Orin will post his Regimen for all to see....
Nice to see Michael has come back to his logical senses again... great input after your rant (was you drinking too much coffee that day?)
sometimes it takes a little flare up of emotions to push things to the next level in life.. i think we just had one of them phases.... keep it up guys!!!!
michael barry
Senior Member
- Reaction score
- 12
Very interesting :shock: ................I looked around for a sec and found that Silymarin is isolated from Milk Thistle. Milk Thistle extract is something people take internally and is in a few topical preparations for the skin. This is very interesting.
I googled it for a sec and didn't find anything indicating the silymarin inhibited wnt either.................
I posted, or rather refered to, a study about EGCG and it's EGFR-inhibitive abilities, that seemed to imply (as I couldn't get access to the article itself) that it only worked its' mojo on cancer cells, and left non-cancer alone, unaffected at all. Granted that I don't know much about these things, but one of the worries is that any natural EGFR-inhibitor might (in addition to apparently inhibiting WnT) only work as a kind of "normalizer", thereby making it useless for what we want it to do.
On the other hand I'm completly freestyling right now and really don't have a clue as to the inner workings of these complex processes. Just passing along what I've found though. It could be another reason Follica doesn't want to use natural compounds, or rather why they do not work.
It would be terrific if this elvish sounding silymarin would do the trick. It's even cheaper than EGCG, so how about that..
On the other hand I'm completly freestyling right now and really don't have a clue as to the inner workings of these complex processes. Just passing along what I've found though. It could be another reason Follica doesn't want to use natural compounds, or rather why they do not work.
It would be terrific if this elvish sounding silymarin would do the trick. It's even cheaper than EGCG, so how about that..
michael barry
Senior Member
- Reaction score
- 12
> http://www.m e g a f i l e u p l o a
» d.com/en/file/70534/EpGrowthFacReceptorInhibitors-and-hair-pdf.html
If you can piece that together, it is a picture of a guy who got-beard-like hairgrowth on his nose from using getfitinib........I mean weird hair growth................Its a "wow" photo.
If you will scroll down this thread, http://www.hairsite.com/hair-loss/board ... 31418.html , you can see a picture of a man who regrew hair in the middle of his head after being bald for many years while taking getfitinib for cancer. I think the guy died later on, but the hair growth after being bald for so long was ---strange----. Just think, he didn't even wound the scalp either.
» d.com/en/file/70534/EpGrowthFacReceptorInhibitors-and-hair-pdf.html
If you can piece that together, it is a picture of a guy who got-beard-like hairgrowth on his nose from using getfitinib........I mean weird hair growth................Its a "wow" photo.
If you will scroll down this thread, http://www.hairsite.com/hair-loss/board ... 31418.html , you can see a picture of a man who regrew hair in the middle of his head after being bald for many years while taking getfitinib for cancer. I think the guy died later on, but the hair growth after being bald for so long was ---strange----. Just think, he didn't even wound the scalp either.
You might have sent the wrong nose-photo file. I grabbed the document from megaupload. It contained only a 2 page pdf with no pictures. The article seem to allude to it though. I skimmed it, and it talks in general terms about EGFR-inhibition and hair. One point of interest was the patients whose scalp hair turned curly, thin and brittle "within weeks of administration of gefitinib". Seems other patients noticed patches of hair on their arms and such.
Gefitinib seem to pretty randomly and chaotically affect hair, and not always in desirable ways (such as the above example, and other examples of strong increase in eye-lash growth). I guess it underscore the importance of caution if one were to try this. I know you are of the opinion that one should try it orally to follow the patent, but given what it does, I would be just as interested (or even more interested) in learning what it can do topically for people. Seem a little more controlled that way rather than letting it run around the entire body.
Oh btw, I checked out "regrowth.com" a few hours ago. Their enthusiasm towards various forms of wounding (such as first sandpapering until some blood was present, and then immediately afterwards applying a pretty strong peel)and applying this or that in various concoctions makes this forum seem like the epitome of restraint.
No slam or anything.. just seems perhaps a little too enthusiastic.
Gefitinib seem to pretty randomly and chaotically affect hair, and not always in desirable ways (such as the above example, and other examples of strong increase in eye-lash growth). I guess it underscore the importance of caution if one were to try this. I know you are of the opinion that one should try it orally to follow the patent, but given what it does, I would be just as interested (or even more interested) in learning what it can do topically for people. Seem a little more controlled that way rather than letting it run around the entire body.
Oh btw, I checked out "regrowth.com" a few hours ago. Their enthusiasm towards various forms of wounding (such as first sandpapering until some blood was present, and then immediately afterwards applying a pretty strong peel)and applying this or that in various concoctions makes this forum seem like the epitome of restraint.
No slam or anything.. just seems perhaps a little too enthusiastic.
first
Established Member
- Reaction score
- 1
I think that goes for everyone here though.Orin said:
Silymarin ((silibinin) or Siliphos which is much more bio-viable) should definitely be looked into more closely. As it targets and inhibits the EGF(r) axis, promotes tissue regeneration and is commonly taken as a health supplement which means it should be quite safe both topically and internally.
Someone else likely has more insight regarding the substance however.
first
Established Member
- Reaction score
- 1
Yes, I read that too and was quite suprised. It just goes to show how desperate people here are in regards to finding a cure.Orin said:
I would be quite hesitant to put an acid on my head to begin with. But first sand papering and then a few hours later putting on an acid is quite excessive, especially as he nearly passed out from the pain.
What did you think of mixing aspirin with water to get your salicylic acid peel btw?
masculineyourheart said:
Yes, if you overdo it then you will get benign (non-cancerous) tumors BUT before that happens, you should see sh!t load of new hair and new hair growth should also be a good indication of stopping lithium! Btw, women get those benign hair tumors more often then men do..maybe something to do with naturally upregulated WNT/B-catenin.
Guys: I've said Over and Over again, watch the Elaine Fuchs video about skin & hair she thoroughly goes over the whole abrasion & WNT signalling stuff and how it's related to follicles.
Link to video:
http://www.ascb.org/ibioseminars/includes/player.cfm?name=fuchs&num=2
Evening chaps
This is my first post so be gentle with me.
Firstly great forum , only found about Follica, neo genesis, wouding and all that jazz 2 days ago and have been glued to the screen like some hirstute (or not so hirstute) junky.
Anway - I've been interested in Wnt (not only Wnt7a, but generally) production particulary whether its necessary for the production or rejuvenation of HF. Firstly I found this interesting piece of information
"Traditionally, it is assumed that Wnt proteins can act as Stem Cell Growth Factors, promoting the maintenance and proliferation of stem cell,
However, a recent study conducted by the Stanford University School of Medicine revealed that Wnt appears to block proper communication, with the Wnt signaling pathway having a negative effect on stem cell function. Thus, in the case of muscle tissue, the misdirected stem cells instead of generating new muscle cells (myoblasts), they differentiated into scar-tissue-producing cells called fibroblasts. The stem cells failed to respond to instructions, actually creating wrong cell types."
and from another article I perused.
"Another research group has just discovered that Wnt is able to suppress mouse stem cell activity because as mice age their bodies make less of another protein called klotho. Well, klotho restrains Wnt and the absence of klotho causes Wnt to suppress stem cell division."
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articl ... id=1976560
http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/004478.html
This would suggest that Wnt is not especially important in the creation of stem cells at best, at worst it may actually negatively affect them. The basic idea being that when a stem cell comes in to contact with increased Wnt (i have no idea how much as a percentage over normal) the communication process that tells stem cells what they are to turn into becomes "garbaled" and as a result they may become something that they should not be, such as fibroblast.
Now in terms of HF production/rejuvenation what does this mean? In my humble opinion the purpose of the Wnt in Follica's original pantent was to promote stem cell devlopment. The two articles above suggest that increase in Wnt production actually has a negative affect. Furthermore I thought the point of the plucking of hair and dermabrasion/wounding of the stratum corneum were to return the skin to an embyonic state and in doing so induce production of stem cells in the first place. I suppose that the inclusion of Wnt, in the original Follica patent, was to increase the number of stem cells, however this no longer seems to be.
As an aside, a respected member of this forum, Orin, said (page 24) that Follica seems to have dropped Wnt in whatever form from its patent kit, I suspect this is true and a source for this would be nice. It would be interesting to see when and why Follica did this, I suspect it may tie in with the release date (these studies were posted in August/September 2007) and content of the two articles posted above.
What does this mean? In my ever increasly humbling opinion, it would appear that there is no need to add an element that increases Wnt, but I do not believe that it would be harmful to our efforts either, just of no actual benefit. Considering wounding of the skin alone produces HF, by inducing the production of stem cells, then in theory all that is needed is a way of stimulating stem cells to produce new hair producing cells from the embryonic skin instead (at least in part) from making something else. As a result I will be focussing on plucking, dermabrasion and EGFR inhibitors.
I realise that alot of this information will probably be old hat to many of you and by now will be ingrained on your brain, but this post is as much for me as it is for anyone else and it provides me with a digestible and organised progression of what I have read on this board and where we seem to be now.
Are you still awake????
This is my first post so be gentle with me.
Firstly great forum , only found about Follica, neo genesis, wouding and all that jazz 2 days ago and have been glued to the screen like some hirstute (or not so hirstute) junky.
Anway - I've been interested in Wnt (not only Wnt7a, but generally) production particulary whether its necessary for the production or rejuvenation of HF. Firstly I found this interesting piece of information
"Traditionally, it is assumed that Wnt proteins can act as Stem Cell Growth Factors, promoting the maintenance and proliferation of stem cell,
However, a recent study conducted by the Stanford University School of Medicine revealed that Wnt appears to block proper communication, with the Wnt signaling pathway having a negative effect on stem cell function. Thus, in the case of muscle tissue, the misdirected stem cells instead of generating new muscle cells (myoblasts), they differentiated into scar-tissue-producing cells called fibroblasts. The stem cells failed to respond to instructions, actually creating wrong cell types."
and from another article I perused.
"Another research group has just discovered that Wnt is able to suppress mouse stem cell activity because as mice age their bodies make less of another protein called klotho. Well, klotho restrains Wnt and the absence of klotho causes Wnt to suppress stem cell division."
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articl ... id=1976560
http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/004478.html
This would suggest that Wnt is not especially important in the creation of stem cells at best, at worst it may actually negatively affect them. The basic idea being that when a stem cell comes in to contact with increased Wnt (i have no idea how much as a percentage over normal) the communication process that tells stem cells what they are to turn into becomes "garbaled" and as a result they may become something that they should not be, such as fibroblast.
Now in terms of HF production/rejuvenation what does this mean? In my humble opinion the purpose of the Wnt in Follica's original pantent was to promote stem cell devlopment. The two articles above suggest that increase in Wnt production actually has a negative affect. Furthermore I thought the point of the plucking of hair and dermabrasion/wounding of the stratum corneum were to return the skin to an embyonic state and in doing so induce production of stem cells in the first place. I suppose that the inclusion of Wnt, in the original Follica patent, was to increase the number of stem cells, however this no longer seems to be.
As an aside, a respected member of this forum, Orin, said (page 24) that Follica seems to have dropped Wnt in whatever form from its patent kit, I suspect this is true and a source for this would be nice. It would be interesting to see when and why Follica did this, I suspect it may tie in with the release date (these studies were posted in August/September 2007) and content of the two articles posted above.
What does this mean? In my ever increasly humbling opinion, it would appear that there is no need to add an element that increases Wnt, but I do not believe that it would be harmful to our efforts either, just of no actual benefit. Considering wounding of the skin alone produces HF, by inducing the production of stem cells, then in theory all that is needed is a way of stimulating stem cells to produce new hair producing cells from the embryonic skin instead (at least in part) from making something else. As a result I will be focussing on plucking, dermabrasion and EGFR inhibitors.
I realise that alot of this information will probably be old hat to many of you and by now will be ingrained on your brain, but this post is as much for me as it is for anyone else and it provides me with a digestible and organised progression of what I have read on this board and where we seem to be now.
Are you still awake????
juggernaut
New Member
- Reaction score
- 0
Moomin said:
Michael
What is the point of selectively quoting one embodiment from the 1st patent? Why dont you quote the million other embodiments from both patents? You know... the ones describe all kinds of stuff you can apply to the wounds? You do understand the difference between a patent and a published experiment right?
I agree that not reading all the literature is bad...but it is just as bad to selectively quote.
Speaking of reading all of the literature...have you bothered to read the paper publish in Nature? Did you know that by just wounding they produced an average of 35 new follicles in an area of 2cm^2 but when they inhibited WNTs via DKK1 using transgenic mice between days 0-10 post wounding the number increased to 97! That's basically triple the number of follicles by inhibiting wnt not up-regulating it which is what lithium does. Additionally they improved hair quality by inhibiting wnts during those first 10 days.
As for them stating non-natural inhibitors...one can not patent anything that occurs naturally. Im not saying that's the reason but its a good one. The other reason could the non-specificity of natural egfr inhibitors
As for topical administration vs oral of natural egfr inhibitors...most of them have very poor bio-availability and would probably do very little when taken orally. Additionally the process is taking place right at the top level of epidermis so its not about getting a drug to the root of a hair follicle.
I know who TAGHOL is . I used to post on hairsite in the late 90s - early 2000's with the handle "bug" mostly about ps1, tb4, 6-benzylaminopurine, bmps....wnts..beta catenin...etc.
You should really be applauding and encouraging people to try different things...yes many will fail regardless of what they try(actually odds are everyone will fail regardless of what they try including follica) ....but if one person discovers that a lot of hair can be grown with light wounding and a topical natural egfr inhibitor then that person is a hero. If nobody tries then we will never know.
The true spirit should be this...everyone try all kinds of wounding and all kinds of egfr inhibitors and lets see who hits the jackpot. Not even Follica knows what will work yet(or if at all)
bug
Were the mice in the experiments washed Bugbug?
No, they weren't. Thats why I say until somebody has success washing their nogging post-wounding, I'd keep the shampoo and all the chemicals therein (like tea tree oil which is used as a healing ointment and is quite good at it) off of the wound. Why on earth would you want to painfully abrade your scalp and have to live with that discomfort for a good week up there, feeling like youve had a massive sunburn, for nothing at all. I want the guys to have success on the first try (so they can tell me exactly what they did so I can cop it).
Bugbug, you need to learn to read EXACTLY what people write before you fire off presumptiously. I wasn't calling people stupid for trying to use getifitinib topically. I was calling people stupid (but didn't want to be explicit) for wanting to use NATURAL EGF-inhibitiors, most of which ALSO INHIBIT WNT (look it up, they damn near all inhibit wnt and this includes quercitin, green tea, apple polyphenols, etc.) WHEN THE PATENT EXPLICITY STATES TO USE NON-NATURALLY OCCURING EGF-Inhibitors.
Furthermore, SOME of the egf-inhibitors listed like lefloumonide (brand name Arava) DEFINITELY have to be converted to another metabolic form by the body to inhibit egf (in lefloumonide's case by tyrosine kinease inhibition). If you dont believe me, log onto hairsite and ask TAGOHL, who knows more about hair than anyone Ive ever talked to besides Bryan Shelton.
You are probably right though. I shouldn't have used strong language in denouncing folks wanting to use naturals up there (that unfortunately inhibit wnt, and may not be effective for other reasons besides that). But I stand by this----a lot of the men who will be trying this attempting to put their own spin on it are going to go through a painful week on their noggin' for nothing at all. Dermabrasion isn't a picnic when it removes the stratum cornelium, and feels like a really bad sunburn. Like I said................I want these guys to have success, take pictures, and come back here and tell me exactly how they did it. Ive been guinea pig enough over the past two years trying various anti-androgens on my beard hair, wrist hair, etc. Im tired of experimenting trying to find a great anti-androgen topical that we can make at home, and certainly dont want to phuck with this until Im reasonably sure I'll have success. Thats why I would advise erring on the side of caution and trying to cop it as close to the vest as possible.
But then again.................I hope you DO shampoo and HAVE success. Believe me, I'd much rather be able to wash up there post-wouding. I want one of you to grow a chia pet up there, come back here, and share how. Im mindful that Follica is being evasive in the patent. Daphne Zohar wont even mention in interviews what two FDA-approved medications they intend to use in their trials. And they haven't tried this on a human yet, so we dont know exactly what they intend to try. The patents (both of them) attempt to cover every conievable scenario so no other entity would even have a chance of patenting anything related and have success. I firmly believe that ---if----this works in vivo on a human being, we will be able to pretty much do it at home.
Best of luck with it bugbug. I hope you grow alot of hair (so you can tell us all how you did it).[/quote:laat7adf]
What is the point of selectively quoting one embodiment from the 1st patent? Why dont you quote the million other embodiments from both patents? You know... the ones describe all kinds of stuff you can apply to the wounds? You do understand the difference between a patent and a published experiment right?
I agree that not reading all the literature is bad...but it is just as bad to selectively quote.
Speaking of reading all of the literature...have you bothered to read the paper publish in Nature? Did you know that by just wounding they produced an average of 35 new follicles in an area of 2cm^2 but when they inhibited WNTs via DKK1 using transgenic mice between days 0-10 post wounding the number increased to 97! That's basically triple the number of follicles by inhibiting wnt not up-regulating it which is what lithium does. Additionally they improved hair quality by inhibiting wnts during those first 10 days.
As for them stating non-natural inhibitors...one can not patent anything that occurs naturally. Im not saying that's the reason but its a good one. The other reason could the non-specificity of natural egfr inhibitors
As for topical administration vs oral of natural egfr inhibitors...most of them have very poor bio-availability and would probably do very little when taken orally. Additionally the process is taking place right at the top level of epidermis so its not about getting a drug to the root of a hair follicle.
I know who TAGHOL is . I used to post on hairsite in the late 90s - early 2000's with the handle "bug" mostly about ps1, tb4, 6-benzylaminopurine, bmps....wnts..beta catenin...etc.
You should really be applauding and encouraging people to try different things...yes many will fail regardless of what they try(actually odds are everyone will fail regardless of what they try including follica) ....but if one person discovers that a lot of hair can be grown with light wounding and a topical natural egfr inhibitor then that person is a hero. If nobody tries then we will never know.
The true spirit should be this...everyone try all kinds of wounding and all kinds of egfr inhibitors and lets see who hits the jackpot. Not even Follica knows what will work yet(or if at all)
bug
michael barry said:
Were the mice in the experiments washed Bugbug?
No, they weren't. Thats why I say until somebody has success washing their nogging post-wounding, I'd keep the shampoo and all the chemicals therein (like tea tree oil which is used as a healing ointment and is quite good at it) off of the wound. Why on earth would you want to painfully abrade your scalp and have to live with that discomfort for a good week up there, feeling like youve had a massive sunburn, for nothing at all. I want the guys to have success on the first try (so they can tell me exactly what they did so I can cop it).
Bugbug, you need to learn to read EXACTLY what people write before you fire off presumptiously. I wasn't calling people stupid for trying to use getifitinib topically. I was calling people stupid (but didn't want to be explicit) for wanting to use NATURAL EGF-inhibitiors, most of which ALSO INHIBIT WNT (look it up, they damn near all inhibit wnt and this includes quercitin, green tea, apple polyphenols, etc.) WHEN THE PATENT EXPLICITY STATES TO USE NON-NATURALLY OCCURING EGF-Inhibitors.
Furthermore, SOME of the egf-inhibitors listed like lefloumonide (brand name Arava) DEFINITELY have to be converted to another metabolic form by the body to inhibit egf (in lefloumonide's case by tyrosine kinease inhibition). If you dont believe me, log onto hairsite and ask TAGOHL, who knows more about hair than anyone Ive ever talked to besides Bryan Shelton.
You are probably right though. I shouldn't have used strong language in denouncing folks wanting to use naturals up there (that unfortunately inhibit wnt, and may not be effective for other reasons besides that). But I stand by this----a lot of the men who will be trying this attempting to put their own spin on it are going to go through a painful week on their noggin' for nothing at all. Dermabrasion isn't a picnic when it removes the stratum cornelium, and feels like a really bad sunburn. Like I said................I want these guys to have success, take pictures, and come back here and tell me exactly how they did it. Ive been guinea pig enough over the past two years trying various anti-androgens on my beard hair, wrist hair, etc. Im tired of experimenting trying to find a great anti-androgen topical that we can make at home, and certainly dont want to phuck with this until Im reasonably sure I'll have success. Thats why I would advise erring on the side of caution and trying to cop it as close to the vest as possible.
But then again.................I hope you DO shampoo and HAVE success. Believe me, I'd much rather be able to wash up there post-wouding. I want one of you to grow a chia pet up there, come back here, and share how. Im mindful that Follica is being evasive in the patent. Daphne Zohar wont even mention in interviews what two FDA-approved medications they intend to use in their trials. And they haven't tried this on a human yet, so we dont know exactly what they intend to try. The patents (both of them) attempt to cover every conievable scenario so no other entity would even have a chance of patenting anything related and have success. I firmly believe that ---if----this works in vivo on a human being, we will be able to pretty much do it at home.
Best of luck with it bugbug. I hope you grow alot of hair (so you can tell us all how you did it).[/quote:laat7adf]
I'm not sure where you read this because it not only contradicts Elaine Fuchs research, it's also not what I read in the abstract
"Inhibition of Wnt signalling after re-epithelialization completely abrogates this wounding-induced folliculogenesis, whereas overexpression of Wnt ligand in the epidermis increases the number of regenerated hair follicles."
Note one of the author is George Cotsarelis & it was published in 2007, so it's one of the latest research publications:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v447/n7142/abs/nature05766.html
Another article:
"In genetically modified mice, the researchers induced expression of a protein that inhibits the wnt proteins from the time of the wound to 17 days later. While the wound healed normally, they found, hair follicles did not form.
In contrast, when they performed the experiment on mice genetically modified to over-express wnt proteins, the animals developed more than twice the number of new hair follicles as controls did."
http://www.medpagetoday.com/Surgery/GeneralSurgery/tb/5674
Read the whole paper not just the abstact. As you quoted from the abstract that yes indeed when they inhibited wnts from 0 -17 they abrogated the neogenesis but when they inhibited it from days 0-10 the follicular neogenesis increased 3 fold over just wounding. Additionally the hair quaility was better when they inhibited Wnts during the 1st 10 days. You need to read the whole paper.
By the way im still waiting for you to back up your claim that Elaine Fuchs is working with Follica because the last time I talked with her she never mentioned it...but that was quite awhile ago.
bug
By the way im still waiting for you to back up your claim that Elaine Fuchs is working with Follica because the last time I talked with her she never mentioned it...but that was quite awhile ago.
bug
goata007 said:
michael barry
Senior Member
- Reaction score
- 12
bugbug, I'll try and respond as best I can----so I'll paste your thoughts and print mine:
Michael
What is the point of selectively quoting one embodiment from the 1st patent? Why dont you quote the million other embodiments from both patents? You know... the ones describe all kinds of stuff you can apply to the wounds? You do understand the difference between a patent and a published experiment right? Absolutely. The "anti-infective" verbiage is what is "tricky" in my opinion. I have a shampoo (American Crew Thickening) that has tea tree oil in it. Its a good anti-infective as is saparona bark or emu oil, both of which are in some shampoos that hairloss junkies (like me) have. Im mindful that the mice in the experiments almost certainly were not shampooed, so in the spirit of caution, Ive advocated to others that are going to endure trying this at home, that they might not want to use shampoo for fear that some anti-infective ingredient might be therein. Upon looking at the second patent further, I see that sodium laureth sulfate is metioned as something that can be used for whatever usage..............so most shampoos are probably going to be OK. I cannot emphasize enough how much I want somebody to have big success with this....
I agree that not reading all the literature is bad...but it is just as bad to selectively quote. Yes very true, but it certainly wasn't my intent to mislead by doing so---but I know what you mean, and people do this all the time.
Speaking of reading all of the literature...have you bothered to read the paper publish in Nature? No, Ive not. Did you know that by just wounding they produced an average of 35 new follicles in an area of 2cm^2 but when they inhibited WNTs via DKK1 using transgenic mice between days 0-10 post wounding the number increased to 97! That's basically triple the number of follicles by inhibiting wnt not up-regulating it which is what lithium does. Additionally they improved hair quality by inhibiting wnts during those first 10 days. Was this experiment done in mice or human skin grafted onto mice? The re-epilithialization period for human skin was shorter than with the mice. Experiment 7 in the first patent shows that hair germs were detected at day 7 post wounding, and it was something like day 12 or so in the mice. The patent calls for the administration of topicals in one embodiment at day "3-12"......which is a mere 3 days after the wound. Im guessing the human skin would re-epilithialize between days 3-5 depending on how deep the dermabrasion was performed. This is a good point that you bring up.
As for them stating non-natural inhibitors...one can not patent anything that occurs naturally. Im not saying that's the reason but its a good one. The other reason could the non-specificity of natural egfr inhibitors
As for topical administration vs oral of natural egfr inhibitors...most of them have very poor bio-availability and would probably do very little when taken orally. Additionally the process is taking place right at the top level of epidermis so its not about getting a drug to the root of a hair follicle. Yes, that is a valid concern. I thought about the finasteride tablets Ive been taking for years.................so small, yet they reliably inhibit 5AR2 so well in the little hairs on my scalp, toes, wherever. Im aware of the internal bioavailability concerns with certain naturals in particular like curcumin. Milk thistle seems to be considered effective in extract form. Remember I was telling others to use the synthetics in the patent for the greatest chance of success. If you looked at the picture of the man who regrew alot of hair on his scalp with getfitinib (and that dude who grew terminal hair all over his nose with it), you'd agree that whatever hair-inductive property that drug has...............gets transmitted with oral dosage for certain. You can buy it at 3gchemist.com or some such (TAGOHL told me that).
I know who TAGHOL is . I used to post on hairsite in the late 90s - early 2000's with the handle "bug" mostly about ps1, tb4, 6-benzylaminopurine, bmps....wnts..beta catenin...etc. Its a shame that hairsite has devolved to what it is now. It was a better site back in 2002 when I first encountered it. The continuous dissapointment over ICX and Aderans (who have mislead everyone on their progress in my opinion as to how far along they are) has made the long-time knowledgeable guys drop off the board in many instances. There are a good many guys over there who are either desperate and willing to believe anything, or so cyncial that they believe everything is some sort of scam and worthy of condecension. The level of discussion certainly isn't what it once was there. JTR and James Bond were so dissapointed by ICX's last trial results, that they hardly ever post anymore. I cant say I blame them. Im really "burnt out" on the subject of hair, and believe that if either follica or more remotely , ACELL dont work.......that it might be a decade or so before anything holding promise comes to fruition.
You should really be applauding and encouraging people to try different things...yes many will fail regardless of what they try(actually odds are everyone will fail regardless of what they try including follica) ....but if one person discovers that a lot of hair can be grown with light wounding and a topical natural egfr inhibitor then that person is a hero. If nobody tries then we will never know. Yes, good point. I hope men dont get too down if they try something and it doesn't go. I hope they come back here and let everyone know exactly what they did also. If we get one guy with success, we can all just copy what he did as a base. Thats my hope. I know men are going to try it. The true spirit should be this...everyone try all kinds of wounding and all kinds of egfr inhibitors and lets see who hits the jackpot. Not even Follica knows what will work yet(or if at all)
Im focusing on example 7 in the patent the most, because it was with human skin. When you decide to give it a go................I hope you will let us know what you did, on what day, everything you used as a carrier, what brand of shampoo, etc. I dont think Follica is going to be giving us any more help in the way of info. Im pretty sure they are astonished at how interested men are in getting all their hair back ASAP. I think its our only hope in the next several years as Im pretty pessimistic about HM. The last cohort in the ICX trial had "some" better regrowth with "pre-stimulation" of the scalp. It turns out that the pre-stimulation was abrasion. For all we know, the pre-stimulation was the only thing that grew any hair on these guys. I cant think of another way to grow "new" hair on a bald area of scalp other than this or ACELL. If these dont work, I honestly think it will be many years---thus I admit to some bias in wanting this to work and even being a little too zealous in that regard.
Best of luck with it! m
Michael
What is the point of selectively quoting one embodiment from the 1st patent? Why dont you quote the million other embodiments from both patents? You know... the ones describe all kinds of stuff you can apply to the wounds? You do understand the difference between a patent and a published experiment right? Absolutely. The "anti-infective" verbiage is what is "tricky" in my opinion. I have a shampoo (American Crew Thickening) that has tea tree oil in it. Its a good anti-infective as is saparona bark or emu oil, both of which are in some shampoos that hairloss junkies (like me) have. Im mindful that the mice in the experiments almost certainly were not shampooed, so in the spirit of caution, Ive advocated to others that are going to endure trying this at home, that they might not want to use shampoo for fear that some anti-infective ingredient might be therein. Upon looking at the second patent further, I see that sodium laureth sulfate is metioned as something that can be used for whatever usage..............so most shampoos are probably going to be OK. I cannot emphasize enough how much I want somebody to have big success with this....
I agree that not reading all the literature is bad...but it is just as bad to selectively quote. Yes very true, but it certainly wasn't my intent to mislead by doing so---but I know what you mean, and people do this all the time.
Speaking of reading all of the literature...have you bothered to read the paper publish in Nature? No, Ive not. Did you know that by just wounding they produced an average of 35 new follicles in an area of 2cm^2 but when they inhibited WNTs via DKK1 using transgenic mice between days 0-10 post wounding the number increased to 97! That's basically triple the number of follicles by inhibiting wnt not up-regulating it which is what lithium does. Additionally they improved hair quality by inhibiting wnts during those first 10 days. Was this experiment done in mice or human skin grafted onto mice? The re-epilithialization period for human skin was shorter than with the mice. Experiment 7 in the first patent shows that hair germs were detected at day 7 post wounding, and it was something like day 12 or so in the mice. The patent calls for the administration of topicals in one embodiment at day "3-12"......which is a mere 3 days after the wound. Im guessing the human skin would re-epilithialize between days 3-5 depending on how deep the dermabrasion was performed. This is a good point that you bring up.
As for them stating non-natural inhibitors...one can not patent anything that occurs naturally. Im not saying that's the reason but its a good one. The other reason could the non-specificity of natural egfr inhibitors
As for topical administration vs oral of natural egfr inhibitors...most of them have very poor bio-availability and would probably do very little when taken orally. Additionally the process is taking place right at the top level of epidermis so its not about getting a drug to the root of a hair follicle. Yes, that is a valid concern. I thought about the finasteride tablets Ive been taking for years.................so small, yet they reliably inhibit 5AR2 so well in the little hairs on my scalp, toes, wherever. Im aware of the internal bioavailability concerns with certain naturals in particular like curcumin. Milk thistle seems to be considered effective in extract form. Remember I was telling others to use the synthetics in the patent for the greatest chance of success. If you looked at the picture of the man who regrew alot of hair on his scalp with getfitinib (and that dude who grew terminal hair all over his nose with it), you'd agree that whatever hair-inductive property that drug has...............gets transmitted with oral dosage for certain. You can buy it at 3gchemist.com or some such (TAGOHL told me that).
I know who TAGHOL is . I used to post on hairsite in the late 90s - early 2000's with the handle "bug" mostly about ps1, tb4, 6-benzylaminopurine, bmps....wnts..beta catenin...etc. Its a shame that hairsite has devolved to what it is now. It was a better site back in 2002 when I first encountered it. The continuous dissapointment over ICX and Aderans (who have mislead everyone on their progress in my opinion as to how far along they are) has made the long-time knowledgeable guys drop off the board in many instances. There are a good many guys over there who are either desperate and willing to believe anything, or so cyncial that they believe everything is some sort of scam and worthy of condecension. The level of discussion certainly isn't what it once was there. JTR and James Bond were so dissapointed by ICX's last trial results, that they hardly ever post anymore. I cant say I blame them. Im really "burnt out" on the subject of hair, and believe that if either follica or more remotely , ACELL dont work.......that it might be a decade or so before anything holding promise comes to fruition.
You should really be applauding and encouraging people to try different things...yes many will fail regardless of what they try(actually odds are everyone will fail regardless of what they try including follica) ....but if one person discovers that a lot of hair can be grown with light wounding and a topical natural egfr inhibitor then that person is a hero. If nobody tries then we will never know. Yes, good point. I hope men dont get too down if they try something and it doesn't go. I hope they come back here and let everyone know exactly what they did also. If we get one guy with success, we can all just copy what he did as a base. Thats my hope. I know men are going to try it. The true spirit should be this...everyone try all kinds of wounding and all kinds of egfr inhibitors and lets see who hits the jackpot. Not even Follica knows what will work yet(or if at all)
Im focusing on example 7 in the patent the most, because it was with human skin. When you decide to give it a go................I hope you will let us know what you did, on what day, everything you used as a carrier, what brand of shampoo, etc. I dont think Follica is going to be giving us any more help in the way of info. Im pretty sure they are astonished at how interested men are in getting all their hair back ASAP. I think its our only hope in the next several years as Im pretty pessimistic about HM. The last cohort in the ICX trial had "some" better regrowth with "pre-stimulation" of the scalp. It turns out that the pre-stimulation was abrasion. For all we know, the pre-stimulation was the only thing that grew any hair on these guys. I cant think of another way to grow "new" hair on a bald area of scalp other than this or ACELL. If these dont work, I honestly think it will be many years---thus I admit to some bias in wanting this to work and even being a little too zealous in that regard.
Best of luck with it! m
ThunderTurd
New Member
- Reaction score
- 0
I'm new so take it easy on me please! I had a thought last night. Seeing as how so many people on-line between the different forums are trying this at home, wouldn't you think Follica is keeping an eye on these threads? Furthermore, If you guys were getting close to what they are actually intending on doing don't you think they would take some steps to try and stop it. I mean, Imagine they put millions of dollars into this and then a couple of very intelligent people on here figure it out on their own and post it on the internet....For Free! If I were follica, I would be pissed. So I guess what I am saying is IF follica is watching this (and since they have gone "underground" or "radio silence" I'm sure they are atleast aware) Wouldn't they start to sweat a little if they felt we had it figured out? I guess if they start pressuring the site admin it would be a really good sign we are on to it? Or am I just crazy?
juggernaut
New Member
- Reaction score
- 0
ThunderTurd said:
How are they going to stop it? Everything mentioned in the patent and is available and is obtainable. The patent seems more for the process and not on any new chemical/substance. Am I wrong here?
ThunderTurd
New Member
- Reaction score
- 0
I never said they COULD stop it, I said they could TRY and stop it. I would if I were them, and to me that would be a pretty good sign that HairLossTalk.com was on the right track and very close to figuring it out. I mean, this is their intelluctual property that they have spent millions researching. I don't know how much experience you have with patent law, but lawyers can be quite threatening when you are infringing on them. I am not going to pretend I know patent law or anything outside of having a patent re-voked because another company had "prior art", but I would think that even if they can't control the beast, they would attemt to cage it. Just giving you guys another angle to think about, so no-one gets sued. Having said that, I notice some guys on here are voicing complaints about how to get a uniform dermabrasion. Again, don't know too much about it but I am an engineer and machinist and I would be more than willing to "team-up" with someone and try to design and manufacture a tool/device to get a good uniform abrasion. Anyone have any ideas PM me.
juggernaut
New Member
- Reaction score
- 0
I don't think Follica is too concerned about the miniscule of the population that's going to try this. That is something I would imagine they take as a given and is beyond their control. If their trials go through with flying colors, they will be plenty happy with the 99.98% of the balding men and women who are going to use their official route of therapy. Think about it, we are talking about sanding our our scalps, puncturing holes and doing acid peels on it. It sounds a little scary and barbaric to me. Moreover, buying chemicals over the internet to use as a topical or internal. Who would do this? We would, but all my balding friends wouldn't. They want to see results and wait a few years to make sure I don't grow another head or develop cancer or something. Personally, I don't think they are going to try to stop it unless they feel someone or another entity is trying to profit over this at their expense. That doen't mean they don't know about the discussions of these forums, I'm sure they do.ThunderTurd said:
we could do with befriending a couple of dermatologist students who would be willing to help participate in our practice and help us find answers to questions that we can only trawl Google for, such as certain drugs/minerals and what they can or cant achieve...
Also valid point about this getting too big... if one of us did hit the jackpot and posted it on here, can you imagine how fast it would spread? that site would meltdown... it would be emailed across the world, and in the media before you know it... and follica don’t want that, you cant blame them. im sure with enough financial clout this site could disappear overnight if something big was posted.... thus it maybe wise to have a Email pool for all involved, just encase of an emergency so we have a plan B ?
I'd be willing to save all data from thread and collect emails that would never be used unless this thread/site vanished on us.
Also valid point about this getting too big... if one of us did hit the jackpot and posted it on here, can you imagine how fast it would spread? that site would meltdown... it would be emailed across the world, and in the media before you know it... and follica don’t want that, you cant blame them. im sure with enough financial clout this site could disappear overnight if something big was posted.... thus it maybe wise to have a Email pool for all involved, just encase of an emergency so we have a plan B ?
I'd be willing to save all data from thread and collect emails that would never be used unless this thread/site vanished on us.