Follica - Good News!

[Matt27]

I think Follica is more worried about overseas Derm labs and clinics that might want to try this out on their own. I believe there is already a guy who posted on this thread from Italy?? It would be virtually impossible to do anything about it half way around the world, especially in a place like China or Thailand, etc. Good luck shutting that operation down.

 

[patagonia]

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.

I believe that Follica´s main concern might be overseas labs performing their procedure... although the idea of them not being too happy and doing something about... with someone in the forums hitting the jackpot and spreading the news, has crossed my mind.... its possibility.

Great idea chancer..

count me in.

 

[jared_24]

Not to sound too pessimistic, but I think the chances of somebody "hitting the jackpot" on here are slim to none. They are more likely to win the lottery than discover Follica's winning procedure (which to be fair, I doubt has even been proven to be fully successful by Follica yet.)

I am pretty sure that Follica have released only a fraction of information regarding the procedure and all of the most important key elements have been left out of the initial press release (for obvious reasons!!!!!!)

This is a classic case of people 'jumping the gun'.....

Again, what with all this talk of people self-treating by "sandpapering" and using acids on their skin sounds to me like a very dangerous game and could possibly even cause permanent (and totally unnecessary) damage/scarring to the scalp.

The LAST thing you want is to cause even more problems up there!!!!

 

[harold]

I am pretty sure that Follica have released only a fraction of information regarding the procedure and all of the most important key elements have been left out of the initial press release (for obvious reasons!!!!!!)

This is a classic case of people 'jumping the gun'.....

Nobody is talking a bout a press release. People are talking about information disclosed in a patent. If Follica does not disclose their method their then they wont be able to legally protect it.
hh

 

[harold]

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?

I doubt they care about 10 or so hardcre people who are willing to go to such extremes.
hh

 

[chancer]

10 hardcore ppl on a thread that has been read 23000 times already and is constantly growing in understanding the elements to create the right environment for success!!

Lets say between us hardcore few we have accumulated 3000 of those hits... there 20,000 other folk digesting this and you cant foreseeable envisage how far flung that web as cast and where the info on this forum has travelled to. Imagine 20,000 people at a conference then all leaving to spread that info into all corners of the world?

if one of us gets some success out of this and posts the formula, technique and illustrated pictures on it.... we are talking meltdown... the traffic would be too much for the server to cope with i would imagine.

In this day and age the word "hero" is misplaced into the realms of fiction. Somebody on here could just be a real life hero. Lets move forward in a positive fashion and not dwell on the negative...

 

[goata007]

if one of us gets some success out of this and posts the formula, technique and illustrated pictures on it.... we are talking meltdown... the traffic would be too much for the server to cope with i would imagine.

Relax! nothing will happen...turns out most of the people don't care about a cure for baldness, even the bald people. So finding a cure won't lead to any meltdowns or follica going after the admin of this website. They legaly can't do anything about someone copying their patent, unless that person is selling the technqiue thus making profit off of Follica's method. That's the whole point of patent system - spreading knowledge without someone else taking credit/money off of it.

 

[harold]

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.

"Because Wnt proteins have a key role in normal hair follicle development
and cycling11,23,24, we tested whether Wnt blockade inhibits hair
follicle neogenesis following wounding. We induced expression of
secreted Dkk1, a Wnt inhibitor, in tetO-Dkk1;K5rtTA mice at the
time of wounding until 17 days later (Fig. 4g–i, k, l). Although the
time to re-epithelialization was normal, hair follicles did not form
(Supplementary Table 1). Induction of Dkk1 between days 0 and 10
after wounding did not prevent hair follicle neogenesis. However,
transient induction of Dkk1 after wound closure inhibited neogenesis
and indicated the necessity of Wnt signalling for hair follicle neogenesis
(Supplementary Table 1)."

Looking at the p values from Supplementary Table 1 it can be seen that the difference of 97 hairs to 75 hairs when wnt was not inhibited from days 0-10 is not significant and that is why there was no increase in hairs noted with wnt inhibition in the paper itself or the abstract.As far as I could see there was nothing about a difference in quality of hairs.
However there was an interesting note about hair density which is something that people have been wondering about with Follica.

"Supplementary Table 2: Hair follicle density: To assess hair follicle density, we measured the distance between
follicles in three different conditions: 1. intact back skin in normal mice, 2. the area of new hair follicle formation
following wounding in normal mice, and 3. the area of new hair follicle formation following wounding in
Wnt7a overexpressing mice. We examined 100 follicles in 3 mice for each condition.
In normal mice, the space between hair follicles is smaller along the sagittal axis (head to tail) compared
to the coronal axis (side to side). For example, the distance between follicles in intact pelage skin of normal
mice was 0.09±0.02 mm sagittally and 0.17±0.04 mm coronally. In contrast, the newly formed follicles in both
control and K14-Wnt7a mice following wounding were spaced with an intermediate distance between them
(0.11±0.03 mm for control and 0.11±0.04 for Wnt7a mice), and there was no apparent difference between coronal
and sagittal distances.SD, standard deviation"

and this about the direction that the hairs grew in at which at least one person has expressed concern over before.

"Supplementary Figure 2: Hair follicle orientation. To evaluate the
orientation of the newly formed follicles, we examined the direction
of the follicles in 3 mice. Approximately 72-80% of the follicles
were pointing in the correct direction (within approximately
a 30 degree angle). A representative example is shown here in this
K14CreR26R mouse in which the keratinocytes are blue for easier
visualization of the follicles. In this mouse, 31/41 hair follicles
were growing in the correct cephalad orientation. The image is
taken 30 days after wounding."

hh

 

[harold]

I dont know what you mean when you talk about controlled wounding. The reason people dont get better skin after sunburn is because the free radicals and rultraviolet radiation play merry hell with your DNA. It has nothing to do with the sunburn being "uncontrolled" as opposed to controlled in a solarium. UV radiation is actually mentioned in the patent as one way to damage/stimulate the epidermis.
There is a difference between gouging yourself with a dremel - if you damage the dermis you will cause scarring. But you would have a hard time trying to accomplish that with sandpaper or my trusty BBQ brush.

What you're talking about, the assault on DNA, is the long term effect of sunburns/excessive sun exposure.

No this happens after a single exposure to the sun.

What i'm talking about is the rejuvenation effect e.g. your skin just won't improve after a sunburn even though it causes peeling & redness on the other hand,

I dont know that this is true. People oten look great after a suntan. Its only after years that the damage shows up. Any rejuvenation effect is due to your skin

Chemical peels like TCA also mimic a sunburn BUT do so in a controlled manner i.e. they are designed for that purpose, so essentialy your skin gets sunburned, peels and gets better!

Note: People who are sunburned often get chemical peels to restore their skins - something you can't do with abrasion!

Not so. Dermabrasion a widely used treatment for photodamage.

J Craniofac Surg. 2008 May;19(3):812-6.
A different and cheap method: sandpaper (manual dermasanding) in treatment of periorbital wrinkles.
Emsen IM.

Department of Plastic Reconstructive and Aesthetic, Surgery, Numune State Hospital, Erzurum, Turkey. ilterisemsen@hotmail.com

Dermabrasion is a nonchemical, superficial skin resurfacing procedure. It owes its popularity to the simplicity and safety of the technique. Studies published in peer-reviewed journals have highlighted the benefits of multiple, once-a-week treatments in improving hyperchromic discolorations, facial scarring, and facial photodamage. The mechanism of action through which microdermabrasion ameliorates skin appearance is not fully understood. Several studies suggest that the clinical improvement is produced through a dermal remodeling/wound healing repair. Regardless of the mechanism, patients and operators alike recognize the efficacy of this procedure. We are introducing a new method to treatment of facial wrinkles. Dermabrasion with sandpaper is not a new procedure in mechanic dermabrasion. However, we used it for the first time in treating periorbital wrinkles.

There is also a FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE between Abrasion (Dermabrasion, Sandpaper, dremel) VS Chemical Peels. Abrasion Only works on top of the skin, in that it removes the dead skin cells which get replaced by newer cells - thus improving the LOOK of the skin. Chemical Peels rejuvenate the skin, they work at a deeper level, thus improving the health of the scalp which in our case is a must.

In fact in this study abrasion and chemical peeling are shown to achieve the same changes in the skin. The only differnce is dermabrasion is shown to be more effective.


Dermatol Surg. 2004 Feb;30(2 Pt 1):179-88.
Trichloroacetic acid peeling versus dermabrasion: a histometric, immunohistochemical, and ultrastructural comparison.
El-Domyati MB, Attia SK, Saleh FY, Ahmad HM, Uitto JJ.

Department of Dermatology, Faculty of Medicine, Al-Minya University, Al-Minya, Egypt.

BACKGROUND: Trichloroacetic acid (TCA) chemical peel and dermabrasion are beneficial methods for treatment of photoaged skin. OBJECTIVE: In this study, we evaluated the changes induced by these therapies on various structures of facial skin of nine dark-skinned patients (Fitzpatrick types IV-V; TCA, five patients; dermabrasion, four patients) demonstrating different degrees of photodamage. METHODS: Routine histopathology coupled with histometric computer-assisted image analysis was used to assess epidermal changes. Alcian blue stain was used to evaluate changes in glycosaminoglycans. Immunoperoxidase techniques with antibodies against types I and III collagen and elastin were used to evaluate quantitatively changes in collagen and elastic fibers, and their ultrastructure was examined by transmission electron microscopy. RESULTS: Similar histologic, immunohistochemical, as well as ultrastructural changes were observed in the two groups, including epidermal and dermal rejuvenation with new collagen deposition and normalization of the elastic tissue. However, these changes were more prominent in patients treated with dermabrasion than those treated with TCA. CONCLUSION: The results of this study suggest that beneficial effects of such modalities on facial skin were accomplished primarily by increasing the amounts of collagen I and collagen III and improving the morphologic appearance of collagen and elastic fibers.

Again I think you are making too much out of the supposed differences between these different methods.
hh

 

[harold]

Article: Suppression of wnt signalling by green tea compound, http://www.jbc.org/cgi/content/abstract/281/16/10865


Article: Suppression of wnt signalling by apple polyphenol, http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=18119900


Article: Suppression of wnt signalling by quercetin: http://www.jacionline.org/medline/record/MDLN.16968065

while I am not sure what to make of the EGCG stuff you might want to take a loook at this one on quercetin/EGCG again. It doesnt show that quercetin interferes with wnt signalling. It also shows that EGCG inhibits GSK-Beta but decreases beta-catenin which is...counter-intuitive.

Article: Resveratrol and wnt: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/jour ... 6/abstract


Article: Curcumin and wnt, http://www.agrawal.org/PDF/Curcumin-Season-Bw1.pdf

That article is big but the only thing of relevance I could find was curcumin actually upregulating beta-catenin.
hh

Wasn't happy to find any of that, but there it is. I sure wish those articles reached a different conclusion. Believe me, I'd love to just take some quercetin tablets (or merely eat a few apples), sandpaper my scalp and voilia': hair. It would be so much easier---and cheaper.....




Lithium Chloride mimics some wnt signalling, but almost assuredly isn't as good as wnt applied itself. Wnt7a was the specific wnt in the patent that really "upped" the effect on the mice, but I'd have absolutely no idea how we could get our mitts on refined wnt7a from a lab. I dont think anything like that would be for sale to the general public.

 

[harold]

[quote:20pro8es]Lithium causes permanent destruction to thyroid gland. All bi-polar patients are also prescribed thyroid medication which they have to take until they die.

I doubt taking lithium for few days will cause permanent damage...its a result of long time usage (as I mentioned several times earlier). With Follica you'd only be on topical/oral lithium for few days, who knows they might have found some other drug that also regulates WNT signalling.

Litihium creates a marker that tells the the autoimmune system to start attacking the thyroid gland. It has nothing to do with dosage or long term use. The lithium itself is not destoying the gland. It could take a very long time...like a lifetime before the thyroid is destroyed because the attack is slow. Stopping the lithium does not stop the attack. It permanant, progressive and irreversible.
[/quote:20pro8es]

You have a reference for this? Everything I have seen shows that while thyroid disorders are more frequent in those being treated with lithium the kind of worst case scenario you describe is not exactly common.
hh

J Endocrinol Invest. 2007 May;30(5):363-6.Click here to read Links
Fifteen-year follow-up of thyroid function in lithium patients.
Bocchetta A, Cocco F, Velluzzi F, Del Zompo M, Mariotti S, Loviselli A.

Section of Clinical Pharmacology, Bernard B. Brodie Department of Neurosciences, University of Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy. bocchett@unica.it

OBJECTIVE: To study prospectively the course of clinically relevant thyroid dysfunction in a cohort of patients on long-term lithium treatment. METHOD: Patients (no.=150) who had undergone a cross-sectional evaluation of their thyroid function in 1989, when they were at different stages of lithium treatment, were followed up for thyroid circulating thyroid antibodies, hypothyroidism, hyperthyroidism, and thyroidectomy, during a further period of lithium exposure of up to 15 yr. RESULTS: Annual rates of newly developed circulating thyroid antibodies and hypothyroidism were 1.7 and 1.5%, respectively. Subjects with thyroid antibodies had a higher chance of requiring substitution treatment with levothyroxine for hypothyroidism compared with subjects with no evidence of thyroid antibodies (6.4% annual rate compared to 0.8%; relative risk: 8.4; 95% confidence interval: 2.9-24.0). One case of hyperthyroidism was observed over 976 patient-yr. Three patients underwent thyroidectomy during followup (two for multinodular goiter and one for multicentric papillary carcinoma). CONCLUSIONS: Lithium may be associated with hypothyroidism in particular in the presence of circulating thyroid antibodies. Incidence of thyroid antibodies is comparable with that reported for the general population. Hyperthyroidism and thyroid cancer are rare.

J Affect Disord. 2005 Aug;87(2-3):313-7.Click here to read Links
A cross-sectional and a prospective study of thyroid disorders in lithium-treated patients.
Kirov G, Tredget J, John R, Owen MJ, Lazarus JH.

Department of Psychological Medicine, Cardiff University, Henry Wellcome Building, Heath Park, Cardiff CF14 4XN, Wales, UK. kirov@cardiff.ac.uk

BACKGROUND: The effects of lithium treatment on the thyroid gland have been demonstrated in a number of studies. Most of this research is based on cross-sectional studies and prospective studies are required to confirm these observations. METHOD: During our genetic association studies, we recruited 115 males and 159 females suffering with affective disorders who had received lithium treatment. We observed longitudinally 57 of these patients, who attended our clinic for between 1 and 7 years and had no thyroid abnormalities at baseline. We performed regular checks of thyroid antibodies, thyroid function tests and lithium levels. RESULTS: Hypo- and hyperthyroidism, including cases that developed prior to lithium treatment, were more common in women (25.8%) than in men (8.7%) and increased with age. By the age of 65, the risk in women increased to 50%. Hypothyroidism was induced by lithium in 17% women. In the prospective study, 4 out of 33 women developed hypothyroidism (an incidence of 27.4 cases per 1000 years). One woman developed thyrotoxicosis. CONCLUSIONS: The risk for hypothyroidism induced by lithium is especially increased in women over the age of 50. Women should be warned of the risks involved when offered lithium treatment. The frequency of lithium-induced thyrotoxicosis is very low.

 

[michael barry]

lithium chloride is different from just lithium just as carbon monoxide is different from carbonDIoxide and black carbon power



I understand Bugbug's aversion to taking lithium chloride..................but its simply hard to imagine taking something for a mere ten days at the most internally, something that was once used as a replacement for table salt, going to be all that bad................maybe thats just me. Follica didn't mention it in the second patet, so perhaps they found the natural amount of upregulated wnt in response to the wound plus the egf-inhibitors was "enough" in their estimation to get the whole process rolling up there. I hope that is the case.

 

[juggernaut]

Follica may find a more effective method when it's all said and done. When they accidently discover that what they did to the mice grew hair, well... we have to think what they were trying to do in the first place in this experiment. This should give us a clue. They weren't trying to grow hair, they were trying to rid a tumor with skin grafting and having that heal without the tumor returning. I can't see how lithium would be used here but I could be wrong.

 

[michael barry]

follica merely wounded their skin and hair follicles grew on hairless mice..................





in experiment 7 in the patent, follica wounded HUMAN SKIN grafted onto mice that was hairless, and hair germs were detected seven days later. It was just wounding, nothing else.



the wounding of the skin, the removal of the top epdermal layers with the stratum cornelium, is what gets the epidermal cells to build new hair follicles when epidermal growth factor is blocked



READ THE PATENT

 

[juggernaut]

They weren't trying to grow hair when it happened. What would the point of grafting human skin on a mice?

 

[michael barry]

They weren't trying to grow hair when it happened. What would the point of grafting human skin on a mice?

Yes they were. WHY DONT YOU READ THE PATENT?????????????????


You are a newbie, with less than ten posts. Read the patent instead of barging in on a thread where an advanced discussion is taking place. They wanted, LIKE THEY SAID IN THE PATENT, to find out if new hair follicles coudl be generated in human skin like they were in mouse skin when wounded in a particualar way (abrasion and removal of the epidermal layer and stratum cornelium layer), and they found it to be successful.



Here is example 7 of the patent:


EXAMPLE 7

EDIHN-INDUCES NEW HAIR FOLLICLES IN HUMAN SKIN

MATERIALS AND EXPERIMENTAL METHODS

Grafting

[000210] Discarded human, adult scalp from the preauricular area obtained from plastic surgery was grafted onto immunodeficient (scid) mice. The graft was bandaged and allowed to heal, then was used in the wound healing study 3 months after grafting.

RESULTS

[000211 ] To determine whether human skin responded to EDIHN as did mouse skin, human skin was grafted onto SCID (immuno-deficient) mice and subjected to depilation by plucking and wound induction three days later. Seven days following wound induction, formation of new HF was observed in the human skin (Figure 2 IA; arrows indicate new HF) by hematoxylin and eosin staining of paraffin embedded tissue sections.

[000212] In additional experiments, adult human skin was grafted onto mice., abraded, and examined at 7 days post-abrasion. New HF were generated in the human skkx, which mimicked normal hair follicle formation during fetal development, as evidenced by staining for SlOO A6 or S100A4 (Figure 21B).

P-7628-PC

[000213] The results of this Example show that EDIHN can be used to generate hair growth inhuman skin as for mouse skin.

 

[juggernaut]

No they weren't u d!ck! Hey, MB -- you jerkoff, I may have less than 10 posts but I am not a newbie, not by a longshot. You may be running your mouth here since 2005 and I guess you are ready to attack anybody here with a few posts that don't pleases your eyes or in agreement with you. I've been posting in these types forums loooong before your time. I would be very weary of some of these new screen names I see around lately and so should you. I know what they said in the patent about seeing if it would grow hair on humans like it did on a mouse. That was the patent, now read again what I posted above, trust me, it's more simple than your attempted patent deciphering - lol!

They weren't trying to grow hair when it happened. What would the point of grafting human skin on a mice?

Where in the post do you see I was referring to the patent? You keep referring to the patent like it's your bible or something. I don't know about you but if I had to analyze the 2 simple sentence above:

What were they trying to accomplish when they grafted human skin on the mouse before they discovered they might have discovered a goldmine in that it grew hair? Heal a wound you jerk, not grow hair? In the patent they stated its for new hair follicle formation. I was talking about pre-patent days before they made the accidental discovery. Heal a wound -- Take a close look at the possible drugs in the patent they are using to accomplish this and you can easily eliminate 99% of the bullshit in the patent. Right now I'm struggling with the reason why lithium was taken out of the latest patent. But if you want to take this internally for 10 days go ahead. Please read the possible consequence of doing this before you think it is ok. You went off in the past on people putting their own spin on the patent you are by far the worse culprit. MB, ya D$ck!

 

[TheOne]

Sorry I had to register to post this....

It was Follica's intension from day 1 to try and grow new hair follicles, that was the whole point in grafting human skin onto a mouse, to see if it would grow hair on human skin and not just on mouse skin.

It wasn't an accident. Follica wasn't just trying to heal wounds when they grafted human skin on to mice, THEY WERE trying to grow hair.

Yes, 50 years ago it was discovered that wounding would induce follicle growth by accident but with follica that is what they had always hoped and was the basis for all their experimentation and research.

Dr Cotsarelis and others who are on Follica's team have been researching wounding for hair growth for some time now, a while before the follica patents and press releases came to light.

Calling MB a D!ck and ranting like that is hardly appropriate, I for one and many others that are following this subject appreciate MB's contribution and find his patent "deciphering" as you put it quite useful and insightful.
His posts on the patent are hell of a lot more interesting than that spew above and his patent "deciphering" is actually whats written in the patents, all you have to do is read them and you will see what they intend to do.

The patent is not only for the process but any new chemical/substance as well by the way, it lists not only what you have to do but what you have to take (the problem is it list a couple of different things that could be used for each purpose i.e for the small molecule EGFR inhibitor they have a choice from leflunomide, gefitinib, erlotinib, lapatinib, canertinib, vandetanib, CL-387785, PKI166, pelitinib, HKI-272, and HKI-357, which one they are going to use in the final treatment (if ever), Follica are probably not sure of at the moment)
If they added anything new they would have to create new patents and pretty much start over. It isn't likely that they would add anything else at this point or introduce some new miracle drug that some people think they are really going to do.

The best thing about the human skin on mouse experiment is the only thing that I know of (could be some unknown things that pop up) that differentiates it from human skin on human is our immune system, which if causes problems could be suppressed.

The only thing we are left with at this point is to wait for them to do their trials and wait a long time to see if it indeed works or try our selves and possibly beat them to it.

I suggest you do a little more reading before you bite peoples heads off. Think before you type.
There are people looking at this thread trying to do some valuable research and we don't need posts like yours (or this) spamming it up.

 

[juggernaut]

Sorry I had to register to post this....

It was Follica's intension from day 1 to try and grow new hair follicles, that was the whole point in grafting human skin onto a mouse, to see if it would grow hair on human skin and not just on mouse skin.

It wasn't an accident. Follica wasn't just trying to heal wounds when they grafted human skin on to mice, THEY WERE trying to grow hair.

Yes, 50 years ago it was discovered that wounding would induce follicle growth by accident but with follica that is what they had always hoped and was the basis for all their experimentation and research.

Dr Cotsarelis and others who are on Follica's team have been researching wounding for hair growth for some time now, a while before the follica patents and press releases came to light.

Calling MB a D!ck and ranting like that is hardly appropriate, I for one and many others that are following this subject appreciate MB's contribution and find his patent "deciphering" as you put it quite useful and insightful.
His posts on the patent are hell of a lot more interesting than that spew above and his patent "deciphering" is actually whats written in the patents, all you have to do is read them and you will see what they intend to do.

I suggest you do a little more reading before you bite peoples heads of. Think before you type.
There are people looking at this thread trying to do some valuable research and we don't need posts like yours (or this) spamming it up.

No u r wrong. Watch the video again:
http://you tube.com/watch?v=V64ht1r8APo (no space)

The research was for stem cells ability in healing skin wound in mice, what they found was shocking. Quoted straight from the video. Why would they be shocked if this is what they were looking for in the 1st place? It could just be for healing or it could be for healing after the fact of some other skin condition. Look at one of the key ingredients in their method for a clue. I have an idea, but it's only a guess. I rather not share until i'm more certain of it. Think, u might be able to figure this out yourself. I call them how I see them. You should be very selective on who's posts you listen to. Him copying and pasting sections of the patent here to prove his point proves nothing. We are as close to figuring out their methods with or without some of his his bogus posts as we are with them. Some are very good, i'll give that to him. Some are just irresponsible. I'm notletting him push his authority here because of his 3 measly years of posting. I find amusement in it sometimes. I think you need to find yourself a new hero.

 

[TheOne]

what Dr Cotsarelis was refering to in the video was his work done before Follica came about.

Since there has been Follica that has always been their intention to grow hair (clues in the name).

(what i mean was, follica weren't looking to heal tumors, they didn't exist at that point when Cotsarelis were researching)

Them human skin grafted on to mouse experiment suggests it was indeed to look for hair growth as it came after follica was formed.

Lets get back on topic please this is a pointless argument.