Follica - Good News!
- Thread starter bobs
- Start date
harold
Established Member
- Reaction score
- 11
Matt27 said:
There is a big difference but I think a microdermabrasion is sufficient. A big part of the follica thing is that while something as relatively minor as a microdermabrasion might not produce any/significant numbers of hairs with the additional chemical facilitators it should. The key is to get epithelial cells to revert to the embryonic stem cell like state from which chemial stimulus can bias them towards the production of hair follicles rather than more skin.
Besides a do-it-yourself-at-home dermabrasion is.....not recommended.
hh
michael barry
Senior Member
- Reaction score
- 12
the patent mentions removing the stratum cornelium or some such verbiage. It has to be at least that deep I think..........
jakeb
Established Member
- Reaction score
- 0
I think I did at least that... with the TCA peel more than the scrub. The strateum cornum is just the outermost layer of your epidermis. Pretty superficial. I've had skin flaking off since I a few days ago.
I've also been using a dermaroller before I add the topical caffeine to get it down below the dead skin.
I've also been using a dermaroller before I add the topical caffeine to get it down below the dead skin.
OK if it's just the Stratum Corneum then there's no need for a full dermabrasion, a micro-derm would be sufficient, and we've just saved ourselves a few thousand dollars on this procedure.
Also, just to throw this out there, if one was already getting a hair transplant, would it be all that bad of an idea to let it air-heal and then throw a little wnt-inhibiting substance on your scalp 3 days after the procedure? Would it be unreasonable to assume several hundred incisions on the scalp would be sufficient damage to kick start this process?
Think if you could create just ONE new follicle for every incision, or just one new follicle out of every two incisions.....all of a sudden a normal 2k hair transplant could easily yield ~3,500 follicles! Might be something to ponder if I were a hair transplant surgeon. Technically they're not copying Follica since they're not doing any derm, they're just applying a special "healing compound" to the recipient area.
Also, just to throw this out there, if one was already getting a hair transplant, would it be all that bad of an idea to let it air-heal and then throw a little wnt-inhibiting substance on your scalp 3 days after the procedure? Would it be unreasonable to assume several hundred incisions on the scalp would be sufficient damage to kick start this process?
Think if you could create just ONE new follicle for every incision, or just one new follicle out of every two incisions.....all of a sudden a normal 2k hair transplant could easily yield ~3,500 follicles! Might be something to ponder if I were a hair transplant surgeon. Technically they're not copying Follica since they're not doing any derm, they're just applying a special "healing compound" to the recipient area.
michael barry
Senior Member
- Reaction score
- 12
Topical caffeine is nowhere in either Follica patent
Wounds have to be 1-2 mm in diameter for the healing process to generate hairs. FUE-holes will not be big enough according to the patent.
I think alot of these men "trying this at home" are gong to be dissapointed. The emphasis in the kit-patent is on EGF-receptor inhibitors and is the most important adjuvant in getting hair to grow. I dont see anyone discussing how they plan to obtain these very expensive (2500 dollars for a month's worth) drugs without a presription. All I see are men wanting to needle their scalp (nowhere in the patent) and apply things that aren't even in the patent.
It might be prudent to at least wait and see if Follica has any success in human beings. They might not. Other things in the patent, cyclosporin, retionoids, anti-histamines, anti-microbials, anti-bacterials, anti-androgens, egf-inhibitors arent' getting much "play" in the discussion also. Just minoxidil.
Blocking wnt during re-epilithialization is probably more of a ruse concern to be honest for young people. Young people have plenty of pigment in their skin and will almost certainly not be growing white hair. Older men with salt and pepper hair might consider that. Alot of stuff inhibits wnt----------green tea for starters, but curcumin, quercetin and a few otehrs.
michael barry said:
Michael, lets just say, hypothetically, one is good personal friends with a surgeon who performs highly acidic face peels to dermabrasions (among other things) and has virtually unlimited access to any drug on earth. Lets say this surgeon also works very closely with both a dermatologist and hair restoration surgeon and they would all like to try and do a dry run, so to say, of this follica procedure on one of their patients who just has very slight temporal recession.
Would you be so kind as to walk through exactly what you would do, i.e. step 1) perform microderm in the area to be treated and leave untouched for X days, step 2) apply drug(s) X to area at day #X, and so on and so forth.
You have gone through virtually all Follica patents with a fine toothed comb so I am just curious as to how you personally would try to mimic this procedure in a wonderland where you had access to anything and everything needed and cost is no object.
Thx!
jakeb
Established Member
- Reaction score
- 0
michael barry said:
Caffeine is a Egf inhibitor. Though I'm sure it's nowhere near what these cancer drugs are (or else cancer would have been cured long ago).
But considering that before the Follica patent, there was anecdotal support for scalp peels and research to support topical caffeine. And considering putting them together vaguely coincides with Follica's patent. I thought, why not give it a go?
michael barry
Senior Member
- Reaction score
- 12
Dayum.....................apple polyphenols, daidzien, now caffeine...................interesting. Leflounimide is the only drug in the patent that is even near affordable---and its still high. They stress "non-naturally occuring" EFG antagonist with something to do with nitrogen in the patent or some such. I wonder if the naturals would not work against the healing (being biological molecules and all) and the synthetics would inhibit skin-creation being synthetics and all. Or maybe they know they can't patent the naturals and are implying they wont work becuase they are afraid tons of people would be smearing apple juice on their heads five days after sandpapering it. Who knows?
I certainly haven't went through the patent with a fine tooth comb. Ive more-or-less skimmed it a couple of times. Based on example seven in the patent (they wounded human skin grafted on a SCID mouse, and had hair germs detected in that skin in 7 days) we can tell the re-epilithialization period in humans is definitely shorter than in mice. Probably about five days (but as short as three days according to the patent) after having the stratum cornelium layer of the skin removed.
They mention using EGR-receptor antagonists, minoxidil, anti-androgens (finasteride or dutasteride), retinoids, anti-histamines, anti-microbials and anti-bacterials in the new kit patent.
It looks like the depilation is an enhancement but is optional.
I guess it shapes up about like this. 1. Depilate..............and wait 3 days..........
2. Abrade, removing the stratum cornelium. Skin shouldnt be bloody though. Might
ought to go ahead and start taking dutasteride. Might ought to take green tea
for about three days until re-epilithialization (supress wnt).
3. About four days post abrasion, start taking the internal EGF-receptor inhibiting drug,
perhaps an anti-histamine also
5. About day five or six, start using minoxdil, maybe a retinoid like retin-A or internal
retinoids, read and see what anti-microbials and anti-bacterials they use in the
patent.
6. Keep taking the stuff for about six or seven days anyway.
7. I do not know if you can wash your hair post-abrasion until hair follicles are forming
I know no ointments or healing or disinfecting topicals are supposed to be used.
I wonder if shampoo would screw the process up also. They dont say in the patent,
but the patent isn't written for people to cop this at home. The human skin had
hair germs seven days post abrasion, so I'd imagine ten days post abrasion we
would definitely have hair developing also.
That would about be my guess. However, what we can come up with at home isn't goint to be nearly as good as what they can come up with. The simpleist procedure in the patent I saw (bare minimum) was the EGF-receptor blocker+minoxidil+antiandrogen. One might take some internal lithium chloride on day five-through ten internally as a salt (mimics wnt signalling), but over long term lithium chloride is bad for you internally. You could put it on an apple, etc.
To be honest...........................it would probably be better to wait. They could fall on their faces in the trial. I sure as hell hope not, but post ICX I think we all see that the top of a humans head becomes very inhosptitable for follicle development due to the male pattern baldness process. Im just hoping it can work back in the donor area personally, but am anxiously awaiting their trial. If this doesn't work......................it will be at least five years until HM is available (and who is to say that it will be very good?). This is kinda the last hope for anyting near term.
They must be close...
i know emotionally its easier to deal with the anticipation if we look at things from a sceptical view....
But they wouldn't patent kits if they had absolutely nothing, they must be close to nailing this and time and trials is about fine tuning the chemistry.
And if people want to try micro derms in the meantime.... good on them... it keeps people positive in the gap between official updates....
i know emotionally its easier to deal with the anticipation if we look at things from a sceptical view....
But they wouldn't patent kits if they had absolutely nothing, they must be close to nailing this and time and trials is about fine tuning the chemistry.
And if people want to try micro derms in the meantime.... good on them... it keeps people positive in the gap between official updates....
Actually, one of the cheaper drugs used in the patent, is sold under the brand-name "Arava", and is not significantly more expensive than a month's worth of dutasteride. It's like 1.70 dollars a pop.
Considering that, in theory, the actual use of the arava would be 10 days, I'd say its' cost is neglible - and who knows what amounts you need topically.
Do a search for arava + online pharmacy and you should probably find some that sell without prescription.
Though another hairloss-site had a poster that questioned wheter the inhibiting effect of the drug is activated when applied topically. Apparently, enzymes have to be turned into something else from leflunomide to be active, which happens when digested.
Just passing on what I've heard (or read). I'm not a chemist, and the poster admitted he ultimately did not know either. Nobody knows until it is tested.
But it's interesting discourse. Though I guess it probably won't fit as neatly as the patent's cheapest drug being the effective one.
As promising as this seems, the cost of the drugs involved will be reflected in the bill for the procedure, though it certainly (and hopefully) will decline. I don't know what the rate of progress towards affordability is on fancy new cancer drugs.
Considering that, in theory, the actual use of the arava would be 10 days, I'd say its' cost is neglible - and who knows what amounts you need topically.
Do a search for arava + online pharmacy and you should probably find some that sell without prescription.
Though another hairloss-site had a poster that questioned wheter the inhibiting effect of the drug is activated when applied topically. Apparently, enzymes have to be turned into something else from leflunomide to be active, which happens when digested.
Just passing on what I've heard (or read). I'm not a chemist, and the poster admitted he ultimately did not know either. Nobody knows until it is tested.
But it's interesting discourse. Though I guess it probably won't fit as neatly as the patent's cheapest drug being the effective one.
As promising as this seems, the cost of the drugs involved will be reflected in the bill for the procedure, though it certainly (and hopefully) will decline. I don't know what the rate of progress towards affordability is on fancy new cancer drugs.
harold
Established Member
- Reaction score
- 11
Yeah I think it may have been me - according to the abstract of a study posted there it is an active metabolite of avanta that is the egf inhibitor. Kind of like the situation with flutamide and hydroxyflutamide. Not a problem if you are taking it orally - quite possibly a problem if you are using it topically.
I know the new patent only mentions egf inhibitors and not wnt stimulators or anything but that doesnt mean that stuff like lithium is not potentially very effective. Look at the difference in new hairs formed by mice who overexpressed wnt7a in the skin and those who did not. The important thing is to turn new cells into hair cells and not fskin cells and it just may be the case that discouraging them from becoming skin cells with an egf inhibitor is more effective than encouraging them from becoming hair cells with something that hits the wnt pathway.
I know the new patent only mentions egf inhibitors and not wnt stimulators or anything but that doesnt mean that stuff like lithium is not potentially very effective. Look at the difference in new hairs formed by mice who overexpressed wnt7a in the skin and those who did not. The important thing is to turn new cells into hair cells and not fskin cells and it just may be the case that discouraging them from becoming skin cells with an egf inhibitor is more effective than encouraging them from becoming hair cells with something that hits the wnt pathway.
harold said:
Harold,
If that’s the case then surely Follica will provide a very good new treatment. I’m sure we will see patient’s new hair degrade with due to MBP, but it can be slowed down with finasteride and dutasteride. Follica can aid as a top-up treatment where it can be performed a couple of times per year to keep a relatively full head of hair... And if that’s the case, these kits will not be massively overprised because they will have a customer base returning constantly, potentially more revenue than the “one stop Cureâ€
Do we know when the next updates from the trials on the patients are due?
michael barry
Senior Member
- Reaction score
- 12
Orin,
I have come to the same conclusion. I imagine net pharmacies will be getting an unusual amount of orders for Arava over the next year or so until Follica completes its trial.
I have come to the same conclusion. I imagine net pharmacies will be getting an unusual amount of orders for Arava over the next year or so until Follica completes its trial.
Not to be negative or anything, but I think you over-estimate the people who frequent boards such as these, and also the sub-group within this sub-group that are willing (or capable) to replicate patents.
Tracking down precise chemicals and what they do is a far reach from buying a bottle stamped with "hair-growth-formula" on the net. Not that there's anything really wrong with that - save for the cut retailers take on the easy task of mixing together some ingredients.
I'm actually a little perplexed when it comes to the kit.. if WnT-signaling is so important, or should I say, effective (following the mouse-model), then why is it not part of the kit?
If, as Harold says, inhibiting skin-cell formation is effective in creating hair-cells, then I don't understand why you would not also tip the scales from the other side as well, ie, discouraging skin-cell formation with an inhibitor AND encouraging hair-cell formation with WnT-signaling.
The only logical conclusion would be that Follica is worried that WnT-signaling, as opposed to skin-cell inhibition, has some possible negative risk.. perhaps because of their choice of a signal-substance, like the hedgehog one that fairly recently got shut down for its cancer-risk.
Though that doesn't make sense either, as lithium could be used (I'm assuming, perhaps it doesn't mimick natural signaling when topically applied) and from what I've heard the only cancer-risk it posseses was only demonstrated when mice were utterly drenched in the stuff. A far cry from a 10 day treatment.
I got the impression from the myriad of threads about it, that the risk is so low that it becomes something of a non-issue, on par with arguing from a stand-point that anything gives you cancer.
Any thoughts on why Follica wouldn't want to include the other half of the tipping point in their kit? Can these kits (and patents to them) be easily changed according to the results of their experimentation?
I'm assuming that the kits don't fully reflect the experiments they have planned over the summer/fall.
Tracking down precise chemicals and what they do is a far reach from buying a bottle stamped with "hair-growth-formula" on the net. Not that there's anything really wrong with that - save for the cut retailers take on the easy task of mixing together some ingredients.
I'm actually a little perplexed when it comes to the kit.. if WnT-signaling is so important, or should I say, effective (following the mouse-model), then why is it not part of the kit?
If, as Harold says, inhibiting skin-cell formation is effective in creating hair-cells, then I don't understand why you would not also tip the scales from the other side as well, ie, discouraging skin-cell formation with an inhibitor AND encouraging hair-cell formation with WnT-signaling.
The only logical conclusion would be that Follica is worried that WnT-signaling, as opposed to skin-cell inhibition, has some possible negative risk.. perhaps because of their choice of a signal-substance, like the hedgehog one that fairly recently got shut down for its cancer-risk.
Though that doesn't make sense either, as lithium could be used (I'm assuming, perhaps it doesn't mimick natural signaling when topically applied) and from what I've heard the only cancer-risk it posseses was only demonstrated when mice were utterly drenched in the stuff. A far cry from a 10 day treatment.
I got the impression from the myriad of threads about it, that the risk is so low that it becomes something of a non-issue, on par with arguing from a stand-point that anything gives you cancer.
Any thoughts on why Follica wouldn't want to include the other half of the tipping point in their kit? Can these kits (and patents to them) be easily changed according to the results of their experimentation?
I'm assuming that the kits don't fully reflect the experiments they have planned over the summer/fall.
i saw a video of a guy who regrew the top of his finger back in 4 weeks with a nail! this guy was from america and the doctors were using a powder called the matrix compund.
this could be the same powder that follica are using? if a guy can regrow is finger tip back then they must be able to grow hair aswell as limps etc.
this could be the same powder that follica are using? if a guy can regrow is finger tip back then they must be able to grow hair aswell as limps etc.
That's an invention from the bio-medical firm "Acell" - it is not the same thing Follica is using. Follica's method is actually, all things considered, much less complicated than harvesting pig-bladder goo.
Acell doesn't seem to have any plans on doing any experimentation with hair-growth. Something about having more important things to try, like regrowing limbs and organs, which I would agree with.
Acell doesn't seem to have any plans on doing any experimentation with hair-growth. Something about having more important things to try, like regrowing limbs and organs, which I would agree with.