Hair Loss Will be Cured Within Ten Years

[trialAcc]

Inb4 “the studies are bs”

In regards to what I said, they are. The mean age in those studies is 37 years old. My statement is that it it's a stop gap for the people with more aggressive hairloss in their teens/early 20s.

I'm not doubting that finasteride/dutasteride work for the vast majority of people, but I don't think it's fair to assume that 90-99% of 20 year olds with aggressive hairloss would be fully stable in 10 years.

 

[pegasus2]

In regards to what I said, they are. The mean age in those studies is 37 years old. My statement is that it it's a stop gap for the people with more aggressive hairloss in their teens/early 20s.

I'm not doubting that finasteride/dutasteride work for the vast majority of people, but I don't think it's fair to assume that 90-99% of 20 year olds with aggressive hairloss would be fully stable in 10 years.

Most of them are. You rarely see anyone posting on here that they keep losing hair on dutasteride, and those are the loudest people. If dutasteride isn't working for someone you can bet they will be coming on here to cry about it. It does work for the vast majority of people at any age. As for the outliers, nobody really cares about them because it's an insignificant number of people.

 

[poopfeast420]

I continued thinning over 3 years of finasteride and recently I've continued to thin over the past 1.5 years of dutasteride. Caught it veeeery early too. It's definitely bought me a good 5-10 years though so I'm thankful.

 

[trialAcc]

I think it is very safe to assume that 95-99% of people who take 0.5 mg duta daily with 2.5mg minoxidil and topical AA will be stable. Every H L T retard thinks their case is so f*****g special.

Yeah I fully said ignore topical AAs until one is actually approved. If you have to source a powder with 0 safety data from a grey market chemical site it's not a real treatment option. Even the OP of this thread is using the 10 years as a baseline for when these treatments are widely available, not when they can be sourced from a lab on the grey market.

 

[Pls_NW-1]

Yeah I fully said ignore topical AAs until one is actually approved. If you have to source a powder with 0 safety data from a grey market chemical site it's not a real treatment option.

Tbh you could just use common AA pills and make a batch out of 'em if you want to xD

 

[trialAcc]

Tbh you could just use common AA pills and make a batch out of 'em if you want to xD

Yes, go try and ask your doctor for some common AA pills to make a batch out of lol

 

[coolio]

Lots of dick-wagging on this thread.

All this confidence about game-changing new treatments going commercial in 5-10 years. If you guys were so sure of this stuff, then you wouldn't be obsessively following every scrap of hair-related news on here. What you would be doing, is making appointments to get 5000 grafts stuffed into the front of your hairlines this year. The post-hair loss era of your life could start in 2022 instead of the 2030s. You could spend your daily time reading about something else too.

Come on. What's the worst that could happen? The new treatments end up taking a few years longer than expected? Big whup, so it takes 11 years instead of 5 years. That should still be plenty soon enough to allow an aggressive transplant now. Why spend another decade of your youth without the low dense hairline you really want? What are you afraid of?



Yeah.

That's what I thought.

 

[Armando Jose]

"The proportions of patients with improvement (score ≥ 5) and prevention of disease progression (score ≥ 4) were 91.5% and 99.1%, respectively."

Imo, finas/minoxidil are not preventive in common hairloss, different than preventive of disease progression.
Most probale if you use these med in sane persons, they will develop the malaltie.

 

[pegasus2]

Imo, finas/minoxidil are not preventive in common hairloss, different than preventive of disease progression.
Most probale if you use these med in sane persons, they will develop the malaltie.

It's just a matter of semantics. Whatever you call it it stops hair loss in most men, and that's all that matters. Nobody is going to take it before hair loss starts, but if they take it as soon as it begins then they're usually not going to have to worry about it for a long time.

 

[WaccWaccWacc]

Lots of dick-wagging on this thread.

All this confidence about game-changing new treatments going commercial in 5-10 years. If you guys were so sure of this stuff, then you wouldn't be obsessively following every scrap of hair-related news on here. What you would be doing, is making appointments to get 5000 grafts stuffed into the front of your hairlines this year. The post-hair loss era of your life could start in 2022 instead of the 2030s. You could spend your daily time reading about something else too.

Come on. What's the worst that could happen? The new treatments end up taking a few years longer than expected? Big whup, so it takes 11 years instead of 5 years. That should still be plenty soon enough to allow an aggressive transplant now. Why spend another decade of your youth without the low dense hairline you really want? What are you afraid of?



Yeah.

That's what I thought.

You don’t have to be completely certain just to be optimistic for future treatments. If you’re going to sh*t on people who are screaming at you that a cure will not take longer than 10years, fine. But everyone here has common sense to know it’s still all speculation. Nobody here will throw their house and kids on a bet that hairloss cure will come out in 10yrs.

Seems like you’re just angry at people for trying to be optimistic.

 

[coolio]

You don’t have to be completely certain just to be optimistic for future treatments. If you’re going to sh*t on people who are screaming at you that a cure will not take longer than 10years, fine. But everyone here has common sense to know it’s still all speculation. Nobody here will throw their house and kids on a bet that hairloss cure will come out in 10yrs.

Seems like you’re just angry at people for trying to be optimistic.

I don't resent the optimism. I resent the "you pessimists are delusional" tone.

 

[trialAcc]

Lots of dick-wagging on this thread.

All this confidence about game-changing new treatments going commercial in 5-10 years. If you guys were so sure of this stuff, then you wouldn't be obsessively following every scrap of hair-related news on here. What you would be doing, is making appointments to get 5000 grafts stuffed into the front of your hairlines this year. The post-hair loss era of your life could start in 2022 instead of the 2030s. You could spend your daily time reading about something else too.

Come on. What's the worst that could happen? The new treatments end up taking a few years longer than expected? Big whup, so it takes 11 years instead of 5 years. That should still be plenty soon enough to allow an aggressive transplant now. Why spend another decade of your youth without the low dense hairline you really want? What are you afraid of?



Yeah.

That's what I thought.

What if some of us don't want a hair transplant because most of them turn out poorly done and are not worth the 5 figures lol

 

[trialAcc]

Completely agree.

It seems most who say transplants are still bad or deliver poor results in most cases have absolutely no idea or experience with transplants.

I've done extensive transplant research because the money isn't a concern for me and I could get it done during quarantine without a care in the world. Immediate results might be fine (ie 1-2 years), but nothing I've seen has really convinced me that transplants are a good idea for people in the higher Norwood's that are younger guys (ie under 35).

You just end up chained to a life of requiring concealers to not look like you are heavily diffuse thinning and a hairline that your density can't hope to support in 10+ years. Now for 35 yr old+ guys, especially into the mid 40s and beyond, transplants on almost any Norwood are fantastic and give you a perfectly age appropriate head of hair.

Even some of the biggest proponents of transplants like Joe Tillman have said that if he were losing his hair now he'd probably just go the shave route. The hassle isn't always worth it in a world where shaving your head is perfectly acceptable.

 

[trialAcc]

Agree to disagree. Unless you have a sh*t donor area, transplants are great. But most people do have good results, hence it also being more popular than ever.

I know 4 people irl that did it. Most of them in NW3/4 area and all of them had good/great results and they went to average, cheap clinics in Turkey. 3 of them aren't even taking finasteride or minoxidil and are just getting another transplant when the rest goes away.

Don't get me wrong I've seen some incredible results, and I'll probably go for a consultation with a top surgeon in Canada in a few months just to get some opinions, but I do not think the average result is good (globally). Even some of the youtubers who post about their transplant journeys end up with incredibly weak results. Of course if you're someone who can never picture yourself being bald, any manageable hair might be considered a success, but I'm not the type.

Not really the same but here's a guy with money and a platform, and look at the weak end results;

 

[trialAcc]

A lot of it also depends on your expectations. If you want and expect the same density as when you were a teenager then sure, transplants will never be good. But for 99.9% of the population it will be good enough and most will never know you had a transplant.

I'm not expecting teenage density, but I would be expecting to be able to wear my hair without concealer every time I leave the house.

 

[coolio]

1 -- Show me a crappy transplant result on a patient without limits. That means it was a respected surgeon. Cost was not a factor. Downtime was not a factor. At least 30yo. The baldest guy in the patient's whole extended family is Norwood#3-4 or less. The doctor did 2+ separate passes on the same area to build up density. Show me a patient who met this whole checklist and still came out looking thin. All other patients are compromising.

2 -- The point I was trying to make is this: Anyone could go get some really aggressive transplants right now. Pack all the lifetime donor hair into the current thinning areas. F*ck the future loss planning. Wouldn't it be worth it to get full hair back a decade earlier? If you are so confident about future treatments in 5-10 years then why aren't you putting your (scalp) where your mouth is?

 

[Redgate]

@trialAcc keep in mind that people are much more likely to post online about bad results than good ones. It's the same with finasteride and is very evident in this forum.

 

[trialAcc]

@trialAcc keep in mind that people are much more likely to post online about bad results than good ones. It's the same with finasteride and is very evident in this forum.

I'm more so going off of the patient threads and youtube journeys that go start to finish, not the failed transplant threads.

 

[jan_miezda]

I've done extensive transplant research. Immediate results might be fine (ie 1-2 years), but nothing I've seen has really convinced me that transplants are a good idea for people in the higher Norwood's that are younger guys (ie under 35).

You just end up chained to a life of requiring concealers to not look like you are heavily diffuse thinning and a hairline that your density can't hope to support in 10+ years. Now for 35 yr old+ guys, especially into the mid 40s and beyond, transplants on almost any Norwood are fantastic and give you a perfectly age appropriate head of hair.

Even some of the biggest proponents of transplants like Joe Tillman have said that if he were losing his hair now he'd probably just go the shave route. The hassle isn't always worth it in a world where shaving your head is perfectly acce

Don't get me wrong I've seen some incredible results, and I'll probably go for a consultation with a top surgeon in Canada in a few months just to get some opinions, but I do not think the average result is good (globally). Even some of the youtubers who post about their transplant journeys end up with incredibly weak results. Of course if you're someone who can never picture yourself being bald, any manageable hair might be considered a success, but I'm not the type.

Not really the same but here's a guy with money and a platform, and look at the weak end results;

hair transplants are only good for people with mild patterned alopecia. For example hairliciously

 

[trialAcc]

Lol, if that would be the actual case then nobody would be doing a transplant.

It seems you're really focussing on a couple of bad cases.

It's not just bad cases, it's just people with NW5+ work. The textbook example could be Melvin from HTN. The guy has an absolutely amazing hairline/mid section, but his crown looks like he's balding if he doesn't use concealer. Most people consider him a success story.