Giiizmo
Established Member
- Reaction score
- 148
[rant warning]
A big fat, grandiloquent title for just a simple illustration of what we already all know: the "cure" is always five years away - so to speak.
Now what might have prompted such a thread? Well, while searching for an old study about hair follicle transplants from a donor to a different recipient*1, I came across an even older study by the same scientist. The title was: Induction of hair growth by implantation of cultured dermal papilla cells.
Sounds familiar? It should, especially if the names of RepliCel and Shiseido ring a bell. Granted, RepliCel's RCH-01 is, more specifically, about dermal sheath cup cells which are themselves used to replenish the dermal papilla.
The distinction is fairly minor if you consider that both populations are closely linked*2 to one another. Once the limitations of the cultured dermal papilla cells would have been found, it shouldn't have taken much effort for science to redirect its collective attention to the dermal sheath cup cells. Right? Right?! Well do consider that the study to which I allude to is from the year 1984!*3
Yes, it took more than 25 years for the entire scientific community to get their heads out of their asses and work towards trying to develop something that *might* (fingers crossed, pretty please with cherry on top), just might give some hair back to millions of hair loss sufferers around the world. That's 35 years if you consider the start of a potential commercial application.
It never ceases to amaze me just how much of a crock of sh*t biotech news is. Through the illusion of cures "just five years away", they get you to consume their garbage content and either serve you ads or, even worse, sell you the so-called "news" content.
Even the prestigious journal "Nature" is no stranger to these tactics, albeit they serve it in a far more modest style by presenting the study and allowing the scientists to give their conclusion as to a possible concrete application. Of course, this is mostly a clever way for the scientists to either increase their reputation or get more grant money.
While this affirmation is part hyperbole, remember that currently, in the scientific community, studies with a "positive" outcome are the ones usually getting published. In comparison, the few studies showing a lack of results or evidence as to the occurrence of a phenomenon go mostly unnoticed. Why? People pay to see results. They don't want to get told that something doesn't work. Even determining that something isn't dangerous is of modest interest most of the time, unless there's a very real possibility of a lawsuit (e.g. the pharma industry) or massive health issues.
Now I'm just digressing, sure, but it's a good thing we discovered antibiotics by accident and didn't have to invest much to profit from it. Just imagine, otherwise we'd still be dying in droves from infectious diseases. What's that? Germs are developing resistances to old-gen antibiotics and no one can make money from making new drugs*4? Welp! Better start chugging some silver colloid or some other bullshit to keep you safe from harm!
In conclusion: f*** the biotech industry and its money-grubbing attitude. And f*** the entire pharma industry for that matter, too.
And yay for venting steam. Thanks for reading (or skimming)!
*1 For the 1999 study:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v402/n6757/full/402033a0.html
For the news article:
+http://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...ir-cells-offers-hope-for-the-bald-738710.html
*2 For a more thorough explanation of the distinction:
http://www.signalsblog.ca/the-dermal-cup-home-to-the-elusive-dermal-stem-cell/
*3 For the 1984 study:
https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v311/n5986/abs/311560a0.html
*4 Article:
http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2015/05/23/oneill-amr-3/
A big fat, grandiloquent title for just a simple illustration of what we already all know: the "cure" is always five years away - so to speak.
Now what might have prompted such a thread? Well, while searching for an old study about hair follicle transplants from a donor to a different recipient*1, I came across an even older study by the same scientist. The title was: Induction of hair growth by implantation of cultured dermal papilla cells.
Sounds familiar? It should, especially if the names of RepliCel and Shiseido ring a bell. Granted, RepliCel's RCH-01 is, more specifically, about dermal sheath cup cells which are themselves used to replenish the dermal papilla.
The distinction is fairly minor if you consider that both populations are closely linked*2 to one another. Once the limitations of the cultured dermal papilla cells would have been found, it shouldn't have taken much effort for science to redirect its collective attention to the dermal sheath cup cells. Right? Right?! Well do consider that the study to which I allude to is from the year 1984!*3
Yes, it took more than 25 years for the entire scientific community to get their heads out of their asses and work towards trying to develop something that *might* (fingers crossed, pretty please with cherry on top), just might give some hair back to millions of hair loss sufferers around the world. That's 35 years if you consider the start of a potential commercial application.
It never ceases to amaze me just how much of a crock of sh*t biotech news is. Through the illusion of cures "just five years away", they get you to consume their garbage content and either serve you ads or, even worse, sell you the so-called "news" content.
Even the prestigious journal "Nature" is no stranger to these tactics, albeit they serve it in a far more modest style by presenting the study and allowing the scientists to give their conclusion as to a possible concrete application. Of course, this is mostly a clever way for the scientists to either increase their reputation or get more grant money.
While this affirmation is part hyperbole, remember that currently, in the scientific community, studies with a "positive" outcome are the ones usually getting published. In comparison, the few studies showing a lack of results or evidence as to the occurrence of a phenomenon go mostly unnoticed. Why? People pay to see results. They don't want to get told that something doesn't work. Even determining that something isn't dangerous is of modest interest most of the time, unless there's a very real possibility of a lawsuit (e.g. the pharma industry) or massive health issues.
Now I'm just digressing, sure, but it's a good thing we discovered antibiotics by accident and didn't have to invest much to profit from it. Just imagine, otherwise we'd still be dying in droves from infectious diseases. What's that? Germs are developing resistances to old-gen antibiotics and no one can make money from making new drugs*4? Welp! Better start chugging some silver colloid or some other bullshit to keep you safe from harm!
In conclusion: f*** the biotech industry and its money-grubbing attitude. And f*** the entire pharma industry for that matter, too.
And yay for venting steam. Thanks for reading (or skimming)!
*1 For the 1999 study:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v402/n6757/full/402033a0.html
For the news article:
+http://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...ir-cells-offers-hope-for-the-bald-738710.html
*2 For a more thorough explanation of the distinction:
http://www.signalsblog.ca/the-dermal-cup-home-to-the-elusive-dermal-stem-cell/
*3 For the 1984 study:
https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v311/n5986/abs/311560a0.html
*4 Article:
http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2015/05/23/oneill-amr-3/
Last edited:
