Setback for HM

[htownballa]

This article illustrates how scientists are no closer at utilizing stem cells than they were 15 years ago. I'm quite sure once science figures out how to manipulate stem cells we will first see them being used for more important ventures such as heart and lung replacements/surgeries rather than HM. New England Journal of Medicine reports that we are no closer to a practical application of stem cell regeneration of funcitonal tissue than when we started. If only Prez Bush did not cut funding I believe HM may have come to fruition much sooner.

LINK: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14925729/

 

[TAINTED-MEAT]

As I've stated in an earlier post, Bush refuted a bill that would allow the use of embryonic stem cells. Embryonic stem cells have absolutely nothing to do with HM.

This article has nothing to do with the development or nondevelopment of HM. It is completely irrevelant, unless you have a heart condition..

 

[htownballa]

Isn't HM utilizing stem cells? Why would this have nothing to do with HM?
A cell is a cell, whether it is a heart cell or a hair follicle cell is unimportant. If you could regenerate one, you could regenerate the other.

Unless HM involves a topical that will instantaneously regrow hair from the dormant/dead follicles i dont see why this does not apply to it

 

[TAINTED-MEAT]

It uses stem cells, but not embryonic stem cells. Besides, the use of embryonic stem cells is only restricted in the U.S. Other countries could still research them.

I'm sure the whole process is pretty complicated, and not all cells are going to work the same way.

For instance, a white blood cell and a red blood cell have different functions.

 

[Guest]

T If only Prez Bush did not cut funding I believe HM may have come to fruition much sooner.

Omg lol. not to bring politics into this but if something has scientific/medical promise, it won't need public funding to succeed. Did we need a lot of govt funding for propecia or avodart or minoxidil? All Bush did was ban public money for the purpose. Private companies are free to do whatever they wish with embryonic stem cells. The ban didn't set HM back at all- if HM cannot succeed without public money then it isn't so great after all.

I'll repeat that because I'm not sure people get it- companies can harvest whatever embryos they want whenever they want. They just can't get public funding anymore for new lines.

 

[htownballa]

The article was about ADULT STEM CELLS, not embryonic stem cells

If you read the caption under the title it says that the science behind utilizing ADULT stem cells is missing, therefore it would be highly beneficial to study embryonic stem cells.

 

[htownballa]

if something has scientific/medical promise, it won't need public funding to succeed

Do you really believe this statement you just made???

The ban didn't set HM back at all- if HM cannot succeed without public money then it isn't so great after all.

So anything that cannot succeed without public money sux a$$?!?!

LOL

BTW the point of the article was about stem cells for purposes other than HM. This about how much human society would benefit if we could find a way to clone adult stem cells to creat heart, lung, liver tissue. Think about how many neurologic disease we could cure. The list of medical advancements with a breakthrough in stem cell research go WAY WAY beyond HM.

 

[Guest]

Do you really believe this statement you just made???

Absolutely.

BTW the point of the article was about stem cells for purposes other than HM. This about how much human society would benefit if we could find a way to clone adult stem cells to creat heart, lung, liver tissue. Think about how many neurologic disease we could cure. The list of medical advancements with a breakthrough in stem cell research go WAY WAY beyond HM.

What does this have to do with govt money? Companies invest in new technology and ideas to make money. Merck didn't make Propecia out of the goodness of their heart. It hasn't done as well as they thought in making money but that's not the point.

Companies will step up to the plate if they really see promise in stem cell technologies.

I know this must be shocking to some people because we have been conditioned to believe that many things would be impossible without govt money.

 

[Guest]

therefore it would be highly beneficial to study embryonic stem cells.

So what's stopping companies from doing this? Nothing. You mean they don't want to risk their own money on this venture and would rather get govt funding? Shocking. Most promising technologies that have come along so far have succeeded without government funding. What makes future stem cell technologies so different that govt funding is necessary for them to blossom?

 

[htownballa]

I'm not saying that lack of govt. funding will STOP any progress in stem cell advancement, what I AM saying is that if the govt did lift political sanctions on stem cell funding than we could have our coveted HM oh so much quicker. Not to mention save millions of lives much faster.

Stem cell cloning is still a while away, that much is apparent from the article. Leading scientists are stumped as how to utilize stem cells medically and this suggest a non-understanding of the basic science behind stem cell cloning. Many research companies would be hesistant to invest money in an area where the likelihood of failure is high, especially since it is their OWN money. I guess according to your logic though, if a research company does not want to risk an investment in stem cell research, it must not be worth it anyways.

BTW stem cell research would in many cases be a "cure-all" or panacea treatment. Pharmaceutical companies would make a lot more money by giving you a Propecia pill everyday for the rest of your life to maintain hair rather than a one time fix for hairloss. It makes better business sense huh?

 

[Guest]

I'm not saying that lack of govt. funding will STOP any progress in stem cell advancement, what I AM saying is that if the govt did lift political sanctions on stem cell funding than we could have our coveted HM oh so much quicker. Not to mention save millions of lives much faster.

What are the political sanctions you're speaking of? all they did was block govt money for it.

Many research companies would be hesistant to invest money in an area where the likelihood of failure is high, especially since it is their OWN money. I guess according to your logic though, if a research company does not want to risk an investment in stem cell research, it must not be worth it anyways.

So if something is so unpromising that private companies stay away, we should commit taxpayer money to it? That's not a very good argument.

BTW stem cell research would in many cases be a "cure-all" or panacea treatment. Pharmaceutical companies would make a lot more money by giving you a Propecia pill everyday for the rest of your life to maintain hair rather than a one time fix for hairloss. It makes better business sense huh?

Your argument would hold water if Propecia was doing well for Merck. it isn't. It is failing miserably with a profit perspective and part of it was the competition from foreign generics and the fear of sides.

But more people would want to get a panacea than a pill every day. It's true that companies would rather milk people for money, but consumers have more power than the drug companies when it comes to this.

 

[htownballa]

What are the political sanctions you're speaking of? all they did was block govt money for it.

They blocked government funding for it. You may not realize it but government funding is quite important in the research field. So you shouldn't trivialize it by saying "ALL they did was block funding?"

So if something is so unpromising that private companies stay away, we should commit taxpayer money to it? That's not a very good argument.

Stem cell research is not HOPELESS as you are making it sound. We will find a way to clone stem cells, there is no doubt about that, the question is when. If we rely on private companies leading the way that time may be in 20-30 years rather than 5-10. Our taxpayer dollars are being wasted on a lot more $hitty things than stem cell research btw.

Your argument would hold water if Propecia was doing well for Merck. it isn't. It is failing miserably with a profit perspective and part of it was the competition from foreign generics and the fear of sides.

I don't know if Merck is making a profit on Propecia or not, but I do know for a FACT that drug companies would stand to make more money off a drug like Propecia than a one time HM procedure. This is the same logic behind vaccination boosters etc where you need to get the same damn vaccination shot every couple of years to "remind" your immune system lol. If drug companies invested further money, they could find a one time cure I am sure.

 

[TAINTED-MEAT]

This article still has nothing to do with HM......

 

[Guest]

This is the same logic behind vaccination boosters etc where you need to get the same damn vaccination shot every couple of years to "remind" your immune system lol. If drug companies invested further money, they could find a one time cure I am sure.

the first company that comes out with Hm could charge whatever they want for it that people would pay until competition comes along.

even with HM unless you are totally bald before getting it, you will have to go back for followup treatments to get more cloned hair transplanted.

 

[Apoc]

HM is not using stem cells. It's using dermal papila cells. You take them from old folicles, multiply them and reinject them into the skin.

 

[htownballa]

HM is not using stem cells. It's using dermal papila cells. You take them from old folicles, multiply them and reinject them into the skin.

I thought the dermal papilla cells were stem cells? I bet if this article was positive this board would be claiming HM is right around the corner...

 

[FabioM]

So Bush blocks public funding to stem cell research...what about the rest of the countries in the world?

These countries are investing in stem cell research...at least i hope so

 

[CCS]

few are as rich as the US. india does not have our research equipement, just computers. so if not use then europe. maybe brazil.

 

[powersam]

public funding was never needed nor was it even a consideration as HM would be a cosmetic treatment and therefore is being privately researched and developed. plus most innovative research comes out of the private sector these days, thats just the way it is.

htownballa - you state that government funding is very important to the research field. you hold this belief despite the fact that the vast majority of real advances in science and technology come from privately funded labs in large companies or universities?

 

[elguapo]

I don't get the point of this thread. Who can predict what will and what will not be a setback to HM?

The latest is that Intercytex is awaiting approval of a small change in their process, but they already recruited the 20 patients needed for Phase II trials. Once the change is approved, they can procede with the real HM cocktail - more potent than the one used for Phase I safety trials - which should sprout more hairs:

http://www.intercytex.com/icx/investors/rep/