- Reaction score
- 1,104
Yeah a transplant, which will last forever or for a long time, which you can then also re-do (unlimitid follicles).
Stemson is going to use minipigs in the next stage of their hair cloning research
- Thread starter werefckd
- Start date
Do any long time hair loss sufferers feel like there's something different with Stemson or am I just being naïve? I fell for Shiseido and Tsuji's bull but for some reason Stemson is giving off a different vibe with how transparent they are with their employees and their backgrounds, how long Dr. Terskikh has been working on and evolving this technique, how they actually have a CEO with a solid track record (I'd assume he values his reputation and wouldn't have left his previous job at a big company if he weren't very confident in Stemson, and he's not just a researcher for some big company who'll continue to get paid regardless of results). Are they the same as every other company that's failed and I'm being blinded by desperation or do we might have a real chance at a cure here?
Last edited:
- Reaction score
- 1,104
I really think cloning/hair regeneration could be possible in near future (20-30), but not now, no. Better trying some treatment options, as long as you still have it.
- Reaction score
- 292
in the video they said the achieved regular hair cycling? why do you say they only achieved two hair cycles?
I mean he's right in the sense that they don't really have anything for us *yet* and he's likely saying it to spare us from disappointment, and he's eventually been right so far but at the same time we do want hope as well.
Last edited:
- Reaction score
- 64
Sod off, this guy (Rassmann) is very enthusiastic about Hairclone (Paul Kemp and co.) as well as microneedling, and quite hopeful (although I don't see quite why) about Dr. Angela Christiano. He also wrote that he believed that Aderans and Intercyclex each had some kind of working treatment, but were pulled due to money constraints.
- Reaction score
- 292
i think it will be still take much longer. But its still not a reason to not be excited about the trial in pigs. its a big step using iPSC. Do you know if stemson is using viruses in their cell derivation process
Are Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells Safe Yet?
To reprogram adult cells into induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSC), scientists use four proteins to activate pluripotency. The big challenge lies in smuggling them through the cells’ protective membranes.Originally, scientists delivered the proteins via potentially harmful viruses—a technology that has raised enormous concerns. Cells derived this way, when subsequently transplanted, have been shown to cause tumors in mice.
Now, scientists are working on eliminating the step that they fear is causing cancer-inducing mutations, says Elias Zambidis, M.D., Ph.D., an assistant professor of pediatric oncology. He cites recent research that shows it is feasible, if not yet routinely efficient, to derive iPSC from adult cells by dispatching the proteins with safer smuggling methods.
No. 1 concern: Cancer
Elias Zambidis, M.D., Ph.D.
The new wave of iPSC involves using non-viral mechanisms so there’s no risk of them integrating into the genome and causing harmful mutations, Zambidis says. “Before we talk about transplanting these in patients, in a clinical setting, we’ve got to figure out how to make them without these viral shuttles that have high potential for causing malignancy.
“We don’t want to tell people: Well we can cure you, but you might get cancer from our treatment,” he continues. “That is what burned gene therapy. It was going to cure everything— until it killed some people. Stem cell science has to learn a lesson from gene therapy; we need to be cautiously optimistic, and do the right research carefully before iPSC are ready for the clinic.
One forward-thinking method for generating iPSC is using so-called protein transduction that uses specially designed proteins that can shuttle directly into cells without viral vehicles, or even DNA. For example, chemist Sheng Ding of the Scripps Research Institute in April 2009 reported in Cell Stem Cell that he and colleagues made mouse iPSC without the use of harmful viruses. “Protein transduction may still be very inefficient, but they got it to work,” says Zambidis
There’s no kill switch
“If you give a drug to patients, and have a bad outcome, you can put them on dialysis and let it run its course,” says Valina Dawson, Ph.D., professor of neurology. “Not so with stem cells. Once you put them in, that’s it. You can’t withdraw them. There’s no kill switch.
Valina Dawson, Ph.D.
“When you’re debating their therapeutic potential, you need to consider your patient population,” Dawson continues. “Individuals with spinal cord injury may have sudden and severe loss of quality of life, but they generally can live many years. So if you’re giving them cells that are eventually going to turn into tumors and shorten their life span, I think that’s really troublesome.
“Stem cell transplants done in other countries have resulted in a number of patients developing tumors. We simply don’t know the long-term effect of these cells. We don’t monitor them for very long in animals. We don’t yet know how to make them safe for use long term.
“Even if we start doing human studies in patient populations with no other viable treatment options, we still run a risk, because if we forge ahead and get no effect, it can erode public will. If patients come to harm, it will erode public confidence. A number of researchers who think stem cells can be developed as useful therapeutic tools are very concerned that what happened with gene therapy will happen here, as well.”
The good news is that those risks doesn't apply to what Stemson is doing.
Why?
Because Stemson will not be putting any iPSC into our bodies.
Stemson uses iPSC only in the lab to derive the dermal papilla and epithelial cells. As @Roeysdomi pointed out, Dr. T already mentioned in his video interview from last October that those cells are safe in the human body. If something goes wrong the only major risk he sees is that the DP and epithelial cells, once implanted in the scalp, could lose their differentiation and become ordinary skin cells - and thus losing their ability to generate new hair. But there is virtually no risk of them developing tumors.
The challenge in that aspect is making sure that no iPSC cells gets lost during the conversion process and we only get pure DP and epithelium cells.
Last edited:
We don't know. It won't be dirt cheap but I think there is a good chance that it won't be crazy expensive either.
It will be costly for Stemson in the beginning for sure but they could subsidize the treatment for us in order to keep the price reasonable and not to give a bad fame to their product. Then once the economies of scale kick in they could take out the subsidizes without increasing the price to avoid stalling growth.
Waiting lines will be another problem, but it will all depend on how well funded they get. If they have enough $$$ in the bank from investors they can prioritize growth over profit in the short and mid term.
So it will depend on how well they get funded and what their growth strategy will be.
What makes me a little optimistic is that they already have a huge strategic investor and partner called Allergan. Research about that company, they have deep pockets and enough know how about commercially deploying cosmetic products to the big masses.
Last edited:
- Reaction score
- 1,104
I would love to hear your (@werefckd) opinion on why you think Stemson will be effective.
I think, even, if it is working, it won't give you THE perfect hair (you had) because its not natural hair, more-over it's bioengineered.
Also, in vitro, androgens will just rip off those follicles if your androgen receptors (in general) are just too sensitive to them. Because of that the only REAL approach to male pattern baldness is to multiplicate the androgen insensitive hairs from the back, but we all now that this way it won't work.
Mh
I think, even, if it is working, it won't give you THE perfect hair (you had) because its not natural hair, more-over it's bioengineered.
Also, in vitro, androgens will just rip off those follicles if your androgen receptors (in general) are just too sensitive to them. Because of that the only REAL approach to male pattern baldness is to multiplicate the androgen insensitive hairs from the back, but we all now that this way it won't work.
Mh
Last edited:
You have literally 0 insight into any of the claims you made here.
1. The hair could (and should) be practically identical to your native hair, as it's being bioengineered from the cells that would create your native hair. If successful, I'd be more concerned about how long they would last relative to native hair rather then the texture, which will be good or this product will be a bust anyways.
2. Again, no basis for this claims. For all we know their process might start the follicles state to 0 as if you were a child, giving you decades or years of insensitivity. Again, we simply don't have any data to make these types of guesses.
Could it be because the good Dr has a direct competitor to this product in his own pipeline? He has some weird cellular regenerative hair process from mole cells in the works promising unlimited donor hair.
It's clearly not fake though. They have Allergan as a strategic partner and a pretty robust company profile, and the initial science is published here;
- Reaction score
- 892
Because he’s advocating wigs in a cutting edge forum. Because he’s gloomy and depressing. And that isn’t welcome.
- Reaction score
- 1,104
I was just saying the truth.
Even if stemson is going to figure out hair multiplication, we will, even with a big MAYBE, have access to it in 10-15years+. 20 years is more realistic.
I just don't want that people get dissapointed or that their expectations aren't meeting with reality, that's it.
Sorry then, for spreading a bad atmosphere around here.
Their timeline is 5-7 years, so you're just adding your own opinion into it.