Very Impressive Dermarolling And Minxodil Results - From Tressless

[300]

Slightly off topic, but would it be possible to use micro needling + minoxidil on the donor area, after a hair transplant, to possibly produce new follicles where ones have been harvested?

Of course it is,that's the whole idea behind it

 

[pegasus2]

What? No minoxidil/needling is about "reviving" your old, dormant follicles. I doubt many new follicles are created.

I have a scar on my scalp, still no hair there after a lot of microneedling despite growing hair everywhere around it. I thought at one point it had gotten smaller, but it was just the new hairs around it covering it. I think true neogenesis is only going to happen with SAG, and even then it's difficult to achieve.

 

[pegasus2]

Did you read the last pages? I can't force people to post long term results but from the ones that do update I see positive things. The guy from OP who made this treatment popular, recently gave an update and he confirmed he still has all his gains and maintains with only minoxidil/needling for 3-4 years now. And we have multiple other people saying minoxidil still works for them after x years.

Also if you'd search a bit you will find other long term reports.

Somebody has maintained very well with needling and finasteride

 

[300]

Somebody has maintained very well with needling and finasteride

Both, not just one

 

[300]

What? No minoxidil/needling is about "reviving" your old, dormant follicles. I doubt many new follicles are created.

What,what? are you saying its not true?Read some more studies with people who lost their hair due to burns.You disappoint me because i consider you very knowledgeable in needling.

 

[pegasus2]

Both, not just one

Somebody is a person. He was the first one I remember on here with good results. His name on here was "somebody". I think his youtube name is somebodyalex or something. He effectively got full regrowth from Norwood 3, and maintained that for years.

 

[pegasus2]

What,what? are you saying its not true?Read some more studies with people who lost their hair due to burns.You disappoint me because i consider you very knowledgeable in needling.

Do you have examples of these studies where humans regrew hair from wounding after being burned? There is only the campfire guy as far as I know. I doubt this happens from microneedling and minoxidil. In fact I know it doesn't in my case.

 

[300]

Do you have examples of these studies where humans regrew hair from wounding after being burned? There is only the campfire guy as far as I know. I doubt this happens from microneedling and minoxidil. In fact I know it doesn't in my case.

I am talking about that guy and also people theorizing about that.
Anybody contacted studies long term on needling for hair loss?Just on needling,no fina or anything else?I cant find any.

 

[pegasus2]

I am talking about that guy and also people theorizing about that.

It's certainly possible, but we're talking about the Follica and Dhurat protocols here. I think that campfire guy was on benoxaprofen, which many people grew hair on but is now banned. De novo hair follicle generation is possible, but I don't think we are accomplishing that with what we are doing. I think Pigeon is right that we are only bringing back dormant follicles.

 

[300]

It's certainly possible, but we're talking about the Follica and Dhurat protocols here. I think that campfire guy was on benoxaprofen, which many people grew hair on but is now banned. De novo hair follicle generation is possible, but I don't think we are accomplishing that with what we are doing. I think Pigeon is right that we are only bringing back dormant follicles.

I am not arguing this point and who is right or wrong only because needling with min can create subjective opinions.The general consensus is that finasteride or duta works for many people but not needling.It didnt work for me but i have no doubt that works for a few people.
Its time for you now to find the permanent cure .

 

[300]

It's certainly possible, but we're talking about the Follica and Dhurat protocols here. I think that campfire guy was on benoxaprofen, which many people grew hair on but is now banned. De novo hair follicle generation is possible, but I don't think we are accomplishing that with what we are doing. I think Pigeon is right that we are only bringing back dormant follicles.

How can we possibly reach a conclusion on that when there are not follow up studies?I n my opinion the DHURAT study was an amateur one with very few subjects,

 

[pegasus2]

I am not arguing this point and who is right or wrong only because needling with min can create subjective opinions.The general consensus is that finasteride or duta works for many people but not needling.It didnt work for me but i have no doubt that works for a few people.
Its time for you now to find the permanent cure .

I think you may have misunderstood. I didn't mean microneedling didn't work for me, it worked very well. I got tons of new hairs, but they weren't dead follicles. As I'm sure you know the hair follicle usually does not die, even for decades, it just remains dormant, only producing an invisible vellus follicle at best. Even after many decades bald men retain the follicles in their scalp with a healthy population of HFSCs. All I meant was that it didn't grow back hair on a deep scar. We can't draw conclusions from that, but we certainly have no evidence of de novo HF generation in humans. Even campfire guy probably didn't destroy the follicles when he was burned. It seems more likely that what we are doing is only waking up existing follicles, which is all that we need since follicles usually don't die in Androgenetic Alopecia. I'd say Cotsarelis agrees with that assessment since he started researching using SAG and FGF9 to achieve true de novo HF regeneration. There would be no reason to use such a dangerous drug if minoxidil could achieve the same thing.

 

[300]

I think you may have misunderstood. I didn't mean microneedling didn't work for me, it worked very well. I got tons of new hairs, but they weren't dead follicles. As I'm sure you know the hair follicle usually does not die, even for decades, it just remains dormant, only producing an invisible vellus follicle at best. Even after many decades bald men retain the follicles in their scalp with a healthy population of HFSCs. All I meant was that it didn't grow back hair on a deep scar. We can't draw conclusions from that, but we certainly have no evidence of de novo HF generation in humans. Even campfire guy probably didn't destroy the follicles when he was burned. It seems more likely that what we are doing is only waking up existing follicles, which is all that we need since follicles usually don't die in Androgenetic Alopecia. I'd say Cotsarelis agrees with that assessment since he started researching using SAG and FGF9 to achieve true de novo HF regeneration. There would be no reason to use such a dangerous drug if minoxidil could achieve the same thing.

When i responded to Solid Snake i told him that he should do it because it might work.If i gave him my opinion based on personal experience i was gonna say no.I didnt.I didnt misunderstand you at all.You gave us a hint that you had results with needling and min. You hit it right on its head when you taiked about Cotsarelis.You hold the man in high regard,I dont But i used to.
Then let me ask you,why it worked for some people but it didn't work for most?(assuming that needling is going to wake up dormant follicles)

 

[pegasus2]

When i responded to Solid Snake i told him that he should do it because it might work.If i gave him my opinion based on personal experience i was gonna say no.I didnt.I didnt misunderstand you at all.You gave us a hint that you had results with needling and min. You hit it right on its head when you taiked about Cotsarelis.You hold the man in high regard,I dont But i used to.
Then let me ask you,why it worked for some people but it didn't work for most?(assuming that needling is going to wake up dormant follicles)

I don't follow your logic, if it worked by creating new HFs then it should work on everyone, right? I'm not sure that it not working on everyone would lend evidence either for or against de novo HF regeneration. Since you brought it up though, why does finasteride work for some and not for others? I would argue that microneedling works for most. In fact, the trials prove this rather conclusively. There can be many reasons it won't work on some people, higher AR expression, less sulfotransferase in the scalp, age, longer duration of baldness, so a smaller cell number, making it harder to bring them back.

One doesn't have to hold Cotsarelis in high esteem to recognize that he is a respected academic in this field who knows more about microneedling and neogensis than anyone.

 

[300]

I don't follow your logic, if it worked by creating new HFs then it should work on everyone, right? I'm not sure that it not working on everyone would lend evidence either for or against de novo HF regeneration. Since you brought it up though, why does finasteride work for some and not for others? I would argue that microneedling works for most. In fact, the trials prove this rather conclusively. There can be many reasons it won't work on some people, higher AR expression, less sulfotransferase in the scalp, age, longer duration of baldness, so a smaller cell number, making it harder to bring them back.

One doesn't have to hold Cotsarelis in high esteem to recognize that he is a respected academic in this field who knows more about microneedling and neogensis than anyone.

Whats so abnormal about my logic?I am not a proponent or opponent of micro needling,I am doing it myself.How can you possibly compare fina and needling?One is a proven drug(I am a user) and the other one came into existence from Dhurat and his dozen subjects.
By your logic an 75 year old man might regrow his hair with needles because his follicles are dormant
Until a few years ago DHT was thought to be the main cause of hair-loss, but its being challenged now.At one of your posts you claimed that we have no cure yet because not enough money is being put into research and pharmaceutical companies will not make enough money by selling a pill that will cure hair loss.I disagree with that.Simply they have so many unknowns into the equation.
When a drug doesn't work after many years of research then you give up or start using excuses.(Cotsarelis)

 

[BaldAndBalder]

how long does it take before dermarolling result start show?

 

[300]

Where is DHT theory being challenged? Everything is downstream of DHT. Literally no respected researcher believes otherwise, only papers out of India which is known for backwards ideas on medicine. If you don't get the analogy with finasteride and my point about how the number of people getting results from microneedling doesn't indicate moa one way or the other then I'm sorry. I don't know how else to explain it. I think we both agree that minoxidil and microneedling is a great treatment regardless of the moa.

As i said before I am not advocating for or against needling,same with fina,but DHT is not the only culprit and absolutely is being challenged.Its even challenged by you(Bayer prolactin.smi). Challenged to me means, is not the only cause.Thats why i said,that there are many unknowns.
On a different note a lot of us are counting on you to find the cure.So keep up the good work

 

[pegasus2]

As i said before I am not advocating for or against needling,same with fina,but DHT is not the only culprit and absolutely is being challenged.Its even challenged by you(Bayer prolactin.smi). Challenged to me means, is not the only cause.Thats why i said,that there are many unknowns.
On a different note a lot of us are counting on you to find the cure.So keep up the good work

Prolactin is downstream of DHT. male pattern baldness literally can't happen without DHT. It's proven beyond a shadow of a doubt

 

[Armando Jose]

male pattern baldness literally can't happen without DHT

no, all hairs need DHT to grow. body hair is an example.
scalp hairs have DHT a lot of years before puberty, sebaceous gland need this hormone to make sebum.
Till scientists dont take the idea never we shall advance.....

 

[pegasus2]

To be fair he is just not using the right words. From his comment I understand that he's saying that there are other factors taking place, you can argument that it's a downstream effect, but prolactin currently remains to be an additional pathway to be addressed without necessarily altering DHT. I would also consider that the (mainstream) theory has been challenged, not as in being proven wrong but rather incomplete, lacking understanding in all the processes involved and also specially lacking the ability to provide a satisfactory solution.

It has always been known that it's incomplete. I don't think anyone ever thought DHT was the only culprit, there are hundreds of genes involved.