ohmanohno said:10 years. Companies haven't made enough money off of us yet. Amazing how we can go to the moon, build nukes and clone animals but we "can't" solve men from losing their hair....
TravisB said:Since hair don't really die (they just miniaturize so much that they aren't visible to the naked eye), all the scientists need to do is find some kind of stimulant that will give the follicles a kick to start growing hair again/. Maybe Aderans, Replicel, Fillica or Histogen are on the right way?
abcdefg said:You guys are way too pessimistic and that is really what this question comes down to. I think its impossible to predict just because nature is really in control of if any way actually exists or not. I think the fact we know hair miniaturizes but always stays there will make it much easier to find a way to get them to start growing again. It might actually be a lot easier then people think its just a slow experimental process with lots of dead ends.
lol....s.a.f said:abcdefg said:You guys are way too pessimistic and that is really what this question comes down to. I think its impossible to predict just because nature is really in control of if any way actually exists or not. I think the fact we know hair miniaturizes but always stays there will make it much easier to find a way to get them to start growing again. It might actually be a lot easier then people think its just a slow experimental process with lots of dead ends.
We've known that for decades and despite best efforts and probably £100's millions spent on research and trials theres still nothing better than finasteride which is over 20 yrs old.
When they've cured Aids and Cancer then I'll start getting my hopes up.
rwhairlosstalk said:We can put a thin computer in our pockets and relay electromagnetic energy for communication and freezer to hot and ready cooking in the matter of minutes, but we can't cure baldness?
I mean really is it that hard? Or is it that we just don't get the funding for it? Or maybe that its' solution lies in an area of medicine that we have yet to fully explorer...genetics?
lol!Banjo said:Probably when we are all too old to care
That's my point. Seeing that the last best thing was a whopping 20 years ago...man, that's huge in the eyes of advancements...I don't see much happening IF we continue at that rate. Also considering that advances happen all the time, and we STILL are 20 years since the last...remember, adv's happen alot quicker now than in the past...it doesn't look good. There's a HUGE hurdle that we someone have yet to get past.Captain Combover said:Sadly I can not see a topical or oral cure in the next 100yrs. Sure drugs better than finasteride will be available, but the side effects could prevent FDA approval. Sounds really negative, but since finasteride became available approx 20 years ago, .
Hmm. I thought I knew dutasteride, but how so?Captain Combover said:Sounds really negative, but since finasteride became available approx 20 years ago, nothing except Dutasteride has improved upon it.