Hey,

I know this is irrelevant to the topic of hair removal, but I think many people with body hair also suffer from hair loss. A cure may be on the way!! Read below:

POSTED: 7:17 a.m. EDT, May 17, 2007
Story Highlights• Study shows mice able to grow new hair even after follicles lost
• Findings could lead to remedies for male-pattern baldness, other hair loss
• Study leader estimates more than five years before treatment possible
Adjust font size:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- Mice with deep skin wounds can grow new hair, scientists said on Wednesday in a finding that offers hope for a baldness remedy for humans.

The mice regenerated hair at the site of the wound via molecular processes similar to those used in embryonic development, according to the research, published in the journal Nature.

The findings show mammals possess greater regenerative abilities than commonly believed. While some amphibians can regenerate limbs and some reptiles can regenerate tails, regeneration in mammals is far more limited.

Dr. George Cotsarelis, a dermatology professor at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine in Philadelphia who led the study, said the findings dispel the dogma that hair loss is permanent in people and other mammals, and that once they are lost new hair follicles cannot grow.

Cotsarelis said the findings could pave the way for remedies for male-pattern baldness and other types of hair-loss. He said the idea would be to apply compounds to get epidermal cells to turn into hair follicles.

The regenerated follicles functioned normally, cycling through the various stages of hair growth, and the hair was indistinguishable from neighboring hair with a key exception -- it lacked pigmentation and was white.

The otherwise brown-haired mice had patches of white hair marking the site of the wound.

Cotsarelis said the white-hair issue may not materialize in any baldness remedy in people because the human pigmentation system differs from that in mice.

The researchers made relatively large wounds on the backs of adult mice, and found that if a wound reached a certain size new hairs formed at its center, with the skin undergoing changes mimicking stages of embryonic hair-follicle development.

Dormant embryonic molecular pathways were activated, sending stem cells -- master cells able to transform into other cell types -- to the damaged skin.

The stem cells that gave rise to the regenerated follicles were not stem cells usually associated with hair-follicle development.

"They're actually coming from epidermal cells that don't normally make hair follicles. So they're somehow reprogrammed and told to make a follicle," Cotsarelis said.

The researchers also found a way to amplify the natural regeneration process, causing mice to grow twice as many new hairs by giving the skin a specific molecular signal.

Cotsarelis is involved with Follica Inc., a privately held start-up company that has licensed the patent on the process from the University of Pennsylvania. He said it probably would be more than five years before a treatment was possible.

Cotsarelis also envisioned treating wounds in a way that would leave skin with hair follicles, sweat glands and other normal attributes that would be functionally and cosmetically much better than a scar.

Dr. Cheng-Ming Chuong, a professor of pathology at the University of Southern California who was not involved in the study, said it proved the principle that hair can regenerate from adult skin, but cautioned that human skin differs from mouse skin.

"Repair and regeneration appear to be in competition," Chuong said by e-mail.

"Since fast-closing wounds help the survival of wild animals, repair often dominates regeneration. In the practice of medicine, physicians are trained to close wounds as soon as possible, thus leaving not enough time for regeneration to occur."

Copyright 2007 Reuters. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/05/17/baldness.study.reut/index.html

Stem cell research has proven to be a very promising field, but how can we really tag or prevent mutations in these susceptible cells? Aren't they the closest to becoming cancer cells?

A lot of cosmetic products developed before that addressed the issue of scars and wrinkles by bringing back the totipotency of cells ended up being found as carcinogenic. Is there a way to ensure that these stem cells would not develop into cancer cells?

You are asking the wrong people. There is little or no info on this subject because the use of stem cells for research is very expensive and the supply of these cells is limited. I would rather that Docs spent their talent, time and money on more important subjects that are potentially life saving. Cure me of cancer and I will not feel bad about too little or too much hair.

Want a cure for cancer? Research Vitamin B-17, also known as Amygdalin, or Laetrile. It is abundant in the seeds of fruits, like apples, peaches, apricots, and plums. Your doctor won't tell you about it though. When taken daily, it PREVENTS cancer. When taken in the early stages, it (oops, no one in the United States is allowed to say Cures) um, er, seems to aliviate the sympthoms of cancer. It also has a better success rate on late stage cancer (15% to 0) over chemotherapy. Since it is so cheap, and can't be patented, you won't hear anyone tell you about it, and there will be no cozy commercials repeated 100 times a day telling you about it.

Let's see the data James. Not smoking prevents cancer as well. Eating a healthy diet prevents cancer. You seem to go just short of saying it cures cancer...so, let's see the data.

I gave you enough information to do your own search and find data pro and con. I will give you this, the mechanism of the healing action is that the arsenic contained in these seeds is bound and passes through the body normally, unless it contacts abnormal cells like those found in cancer, which causes a reaction that releases the arsenic and causes the death of the abnormal cells, and only those cells (as they opened the arsenic, while normal cells don't do that) and they are passed out with the normal shedding of dead cells. Of course, if the cancer has progressed too far, and instead of additional tumor cells, one would lose large parts of the body with this action, it is the same as having large parts cut out. This is why it works better as a preventative, or turning back early stage cancer, but can not take a person with terminal late stage cancer and magically cure them.

But do some work and see what you can find. It is out there.

Sorry James but I MUST call you on this one. Either you do NOT KNOW what you are talking about when it comes to arsenic, or you were taken in by some pseudo-science rant that claims MIRACULOUS CURES (have you noticed they are ALWAYS miraculous). Arsenic is a HEAVY METAL that is NOT excreted. It is stored in the body and accumulates until the toxic level is reached and the patient slowly DIES.
Ethical docs NEVER GUARANTEE A CURE REGARDLESS OF WHAT THEY ARE TREATING
A treatment is not a cure. Some treatable conditions require multiple treatmentsbut the patient may never be cured. Relief is not a cure. Their defense is always.... "No two people are the same, therefore, no promises are ever made". There is ALWAYS the spectre of FLESH EATING BACTERIA as they live on the skin too."We do the best we can and hope for the best." If it does not work out ...it is called "complications". Patients always expect miracles and sometimes we can provide them, however, we know it is not a miracle. Rox Anderson told me,"I NO LONGER USE LASERS FOR HAIR REMOVAL BECAUSE I TREATED A WOMAN WITH JET BLACK HAIR AND VERY WHITE SKIN AND ALL THE HAIR GREW BACK. UNTILL I KNOW WHY THIS HAPPENS I CAN NOT TELL ANY WOMAN I CAN REMOVE HER HAIR AS I WOULD BE LYING. We have called back treated patients to get some feedback on her satisfaction. We received many answers from dissatisfied patients and returned fees to a number of them."
That is an ETHICAL doctor. If electrologists were ethical we would be BROKE because when we tell a patient how long the process will be and how much it may cost for a small area they would quit. Not all patients can come on a weekly basis and pay that much. Obviously some can pay and are willing to go through the process but as you can see here from input from patients they go from office to office seeking the "miracle" cure. IT DOES NOT EXIST.

DOCTORS, THEIR WIFES, CHILDREN, AND OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS GET CANCER TOO. USE YOUR HEAD. Laetrile was used for years. GOOGLE these things and you can learn before you become an expert. There are always people trying to sell you things that are NOT controlled to those who are CANCEROPHOBIC. All researchers want to get a Nobel prize. If those products had any merit someone would have tested them. The U.S. subsidized studies on St. Johns Wart, Echonasia, and a slew of these herbs. If they worked the govt. would have checked it out. YOU CAN NOT PATENT SOME OF THESE PRODUCTS BUT YOU CAN PATENT THE PROCESS THAT MAKES THEM. If you mix it with something else you can get a patent. Also you can use a delivery system that is patentable like a patch.

Regarding LASER and Rox Anderson, may I ask you when he made this comment? If it was in the late 1990's or early 2000's, then a lot has been learned and modified in regard to LASER devices and their ability to provide good permanent hair reduction for many, depending on the area and client compliance. I believe this statement is outdated. Do you still have contact with Dr. Anderson and does he still say this?

That is not strictly true, I know in many cases it is though. The most truthful electrologist I went to is very open with the length of time, cost and so forth (to the point where she openly said when clients come in saying they want large areas cleared like backs that she won't be able to clear all the hair without it becoming extremeley expensive). Yet she is still very popular, to the point where I had to juggle things around to get a consultation.

Ethics is a major part of any profession, if a client asks for information and it is withheld (even if one believes that it is for the patients own good) I would personally, as well as others consider it morally wrong at least. No one should make a decision or lead a patient to making a decision by not giving them all the information to consent to a treatment, regardless of whether it appears that it would help them or not. Every person should have the right to make their own decisions, isn't that what the majority of Western culture is based on (I know this a point of dispute though). Why do you think politicians are so widely disliked? The number of them that don't tell you the full story and then turn around and say "it was for the countries own good" when in some, but of course not all, most would consider the different possible outcomes of two or more plans of actions, as pretty much the same. What really gets on a large portion of peoples wicks is not knowing why something is happening.

This is not a personal attack on you, but merely me just expressing my opinion.

Regards,
Benji