I have posted my comments following numerous questions on the new findings on hair regenerative capabilities at University of Pennsylvania on their website’s blog. I also encourage you to read the trend of this post on Nature.com’s blog. Here is what I said on the effect of these new findings on the treatment of hair loss:
The research done at the University of Pennsylvania has brought about a different concept on the regenerative capabilities of hair follicles. Dr. Cotsarelis and his team have proven that Wnt protein can induce an embryonic phenotype, which can resemble adult hair follicle. Although these findings seem promising for future treatment of many disorders of skin and its appendages, it is too early to conclude we have any treatments in hand for hair loss or other skin disorders based on this research. Regarding hair loss treatment, we are facing three major hampers in our way.
Firstly, the characteristics of mouse hair are remarkably different than human hair. Mouse hair is more of a villous hair in comparison to a mature human hair so called terminal hair. The growth cycle of mouse hair does not follow the same for human hair. Secondly, an alteration of Wnts pathway is proven to be associated with carcinogenesis in all mammals as this is a known gene pathway. The fact that this is a known carcinogen, is a major ‘negative’ and will prevent any human research that may involve manipulation of the Wnt gene. Thirdly, even if we can influence the gene to make it safe for producing a human terminal hair; it is likely that the new hair presents proteins on its surface which will still allow the hair to fall out as the original hair does.
I am writing on this matter in response to the numerous questions from our patients in our hair loss question and answer blog, BaldingBlog, asking what to expect within the next few years on this issue in the treatment of hair loss. It is definitely not to undermine the value of the great work that Cotsarelis and his team did. Although the result of this research may not affect the patients’ imminent hair loss and skin problems, it will certainly affect the future of hair related research possibly leading us to find a cure for baldness and similar disorders in the future.
They didn’t know any better back in those days. I know we’re only talking about 20-25 years ago, but technology is an interesting thing. One might say that there was so much excitement to get hair on a bald head, that men did not use their brains. Or that doctors were so trusted in those days, that when a doctor recommended hair plugs, everything was followed like the sheep to the slaughter. It may seen archaic now, but it was the state of the art back then and most men had plugs put into thinning hair so that they only saw more fullness — that is, until the hair all fell out around the plugs. There was a logic put together by the doctor that one could put the hair back in quarter sections, like a checkerboard with four squares. First you transplanted one square than the second, then the third, and then the last. In theory, the doctors and the patients wanted to believe that when all four squares were filled in, the hair was full. But reality took on another face, and the doctors started to push ‘touch-ups’ to fix the pluggy appearance of the rows of corn that grew on the head. It was not unusual for a patient to have 10 surgeries to get their hair back, but that was never a real possibility. I don’t know where common sense played a role and the men walking around with ‘doll’s hair’ were becoming more and more prevalent. Celebrities were leading the way and people like Frank Sinatra became the model that everyone wanted to follow (he had a pluggy transplant), but he really looked awful so he wore a wig and people thought that was his hair transplant, an illusion that doctors profited from and patients wanted to believe. It was an embarrassing con game perpetrated by the medical profession.