Hey Dr,
Great blog, keep it up. I’ve read about seemingly cures to hairloss – follica, haircloning etc.
Just to make things clear – Is follica’s approach also known as hair cloning, or is it completely different? I just want to distinguish between the two.
I ask because you say that haircloning will probably not available for another decade, or more. And am wondering if this applies to follica’s research.
The difference relates to the mechanism of action for Follica which is distinctly different from hair cloning. A Follica press release states, “By studying wound healing on a molecular level, Dr. George Cotsarelis and colleagues discovered that the skin has the ability to revert to a more primitive or ’embryonic’ state as stem cells migrate to the affected area, thereby achieving a regenerative capacity not previously appreciated to occur in adults.” It is this capacity that the research for Follica is based on.
Simply put, cloning requires that replica cells are created from an original cell, while the approach from Follica is to simulate the repair process, gaining more control over it to produce hair. The same press release goes on to say, “The researchers were able to control the regenerative response, including the extent of new hair follicle formation, by manipulating genetic pathways during this ’embryonic window’ when new follicles formed.”
Even if you were an XY, you have about a 50% chance of inheriting your father’s family line. I do know now about XYY like you are, but I would generally tell you to do what I always tell people to do when determining their likelihood of developing genetic balding:
I would think a natural treatment is something that does not use medication or artificial chemicals; a treatment that is found in nature, as opposed to developed in a lab. This is called 
