Until you’re ready for your old man era, presumably.
TommySoda@lemmy.world
on 12 Feb 18:06
nextcollapse
That’s the problem I’ve always had with baldness remedies. Shaving my head every other week takes less effort and saves money. Plus I’ve been bald since highschool so I’m kinda used to it at this point.
TheFunkyMonk@lemmy.world
on 12 Feb 18:30
nextcollapse
Same. I feel like I’d look so weird with hair now.
Saves money sure, but every other week? I have to buzz it twice a week to keep it short enough to not look terrible. That’s enough effort that I’d rather apply a regular treatment.
Not like a daily “keep doing it or you lose all progress” treatment, but maybe like a “use it more or less daily and it’ll grow back” treatment.
Hair loss remedies are always criticized on the grounds that you need to continue using them to continue seeing the benefits.
I don’t know why this complaint surfaces for hair loss medications in particular, when a lot of things are like this. Insulin. Depression drugs. All supplements. Etc.
Thought this said blindness for a second.
Was confused by the comments
TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
on 12 Feb 17:55
collapse
grow hair on eye balls
TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
on 12 Feb 18:24
collapse
I can’t find a gif of it, so I’d just like everyone to imagine that I posted that scene from the SpongeBob Movie where a worker sprays a can of hair onto King Neptune’s eyes.
BertramDitore@lemm.ee
on 12 Feb 18:03
nextcollapse
I started losing my hair when I was a teenager, so I’ve been bald for most of my life. I’ve been shaving my head for decades because it’s the only way my head and face don’t look absurd. I’m totally used to it, and long ago accepted that I’d never have hair on my head again.
But I’d be lying if I said I didn’t want my hair back.
If this turns out to be legit and works on most people, there could be a worldwide explosion of self-esteem in adults.
As someone that has also been bald since I was a teenager, I’ve also gotten used to it. I’ve accepted my fate and I’m fine with being bald.
But at the same time do you ever have those dreams where you have hair again and get super excited about it? Like straight up Jesus hair.
BertramDitore@lemm.ee
on 12 Feb 18:16
nextcollapse
100%
I’ve had dreams where my long locks were dramatically blowing in the wind, only to wake up and run my hands through my…well shit, that’s just my scalp.
I had postcard white-guy Jesus hair, hanging to the middle of my back, straight and reddish blond. A beard too. I went bald in my mid-40s and now what’s left around the fringes is white. People who see pictures of me from back in the day don’t recognize me.
Through UCLA’s Technology Transfer Group, which transforms brilliant research into global market products, the scientists have co-founded a medical development company called Pelage Pharmaceuticals
In case you were curious how this publicly funded research is going to be turned into private profits.
Which is reasonable in principle, but when they sell the exclusivity, they’re and to put that money back into their research expenses.
I’m okay with public money going to funding research projects that become private profit for a limited time. I’m a capitalist system, which is what we’re operating in, this seems to be the most effective. Government partially funds otherwise unprofitable R&D, companies make the product, and ordinary people are able to buy it at reasonable prices, and once exclusivity ends, anyone can make it.
That would be great, except in the US, that exclusivity can last for decades, which means entire generations will come and go before it becomes public.
In a better-regulated system where consumers are put before corporate interests, it could work, but the US hasn’t been that for a long time.
Can’t speak to the effectiveness of the baldness cure, but the model in the stock photo has cured ED, I am sure.
Donjuanme@lemmy.world
on 12 Feb 19:06
nextcollapse
Idiocracy was prophetic, just way too optimistic in the timeline.
Takashiro@lemmy.today
on 12 Feb 19:11
nextcollapse
Cool, but if this does work maybe in 10 years it will be easily accessible ,
Iam already going bald right now, sure it would be nice to have an option down the line.
One thing to keep in mind growing up in this age, a lot of things being developed or in the news now, simply won’t be accessible or relevant within my lifetime.
Dude, if this upsets you, consider that there are promising signs we may be able to significantly slow or even reverse aging itself within the next 50 years.
This means that it will have taken humanity 10 or 20 thousand generations, since our origins, to achieve immortality. But you, me, and everyone reading this is going to miss out on that by about 2.
prettybunnys@sh.itjust.works
on 13 Feb 02:47
collapse
When the scientific discoveries drop in about 50 years, you can expect another 20 years of development, approval, and commercialization. So if you are 10yo now, you will be 80yo taking your first pill. Hopefully that will not be too late for you. Stay in school and don’t do drugs, there, champ!
prettybunnys@sh.itjust.works
on 15 Feb 11:04
collapse
Alternately it was posited in the late 90s that those of us that will live to 150 are already alive, at 40 years old with current medical technology I’m pretty sure I can make it another 70 years if I take care of myself.
Assuming a continued exponential growth in medical advancement.
The actuality of it though is my 401k is built around a glorious death in the water wars.
roofuskit@lemmy.world
on 13 Feb 01:13
nextcollapse
Better watch out, when the king of the US government is done with all the queers and chronically ill the baldies are next.
ExcessShiv@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 13 Feb 08:25
collapse
the baldies are next.
Ugh, finally…
QuarterSwede@lemmy.world
on 13 Feb 02:58
nextcollapse
It’s not just cosmetic. Hair keeps the heat from escaping the head so quickly and, more importantly, it helps keep the head from getting sunburned and skin cancer.
You’re going to tell me that people are applying Rogaine so they don’t have to apply sunscreen? Hm yeah that is a well thought out argument when Rogaine is 10x more expensive.
No. The male hair loss remedy industry is entirely built around cosmetic vanity, not keeping warm.
I can sit here and tell you how hair can be host to different parasites or impair your vision while driving or get caught and pulled into power tools and is therefore a bad survival trait.
But let’s not be absolute morons.
billwashere@lemmy.world
on 13 Feb 03:14
nextcollapse
When my head is freezing and I don’t have a hat handy I’m pretty sure that’s not a cosmetic issue.
I rocked long hair from grade school to my mid 20s.
Then, a lady friend (platonic) sat me down and had a talk with me.
The thinning, now seemingly always greasy, strands of hair was not a good look. Like, don’t visit a playground or I would be arrested on site lol.
So, being a metal head there are two main options, or at least were at the time. Long hair. Or take bare clippers to it.
So, I did.
That first winter fucking suuuucked. Still to this day, I tend to rock a hoody in cold weather, and toss my hood up to cover my head for warmth when outdoors.
Sometimes I let it grow out for about a month before taking clippers to it again, out of sheer laziness. A month of growth, from shaved, isn’t much in the way of hair, but temperature wise it is very noticeable.
If the topic is undesired head hair loss, “bad” appropriately describes the genes that may contribute to that. The discussion is limited by the context to avoiding hair loss, it isn’t a universal conversation on cosmetics
Yes if you 100% swallow the cultural requirement to have a full head of hair, then not having one is bad. But I don’t expect a journalist or academician to write from such a culturally specific point of view.
If scientists came up with a new treatment for multiple sclerosis, and an article mentioned “bad genetics” as one of the reasons people develop MS, that would be shitty, wouldn’t it? How is this different? Obviously in the context of that MS article, it’s “bad” to have MS and we want to cure it. But you wouldn’t shit on people who suffer from it by saying they have “bad genetics.” So how is it any different? It seems just as unnecessary and disrespectful here as it does there.
I mean if it’s a damaged or failed it’s a bad gene. It caused ms!
It’s not shitting on a person, it’s discussing a condition.
I can understand that discussion can lead to eugenics style thoughts.
“Oh that person has tons of bad genes, they therefore are bad”. That’s wrong though, a person can have a super fucked up body but it doesn’t change their value or goodness.
When discussing a condition, the genes that improve or cause that condition can be described as good or bad.
Oh the last resort of he with no other leg to stand on: the hurt feelings bullshit. I’m not bald and my
feelings are not hurt. I do care about quality writing though and this is not that. Your gyrations of justification have ceased being fun to watch. You believe you’re laying out some kind of hard logic progression but it amounts to: if one accepts a long string of assumptions, then naturally the word makes perfect sense. But that is not the tidy “if / then” mathematical proof you think it is but a bald declaration of your cultural values. I’m sorry that you think people suffering from diseases are bad. I’m not surprised to hear that you have eugenics notions in your head.
You think a person’s worth is tied to their genes. Pretty yuck. I disagreed and explained how.
For the record I was calling YOU out for linking a person to their genes, just not directly, trying to be courteous to the conversation.
Keep replying now, and you’re just slapfighting. Not worth it. I said in the last comment our positions are well known and the conversation is functionally concluded.
GrumpyDuckling@sh.itjust.works
on 13 Feb 16:45
collapse
It just means you have too much testosterone.
ganoo@sh.itjust.works
on 12 Feb 22:21
nextcollapse
I’m bald and started shaving my head as soon as I noticed it was thinning (19 yrs old). I like the lack of maintenance and I think I look good with a bald head. \o/
Wouldn’t change it tbh.
miseducator@lemmy.world
on 13 Feb 01:49
nextcollapse
Lack of maintenance? Don’t you have to shave your head regularly?
Sure, but no need for combs, hair product, trips to the barber… I shave my face in the shower, and just keep going.
kmartburrito@lemmy.world
on 13 Feb 02:02
nextcollapse
Hey, I’m glad you can pull it off! I would look really weird with a shaved head. I would think there’s still maintenance involved though. How often do you have to shave it?
I think 95% of people would look better bald than holding on to thinning hair.
I shave daily because I like it smooooth, but it only takes a few minutes in the shower.
I’m with you but I would like the option honestly since I’ve been bald for over 30 years. Never having a bad hair day and razors being cheaper than haircuts are definitely a plus. But hitting your head on anything is almost always some sort of gash.
But damn if I don’t have dreams sometimes of running my fingers through my hair.
he helmed the leadership of Roivant, a multi-billion-dollar American pharmaceutical company he founded, and gallantly relinquished his CEO role in 2021 due to his unwavering stance against ESG principles, despite facing opposition from his liberal workforce. While this narrative might seem appealing, it is akin to the endless “flip-flops” that have plagued his campaign—an elaborate work of fiction that unravels upon a modicum of scrutiny.
Let’s start with the basics. Ramaswamy has funded his campaign through the sale of over $32 million in Roivant stock options in February of this year. This could lead one to believe that Roivant, based in Bermuda, is thriving and that Ramaswamy is a great entrepreneur. Except the company reported staggering losses of $1.2 billion in its financial report of March 2023. This isn’t a one-time slump: In March 2022, when Ramaswamy was still Roivant’s chairman and a major shareholder, the company reported an annual loss of $924.1 million.
Ramaswamy’s defenders may argue that Roivant performed better during his tenure as CEO in 2021, but alas, the numbers tell a different story. The reality is that Roivant’s finances were abysmal under Ramaswamy’s watch. During his tenure in 2019, the company’s net operating loss exceeded $530 million. By 2020, the losses had doubled to over $1 billion, accompanied by a 65 percent decline in revenue.
technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 13 Feb 17:27
nextcollapse
Baldness doesn’t need to be “cured”. There are many many actual diseases where people need real help.
Unfortunately capitalism completely degrades and perverts science/technology in order to make a quick buck, rather than actually helping humanity escape impending doom.
JesusTheCarpenter@feddit.uk
on 13 Feb 17:42
collapse
I don’t need to read an article to know that “no” is the correct answer the question in the title.
threaded - newest
Answer: kind of, as long you keep applying the substance you will regrow all the hair that you have lost and maintain it
So rogain or whatever it’s called
But it actually works
rogain also works, don’t tell me you believe in pfs?
…on specific areas and doesn’t regrow lost hair to the same density or lustre, but yeah… it works.
It works, but not all that well. The hair that comes back tends to be really thin.
keep applying for how long? Forever?
Until you’re ready for your old man era, presumably.
That’s the problem I’ve always had with baldness remedies. Shaving my head every other week takes less effort and saves money. Plus I’ve been bald since highschool so I’m kinda used to it at this point.
Same. I feel like I’d look so weird with hair now.
Saves money sure, but every other week? I have to buzz it twice a week to keep it short enough to not look terrible. That’s enough effort that I’d rather apply a regular treatment.
Not like a daily “keep doing it or you lose all progress” treatment, but maybe like a “use it more or less daily and it’ll grow back” treatment.
Hair loss remedies are always criticized on the grounds that you need to continue using them to continue seeing the benefits.
I don’t know why this complaint surfaces for hair loss medications in particular, when a lot of things are like this. Insulin. Depression drugs. All supplements. Etc.
Thought this said blindness for a second. Was confused by the comments
grow hair on eye balls
I can’t find a gif of it, so I’d just like everyone to imagine that I posted that scene from the SpongeBob Movie where a worker sprays a can of hair onto King Neptune’s eyes.
I started losing my hair when I was a teenager, so I’ve been bald for most of my life. I’ve been shaving my head for decades because it’s the only way my head and face don’t look absurd. I’m totally used to it, and long ago accepted that I’d never have hair on my head again.
But I’d be lying if I said I didn’t want my hair back.
If this turns out to be legit and works on most people, there could be a worldwide explosion of self-esteem in adults.
As someone that has also been bald since I was a teenager, I’ve also gotten used to it. I’ve accepted my fate and I’m fine with being bald.
But at the same time do you ever have those dreams where you have hair again and get super excited about it? Like straight up Jesus hair.
100%
I’ve had dreams where my long locks were dramatically blowing in the wind, only to wake up and run my hands through my…well shit, that’s just my scalp.
I just wish I had done something absurd like sport a bright pink mohawk at some point before going bald 😂
I had postcard white-guy Jesus hair, hanging to the middle of my back, straight and reddish blond. A beard too. I went bald in my mid-40s and now what’s left around the fringes is white. People who see pictures of me from back in the day don’t recognize me.
In case you were curious how this publicly funded research is going to be turned into private profits.
I don’t think UCLA is going to produce retail products themselves.
They could always make the research and processes public domain, so no one person can unilaterally profit.
But that’s not what they did, and that’s the problem.
Research isn’t free either.
Of course not, which is why they’re publicly funded. That’s the issue. They’re using public funds to make private profits.
It’s amazing you even have to explain something so obvious.
People gotta start down the road of anti-capitalism somewhere, right?
So how should we make this available to people then?
License and release it into the public domain: research, methods, processes, patents—the whole deal.
Privatizing medicine, even elective medicine, just ensures predation.
I’m not following. Making the results public domain doesn’t prohibit private companies from manufacturing for profit.
No, you got it. It’s not about prohibiting profit, it’s about preventing the exclusive ability to profit.
Think of generic medicines (in the US) versus brand equivalents and how vast their cost difference is.
Which is reasonable in principle, but when they sell the exclusivity, they’re and to put that money back into their research expenses.
I’m okay with public money going to funding research projects that become private profit for a limited time. I’m a capitalist system, which is what we’re operating in, this seems to be the most effective. Government partially funds otherwise unprofitable R&D, companies make the product, and ordinary people are able to buy it at reasonable prices, and once exclusivity ends, anyone can make it.
That would be great, except in the US, that exclusivity can last for decades, which means entire generations will come and go before it becomes public.
In a better-regulated system where consumers are put before corporate interests, it could work, but the US hasn’t been that for a long time.
I think this is pretty standard procedure no? Lots of small companies are spin-outs from universities
Sweet, so in thirty years I might be able to use this!
Can’t speak to the effectiveness of the baldness cure, but the model in the stock photo has cured ED, I am sure.
Idiocracy was prophetic, just way too optimistic in the timeline.
Cool, but if this does work maybe in 10 years it will be easily accessible , Iam already going bald right now, sure it would be nice to have an option down the line.
One thing to keep in mind growing up in this age, a lot of things being developed or in the news now, simply won’t be accessible or relevant within my lifetime.
Dude, if this upsets you, consider that there are promising signs we may be able to significantly slow or even reverse aging itself within the next 50 years.
This means that it will have taken humanity 10 or 20 thousand generations, since our origins, to achieve immortality. But you, me, and everyone reading this is going to miss out on that by about 2.
I don’t intend to be dead in the bext 50 years.
When the scientific discoveries drop in about 50 years, you can expect another 20 years of development, approval, and commercialization. So if you are 10yo now, you will be 80yo taking your first pill. Hopefully that will not be too late for you. Stay in school and don’t do drugs, there, champ!
Alternately it was posited in the late 90s that those of us that will live to 150 are already alive, at 40 years old with current medical technology I’m pretty sure I can make it another 70 years if I take care of myself.
Assuming a continued exponential growth in medical advancement.
The actuality of it though is my 401k is built around a glorious death in the water wars.
Finasteride effectively cured male pattern balding already. It’s safe and effective, the only downside is that you need to keep taking it
It’s also only preventative, seems like this is more reversal.
It reversed hair loss for me, I used to have a bald spot and I don’t have one anymore.
It also impacts libido
In a small percentage of people, and I was among those. It’s not permanent, because finasteride increases testosterone, which can convert to estrogen
“Bad” genetics?! Damn, that’s a little fucking judgmental for what is ultimately just a cosmetic issue.
PUT ON THE WIG DEGENERATE
Better watch out, when the king of the US government is done with all the queers and chronically ill the baldies are next.
Ugh, finally…
It’s not just cosmetic. Hair keeps the heat from escaping the head so quickly and, more importantly, it helps keep the head from getting sunburned and skin cancer.
You’re going to tell me that people are applying Rogaine so they don’t have to apply sunscreen? Hm yeah that is a well thought out argument when Rogaine is 10x more expensive.
No. The male hair loss remedy industry is entirely built around cosmetic vanity, not keeping warm.
I can sit here and tell you how hair can be host to different parasites or impair your vision while driving or get caught and pulled into power tools and is therefore a bad survival trait.
But let’s not be absolute morons.
When my head is freezing and I don’t have a hat handy I’m pretty sure that’s not a cosmetic issue.
I rocked long hair from grade school to my mid 20s.
Then, a lady friend (platonic) sat me down and had a talk with me.
The thinning, now seemingly always greasy, strands of hair was not a good look. Like, don’t visit a playground or I would be arrested on site lol.
So, being a metal head there are two main options, or at least were at the time. Long hair. Or take bare clippers to it.
So, I did.
That first winter fucking suuuucked. Still to this day, I tend to rock a hoody in cold weather, and toss my hood up to cover my head for warmth when outdoors.
Sometimes I let it grow out for about a month before taking clippers to it again, out of sheer laziness. A month of growth, from shaved, isn’t much in the way of hair, but temperature wise it is very noticeable.
Same here, I had white boy dreads until one day you realize it looks better to cut it all off then trying to make it look like something it’s not.
Yeah that’s a you forgetting your hat issue. Poor memory due to bad genetics. Damn you have all kinds of problems.
LOL!!!
I think people forget that not all populations benifit from more hair
If the topic is undesired head hair loss, “bad” appropriately describes the genes that may contribute to that. The discussion is limited by the context to avoiding hair loss, it isn’t a universal conversation on cosmetics
Yes if you 100% swallow the cultural requirement to have a full head of hair, then not having one is bad. But I don’t expect a journalist or academician to write from such a culturally specific point of view.
It’s an article about curing baldness, all context is pre determined.
Like sure, if we’re just bringing anything up, why care about baldness when I can’t breathe underwater, or if I can’t raise the dead?
If scientists came up with a new treatment for multiple sclerosis, and an article mentioned “bad genetics” as one of the reasons people develop MS, that would be shitty, wouldn’t it? How is this different? Obviously in the context of that MS article, it’s “bad” to have MS and we want to cure it. But you wouldn’t shit on people who suffer from it by saying they have “bad genetics.” So how is it any different? It seems just as unnecessary and disrespectful here as it does there.
I mean if it’s a damaged or failed it’s a bad gene. It caused ms!
It’s not shitting on a person, it’s discussing a condition.
I can understand that discussion can lead to eugenics style thoughts.
“Oh that person has tons of bad genes, they therefore are bad”. That’s wrong though, a person can have a super fucked up body but it doesn’t change their value or goodness.
When discussing a condition, the genes that improve or cause that condition can be described as good or bad.
Context matters.
It’s judgmental language and totally unnecessary.
It’s a bad gene. It’s literally the contextually appropriate description of a factor involved in a situation.
Sorry it hurts your feelings
We’ve both made our points and opinions known here.
Oh the last resort of he with no other leg to stand on: the hurt feelings bullshit. I’m not bald and my feelings are not hurt. I do care about quality writing though and this is not that. Your gyrations of justification have ceased being fun to watch. You believe you’re laying out some kind of hard logic progression but it amounts to: if one accepts a long string of assumptions, then naturally the word makes perfect sense. But that is not the tidy “if / then” mathematical proof you think it is but a bald declaration of your cultural values. I’m sorry that you think people suffering from diseases are bad. I’m not surprised to hear that you have eugenics notions in your head.
You think a person’s worth is tied to their genes. Pretty yuck. I disagreed and explained how.
For the record I was calling YOU out for linking a person to their genes, just not directly, trying to be courteous to the conversation.
Keep replying now, and you’re just slapfighting. Not worth it. I said in the last comment our positions are well known and the conversation is functionally concluded.
It just means you have too much testosterone.
I’m bald and started shaving my head as soon as I noticed it was thinning (19 yrs old). I like the lack of maintenance and I think I look good with a bald head. \o/
Wouldn’t change it tbh.
Lack of maintenance? Don’t you have to shave your head regularly?
Sure, but no need for combs, hair product, trips to the barber… I shave my face in the shower, and just keep going.
Hey, I’m glad you can pull it off! I would look really weird with a shaved head. I would think there’s still maintenance involved though. How often do you have to shave it?
It depends how shiny you want to keep it.
I do mine every 3 days, but it’s quality podcast time.
Razor blades cost pennies. So cheap.
I think 95% of people would look better bald than holding on to thinning hair. I shave daily because I like it smooooth, but it only takes a few minutes in the shower.
I’m with you but I would like the option honestly since I’ve been bald for over 30 years. Never having a bad hair day and razors being cheaper than haircuts are definitely a plus. But hitting your head on anything is almost always some sort of gash.
But damn if I don’t have dreams sometimes of running my fingers through my hair.
So true. Haired people don’t realise that their haircut is a helmet.
Is Betteridges Law dead?
no?
They didn’t and this doesn’t work as intended. They did however create a company to cash in on desperate people.
This is always the answer.
Reminds me of the time Vivek Ramaswamy bilked investors for over a billion with a phoney Alzeheimer’s drug
No
Baldness doesn’t need to be “cured”. There are many many actual diseases where people need real help.
Unfortunately capitalism completely degrades and perverts science/technology in order to make a quick buck, rather than actually helping humanity escape impending doom.
I don’t need to read an article to know that “no” is the correct answer the question in the title.