Did UCLA Just Cure Baldness?
-
In a small percentage of people, and I was among those. It's not permanent, because finasteride increases testosterone, which can convert to estrogen
-
So true. Haired people don't realise that their haircut is a helmet.
-
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 this is pretty standard procedure no? Lots of small companies are spin-outs from universities
-
This is always the answer.
-
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
-
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.
-
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. -
It just means you have too much testosterone.
-
Reminds me of the time Vivek Ramaswamy bilked investors for millions with a phoney Alzeheimer's drug
-
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.
-
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.
-
Yeah that’s a you forgetting your hat issue. Poor memory due to bad genetics. Damn you have all kinds of problems.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
