A cure for gray hair is on the way?

[petrichor2]

I saw this news article (here is the article about it in a medical journal) and began to wonder if the cure for gray hair is on the way. Those immunotherapy drugs can restore hair color on healthy people?, And what about the safety? It is dangerous to healthy people more than to cancer patients?. The scientists now need to investigate the process behind the repigmentation of white hairs in those cases and develop a whole new drug for this?, or simply look for a way to make the existing drugs safer for treatments for white hairs like taking those drugs in smaller doses?.

sorry if i ask so many questions in one thread but this case raise a lot of questions.

 

[jedishrfu]

Welcome to PF!

 

[mfb]

This study says:

IrAEs associated with PD-1 blockade therapy include interstitial pneumonitis, colitis with gastrointestinal perforation, type 1 diabetes, severe skin reactions, immune thrombocytopenia, neutropenia and sepsis after corticosteroid therapy, encephalopathy and neurological sequelae, Guillain-Barré syndrome, myelitis, myasthenia gravis, myocarditis and cardiac insufficiency, acute adrenal insufficiency, and nephritis.

It doesn't indicate frequencies - but it doesn't sound like something suitable just for changing the hair color. Simply putting color into the hair doesn't have all these possible side effects.

 

[jim mcnamara]

The JAMA network article is a clinical result. The clinicians viewed the hair change as a marker, not as a desirable end result. They were reporting the result for terminal lung cancer patients, In other words, as @mfb mentions, it is simply too likely to cause horrible problems for "treating" something as trivial and normal as gray hair.

I view the news article as the usual consumerism stuff you see everywhere. In other words the article is akin to articles like 'Elvis has https://www.physicsforums.com/moderation-queue/returned from planet Foobar' you saw in those supermarket tabloids years ago. Migrated to the internet.

The point is: when physicians are treating people for an incurable fatal disease, using treatments that may have nasty side effects but also have some positive results, is okay.

Example: chemotherapy. Causes hair loss, weight loss, increases stroke probability, etc.

Would you undergo chemotherapy simply to lose weight? Instead of exercising and changing your diet...?

 

[DrDu]

They mention that hair repigmentation is also sometimes observed with Thalidomide, the active compound in Contergan!

 

[petrichor2]

The JAMA network article is a clinical result. The clinicians viewed the hair change as a marker, not as a desirable end result. They were reporting the result for terminal lung cancer patients, In other words, as @mfb mentions, it is simply too likely to cause horrible problems for "treating" something as trivial and normal as gray hair.

I view the news article as the usual consumerism stuff you see everywhere. In other words the article is akin to articles like 'Elvis has https://www.physicsforums.com/moderation-queue/returned from planet Foobar' you saw in those supermarket tabloids years ago. Migrated to the internet.

The point is: when physicians are treating people for an incurable fatal disease, using treatments that may have nasty side effects but also have some positive results, is okay.

Example: chemotherapy. Causes hair loss, weight loss, increases stroke probability, etc.

Would you undergo chemotherapy simply to lose weight? Instead of exercising and changing your diet...?

I know that the hair repigmentation wasn't the end result, it was clear from the news article that the hair repigmentation was a side effect of the treatment. the article also quoted Dr robinson, an editor from JAMA dermatology and said that it is still unknown if this case will lead to new treatment for gray hair. And she probably meant to a completely risk free treatment that have FDA approval for the treatment of gray hairs. The fact that the dailymail is a tabloid doesn't mean that it lies or doesn't have reliable sources for the article.

Immune-related adverse events (IrAEs) can be reduced to a level that you have a good chance to benefit from the repigmentation side effect without suffering from a Irreparable damage?. If so it might become an unapproved treatment that is used(even illegaly) by people who are ready to take some risks and physical pain in order to treat their hair graying problem which might seems trivial for some people but not for everybody.

The news article also mentioned that one of the scientists behind this study said that the "drugs have serious side effects that make them unsafe for healthy people. But if it's confirmed that they do change hair color, a different drug could be developed to treat gray hair", and i wonder how do they do this and how much time it will take. they can develop a different type of immunotherapy drug that has milder side effects and/or used in different doses that reduce the side effects or they need to research the mechanism behind hair repigmentation and develop a whole new drug?. how much time can it takes them to do one of those things?

 

[petrichor2]

I searched a bit more about the subject and found this: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6031562/
this article mention many cases of hair repigmentation cause of some drugs and also talked about the case with the 14 people on the immunotherapy drugs. they show a case where a person took a drug called secukinumab and this drug restored his hair color, it worked cause of his plaque psoriasis disease? or it was just some unique case with this guy? what is the chances to experience hair repigmentation with this drug?.

 

[petrichor2]

I saw this research about another drug (secukinumab) that can restore hair color to gray hair(and also restore hair in general), the patient experienced significant hair pigmentation and growth after 6 month and it continued getting darker in the follow-up. And this time unlike the immunotherapy drugs for cancer from my previous thread this drug is completely safe and the most most probable side effects from this drug(noted as "more than 10% of people experience them") is upper respiratory tract infections which is basically things like the common cold and similar diseases that just makes you stay in bed without needing hospitalization.
The hair pigmentation and growth from the drug was also unrelated to the disease(psoriasis) the patient have, but still I have some questions:
what is the chances of experiencing hair repigmentation from this drug?.
Can you increase those chances by taking other drugs?(the research mentioned some drugs that could have cause the repigmentation if he took them).
The chances of experiencing hair repigmentation can be related to the dose of this drug?.
This research have some findings that can pave the way for new and better drugs for restoring hair color?.I were told by a mentor that creating a new thread for this is the best choice.

 

[jim mcnamara]

From the top: most of the drugs mentioned in the secukinumab article, cited a host of other drugs which also cause repigmentation, some of which have been around for a long time. I am not aware of them being used off-label (meaning used to do something that was not originally approved by the FDA) to "cure" gray hair. So why were they not hurried into and marketed for off-label use? Because as I've explained, I think, folks on PF do not speculate and right now that is what you are asking for.

Let me explain clearly. Most of these drugs mess with your immune system. Secukinumab is a monoclonal antibody that interferes with interleukin-17A molecules. A part of the immune system response.

It is used on psoriasis, ankylosing spondylitis, and psoriatic arthritis. All are inflammatory diseases. An inflammatory disease is one where all of the large number of blood cells that work to fight infection and promote healing go a little overboard and attack healthy tissue. Since this requires a shot/IV series ( Currently I think this is the case) and careful physician monitoring it is not an over the counter drug.. Why? because it reduces the immune response, and not always in ways that you might like. Or maybe even not survive without medical help.

So, do you want something that requires a shot, blood tests, pee tests, and neurological exams in order to cure your gray hair?

We do not speculate here. So don't ask if the researchers can work around all these issues to compete in a long established market for cosmetics - hair dyes.
which are .05% of the cost.

For comparison:
I am in a random controlled trial - now in follow up - for Canakinumab. I am told the cost will likely be more than 5000US dollars per year when the trial ends. Plus medical monitoring. This drug interferes with another different interleukin molecule to reduce inflammatory arterial plaque deposition. The drug probably will probably only be prescribed for patients with extremely high serum C-reactive protein levels. It did get rid of some my minor allergies. But it will never be used for that.

 

[petrichor2]

From the top: most of the drugs mentioned in the secukinumab article, cited a host of other drugs which also cause repigmentation, some of which have been around for a long time. I am not aware of them being used off-label (meaning used to do something that was not originally approved by the FDA) to "cure" gray hair. So why were they not hurried into and marketed for off-label use? Because as I've explained, I think, folks on PF do not speculate and right now that is what you are asking for.

Let me explain clearly. Most of these drugs mess with your immune system. Secukinumab is a monoclonal antibody that interferes with interleukin-17A molecules. A part of the immune system response.

It is used on psoriasis, ankylosing spondylitis, and psoriatic arthritis. All are inflammatory diseases. An inflammatory disease is one where all of the large number of blood cells that work to fight infection and promote healing go a little overboard and attack healthy tissue. Since this requires a shot/IV series ( Currently I think this is the case) and careful physician monitoring it is not an over the counter drug.. Why? because it reduces the immune response, and not always in ways that you might like. Or maybe even not survive without medical help.

So, do you want something that requires a shot, blood tests, pee tests, and neurological exams in order to cure your gray hair?

We do not speculate here. So don't ask if the researchers can work around all these issues to compete in a long established market for cosmetics - hair dyes.
which are .05% of the cost.

For comparison:
I am in a random controlled trial - now in follow up - for Canakinumab. I am told the cost will likely be more than 5000US dollars per year when the trial ends. Plus medical monitoring. This drug interferes with another different interleukin molecule to reduce inflammatory arterial plaque deposition. The drug probably will probably only be prescribed for patients with extremely high serum C-reactive protein levels. It did get rid of some my minor allergies. But it will never be used for that.

"So, do you want something that requires a shot, blood tests, pee tests, and neurological exams in order to cure your gray hair?", Yes, and there are a lot of people who are just like me, especially if we take in mind that this particular medicine also helped with the hair loss the patient suffered from.
And the side effects of this drug are minor and have pretty low chances to happen, most of them don't even require going to the hospital.

The real questions is what are the chances of experiencing hair repigmentation with this drug or other kind of drugs and what can affect those chances.
I know that probably nobody in this forum can tell me exactly all the details about this drug and hair repigmentation but can't i ask for an opinion? what is the problem with speculations?.

 

[jim mcnamara]

Grecian formula? Quality hair dye?

We are educational here - we deal with known accepted science. If you want someone to guess about this I can move the thread to General Discussion.

Why no speculation:
This is because regular non-science folks love to say 'I have a theory' which basically means it derives from their nether regions.

The word 'theory' to scientists does not mean that. no way. One the most basic statements about the universe is called 'The General Theory of Relativity'. It has been tested in all kinds of ways for over 100 years. It always works. It gives correct answers. It predicts lots of weird things. Correctly. This is different from what you and your buddy mean with that same word. Your GPS would not work well without understanding this theory.

I was a scientist at Los Alamos, for example. The majority of the active science advisors here have years of experience. As scientists and engineers. They do not support guessing about stuff in the educational context. Scientists stick to known and tested concepts. We follow a lot of guidelines, we get checked and corrected all of the time. We say 'Thank you I was wrong' and try to do better the next go around.

I get that you want this. Lots of people do. But that does not mean it will happen. No matter how simple it appears.

I'm trying to tell you that a lot of these therapies are dangerous. They can kill you. Tweaking them in that lab will not help much. The lawyers will love the damage suits that will arise in a couple of months - if some of these things were used broadly. Plus the FDA will have oversight. If recoloration treatments kill people, they would shut it down.

And yes it is hypothetically possible to create something like what you want. If that will help you sleep at night. But I am unaware of any active developments. I'm positive Clairol would love to market a harmless hair recoloration therapy. So the CEO could buy an island like Larry Ellison did - he's CEO of the Oracle Corp.

 

[petrichor2]

Grecian formula? Quality hair dye?

We are educational here - we deal with known accepted science. If you want someone to guess about this I can move the thread to General Discussion.

Why no speculation:
This is because regular non-science folks love to say 'I have a theory' which basically means it derives from their nether regions.

The word 'theory' to scientists does not mean that. no way. One the most basic statements about the universe is called 'The General Theory of Relativity'. It has been tested in all kinds of ways for over 100 years. It always works. It gives correct answers. It predicts lots of weird things. Correctly. This is different from what you and your buddy mean with that same word. Your GPS would not work well without understanding this theory.

I was a scientist at Los Alamos, for example. The majority of the active science advisors here have years of experience. As scientists and engineers. They do not support guessing about stuff in the educational context. Scientists stick to known and tested concepts. We follow a lot of guidelines, we get checked and corrected all of the time. We say 'Thank you I was wrong' and try to do better the next go around.

I get that you want this. Lots of people do. But that does not mean it will happen. No matter how simple it appears.

I'm trying to tell you that a lot of these therapies are dangerous. They can kill you. Tweaking them in that lab will not help much. The lawyers will love the damage suits that will arise in a couple of months - if some of these things were used broadly. Plus the FDA will have oversight. If recoloration treatments kill people, they would shut it down.

And yes it is hypothetically possible to create something like what you want. If that will help you sleep at night. But I am unaware of any active developments. I'm positive Clairol would love to market a harmless hair recoloration therapy. So the CEO could buy an island like Larry Ellison did - he's CEO of the Oracle Corp.

Who said that this drug would kill me?, I readed about the side effects of this drug(both in the FDA site and wikipedia) and they are minor and as i said before most of them are just extremely mild things that just makes you stay in bed at home.
The only real problem with this drug is the chance for it to work that way for someone and that is exactly what i asked. the study also talked about the mechanism of what happened and other types of mechanisms and drugs that could do the same and that why i asked if combining some of those drugs could increase the chances of success.

If this forum isn't meant for opinions and only strict answers i respect that. But i think you do let yourself expressing your opinions and random thoughts about things without any kind of facts from the safety of this drug to comparing the news article to "'Elvis has returned from planet Foobar'" as if the news article isn't reliable and the general way you say things against anything i say and the mere idea of a cure for gray hair like when you said that the drug i am talking about(cure for gray hair) couldn't even compete with hair dyes which is obviously wrong.

Just wanted to have a general discussion on an interesting cases, If this isn't according to the forum's rules or purpose you could just tell that to me and mybe close the thread.

 

[jim mcnamara]

I'll move the thread.

 

[NascentOxygen]

Greying hair is said to be indicative of a copper deficiency. Apparently our typical diet is deficient in copper, just as it's said to be low in magnesium and a handful of other essential minerals.

 

[DrClaude]

Ibegan to wonder if the cure for gray hair is on the way

I didn't know that greying hair was a disease.

 

[PeroK]

Of all the things associated with ageing, grey hair is probably the least problematic.

 

[bob012345]

I didn't know that greying hair was a disease.

Indeed, for some ancient cultures, gray hair gave one honor.

 

[bob012345]

Greying hair is said to be indicative of a copper deficiency. Apparently our typical diet is deficient in copper, just as it's said to be low in magnesium and a handful of other essential minerals.

But why then would it mainly effect older people?

 

[petrichor2]

I didn't know that greying hair was a disease.

it is something that most people don't want so it is a problem that is "cured" if it get reversed.

Of all the things associated with ageing, grey hair is probably the least problematic.

actually grey hair is more about genetic rather than age. Some people get noticeably grey in their 20s or even in high school(i heard about a lot of people who got grey hairs when they where teenagers) while some people like my father are 71 years old and 99% of the hairs on their heads are black and also barely lost hairs.

 

[PeroK]

it is something that most people don't want so it is a problem that is "cured" if it get reversed.

There were a number of men at my workplace who dyed their hair dark. But, contrasting with clearly older faces, it looked absurd to me.

There's also something psychologically stable about accepting things like grey hair and getting on with life.

A cure for arthritis, on the other hand, would be a different matter.

 

[petrichor2]

There were a number of men at my workplace who dyed their hair dark. But, contrasting with clearly older faces, it looked absurd to me.

There's also something psychologically stable about accepting things like grey hair and getting on with life.

A cure for arthritis, on the other hand, would be a different matter.

My father is 71 years old(with 71 years old's face) with almost a completely black head but it isn't look weird or absurd. Anyway as i said many people get gray hairs at a young age and it isn't all about age.
You can accept thing when you can't change them but when you can change them or might could change them in the next few years then you shouldn't just accept them. Most people on wheelchairs(who are paralyzed) got on with their life and "accepted" their disability but if there is a treatment that could make them walk again should they just ignore it and "accept" their inability to use their legs?.

 

[PeroK]

My father is 71 years old(with 71 years old's face) with almost a completely black head but it isn't look weird or absurd. Anyway as i said many people get gray hairs at a young age and it isn't all about age.
You can accept thing when you can't change them but when you can change them or might could change them in the next few years then you shouldn't just accept them. Most people on wheelchairs(who are paralyzed) got on with their life and "accepted" their disability but if there is a treatment that could make them walk again should they just ignore it and "accept" their inability to use their legs?.

It's absurd to compare having grey hair with being in a wheelchair.

 

[russ_watters]

Yeah, I'm mostly bald, but would not trade my hair for my legs!

 

[Bystander]

trade my hair for my legs!

..., or eyes.

 

[petrichor2]

It's absurd to compare having grey hair with being in a wheelchair.

I am not saying that grey hair is like being paralyzed, I am saying that you "accept" unwanted conditions(most people don't like having gray hair especially not when they are still young) only when you probably can't change it now or in the foreseeable future. And there are more and more medications that caused repigmentation in gray hair and I saw two studies that suggested those cases prove that a cure for gray hair is possible.

 

[mfb]

I am not saying that grey hair is like being paralyzed, I am saying that you "accept" unwanted conditions(most people don't like having gray hair especially not when they are still young) only when you probably can't change it now or in the foreseeable future.

But you can change it. Hair coloring has been around for ages. People who have visible grey hair don't think it is an issue, at least not so much that they would color their hair. A much less invasive approach than any drugs.

 

[davenn]

......
There's also something psychologically stable about accepting things like grey hair and getting on with life.

when my gets too white or falls below the acceptable amount ( in my view) left on my head, I will just shave the remaining
and become a "Chrome Dome"

A cure for arthritis, on the other hand, would be a different matter.

ohhh yeah !

My knees, elbows, neck and fingers in my right hand are all suffering arthritis (rheumatoid )
it's freekin painful ... 24/7 pain Dave

 

[NascentOxygen]

But why then would it mainly effect older people?

It's not something I have studied, but I think from late middle-age on an individual typically becomes more and more limited in the range of foods they choose to eat. There are probably communities where the diet is consistently adequate in bioavailable mineral content (not just copper), and it would be interesting to discover whether the older citizens there suffer loss of hair pigment.

 

[NascentOxygen]

There were a number of men at my workplace who dyed their hair dark. But, contrasting with clearly older faces, it looked absurd to me.

Having a perfectly uniform shade of hair color across ones scalp does call attention to it. If eyebrows are out of sync with dyed hair color, things start to look comical.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Cure seems a bizarre word for something that is neither a medical disorder nor particularly a social affliction (depending on local culture maybe). If people have such an issue with going grey and really want something to prevent or reverse it then this is good for them I guess. But I think it's ridiculous to frame it as a widespread accepted issue.

Having said that I am male and there's certainly less stigma about men getting old than there is for women. Very occasionally I'll see an advert for hair dye or for treatments to reverse hair loss. Turn the TV on in the day and within an hour you'll probably have seen multiple adverts telling women to "hide those wrinkles", "cover up those blemishes", "Desperately try and look 20 again rather than your [shock horror] actual age!"

In that context I can appreciate why many people would want such a treatment, even though I'd rather (or at least alongside) see the stigma obliterated. Health is important, feeling comfortable in your body based on your own self reflection is important, being convinced that looking old is terrible is not.

 

[petrichor2]

But you can change it. Hair coloring has been around for ages. People who have visible grey hair don't think it is an issue, at least not so much that they would color their hair. A much less invasive approach than any drugs.

Many men don't color their gray hair cause they view hair coloring as something that only women should do and in general it isn't accepted well by some people, just look at how you reacted to the men in your work that dyed their hairs, I bet you don't think it is absurd when women at any age dye their hairs in order to hide gray hairs.
That why the leading hair color(especially made to hide gray hairs) brand for men is called "Just for Men" cause hair dying is socially unacceptable for men.

Dying your hair is indeed one solution to gray hair but its much better to cure it and preventing it from growing gray.

 

[PeroK]

Dying your hair is indeed one solution to gray hair but its much better to cure it and preventing it from growing gray.

You are still presuming that grey hair is a problem to be solved. Many women find grey hair attractive, as a sign of experience in a man. Look up the term "silver fox"!

We all have the option to grow old gracefully. There is no necessity to succumb to pressure from the cosmetic or pharmaceutical industries.

And, as I alluded to in an earlier post, there is a psychological benefit in accepting changes as you get older and not developing a neurotic fear of ageing.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I bet you don't think it is absurd when women at any age dye their hairs in order to hide gray hairs.

Can't speak for mfb but I think it's absurd from the POV that it's driven by a ridiculous cultural standard. If a man or woman wants to alter the colour of their hair in any way simply because they'd like it to be that way then more power to them, I have absolutely no problem with individual choice and it's not my business. However social stigmas that enforce the idea that it's wrong not to do so I have a serious problem with. Particularly when it fosters a sense that completely harmless changes to one's body should be thought of as a disease.

Turning the question around; why do you think it's important to hide or prevent grey hair?

 

[Rive]

Every time I see this topic on the top, I can't help to think on this topic with suspecting a marriage on the horizon...

 

[petrichor2]

You are still presuming that grey hair is a problem to be solved. Many women find grey hair attractive, as a sign of experience in a man. Look up the term "silver fox"!

We all have the option to grow old gracefully. There is no necessity to succumb to pressure from the cosmetic or pharmaceutical industries.

And, as I alluded to in an earlier post, there is a psychogical benefit in accepting changes as you get older and not developing a neurotic fear of ageing.

Gray hair is a problem if you don't like the look and indeed it isn't really attractive for the majority of people. Women who find gray hair attractive are usually the kind of women who look for old rich men to take care of them and this is your "experience". Of course we all get old at the end but as I said before gray hair can appear in any age and it isn't that rare to find children/teenagers with some gray hairs. It isn't about looking young at age 70, It is about preventing from those really bad genes from ruining your look and make you look much older than what you are.
And no, there is no any kind of psychological benefit from denial and telling yourself that it looks good, It kind of remind me those "fat acceptance" women who try to convince themselves and others by force that their fat body is attractive while it is obviously not for the great majority of the population and they can't just convince people that they are attractive.
So would you want to date with a fat woman with a completely gray hair or a woman with athletic fit body with vibrant hair color?.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Gray hair is a problem if you don't like the look

If the reason you don't like it is that there's a social stigma about looking that way then the stigma is the problem to be fixed.

and indeed it isn't really attractive for the majority of people.

Citation needed.

Women who find gray hair attractive are usually the kind of women who look for old rich men to take care of them and this is your "experience".

Ridiculous sexism.

Of course we all get old at the end but as I said before gray hair can appear in any age and it isn't that rare to find children/teenagers with some gray hairs.

And the fact that grey hairs can occur in youthful, fit people doesn't make you stop and think that perhaps there's nothing wrong with grey hair at all and that it's just something pushed by certain groups within society...?

It isn't about looking young at age 70, It is about preventing from those really bad genes from ruining your look and make you look much older than what you are.

Citation needed that age of hair greying is correlated with genetic disorders. This is a science forum, you can't just yell out "bad genes" and expect a knee jerk reaction of agreement.

And no, there is no any kind of psychological benefit from denial and telling yourself that it looks good, It kind of remind me those "fat acceptance" women who try to convince themselves and others by force that their fat body is attractive while it is obviously not for the great majority of the population and they can't just convince people that they are attractive.

More ridiculousness, driven by your unwarranted assumption that grey hair automatically is widely regarded as unattractive. Even if it were there is certainly psychological benefit to being content with one's appearance. That isn't denial at all. As for the fat acceptance movement I think you've completely misunderstood their point, which is that there is a great diversity in attractiveness (more than is pushed in most media) for different people and we should acknowledge that. Being overweight adds the extra factor of health, which grey hair does not have.

So would you want to date with a fat woman with a completely gray hair or a woman with athletic fit body with vibrant hair color?.

Again this is a science forum; terribly constructed arguments are not going to fly here. Attempting to conflate the idea that grey hair is an absolute factor in attractiveness and a factor in health with personal preferences in partners, then setting up a terrible false dichotomy.

 

[petrichor2]

Can't speak for mfb but I think it's absurd from the POV that it's driven by a ridiculous cultural standard. If a man or woman wants to alter the colour of their hair in any way simply because they'd like it to be that way then more power to them, I have absolutely no problem with individual choice and it's not my business. However social stigmas that enforce the idea that it's wrong not to do so I have a serious problem with. Particularly when it fosters a sense that completely harmless changes to one's body should be thought of as a disease.

Turning the question around; why do you think it's important to hide or prevent grey hair?

What do you mean by "enforce the idea that it's wrong not to do so"?, having noticeably gray hair make look worse and anyone who actually loves and care about his look (and not just to be attractive to some gold diggers) will probably not like having gray hairs. It isn't a "stigma", gray hairs aren't attractive and the great majority of men who claim that this is attractive wouldn't date women with gray hairs and the majority of women who claim it is attractive wouldn't think it is attractive on them.
The answer to your question is simple and obvious, gray hairs don't look good and personally i don't want to have them cause of this.

 

[jbriggs444]

The answer to your question is simple and obvious, gray hairs don't look good and personally i don't want to have them cause of this.

Yes, there is a social stigma to gray hair. Choosing deal with that by changing your hair color is a reasonable course of action. Cosmetics are an existing safe, effective and inexpensive approach to accomplish this. Personally, I do not consider cosmetics to be worth either the expense or the hassle. It is easier not to worry about what other people think.

A drug-based approach would need to be effective, less expensive, less hassle and at least as safe in order to entice me to use it.

 

[petrichor2]

If the reason you don't like it is that there's a social stigma about looking that way then the stigma is the problem to be fixed.

It isn't a "stigma" to think that some attributes are unattractive. would you think a woman with a completely gray hair is attractive? or what about a woman without hair at all?...

Citation needed.

Lets test it with my previous question, would you think a woman with a completely gray hair is attractive?

Ridiculous sexism.

Its not sexism its a fact. Its very common for women to look for older men and its not cause of "daddy issues" as some people say(this whole theory is just sick) it is all about money, a young person will probably have much less money than someone old and is much more likely to "take care" of all of the financial problems of the woman than someone young and good looking that know that his attractiveness isn't related to his money.

And the fact that grey hairs can occur in youthful, fit people doesn't make you stop and think that perhaps there's nothing wrong with grey hair at all and that it's just something pushed by certain groups within society...?

Nobody "pushed" the fact that gray hair don't look good. It is simply a something that the great majority of the population feels whether they admit it or not.

Citation needed that age of hair greying is correlated with genetic disorders. This is a science forum, you can't just yell out "bad genes" and expect a knee jerk reaction of agreement.

Nobody mentioned "genetic disorders". The genetics that make somebody's hair to go gray early is bad and is a problem that should be fixed.

More ridiculousness, driven by your unwarranted assumption that grey hair automatically is widely regarded as unattractive. Even if it were there is certainly psychological benefit to being content with one's appearance. That isn't denial at all. As for the fat acceptance movement I think you've completely misunderstood their point, which is that there is a great diversity in attractiveness (more than is pushed in most media) for different people and we should acknowledge that. Being overweight adds the extra factor of health, which grey hair does not have.

Most people including you and everybody else who "accept" gray hairs don't actually like it or think it is attractive. Why do you think that it is much much less acceptable for women to not dye gray hairs?, cause they wan't to ACTUALLY look good and not just having a look that say: "I am an old guy with a lot of money and I will financially support any woman that will date me", and if this is exactly what you want than why hiding it and talk as if gray hairs really look good?. There is no psychological benefit in trying to lie to yourself and ignoring the truth and this is denial and the exact thing the "fat acceptance" are doing, being fat isn't attractive and if it was attractive they obviously wouldn't have to try and convince people that they are attractive, someone might be attractive DESPITE being fat but this is a completely different thing and it isn't common. And I am not talking about health at all.

Again this is a science forum; terribly constructed arguments are not going to fly here. Attempting to conflate the idea that grey hair is an absolute factor in attractiveness and a factor in health with personal preferences in partners, then setting up a terrible false dichotomy.

I am just making an example of how it isn't common to really think that gray hair is attractive, and you probably already know it yourself cause you probably never saw anyone(including yourself) that think gray hair is really attractive and make somebody look better. And as i said before i am not talking about health.

 

[Lord Jestocost]

...this article mention many cases of hair repigmentation cause of some drugs and also talked about the case with the 14 people on the immunotherapy drugs.

There is a comment by Linda Russell on QUORA (https://www.quora.com/What-drugs-can-darken-grey-hair) focusing on the essentials:

"Seriously, if there were safe drugs to darken hair, you’d see advertisements all over TV and in magazines. I looked at the linked article, and I think, really? I sincerely doubt you’d find a doctor to prescribe cancer drugs on the faint chance — 14 people out of 52, slightly greater than a 1-in-4 possibility— that your hair will darken. And, if you did find such a doctor, insurance wouldn’t pay for it; I expect the cost would be beyond most people’s ability to pay.

If you don’t like gray hair, dyes are cheap and convenient nowadays. But, honestly, gray hair is not a disease, or a personal failing, and — despite what the advertisements try to imply — darkening your hair won’t make a major difference in your lifestyle. If you can learn to live with / accept gray hair, you save a lot of time and money that would otherwise be spent on hiding it."

 

[petrichor2]

There is a comment by Linda Russell on QUORA (https://www.quora.com/What-drugs-can-darken-grey-hair) focusing on the essentials:

"Seriously, if there were safe drugs to darken hair, you’d see advertisements all over TV and in magazines. I looked at the linked article, and I think, really? I sincerely doubt you’d find a doctor to prescribe cancer drugs on the faint chance — 14 people out of 52, slightly greater than a 1-in-4 possibility— that your hair will darken. And, if you did find such a doctor, insurance wouldn’t pay for it; I expect the cost would be beyond most people’s ability to pay.

If you don’t like gray hair, dyes are cheap and convenient nowadays. But, honestly, gray hair is not a disease, or a personal failing, and — despite what the advertisements try to imply — darkening your hair won’t make a major difference in your lifestyle. If you can learn to live with / accept gray hair, you save a lot of time and money that would otherwise be spent on hiding it."

I never said that there is a safe and cheap drug for gray hair, I said that there is many example for drugs that done it and proved that it is possible to restore pigmentation to gray hair with drugs. 1 out of 4 is actually great chances especially if we consider the fact that at least some of the remaining 52 patients didn't had gray hair or noticeable amount of them(In fact one out of 10 people over 60 don't have gray hairs) so they couldn't notice and report those effects. some of them might even notice some darkening but didn't bothered to report on that. There was a 75 years old woman who took some drugs(don't remember which one) who got her hair color back but only mentioned it to her doctor after 3 years and her results where from completely white hair to a brown hair without noticeable gray hairs in the picture.

Dyes are a nice safety net in case i will go noticeably gray(for now i have one gray hair on my head and two others on my facial hair) but it is much better to simply cure it and stop the gray hair completely. It doesn't matter how you want to define gray hair, it is an unwanted condition(for most people at least) and there is no reason to "accept" it if it is damaging your look and you care about your look. you basically tell me to give up on my looks and being indifferent to it. I can do the same thing and tell you to be indifferent to your smell and hygiene, you can stop wasting money on shampoo/soap and worm watter and doing/paying for laundry for your clothes and simply "accept" your natural body odor which is just a natural thing...

 

[petrichor2]

And just to make it clear, I am not the only one who talks about a cure for gray hair cause of those drugs that restored hair color in some of the patients who took it. the research i showed here with the man who experienced both hair growth and repigmentation due to secukinumab who mentioned that "Hair darkening and regrowth after administration of some drugs suggests that hair whitening and thinning caused by the aging process might be reversible" which is a too careful estimation cause there are already safe(and even FDA approved) durgs for restoring hairs like finasteride(FDA approved) and dutasteride which is more potent but only approved for hair loss in japan and south korea.

there is also a reaction from some scientists to the case with the immunotherapy drugs that restored hair color to 14 patients:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/dth.12560
which is title is "PD1 inhibitors and hair repigmentation: A desirable new side effect" and say that "there are increasing clues that it may be pharmacologically possible to restore natural pigmentation to graying hair".

There will be a cure for gray hair(and way before the time we will have flying cars...) but what i want to figure out is how close we are to this and how much time it will take more or less before there will be a safe drug that actually works in a significant portion of the people.

 

[mfb]

just look at how you reacted to the men in your work that dyed their hairs, I bet you don't think it is absurd when women at any age dye their hairs in order to hide gray hairs.

What exactly makes you sure you know my reaction to something?
I don't react at all. I don't care if people dye their hair or not.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

It isn't a "stigma" to think that some attributes are unattractive. would you think a woman with a completely gray hair is attractive? or what about a woman without hair at all?...

Yes to both questions but that's not the point. The onus is on you to demonstrate that there is a widespread belief that grey hair is less attractive at any age. The vast majority of men, at least in my culture, don't bother dying their hair and I have never, ever heard a woman (or gay man) say that they wouldn't find someone attractive if they were grey or greying. It's very likely there are some people like that but you're making out like the entire world is objectively revolted by grey hair, which is nonsense.

Lets test it with my previous question, would you think a woman with a completely gray hair is attractive?

What exactly is this supposed to test? All else being equal hair colour is not a factor in attractiveness to me, at least not beyond a minor consideration.

Its not sexism its a fact. Its very common for women to look for older men and its not cause of "daddy issues" as some people say(this whole theory is just sick) it is all about money, a young person will probably have much less money than someone old and is much more likely to "take care" of all of the financial problems of the woman than someone young and good looking that know that his attractiveness isn't related to his money.

It is absolutely ridiculous sexism to posit that women will only date men with grey hair for financial reasons. You're tarring half of the planet as people so shallow that they either would not be attracted to a partner with grey hair or would only be with them for money. Complete rubbish.

Nobody "pushed" the fact that gray hair don't look good. It is simply a something that the great majority of the population feels whether they admit it or not.

Cosmetics and media companies have been pushing for a very long time that any sign of aging is unattractive, the techniques being to use intensive advertising to make potential customers feel like if they don't use the products they are ugly.

Nobody mentioned "genetic disorders". The genetics that make somebody's hair to go gray early is bad and is a problem that should be fixed.

You literally said "bad genes" so either admit that you were wrong or provide a citation?

Most people including you and everybody else who "accept" gray hairs don't actually like it or think it is attractive. Why do you think that it is much much less acceptable for women to not dye gray hairs?, cause they wan't to ACTUALLY look good and not just having a look that say: "I am an old guy with a lot of money and I will financially support any woman that will date me", and if this is exactly what you want than why hiding it and talk as if gray hairs really look good?.

More sexist nonsense repeated verbatim.

There is no psychological benefit in trying to lie to yourself and ignoring the truth and this is denial and the exact thing the "fat acceptance" are doing, being fat isn't attractive and if it was attractive they obviously wouldn't have to try and convince people that they are attractive, someone might be attractive DESPITE being fat but this is a completely different thing and it isn't common. And I am not talking about health at all.

Hilariously you are the one in denial here and seem to be having trouble with basic reading. You're also stuck on this idea that there is an objective universal beauty standard, rather than beauty being something mostly down to cultural values and upbringing.

I am just making an example of how it isn't common to really think that gray hair is attractive, and you probably already know it yourself cause you probably never saw anyone(including yourself) that think gray hair is really attractive and make somebody look better. And as i said before i am not talking about health.

If you use the word "cure" you're automatically invoking a discussion around health. And I have no idea where you're from or how poor your socialisation must be if you don't believe people can find grey hair attractive.[/QUOTE]

 

[Mark44]

Thread closed. The very long thread about the "cure" for gray hair has gone on long enough.