Follow hair-loss treatments, clinical trials and emerging research with source-linked analysis that separates published evidence from company claims.
Move from first observations to treatment evidence and repeatable tracking.
8 articles shown
A01Hope Medicine says Absci used its macaque-study assets without permission and built a misleading comparison around data that were never made public. The decks exist. So do the gaps. Here is the cleanest way to read the dispute without choosing a winner before the human evidence arrives.
Read guide
A02One new row in Kintor’s pipeline puts a Chinese dermatology company directly into Pelage’s scientific lane. The target is exciting. The human evidence is uneven. And the commercial route may be almost as interesting as the molecule.
Read guide
A03A neglected research molecule increased primary human outer root sheath cell activity, delayed follicle regression in mice, and produced a striking cartilage-regeneration signal in a separate rabbit study. The hair case is still preclinical, but the next experiments could be unusually informative.
Read guide
A04The money is real, the early AMP-303 human signal deserves attention, and Amplifica has a broader scientific story than most headlines suggest. Pelage is further along, but its newly posted registry submission reports safety and pharmacokinetics, not the hair-growth result behind its biggest claim.
Read guide
A05The chemical identity is now clear. The clinical-development identity is not. Here is what the new WHO entry settles, what it leaves open, and why those two questions should not be collapsed.
Read guide
A06All three try to sit in the androgen receptor so DHT cannot. Ranking them turns out to be much harder than the internet suggests, and the reason why is more interesting than the ranking.
Read guide
A07Most hair-loss drugs either cut the supply of DHT or sit in front of the receptor it switches on. GT20029 tries a third thing. It destroys the receptor.
Read guide
A08Minoxidil is one of the most studied hair-growth treatments, but “clinically proven” still does not mean guaranteed, immediate, or appropriate for every kind of loss.
Read guide