I believe we can test gene expression of SRD5A2 in fibroblasts of prepuce from 30 PFS patients and 30 controls, plus DHT concentrations, for USD 20,000 or less. That’s a hundred people donating 200 dollars.
This test, of course, was supposed to be part of the Harvard study that came out years ago, as far as I know, but skin from the back was tested instead – contrary to common sense, scientific literature and pre-agreed protocol.
It actually cost $168,000 for the Baylor study.
$100,000 for the study and an additional $2000 per patient that was part of the study with 34 patients in total.
And who would you approach to conduct such a study?
I would think that between the users on the forum alone we can pool together another 200k if that is all that Baylor cost…
I’d be happy to donate generously if some cosy can come up with a viable path forward. @Sibelio, do you know any labs who could conduct something or this nature?
Just as a reminder on the rules here on fundraising
Users may under no circumstances solicit funds here or direct users to funding projects external to those explicitly endorsed by propeciahelp or the PFS foundation. Using the platform to direct patients to funding projects or commercial interests, be it through direct solicitation or posting links, is strictly prohibited. Offering financial incentives to propeciahelp members is not permitted.
https://forum.propeciahelp.com/faq#no-soliciting
The only projects (prospective or otherwise) currently endorsed by propeciahelp are those of the PFS foundation and the admins’ own proposed research, which was discussed here
In order to be cite able by other scientists when submitting applications for funding, any work we do would need to have some reputable PI’s name attached to it and be submitted to a highly regarded journal. At least generally speaking. Maybe more and more now things like internet surveys can be treated as meritorious evidence, but the study would have to be designed by someone who has experience and really knows what they are doing.
Thank you for saying this! I think it is very important for people to read this carefully and think deeply about it.
I never asked Propeciahelp to endorse anything, did I?
Does every idea expressed on this forum also need to be endorsed by Propeciahelp?
How about the foundation ask Khera to do an Ask Me Anything on the forum?
Considering the accusations and insults it’s not very likely he’d be fond to do this. As I mentioned in another thread I agree that public accountancy and also legitimate and adequate pressure is important and frustration is very understandable. However it doesn’t do the community any good to start smearing scientists. I can’t imagine that this is a good basis for further collaboration.
@ll_amp_Prosper by the way please be so kind and do the survey. Thank you
Some of us have lost a lot more than sexual function man
That’s true, but I don’t believe he has more than sexual function. Even some psych issues can be managed but it depends how bad it is.
I would like to make posters in this topic aware of our view on the latest Khera publication discussed:
Please note that this is still not the result of the study the PFS Foundation originally commissioned in 2013. We share many of the concerns voiced in this topic, but also strongly disagree with particular allegations. Staff will provide a further response soon.
You did not, nor did I say or imply you did. A natural conversational destination for discussions like these
could be to try to facilitate the funding of projects not currently endorsed by this website. The rules on fundraising were posted as a reminder to preempt any potential surprise should subsequent posts need moderating at a later point in these types of conversations. The ability to fund raise (outside of the aforementioned endorsements) is just not something we offer as a platform. There are plenty of places to do that sort of thing on the internet - we just don’t offer it here.
It’s not only about what is important to us but what is important to women. Sexuality is central to romantic relationships whether we like it or not. Women, just like men, want the connection and feeling of be desired that a sexual relationship provides.
so are we officially a recognized disease now? like diagnosable?
Is there an eta on that staff response?
More importantly, any known movement on part 2?
Khera’s email exchange with @holyhead in early April seemed to imply that everything had been submitted and accepted. No mention of it being limited to part 1 only.
It’s been a couple of months since that exchange was made public. Some answers are due.
Part 1 was published
It’s not the gene data we hoped for
Just some article on penis problems
Plenty of research is published in succession with the same cohort. What this means is that most of the heavy lifting is probably done and that they have begun the analysis phase of the project. I don’t know why everyone thinks that one paper represents everything they’ve conducted.