oh god this is going to fail so bad.... these people have like 10,000 products and none of them work. They also tried "modifying" minoxidil by creating Aminexil which should work better but in fact it doesn't work at all!
06-23-2012 04:26 PM
BoSox
At least it's something, it might work.
06-23-2012 08:40 PM
Mojo Risin
100$ for a month supply.
Nice.
Grade A snake oil.
06-23-2012 09:54 PM
Pate
90 Euros a month... wow. Even with the Euro in the state it's in right now, that's expensive snake oil.
Might be faintly effective for women. But no joy here for the Norwoods, I'm thinking.
I notice they are very careful in the coverage not to claim it induces hair growth. It's also a cosmetic so like Eucapil doesn't actually have to prove efficacy to be sold.
06-23-2012 09:55 PM
Kiwi
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mojo Risin
100$ for a month supply.
Nice.
Grade A snake oil.
I don't often agree with ya mate... But I toooooootally ****ing agree with you!!!
The one thing about this that interests me is the idea around how many huge companies are out there working on stuff that we don't know about - they are not here on TBT radars because they have no need to talk about it :P
Regardless of whether this works it's a pleasant surprise.
06-24-2012 02:28 AM
MrBrainwash
Thats BS ...
They registered it as a cosmetic. That means, not even that it is not guaranteed to have any affect, according to the laws in europe it is not even allowed to have one !
Also the company statements is full of may's and might's ...
06-24-2012 06:29 AM
chrisis
Can anyone explain properly why this won't work? I see a lot of skepticism but no actual reason why.
06-24-2012 07:10 AM
Kirby_
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisis
Can anyone explain properly why this won't work?
Because its a cosmetics product, not a medicine.
06-24-2012 07:21 AM
ardana
i just got an idea
if i were to use this product for a year and document my progress (which would be non-existent of course)
could i sue l'oreal for false advertising and get millions of dollars?
06-24-2012 07:38 AM
chrisis
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirby_
Because its a cosmetics product, not a medicine.
You could say sunscreen is a cosmetics product, nevertheless it stops people from getting skin cancer.
06-24-2012 08:14 AM
gutted
you people do know dr cots work was partly funded by loreal right???
"Dr Cotsarelis, a dermatologist whose work was part-funded by the U.S. government and by L’Oreal, said he would also like to investigate whether his findings equally apply to women."
06-24-2012 08:46 AM
yeahyeahyeah
Quote:
Originally Posted by gutted
you people do know dr cots work was partly funded by loreal right???
"Dr Cotsarelis, a dermatologist whose work was part-funded by the U.S. government and by L’Oreal, said he would also like to investigate whether his findings equally apply to women."
Ive always wondered why big cosmetic companies like loreal have not worked on curing this shit.
They have the money.
06-24-2012 09:44 AM
UK_
I will only buy it if it contains the magic ingredient...
.... Saw Palmetto :D
06-24-2012 09:47 AM
gutted
Quote:
Originally Posted by UK_
I will only buy it if it contains the magic ingredient...
.... Saw Palmetto :D
looool, saw palmetto is good stuff despite the general "flawed" consensus!
06-24-2012 09:49 AM
gutted
Quote:
Originally Posted by yeahyeahyeah
Ive always wondered why big cosmetic companies like loreal have not worked on curing this shit.
They have the money.
The big companies want cash cows, they dont want to "cure" it...whatever that means.
A good convenient treatment is all that is needed.
06-24-2012 09:50 AM
UK_
Quote:
Originally Posted by gutted
looool, saw palmetto is good stuff despite the general "flawed" consensus!
I will literally cry with laughter if this product states it contains Saw Palmetto on the ingredients list.
06-24-2012 09:52 AM
UK_
Regardless, I think this product will be aimed at women, and I cant see it growing new hairs on slick bald scalps.
Products for healthcare and cosmetics will always go to women first, just like cancer research charities, women elicit more sympathy than men, and get more funding for their causes.
I will literally cry with laughter if this product states it contains Saw Palmetto on the ingredients list.
i think the active ingredient is called Stemoxydine.
06-24-2012 10:10 AM
Tracy C
I am less than enthusiastic about this one. :rolleyes:
06-24-2012 10:10 AM
gmonasco
A day at L'Oréal: Insight into hair density research advancements
The cosmetics giant has recently opened up its new Research and Innovation centre in St Ouen, Paris, dedicated solely to hair care, and gave Cosmetics Design a tour of the new facility as well as an insight into what will be discussed at the European Hair Research Society (EHRS) Congress in Barcelona.
If someone can explain scientifically why this won't be any good I'm all ears/eyes.
06-24-2012 10:20 AM
Tracy C
I cannot explain scientifically. It doesn't matter anyways. What matters is proof of results. I haven't seen any. Thus far all I have seen are words.
06-24-2012 11:32 AM
UK_
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisis
If someone can explain scientifically why this won't be any good I'm all ears/eyes.
As far as I understand they're trying to create 'hypoxic' conditions in vivo - which somehow will allow the stem cells to work better. Honestly if this is the treatment that 'reactivates the dormant stem cells' in the scalp that Dr Cots discovered last January you'd think there'd be a major uproar in the medical community about it.
We all know HSC is about creating those same hypoxic conditions IN VITRO and extracting the components that allegedly form new hair follicles, but that's completely different as they're recreating the environment at embryogenesis. But if conditions of hypoxia are the answer to all our problems, where does DHT fit in? Where does PGD2 fit in? How does minoxidil and vasodilatation relate to reducing oxygen and aiding hair growth?
06-24-2012 12:17 PM
neversaynever
Quote:
Originally Posted by UK_
As far as I understand they're trying to create 'hypoxic' conditions in vivo - which somehow will allow the stem cells to work better. Honestly if this is the treatment that 'reactivates the dormant stem cells' in the scalp that Dr Cots discovered last January you'd think there'd be a major uproar in the medical community about it.
We all know HSC is about creating those same hypoxic conditions IN VITRO and extracting the components that allegedly form new hair follicles, but that's completely different as they're recreating the environment at embryogenesis. But if conditions of hypoxia are the answer to all our problems, where does DHT fit in? Where does PGD2 fit in? How does minoxidil and vasodilatation relate to reducing oxygen and aiding hair growth?
The oxygen thing is curious. Thats a big part of HSC. I believe they claim that there is a difference in growth factors and other molecules at different oxygen levels.
Sure this product probably wont make us all happy, but they might have a point about this hypoxic stuff...
06-25-2012 03:53 AM
Pate
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisis
If someone can explain scientifically why this won't be any good I'm all ears/eyes.
Nobody can explain scientifically from a media article. Even if we were experts in the field we'd need the peer-reviewed published paper and the full data set to refute it.
The argument is not scientific but logical. It's being marketed as a cosmetic which means a) they don't have to prove efficacy and b) they can't market it as a hair loss treatment in the US - the single biggest market.
Do you honestly think that if they had something that could demonstrate clear clinical efficacy and get FDA approval, allowing marketing in the US, they wouldn't do it?
We can't say for sure it won't work, and there may be some limited effect on women or very early stage NWs, but the odds of this being a cure, or even an effective treatment, aren't good.
06-25-2012 07:45 AM
bigentries
As much as people complain about evil Big Pharma, I'm pretty sure cosmetic companies are the ones that get the vast majority of profit from the hair loss sufferers
06-25-2012 08:49 AM
beatinghairloss
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirby_
Because its a cosmetics product, not a medicine.
thats not a very good reason.
06-25-2012 10:45 AM
rm056789
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pate
Nobody can explain scientifically from a media article. Even if we were experts in the field we'd need the peer-reviewed published paper and the full data set to refute it.
The argument is not scientific but logical. It's being marketed as a cosmetic which means a) they don't have to prove efficacy and b) they can't market it as a hair loss treatment in the US - the single biggest market.
Do you honestly think that if they had something that could demonstrate clear clinical efficacy and get FDA approval, allowing marketing in the US, they wouldn't do it?
We can't say for sure it won't work, and there may be some limited effect on women or very early stage NWs, but the odds of this being a cure, or even an effective treatment, aren't good.
Just as their choice to market this product as a cosmetic (logical and calculated). Seeing a product from design all the way through clinical trials is close to a billion dollar venture. L'Oreal's decision is likely a very smart one, it would take another 3-5 years to complete phase III trials for a new product and by marketing as a cosmetic, they avoid all the red tape/costs.
I agree with you, one can't argue/confirm these results until they are published in a peer reviewed journal (which won't likely happen due to publishing constraints within industry). Seeing some data would be nice though...
06-25-2012 11:15 AM
Tracy C
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardana
if i were to use this product for a year and document my progress (which would be non-existent of course)
could i sue l'oreal for false advertising and get millions of dollars?
Probably not. There are not claiming efficacy, they are only implying it.
You know what I most hate about these blatant snake-oil products? They give hairloss treatments as a whole a bad name. Think of how many men are put of Propecia and other legit treatments because they try some unproven, useless piece of crap and then assume everything else is useless, then give up when they have a fighting chance to save their hair...
06-25-2012 05:33 PM
yeahyeahyeah
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirby_
You know what I most hate about these blatant snake-oil products? They give hairloss treatments as a whole a bad name. Think of how many men are put of Propecia and other legit treatments because they try some unproven, useless piece of crap and then assume everything else is useless, then give up when they have a fighting chance to save their hair...
Can someone comment on these results, assuming they're right. Visually, i don't see a big difference, I see somewhere there are 2 hairs instead of one.
Renokin's ingredients list three growth factors which appear to have been mistranslated from the Korean but are apparently Noggin, Keramin-2 and one of the wnts.
Stemoxydine is completely different from what we know so far.
06-26-2012 08:16 PM
Hairismylife
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pate
They're different products from what I can tell.
Renokin's ingredients list three growth factors which appear to have been mistranslated from the Korean but are apparently Noggin, Keramin-2 and one of the wnts.
Stemoxydine is completely different from what we know so far.
One company is based in Korea with an unheard of background, the other is a massive corporation which attends the same hair conventions as Replicel and other pioneers of hair loss treatments (EHRS).
I understand your frustration with the current state of treatments in this industry, but unless you have any solid proof to back up your assertions, dont make any.
I can tell you all now, there's no way any company has placed wnt proteins of the sort you're thinking into a shampoo and cured hair loss, I was in stitches back in 2008 when I first heard of Renokin, I still am in all fairness.
Yes Replicel and representatives of L'Oreals 'neogenic' were both presenting at the EHRS in Barcelona this month.
