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...
