I still have hope. and know everything is possible, with the right resources and knowledge. with that I know there are other ways as an alternative, but it will take much much work, efforts and a place to do it..
BTW, lets await aderans phase 2 results, maybe the regrowth is promising.. and maybe it lasts for xx years, enough until the next sessions. its to early to tell at this point.
Don't loose your hopes yet guys..
02-01-2013 06:51 AM
534623
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jairus
WTF!! - Are you serious or mimicking some of the haters?
Who are the haters? Am I a hater of novel approaches? http://www.baldtruthtalk.com/attachm...1&d=1358425927
The guy on the left side is a normal young hairloss forums user like you. The guy on the right side is an abnormal hairloss forums user, because he always wants to know the FACTS about all these novel approaches – it’s me.
Nevertheless - both guys, as you can see in the pic, have the same problem; no matter how different they think about novel approaches. That means, BOTH would warmly greet such novel approaches; provided, their products work as promised.
You have to understand, that not every person out there in general or on hairloss forums is as “blue-eyed” than the other – bald or not. Sometimes they are not even interested to know WHEN something will hit the market; at first they are more interested about the WHETHER – whether or not something is working at all or whether or not there are any risks involved. Or whether or not something has at least the potential to work at all – before they get (over-)excited.
Anyway, as you can see, my tonsure area, for example, is still not slick bald per se; there are still lots of just miniaturized hairs.
So don’t you think that I too would rather WARMLY greet something like Aderans’ (new) “rejuvenation of existing hair follicles structures” idea, instead of doing (costly) hair transplants, to fill up all the bald areas with permanent und healthy terminal hairs producing follicles again?
So the question remains: do I believe in ARI’s old/new idea/approach?
Should I believe in ARI’s new idea? If YES, why? What are the FACTS?
Should I simply wait, instead of doing any hair transplants?
To avoid any loss of time, I have to find out IN ADVANCE whether or not something like ARI’s approach has at least the potential to work at all – in advance! That’s the point. At least, my standpoint.
02-01-2013 07:12 AM
Kirby_
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boldy
BTW, lets await aderans phase 2 results, maybe the regrowth is promising.. and maybe it lasts for xx years, enough until the next sessions. its to early to tell at this point.
Don't loose your hopes yet guys..
I suppose objectively, ANY new super-treatment or procedure, should it reach the market should be warmly welcomed... I think many of us forget how little means we have to treat hairloss effectively.
02-01-2013 07:42 AM
StinkySmurf
Quote:
Originally Posted by 534623
Before I explain the "rejuvenation thingy" problems again
Ok, I did my part so lets hear the rejuvenation thingy. What makes you think ARI doesn't have a marketable product?
02-01-2013 07:48 AM
Artista
Desmond, I have to ask again..
"Replicel, Aderans, Follica & Intercytex have all folded!"
"It's all over I think! Baldness will not be cured in this decade"
Based upon WHAT exactly Desmond?
02-01-2013 07:50 AM
StinkySmurf
Quote:
Originally Posted by Desmond84
It's not out of the realm of possibility that Aderans could turn it's last study (Phase 3) that should start early 2013 into a 6-month study.[/I]
Hey Desmond, I've been fishing a little, and it seems the final trial will be a different length. I also heard it will be six months instead of 12, but it's not clear if it will be Phase 3 or not. People tend to clam up when you use words like Phase.
I also heard it could be a different baldness pattern, but it's not clear if that was similar to other routine changes between trial criteria or if it was a major difference.
I'm just wondering if you folks think they would do a final 6 month Phase 2 trial that covers everyone before they move into Phase 3?
02-01-2013 08:04 AM
534623
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by StinkySmurf
"The problem with the hair patch assay was it was not very translatable to the human condition, and early on we spent a lot of time looking at developing architecture that... err scaffolding... that we can put our cells in to try to orient the growth of hair follicles because despite all of the success that we are so proud of this is of limited utility in an aesthetic environment."
So there you go. They went with an approach they could make it through Phase 3 with on a $150 million dollar budget instead of going for something so complex as creating a follicle with a scaffolding because that involves aesthetic issues like the angle of hair growth that are an order of magnitude more difficult and these are not folks that want to go outside the company for money. This is a slightly down on it's luck $500 million dollar company where the majority of shares are held by just three parties, and lets face it, they don't want to go after the market of people that are willing to have surgery... thats the whole point of the opening chart where they say they want to be the botox of hair. In other words, they want to reach economies of scale. They are not looking for a solution that involves needing a bunch of artist grade plastic surgeons. They're looking for something thats mass market at least initially.
Thanks Stinky Smurf, really great. THAT’s what I wanted to hear – concerning ARI’s former “brand new hair follicles from scratch” approach.
So WHAT EXACTLY is he saying about this approach (which they intend to bring on the market)?
Can you please complete my quote/sentence above? What exactly is he saying? Can you help me please to find out whether or not this shit will work for me? :rolleyes:
