+ Reply to Thread
Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst ... 7 8 9 10 LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 94
  1. #81
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    4,088

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Horseshoe View Post
    Yes, there were two injections. One was with DSC cells on one side and the other was a placebo injection on the other side. It was to see safety and efficacy in the localized area of only about 2 centermeters. So of course if they inject thousands of sites 2 cm apart on the scalp there would theoretically be hair growing throughout the treated area. But that's what they are working on. It's a long and arduous road. I still have hope but i'm running out of time.
    So then why are people getting their pantys caught up in a bunch? Obviously the results are based on what I would consider a 'test run' and not the final and conclusive result. If I had to get a LOT of injections, even if over a period of time to get the desired result, I'd be perfectly fine with that.

    My hair isnt terrible, ive got the widows peak/M pattern, but it isnt overly noticeable.

    I do expect better results and they WILL come as more research is done on this baldness solution. Its a matter of seeing what works, what doesnt and how it can be improved on. Trial and error, more or less. Its really funny how ONE test run on a small number of people is supposedly the end result.

    Some of the people on this forum are such negative nancys...

  2. #82
    Member Horseshoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    50

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hellouser View Post
    So then why are people getting their pantys caught up in a bunch? Obviously the results are based on what I would consider a 'test run' and not the final and conclusive result. If I had to get a LOT of injections, even if over a period of time to get the desired result, I'd be perfectly fine with that.

    My hair isnt terrible, ive got the widows peak/M pattern, but it isnt overly noticeable.

    I do expect better results and they WILL come as more research is done on this baldness solution. Its a matter of seeing what works, what doesnt and how it can be improved on. Trial and error, more or less. Its really funny how ONE test run on a small number of people is supposedly the end result.

    Some of the people on this forum are such negative nancys...
    You seem to have a good understanding. But I think when the news first broke out sufferers were looking for the holy grail and they were disappointed not to have it, as was I. But now that time has passed I have a better grasp on it. It's just that some of us are NW567 and we really are desparate for help. In this case, time is not on my side.

  3. #83
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,075

    Default

    It was stupid and damaging for people to jump on the RepliCel band wagon the way they did - especially given RepliCell hadn't even started phase 1 trials at the time.

    It just set people up for a big crash and some major depression. Seriously not cool.

    I hope next time everybody thinks twice before they go out and buy stock or tell new comers on this site that some miracle cure is going to be released by RepliCel anytime soon.

    Anyway. Peace out. At least some of you can take fin

  4. #84
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,795

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiwi View Post
    It was stupid and damaging for people to jump on the RepliCel band wagon the way they did - especially given RepliCell hadn't even started phase 1 trials at the time.

    It just set people up for a big crash and some major depression. Seriously not cool.

    I hope next time everybody thinks twice before they go out and buy stock or tell new comers on this site that some miracle cure is going to be released by RepliCel anytime soon.

    Anyway. Peace out. At least some of you can take fin
    Yeah never understood what the fuss was about, was so stupid.

  5. #85
    IAHRS Recommended Hair Transplant Surgeon
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    272

    Default

    There are many possible positive results. The one we all want to see is improved aesthetic coverage. Density changes alone are of no value. Think of body hair transplants. Sometimes we get good growth, but when you stand across the room, the transplants disappear. If you can't produce photos that show better coverage, density improvements by themselves are of no value. That was the problem with intercytex. they could grow hair, but you could only see it under high magnification if it grew at all.

    Toss animal studies out altogether. Anyone and anything can grow hair on a mouse. The life span of the mouse has nothing to do with it.

    If they are not willing to share efficacy photos, then I am highly suspect. While this was a safety study, they said they included parameters to show efficacy. If they can't show visible cosmetic improvement, then what they are growing is probably fine hairs that don't grow very long. This will not provide optimal coverage. Personally, I would not encourage investment in this product at this stage of development. They should produce cosmetically significant improvement or cease promoting their product until they have something that demonstrates cosmetically significant improvement.

    Of course we all want them to keep trying and we all want them to succeed. What we don't want is for people to invest hard earned money in a product that grow vellus hair that you can feel but not see.

    Personally, i took it from this interview that it is safe to inject your own cells back into you, but there are no photos that show improved coverage. Microscopically you can see a difference. Great! Have all your friends look at you under a microscope to show how full your hair is.

  6. #86
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    49

    Default

    Replicel is the one that is marketing there "unfinished" product with a nice site and nice animated videos of how easy it looks. On contrary it's very difficult and not for everybody..when you push info like that, add that to the overhype by some on this site plus promotion of trial results dates and personal interviews..well people are going to believe and they are going to expect progress.. Everyone here is not 20something with a long window but 40s50s60s with window closing w every day. There isnt much worse than to be bald in your 30-40s to hear a cure is coming in 5-10 years at best..

  7. #87
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    87

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by drcole View Post
    There are many possible positive results. The one we all want to see is improved aesthetic coverage. Density changes alone are of no value. Think of body hair transplants. Sometimes we get good growth, but when you stand across the room, the transplants disappear. If you can't produce photos that show better coverage, density improvements by themselves are of no value. That was the problem with intercytex. they could grow hair, but you could only see it under high magnification if it grew at all.

    Toss animal studies out altogether. Anyone and anything can grow hair on a mouse. The life span of the mouse has nothing to do with it.

    If they are not willing to share efficacy photos, then I am highly suspect. While this was a safety study, they said they included parameters to show efficacy. If they can't show visible cosmetic improvement, then what they are growing is probably fine hairs that don't grow very long. This will not provide optimal coverage. Personally, I would not encourage investment in this product at this stage of development. They should produce cosmetically significant improvement or cease promoting their product until they have something that demonstrates cosmetically significant improvement.

    Of course we all want them to keep trying and we all want them to succeed. What we don't want is for people to invest hard earned money in a product that grow vellus hair that you can feel but not see.

    Personally, i took it from this interview that it is safe to inject your own cells back into you, but there are no photos that show improved coverage. Microscopically you can see a difference. Great! Have all your friends look at you under a microscope to show how full your hair is.
    I often wondered about Replicel's marketing campaign. I imagine they really needed the money, or was just really confident in their technology. The problem is that if Replicel can't back up their talk they will lose credibility; as a scientist myself that is the last thing you want. From a scientific point of view they did create hair even it was only vellus hair, and you need a microscope to see it. The question is why does it create vellus but not terminal hair? If you can for example create significant qauntities of vellus hair but none of that vellus hair go terminal, it leads to interesting questions.

    I don't think you can throw out animal studies altogether. It is likely true that any compound will grow hair on a mouse and the life expectancy of a mouse is a weak argument at best. But I believe that animal studies do have value. The researches had an idea which they tested on mice and they have taken that to human studies. If they end up a complete failure, fine at least they tried and we learnt something.

  8. #88
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    1,983

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Supersixx View Post
    There isnt much worse than to be bald in your 30-40s to hear a cure is coming in 5-10 years at best..
    Surely you're not serious? Your comments are ignorant.

  9. #89
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    1,983

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Losing_It View Post
    The problem is that if Replicel can't back up their talk they will lose credibility; as a scientist myself that is the last thing you want
    Very true. In my opinion, this has been Replicel's biggest mistake.

  10. #90
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    826

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by drcole View Post
    There are many possible positive results. The one we all want to see is improved aesthetic coverage. Density changes alone are of no value. Think of body hair transplants. Sometimes we get good growth, but when you stand across the room, the transplants disappear. If you can't produce photos that show better coverage, density improvements by themselves are of no value. That was the problem with intercytex. they could grow hair, but you could only see it under high magnification if it grew at all.

    Toss animal studies out altogether. Anyone and anything can grow hair on a mouse. The life span of the mouse has nothing to do with it.

    If they are not willing to share efficacy photos, then I am highly suspect. While this was a safety study, they said they included parameters to show efficacy. If they can't show visible cosmetic improvement, then what they are growing is probably fine hairs that don't grow very long. This will not provide optimal coverage. Personally, I would not encourage investment in this product at this stage of development. They should produce cosmetically significant improvement or cease promoting their product until they have something that demonstrates cosmetically significant improvement.

    Of course we all want them to keep trying and we all want them to succeed. What we don't want is for people to invest hard earned money in a product that grow vellus hair that you can feel but not see.

    Personally, i took it from this interview that it is safe to inject your own cells back into you, but there are no photos that show improved coverage. Microscopically you can see a difference. Great! Have all your friends look at you under a microscope to show how full your hair is.
    You should have said this before the announcement. So people could retract their money, I for one did get most of my money back.

    But i'm sure a lot of people lost money and they were encouraged by me at the same time I told them it was going to fail before that so I hope they had enough time to sell their stocks and get a lot of their money back.

    It is easy to down talk something after the announcement, it would have helped to have opinions from doctors working in this field before the announcement. We never got them.

    Thanks for your input anyways.

Similar Threads

  1. Spencer Kobren Interviews Dr. Gary Hitzig - The Future of ACell for Hair Loss
    By tbtadmin in forum Cutting Edge / Future Treatments
    Replies: 80
    Last Post: 11-03-2011, 08:01 PM
  2. Spencer Kobren Speaks With Gary Hitzig, M.D. | The Latest on ACell
    By tbtadmin in forum Hair Transplant: Start Your Own Topic
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 06-22-2011, 08:14 AM
  3. Spencer Kobren Speaks With UCLA Scientist About Latest Hair Raising Discovery
    By tbtadmin in forum Cutting Edge / Future Treatments
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 03-06-2011, 10:54 AM
  4. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-19-2010, 12:51 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

» The Bald Truth

» Recent Threads

Combatting RU58841 side effects
12-15-2014 02:54 PM
Last Post By Illusion
Today 03:58 AM
I'm fairly certain it's too late.
Today 12:52 AM
by Zan
Last Post By Pboy101
Today 03:44 AM
am I going bald or just freaking out
Yesterday 10:46 AM
Last Post By Pboy101
Today 03:06 AM
Questions about Ketoconazole, TRT, and propecia.
12-19-2014 06:18 PM
Last Post By Rizaan
Today 02:52 AM
Should I cancel my second FUE treatment?
12-14-2014 08:48 AM
by motley
Last Post By motley
Today 02:15 AM