Replicel

[nikemata]

What is replicel?

[UK_]

Id love to see Replicel and HSC injected together and then 6 month results.

[Kiwi]

Originally Posted by nikemata

What is replicel?

5,6, 7 years away?

[2020]

UK, my point is that you don't need to grow anything.... everything is already there but for some reason refuse to grow. Follicles shrink and enlarge themselves automatically due to your body's own natural growth factors.

HSC may be able to emulate what stem cells are doing, but what's the point if it will last two years or so since stem cells still refuse to work like that automatically

[Pate]

Originally Posted by UK_

Im not saying they did say they outright created new follicles - Gail Naughton stated she BELIEVED HSC was creating new follicles from stem cells already in the scalp. Dr Ziering also stated he believed HSC may be reactivating the dormant hair follicles that still retain their original stem cells but are not producing the needed progenitor cells. Now im not saying his word is gospel, im not saying anyones word is gospel, I just choose to prefer the opinions of people who know what they're talking about as opposed to negative naysayers who should be on HairSite.

Before 2011, did you even know that bald scalps retain their stem cells? Did anyone on here know that? NO... so why should I believe the negative opinions of the people on here regarding Histogen?

I dont deny that they have not proved they can grow new follicles in vivo, nobody is saying they can - I only mentioned a difference in hair count, but you cant stipulate with 100% certainty that there were no new follicles created just like I cant stipulate with 100% certainty that new follicles WERE created - that's my only point.

No, we can't be sure they haven't created new follicles. But whether they have or haven't it's pretty obviously not the main reason for increased hair count, because the areas tested were not missing follicles in the first place.

2020 said: "so far Histogen was only able to grow BRAND NEW FOLLICLES in VITRO... from the past two studies they still weren't able to confirm if HSC did in fact grow any new follicles."

You said: "So how do you explain the difference in hair count from baseline to 12 weeks in BOTH studies? "

Simple: revitalised follicles = longer anagen = more hairs growing at any one time = increased hair count.

Anyway, sounds like we are in agreement now that that has been clarified.

Hurry up Histogen. Give us some more results to argue about.

[Conpecia]

Pate, when you say the areas tested were not missing follicles, does that mean the areas were not "balding" areas to begin with? Or is that to say that the follicles were merely dormant in balding areas and were revitalized?

[Kiwi]

Originally Posted by Conpecia

Pate, when you say the areas tested were not missing follicles, does that mean the areas were not "balding" areas to begin with? Or is that to say that the follicles were merely dormant in balding areas and were revitalized?

Pâté doesn't work for Histogen and isn't a scientist. And therefore has no ****ing clue what the truth is.

[UK_]

Originally Posted by Pate

No, we can't be sure they haven't created new follicles. But whether they have or haven't it's pretty obviously not the main reason for increased hair count, because the areas tested were not missing follicles in the first place.

2020 said: "so far Histogen was only able to grow BRAND NEW FOLLICLES in VITRO... from the past two studies they still weren't able to confirm if HSC did in fact grow any new follicles."

You said: "So how do you explain the difference in hair count from baseline to 12 weeks in BOTH studies? "

Simple: revitalised follicles = longer anagen = more hairs growing at any one time = increased hair count.

Anyway, sounds like we are in agreement now that that has been clarified.

Hurry up Histogen. Give us some more results to argue about.

I did indeed question why there was a higher hair count, but I did not offer an absolute conclusion, it would be silly for me to stipulate with 100% certainty that new follicles were the reason for the higher hair count, but the hair count continued to increase right up to 12 months.

Now you can explain this by saying more follicles were simply revitalised in that period, but you can't outright deny the possibility of HSC inducing the growth of new hair follicles, can you? Yes/No?

My entire point to you & 2020 is that you MUST recognise the probability that new hair follicles were created during the two trials, especially given that the actual scientists who actually conducted the research do BELIEVE new hair follicles grew.

[UK_]

Pate, I dont understand your comment about "the fear of HSC creating new follicles due to density of follicles in the scalp".

Do you have the same fear for companies like Aderans and Replicel?

[neversaynever]

Originally Posted by 2020

UK, my point is that you don't need to grow anything.... everything is already there but for some reason refuse to grow. Follicles shrink and enlarge themselves automatically due to your body's own natural growth factors.

HSC may be able to emulate what stem cells are doing, but what's the point if it will last two years or so since stem cells still refuse to work like that automatically

Ill take two years of hair, please!