Replicel

[gmonasco]

Originally Posted by Thinning@30

Also, remember that the Replicel injections were to the subjects' temples, which are considered much more difficult to treat than the crown. It could be more effective in other parts of the scalp, we just don't know yet.

Since the primary purpose of this clinical trial is safety, I wonder if Replicel chose the temple region for injection because they had some reason to believe that was where any negative health effects would be most apparent?

[Maradona]

Total disaster, never expected such REALLY bad results and this is an overdose .

Time to get on fin, **** ! I'm scared.

[lpenergy]

While I am hoping for the best from Replicel, I have to say that I am out as an investor until I see something that provides very positive results or a similar indication. I sold half of my position upon the announcement of the delay and the other half this morning. I got in at a decent price, so a relatively small loss isn’t that bad given what could have happened.

If the results were considered to be strong (>20%), they would have raised additional funds after the results, which would have resulted in a lower shareholder stock dilution. Because they are simply using DSC cells, I do not see how they can “tweak” a formula to produce better results.

I am looking forward to any interviews, and wish the best for Replicel. If something changes, I may get back on board with buying their stock, but not at this point. It is going to be long slow slog as far as an investment.

At this point, it seems that we have to hope for any of the following:

1) The site location on the temples was sub-optimal, other spots would perform better
2) 6 months was not enough time
3) Overdosing actually hurt the results,
4) Results are compoundable
5) The treatment is more effective at stopping/slowing hair loss instead of regrowth
6) It is an augmenting treatment option
So, David Hall needs to explain why they expect future results to improve. Why did they get the high percentage hair regrowth in animals and not humans?

[kaandereli]

http://www.replicel.com/wp-content/u...ED-655x426.png

50% growth on mice, 6% for human.it is damn frustrating

[BaldinLikeBaldwin]

Believe both Replicel and the hair loss community are disappointed by these results. Oh, well..

[Kirby_]

Originally Posted by UK_

You have to also remember that Replicel has not figured out 'dosing range' yet - this phase was primarily for safety, when they explore what dose works best I am sure we will see far better results.

Isn't the Phase I dose an overdose? (Correct me if I'm wrong, somebody!)

[lpenergy]

Originally Posted by Kirby_

Isn't the Phase I dose an overdose? (Correct me if I'm wrong, somebody!)

Yes, if they overdosed the mice and got 3% results, wheras if they gave the proper lower dosage and that resulted in +50%, then it is significant. Otherwise, we don't have a good reason for the variance.

[sausage]

They say their results were positive, if its just 6% growth then in the bigger picture how is that positive?

Do they think it will grow loads of hair with in increased dose?

[oracle]

Originally Posted by Kirby_

Isn't the Phase I dose an overdose? (Correct me if I'm wrong, somebody!)

I think it is a range of high to low doses. What results did the high doses show?
I'd guess there where 4 or 5 levels in the whole range. Subjects at the high end of the range may show better results. With only 19 subjects, there's not much significance to be drawn on from these results in terms of efficacy.

[WillhasWill]

Originally Posted by Kirby_

Isn't the Phase I dose an overdose? (Correct me if I'm wrong, somebody!)

Where have Replicel said they overdosed on this trial? How can they overdose when they do not know the optimal dosage yet?

No dosages have been defined, they are only in phase 1 of clinical trials. Are people confusing an overdose with dose ranges?