WTF?!? Did Replicel work or not???

[suicidal]

50% of people are saying it was positive, 50% are saying FAIL. Where can i go to find out objectively??? WTF

[clandestine]

Read the results. They are, in fact, objective.

People interpret said results, post on forums. A person's opinion is, naturally, subjective.

[ccmethinning]

does 3.5% more terminal hairs sound like success to you? Does delaying the announcement and retracting the pump statements sound like confidence?

[ejj]

will be marketed the same as regain and propecia i think, with the usual line of " may improve hair growth "

[inkt2002]

Originally Posted by suicidal

50% of people are saying it was positive, 50% are saying FAIL. Where can i go to find out objectively??? WTF

Just follow what the stock has done the last 5 days. Money doesn't lie.

[NeedHairASAP]

Originally Posted by ccmethinning

does 3.5% more terminal hairs sound like success to you? Does delaying the announcement and retracting the pump statements sound like confidence?

this is merely subjective. the results, are, simply, objective. success is just something in your mind... man... ask clandstine

[ccmethinning]

Originally Posted by NeedHairASAP

this is merely subjective. the results, are, simply, objective. success is just something in your mind... man... ask clandstine

The results aren't even purely objective. They were evaluated using Dr. Hoffmann's own Trichoscan software, evaluated by the company, headlined "RepliCel releases 'positive' results" and filled with positive words from Hall and Panich.

[suicidal]

The results were not objective AT ALL. They said "pleased to report positive results"

So... wtf!?!? People who think Replicel failed are saying the yahoo report is lying? I just don't get it.

at sites injected with autologous DSCC increased 6.1%.

so we get 6% more hair in general?

Vellus hair (small/intermediate sized-hair: approximately 10-40um thick) density and terminal hair (thick hair) density increased by 12.5% and 3.2%

so 12% of thinning hair we have now also gets thicker?

If I could have 6% more hair,and 12% of my thinning hair return to normal I would gladly take it! Why is that fail?


Cumulative hair thickness per area (an estimate of scalp hair coverage; the sum of thickness of all hair diameters in a given area per cm2) also improved (by 4.3%)

what does this mean?

The interim analysis results showed a statistically significant difference (P=0.020) between the number of patients demonstrating a greater than =5% increase in total hair density at sites injected with DSCC relative to sites injected with placebo 6 months post-injection. Where 63% of patients demonstrated a greater than =+5% change from baseline at DSCC-treated sites, only 37% showed such an increase at placebo-treated sites.

what does this mean objectively?

There were 19 subjects (10 male, 9 female) and 3 were removed. So this is data for 16 people. How many got placebo? From the data can we tell how many actually grew more hair and how much? Will they release raw data... The data they released it seems we cannot even tell anything. WTF!?!?!??!

[Tracy C]

Originally Posted by suicidal

So... wtf!?!? People who think Replicel failed are saying the yahoo report is lying? I just don't get it.

The people who are saying Replicel has failed don't get it.

A 12.5% increase in vellus hair and a 3% increase in terminal hair in only six months is a big deal. Such an increase would help someone like me a lot, especially after a year when more of that vellus hair transforms into terminal hair. If by the end of the cycle it is still not enough, I could just have another treatment.

Originally Posted by inkt2002

Just follow what the stock has done the last 5 days. Money doesn't lie.

All that means is too many people with enough money to buy stocks are just plain stupid. Like totally dead from the neck up stupid.

[gmonasco]

Originally Posted by suicidal

Where can i go to find out objectively?

At this point there isn't enough information to make a truly objective determination. While the results of the first trial were not encouraging, it was primarily a safety trial and not a full-blown efficacy trial. It's possible that a subsequent trial focusing solely on efficacy may produce different results.

Whether it's likely that a subsequent trial will produce better results is a subjective issue.