Replicel

[krewel]

It's just a story, don't buy it... People who suffer tend to believe everything and some people think that's funny.

And by the way, 30% would be totally fine..

And that you should buy stocks NOW before they announce the results on March.

I'm not sure about this, but I think that would be illegal.

[BoSox]

Am I the only one not impressed by 30%? I don't want to wait another 3 or so years and spend 15000 on an "ok" hairloss treatment.

[clandestine]

Am I the only one not impressed by 30%? I don't want to wait another 3 or so years and spend 15000 on an "ok" hairloss treatment.

Beggars can't be choosers.

[tonypizza]

Anyone know how many injection the participants in this trial have received so far?

If a single injection gives anything really, it's good news, because this type of treatment would be compoundable.

What they'd do is find out how much would kill you, then scale it back a notch. We call that "therapeutic dose"

[sausage]

You would look like a right idiot with only 20-30% of your hair sprouting out the top of your head.

You need at least 75% of a typical head of hair and even then that is going to look a bit thin.

[67mph]

I need a Dummies Guide to HairCount.

So, say you have lost 30% of your hair and go in for the Replicel treatment then great but say you lose more hair you can't go into Replicel and say hi guys, i'd like a 7% top-up today thanking you, right?

There's a lot of numbers, percentages and predictions going round let alone the questions in regards to the when's, where's, how's and who's, we mus remember to hold tight andwait until March and that's if they get the results out then or not.

Me myself, i've a small hope for this, i just got a feeling!

Good luck chaps and chapesses,
57mph

[krewel]

You would look like a right idiot with only 20-30% of your hair sprouting out the top of your head.

You need at least 75% of a typical head of hair and even then that is going to look a bit thin.

First of all, you are understanding this percentage thing in a totally wrong way. It's not x % of ALL your hairs. It's x additional % of the hairs on the area they are taking pictures of.

Secondly let's say this whole wall street fake thing is true. 30% in Phase I would be pretty good. Frist of all because it's only Phase I. The fact that they are using the highest dosage does not mean that 30% is the maximum they can get out of it. In Phase II they will test different injections and dilutions etc to see how they can get the best result.
Even if it would stay at 30%, you'd just need multiple procedures.

So let me make this clear: In this case, 30% would not mean u cannot get back a full head of hair.
Secondly: This whole wall street story is fake!

[sausage]

What does it mean by 20-30%?

20-30% of what?

of what you have lost?

or the equivilent 20-30% of a totally bald head?

and do you get

20-30% growth with each injection, that you could build it up with each injection?

[krewel]

Alright I'll explain it again, no problem :

In these phases they are using Trichoscans. They are taking a high resolution picture of a very small area on your scalp. To make it understandable let's say 1cm². After they took that picture, a computer is analyzing how many hairs you have on that area and how thick these are. The computer says you have 100 hairs(wow that would be nice) on that 1cm² .

Now you'll get the injection and some weeks or months later they'll take another picture and the computer says 130 hairs on that area, which means 30% regrwoth. It's that simple.

Nobody knows how far you can push this treatmeant and how many injections you can use until Phase II is finished.

[sausage]

My maths is not great but surely it would be better to test it on a totally bald area.

As theres hair already there, that hair obviously cant grow as it is already there. Whereas if you had a totally bald testing area you may see more growth because there is more scalp for new hair to grow. Hope that makes sense.

Surely they have done tests on totally bald areas?

I do not believe that the more existing hairs you have in say a cm2 of scalp the more hair will regrow with treatment. Is that really what they are claiming?

[krewel]

My maths is not great but surely it would be better to test it on a totally bald area.

As theres hair already there, that hair obviously cant grow as it is already there. Whereas if you had a totally bald testing area you may see more growth because there is more scalp for new hair to grow. Hope that makes sense.

Surely they have done tests on totally bald areas?

I do not believe that the more existing hairs you have in say a cm2 of scalp the more hair will regrow with treatment. Is that really what they are claiming?

Sausage, of course they are also testing completely bald people. Nobody knows anything about the tests yet. And this was just an example, of course the amount of regrowth does not increase linearly with multiple injections.
Please stop thinking about % for now, we don't even know if Replicel works at all!!

And now I want to quote Prof.Dr.Hoffmann of Replicel:

"Hoffmann: Phase I trials are about safety, so a successful trial is, of course, about safety. Most people on the outside are not interested in safety; they’re interested in hair growth. For the regulators, the first thing we must prove is that it’s safe. A successful trial will prove that it’s completely safe, with no adverse effects like ganuloma or tumor formations. A very successful trial would mean we see more hair growth at the levels we would expect to see in a patient treated with Rogaine®. So, a range of 10 percent to 15 percent more hairs per centimeter square is what we would define as very successful. If we see even more hairs than what is expected from finasteride (Propecia&#174 treatments, then we’d be very, very happy. So first of all, it’s a safety treatment. But secondary, we are also looking for hair density and more parameters linked to efficacy."

[sausage]

I am a bit dumb with maths as I said but by what you said...

If you tested on a 1cm2 area with 100 hairs in and you would get about 130 hairs after an injection = 30% increase.

therefore

If you had 200 hairs in that area you would see a 30% increase = 260 hairs, which is 30 hairs more than if you had 100 hairs originally in that area.

therefore

If you had 0 hairs in a 1cm2 area and saw a 30% increase of 0 = 0 new hairs.

[krewel]

I said "And this was just an example, of course the amount of regrowth does not increase linearly with multiple injections."

Just check this out:

http://www.histogen.com/aboutus/news_events.htm#25

[NeedHairASAP]

this thread is annoying. Too many people throwing out too many assumptions/guess/bullshit.

Too little actual evidence


just a bunch of guys sitting around making completely uneducated guesses




only a few people ,such as krewel, are not jumping to conclusions.

[Follicle Death Row]

Am I the only one not impressed by 30%? I don't want to wait another 3 or so years and spend 15000 on an "ok" hairloss treatment.

Bosox, 30% regrowth and not another hair lost in 5 years time would do the trick perfectly for you.

Even if a norwood 6 (let's say 240cm2 of scalp to cover) got 30% regrowth that would be, based on native density of 90FU/cm2, 27FU/cm2. Of course that's not going to do it but assuming a worst case scenario that the treatment gets only 30% density on bald scalp and is not compoundale you could still get about 5500 FUE and boost overall density to 50FU/cm2 all over.

However many people will still have some hair left all over their head by the time the treatment comes out. Some may begin to lose in the crown first whereas others will lose in the front first. If they even have 15 FU/cm2 average all over a norwood 6 area and the limit of the treatment is 30% regrowth then you're actually in a great position by combining treatments. 15FU/cm2 + 27FU/cm2 treatment + 23 FU/cm2 FUE (5500) would give you 65 FU/cm2.

If Replicel's treatment is compoundable even better.