Spencer Kobren Interviews Replicel's CEO Concerning Latest Clinical Trial Results

[Follicle Death Row]

If Replicel's treatment does in fact immunize hair follicles from the damaging effects of DHT, which it is reasonable to expect that it would, this would be helpful to everyone with hereditary hair loss.

Is it reasonable though? I'm not so sure and it's one of my big worries. I really hope you're right. You know there is some conjecture that the reseeding of cells is only transient. Let's hope not.

Ultimately one day, way down the line, germ line gene therapy will eradicate this completely, stopping inheritance too. Probably 50 years off.

[WillhasWill]

I have always thought that researchers and big pharma will only find a way/ be bothered to help people by preventing them losing hair, i don't think reversing hair loss is a realistic target, both scientifically and commercially in the long run so they wont bother.

But researchers are currently only really focusing on the opposite, regenerating and regrowing hair. Histogen, Replicel and Follica are all researching into growing new hair, not necessarily prevention. The possible halting of hair loss with Replicel was not their main aim.

Androgen antagonist drugs (RU, CB-03-01 orASC-J9?) sound very interesting to me and could be the key to halting and preventing hair loss. The way I understand it is that the androgen in this case is DHT, which binds to androgen receptors in the hair follicle and the hair follicle is eventually destroyed.

Androgens bind to many androgen receptors in the male body to control male characteristics such as growth, muscle mass, facial hair, body hair and unfortunately the loss of scalp hair.

So is the key to halting/preventing hair loss is to stop the androgen receptors of the hair follicles? Ultimately eliminating baldness and the secondary problem of repairing already destroyed follicles is a completely separate problem in it self. As the cause of baldness at scalp level would be solved?

And what's the different between the androgens binding to androgen receptors on the face and body which increase hair growth dramatically, whilst when binding to the scalp decrease hair? Maybe this could also be a way of using androgens to induce hair growth in the scalp. Not just to prevent baldness.

[WillhasWill]

Is it reasonable though? I'm not so sure and it's one of my big worries. I really hope you're right. You know there is some conjecture that the reseeding of cells is only transient. Let's hope not.

Ultimately one day, way down the line, germ line gene therapy will eradicate this completely, stopping inheritance too. Probably 50 years off.

Yes, probably another 50 years for life threatening illnesses. Then maybe another 50 years again for what society would say are "minor" ailments like baldness.

Baldness is minor and not life threatening, of course I understand this. There are far more important things of course. However, it does affect the quality of life of millions of men and women. Spencer is right it's a silent epidemic in it's affect on a persons life. More investment needs to be made into finding a cure. Come on , it's gone on for far too long now :-)

[hellouser]

Can someone correct me if I'm wrong;

I listened to the interview and apparently Replicel used a large dosage but only TWO injections? Does that really mean what I think it does; more or like as if getting two needles? Or two SETS of injections?

Could the 6-12% improvement be better if there were more injections?

[Horseshoe]

Can someone correct me if I'm wrong;

I listened to the interview and apparently Replicel used a large dosage but only TWO injections? Does that really mean what I think it does; more or like as if getting two needles? Or two SETS of injections?

Could the 6-12% improvement be better if there were more injections?

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.

[hellouser]

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...

[Horseshoe]

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.

[Kiwi]

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

[yeahyeahyeah]

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.

[John P. Cole, MD]

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.

[Supersixx]

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..

[Losing_It]

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.

[clandestine]

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.

[clandestine]

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.

[Maradona]

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.