Histogen and Aderans

[HARIRI]

Aderans is taking a hair follicle from your head, extracting cells, replicating them in a petri dish and reimplanting them in your bald zones. The cells will form new hair follicles. In other words taking dermal papilla cells(essentially hair "stem cells") from non balding areas then growing them in the lab. Taking these cells and then injecting them into your scalp. New dermal papilla cells will help stimulate hair growth in current live follicles and produce new follicles.

Histogen is incubating stem cells in low gravity environment and capturing their secretions, which contain "growth factors". Whatever it is they siphon off from these cells is being injected into your bald zones and promoting regrowth. In other words Mimicking fetal (in the womb) conditions in order to create a certain ratio of proteins and growth factors that are present in the womb which cause rapid growth and cell generation, obviously in the womb we are rapidly growing. Then, filtering out proteins and other molecules deemed unnecessary for hair regeneration or that are associated with cancer growth. Finally, taking these growth factors and proteins and injecting them into the scalp. Theory is that the compounds present in the injection and the ratio they are in will stimulate new follicle cells to grow and also start dormant follicle cells to start growing again.

Desmond84, Are these definitions correct? If using them together, what will be their real roles? Will they be similar?

If Aderans will grow new hair and these hairs will be resistant to DHT 5-10 years as mentioned earlier then whats the use of adding Histogen as well if Aderans already been used???

[FearTheLoss]

Once again I state....Aderans has only been proven to be as effective at regrowth in 40% of people and has definitely not been proven to maintain for life. Would you really be happy as **** if you wait another 3 years for this and then find out you're in the 40% that has zero response? Go back the facts from the horses mouth and NOT speculation!

You're in idiot if you think aderans would release that product. They have many different products they are testing in many different areas and they are going to pick the best one. They won't release anything inferior to propecia. Do I need to go into detail as to why they wouldn't? or can you figure that out yourself?


hint. fda costs loads of money

[The Alchemist]

You're in idiot if you think aderans would release that product. They have many different products they are testing in many different areas and they are going to pick the best one. They won't release anything inferior to propecia. Do I need to go into detail as to why they wouldn't? or can you figure that out yourself?


hint. fda costs loads of money

No, you're the one who's an idiot. Everything he's said is factually true. Only 40% are responding to the treatment. Do you really think they're hiding their most effective treatment? That they would come out and post crap results for potential investors to see, unless that was really the only outcome they've had? Don't be ridiculous.

Personally, i'll be surprised to see them proceed with phase III trials with that type of response rate and the efficacy that they've produced to date. We'll see what they show when they have a full data set for phase II. If it's not much better than what they've shown, i don't know how they'll justify the massive cost of a phase III to the board of directors and the investors.

[hellouser]

No, you're the one who's an idiot. Everything he's said is factually true. Only 40% are responding to the treatment. Do you really think they're hiding their most effective treatment? That they would come out and post crap results for potential investors to see, unless that was really the only outcome they've had? Don't be ridiculous.

Personally, i'll be surprised to see them proceed with phase III trials with that type of response rate and the efficacy that they've produced to date. We'll see what they show when they have a full data set for phase II. If it's not much better than what they've shown, i don't know how they'll justify the massive cost of a phase III to the board of directors and the investors.

Spending that 165 million dollars on Bosley clinics would have been a waste of money if they didnt know if they had a working treatment or not. You can bank on it they do, they wouldnt ALL collectively be dumb enough to dump that much cash without a future.

[yeahyeahyeah]

You're in idiot if you think aderans would release that product. They have many different products they are testing in many different areas and they are going to pick the best one. They won't release anything inferior to propecia. Do I need to go into detail as to why they wouldn't? or can you figure that out yourself?


hint. fda costs loads of money

+1

You guys are fretting over nothing.

Worse case scienario, it turns out to be very ineffective, and if say they still do release it - people will catch on and they will have a failed commercial product. It will be like that shit loreal product (neogenic) that didn't take off recently.

Best case scienario, more likely btw, because they have SPENT A SHIT LOAD OF CASH and gone through painstaking FDA trials - it works and people use it.

I am sure those who have invested in aderans ji gami product want a return of investment. So by releasing a shoddy product will not do it - people simply wont buy it if that is the case.

[FearTheLoss]

+1

You guys are fretting over nothing.

Worse case scienario, it turns out to be very ineffective, and if say they still do release it - people will catch on and they will have a failed commercial product. It will be like that shit loreal product (neogenic) that didn't take off recently.

Best case scienario, more likely btw, because they have SPENT A SHIT LOAD OF CASH and gone through painstaking FDA trials - it works and people use it.

I am sure those who have invested in aderans ji gami product want a return of investment. So by releasing a shoddy product will not do it - people simply wont buy it if that is the case.

Exactly, propecia is proven to work and Merck was upset with the returns they have made on it. You think Aderans is going to release a product that's not a lot better than propecia so they can make jack shit off it?

I think not.

[yeahyeahyeah]

Exactly, propecia is proven to work and Merck was upset with the returns they have made on it. You think Aderans is going to release a product that's not a lot better than propecia so they can make jack shit off it?

I think not.

People are too pessimistic, if this was to fail, we would have known by now.

[hellouser]

Didn't hear about the responder with 80% more hair do you remember where you saw that?

Its in the Presentation they made 3 years ago. Theyre showing an 80% increase in *terminal* hair count but as you mentioned, the total hair count is 60% but that includes vellus hair, which I'm sure we'd all agree is insignificant. However, being that this was 3 years ago, its reasonable to assume that they either got higher increase in terminal hair (though being at 80% this already sounds f*cking awesome!) OR a higher response rate from their patients. I'm sure they put some work into turning those vellus hairs into terminal as well. Who knows, but 80% terminal hair increase is amazing.

Here's the screeshot:



Remember, this was three years ago, the efficacy could only get better with more research!

I'm excited incase you guys cant tell :P

[UK Boy]

Please don't call me an idiot.

Believe me I totally agree with what a lot of you are saying. I don't get why they would continue to invest in a product that is not effective for many people and minimally effective for those it does work for. I defended Aderans against the likes of Ironman for these exact reasons, but Ironman always had a come back. So I decided I had to take the time and check out the lastest data released by Aderans and the information was all there in the 2012 MESA presentation. The info came right from Ken Washnik's mouth - no speculation, just the data straight from Aderans. I think those of you calling me an idiot really need to sit down for 15 mins and WATCH that presentation. You will hear him state these facts:

1. The treatment does not cause neogenesis of hair follicles.
2. Only 60% respond to treatment.
3. Only 40% experience regrowth of 13 hairs per sq cm (equal to Propecia results).

They have identified genetic markers that allow them to identify people who will be good responders and intend to use this when they release the product. I imagine this will be how they'll produce good results to entice customers in, they will only accept those who are good responders so of course all their before and after photos on their websites etc. will show regrowth, the fact that the procedure only works for 60% of people will prob be in the small print. lol.

But I don't know, it does seem like a big gamble to push forward with something so ineffective or maybe they think that hair loss sufferers are desperate enough to go for anything. They'll be able to get some money out of everyone who shows an interest cos they'll charge for the test to see if you're a responder.

I wish that I'm somehow wrong but this came from Washnik, no one else. Like I said, those who doubt it go and watch that video. Dunno what else to say other than let's pray that they get something much better out of these last two trials that they didn't have results from in Oct last year.

[yeahyeahyeah]

Please don't call me an idiot.

Believe me I totally agree with what a lot of you are saying. I don't get why they would continue to invest in a product that is not effective for many people and minimally effective for those it does work for. I defended Aderans against the likes of Ironman for these exact reasons, but Ironman always had a come back. So I decided I had to take the time and check out the lastest data released by Aderans and the information was all there in the 2012 MESA presentation. The info came right from Ken Washnik's mouth - no speculation, just the data straight from Aderans. I think those of you calling me an idiot really need to sit down for 15 mins and WATCH that presentation. You will hear him state these facts:

1. The treatment does not cause neogenesis of hair follicles.
2. Only 60% respond to treatment.
3. Only 40% experience regrowth of 13 hairs per sq cm (equal to Propecia results).

They have identified genetic markers that allow them to identify people who will be good responders and intend to use this when they release the product. I imagine this will be how they'll produce good results to entice customers in, they will only accept those who are good responders so of course all their before and after photos on their websites etc. will show regrowth, the fact that the procedure only works for 60% of people will prob be in the small print. lol.

But I don't know, it does seem like a big gamble to push forward with something so ineffective or maybe they think that hair loss sufferers are desperate enough to go for anything. They'll be able to get some money out of everyone who shows an interest cos they'll charge for the test to see if you're a responder.

I wish that I'm somehow wrong but this came from Washnik, no one else. Like I said, those who doubt it go and watch that video. Dunno what else to say other than let's pray that they get something much better out of these last two trials that they didn't have results from in Oct last year.

Honestly , histogen is a superior product

[hellouser]

Like I said, those who doubt it go and watch that video.

Link to video?

[gmonasco]

Certain meds got fast tracked in the 90s for AIDS. Now, I know hair loss isn't a life threatening issue like AIDS but it is definitely possible.

The FDA's fast-tracking of protease inhibitors for patients with advanced HIV infections was a "nothing to lose" situation: the recipients were virtually all facing death sentences already. If the drugs had proved unexpectedly harmful, it would have been viewed by both the public and the patients as a worthwhile gamble.

If the FDA fast-tracked a treatment for hair loss, however, and that treatment later proved to have serious deleterious health effects, the public outcry would be clamorous and the potential liability issues enormous.

[UK Boy]

Link to video?

http://youtu.be/l_JHbtXJ0a8

[hellouser]

http://youtu.be/l_JHbtXJ0a8

Thanks.

Man, from all the evidence shown it looks like Aderans may work best on men with thinning hair rather than on completely bald scalp.

That said, time to get on a strong regimen of CB/RU. CB's results alone are pretty amazing, sometimes increasing density by about 40%+. I suppose I'm lucky to be thinning but I still need to lower the hairline and fill in the temples.

[hellouser]

The FDA's fast-tracking of protease inhibitors for patients with advanced HIV infections was a "nothing to lose" situation: the recipients were virtually all facing death sentences already. If the drugs had proved unexpectedly harmful, it would have been viewed by both the public and the patients as a worthwhile gamble.

If the FDA fast-tracked a treatment for hair loss, however, and that treatment later proved to have serious deleterious health effects, the public outcry would be clamorous and the potential liability issues enormous.

Hmmm. I'll definitely give this more thought and research.