Histogen and Aderans

[greatjob!]

The thing is though, these are your own cells, the only element that poses any risk is through the cell multiplication process, this procedure however should be more cost and time efficient than bringing a new drug to the market, sadly it doesnt seem to be.

I want a treatment to come to market yesterday like everyone, but the potential for cancer to develop exists whenever you multiply cells or mess with the cell cycle. I'm just saying everyone can hope for these treatments to be fast tracked all they want but the reality is that it won't happen. Hair loss sucks but cancer sucks more. The FDA isn't ever going to give cosmetic treatments priority, period, that's just the reality.

[UK_]

You can start whatever movement you want, the FDA only fast tracks experimental treatments for terminal diseases and then within that disease only the patients facing certain death. You could be the president of the U.S. and you aren't getting any cosmetic treatment fast tracked

The thing is though, these are your own cells, the only element that poses any risk is through the cell multiplication process, this procedure however should be more cost and time efficient than bringing a new drug to the market, sadly it doesnt seem to be.

[greatjob!]

This is exactly the kind of contribution I'd like to see done to a movement helping Aderans get the green light.

You can start whatever movement you want, the FDA only fast tracks experimental treatments for terminal diseases and then within that disease only the patients facing certain death. You could be the president of the U.S. and you aren't getting any cosmetic treatment fast tracked

[UK Boy]

That video was disappointing. By the time this comes out I will be NW4, Aderans will only work for very early hair loss.

Just give me a hair piece, i'm tired of this shit.

This is exactly what I mean, Aderans does seem really disappointing now, it's sh*t! I was so upset after I properly watched this video. I honestly can't see how they're gonna get much business from it especially since it's actually quite invasive for something that yields such poor results. I bet they're planning on targeting guys who are gonna have a strip procedure anyway. So they'll basically say "Well you're having 20 odd cm squared of your scalp cut out anyway, why not add on an extra 1cm squared and potentially get some extra density". Lol. I dunno but I do know I wouldn't wanna lose 100 odd healthy hair follicles for minimum regeneration, I'd sooner go to Dr. Gho and have him turn that 100 into 200.

[BoSox]

That video was disappointing. By the time this comes out I will be NW4, Aderans will only work for very early hair loss.

Just give me a hair piece, i'm tired of this shit.

[hellouser]

Something to consider is what would happen if the FDA were to fast-track approval of a hair loss treatment that ultimately proved to have significant harmful effects. The likely public response would be (rightly or wrongly) to assert that such rapid approval must have been the result of a shady deal to benefit those with financial connections to whatever companies developed and marketed the treatment, accusations which would probably negatively impact the ability of those companies to bring additional hair loss treatments to market, as well as the ability of the FDA to issue timely approval of any future hair loss treatments.

In short, if you're going to go to the mat to push for fast FDA approval of a hair loss treatment, you really should be sure it's a superlative treatment -- because it if fails, it might be the last such approved treatment for quite a while.

This is exactly the kind of contribution I'd like to see done to a movement helping Aderans get the green light.

[gmonasco]

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

Something to consider is what would happen if the FDA were to fast-track approval of a hair loss treatment that ultimately proved to have significant harmful effects. The likely public response would be (rightly or wrongly) to assert that such rapid approval must have been the result of a shady deal to benefit those with financial connections to whatever companies developed and marketed the treatment, accusations which would probably negatively impact the ability of those companies to bring additional hair loss treatments to market, as well as the ability of the FDA to issue timely approval of any future hair loss treatments.

In short, if you're going to go to the mat to push for fast FDA approval of a hair loss treatment, you really should be sure it's a superlative treatment -- because it if fails, it might be the last such approved treatment for quite a while.

[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.

[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.

[UK Boy]

Link to video?

http://youtu.be/l_JHbtXJ0a8

[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.

[hellouser]

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

Link to video?

[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

[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.

[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