follicept - what's this?

[Swooping]

That is neither here nor there. Devon, hasn't even started selling anything, so until he does it doesn't even make sense to call this a scam. And if people want to have hope, let them. I understand your trying to be a realist, not an optimistic, but some people need hope. We all are in a shitty position with AGA, some people cope different ways. Just trying to say be fair, and chill with the accusations until something is actually for sale.

Sure, I completely agree. Do whatever you want what makes you happy. Everyone handles it differently.

However generally speaking I think going out from a philosophy of skepticism is very healthy in stimulating innovation/real progress. Isn't that what we all want? The answer to that from every AGA sufferer whether a realistic, optimistic or negative person would be YES.

Does that include hyping people who are clearly emotionally driven without any evidence beforehand? I really don't think so cr1mson. Why? We have seen how this went in the past. Whether it was from a Indian charlatan or a goddamn NASA scientist. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. I furthermore concur with Arashi that in-house trials don't mean much these days. They really don't. I can give you many many examples which look so great on paper but in reality don't do much.

Anyway, indeed we'll see soon enough.

[Helix]

@Serenemoon

It's not only these studies, that is actually the worst evidence I provided. It was just to create a nuance to show that papers can contradict itself. I knew beforehand that plasma levels of IGF-1 don't have any contribution to the pathology of Androgenetic Alopecia (AGA), or don't even have impact on it. Why?

We can extrapolate real observational evidence of people with Laronn Syndrome and Acrogemaly. The former condition is characterized by a huge deficiency of IGF-1. The latter is characterized by huge elevated concentrations of IGF-1. Yet both can suffer from AGA. From the most pictures that I saw people with Laronn Syndrome have awesome hair even at an old age though.

If IGF-1 plasma levels would have an huge impact upstream in the cascade of AGA we would at least see some evidence of something occurring in one of those conditions. For instance that people with Acrogemaly would be pretty "immune" to AGA. Yet we don't see any of that happening, especially in relation to the FOXO1 hypothesis of Prometheon Pharma.

Why are you even talking about circulating IGF-1 ? Circulating levels are not indicator of tissue and peripheral levels, actually they are usually inversely related.

I don't have time to go through all your posts so please answer me is your best evidence that people with high circulating IGF-1 levels still lose hair ?

[follicept]

Hey everybody,

It is Tuesday and here with an update as promised. As usual, a few things to address:

First, excluding the attacks, the thread has been very helpful to us in getting up to speed on the history and science of hair loss, as we are relatively new to this field, so thank you. Even swooping and arashi have had some positive contributions, so we believe everyone is valuable here. Even if the ideas ultimately don't pan out or are disproven, healthy discussion is always beneficial.

Kind of along those lines, I can confirm that sdsurfin does have an NDA with us and his ideas have been very helpful. Again, some didn't pan out, but they got us (well, really Dr. Hsu) to think and investigate further and solidify our theories on this.

Further, some have questioned our document prepared by one of our employees (who is now off on his way to MD/PhD program) and we have learned a lot since then. I will be taking that down, and Dr. Hsu is creating a PPT for a different purpose that will clearly explain our theories and the pathways we think this will take to effect hair loss. Some will understand and agree, some will hate it, but you will know where we stand and why we think that works. I will link that on the Follicept site by the end of the week most likely. In talking to Dr. Hsu just now (again more depth on this when we post the document, and I am still learning the science) we think this will be importantly a pulse therapy- use it 3x/week for a month, and it should induce anagen phase for perhaps even 1 year or longer. This will likely mean a higher upfront price, but still saving money long term vs. minox and other treatments.

Regarding use of other therapies, and the question about shedding: this is intended to be a standalone therapy, and we have not tested other therapies with it. Given that minox and fin are after similar things, it is important to use Follicept on its own. Thus, users should either be treatment naive or "baseline" which means letting other treatments be washed out of your system, and yes, the dreaded shedding. I know this will cause a firestorm and ask that you refer to the document I will post later this week to understand why. The layman's/Devon version is that we need to let the follicles/DP go to their natural, inhibited, shrunken state so that we can wake them up again and induce anagen phase for the long term.

As for a forum trial, Dr. Hsu said it would not be prudent for reasons others here have posted: from the Hippocratic Oath- "First, do no harm." Since this is still being tested, we need to control the environment and application to ensure safety. Assuming we get some positive results, we will launch the indiegogo at around the same time as the clinical trial, and those interested on the forum can obtain it and post their results to boost confidence and hopefully the performance of the indiegogo and sway those who are waiting for more proof.

Now, for the big news. Other ingredients have been ordered (slight hitch with another supplier, fixed now), and will arrive tomorrow and Thursday. We will work all weekend to prepare the batch, and I will begin this coming Monday. I will film the application (maybe even do it live if I can find a way to broadcast? Anyone know a way?), and from then on do #folliceptfridays with updates on progress- video and pics, again maybe live.

I am starting a new thread exclusively for trial updates and discussion, let's keep all the flaming and trolling on this one. Let the naysaying commence!

[Helix]

1. http://www.worldhairresearch.com/?p=64



2. http://escholarship.org/uc/item/2v79r893



3. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10827403



These 3 studies state otherwise and provide evidence that IGF-1 is a bad factor. IGF-1 can only reach the dermal papilla through the blood and isn't synthesized within the hair follicle. Furthermore IGF-1 is evenly distributed within the blood. What does your research team have to say about these studies? I'm genuinely interested to the answer.

I am rereading your posts. Once again you are using circulating IGF-1 as evidence. Do you know about Insulin-like growth factor-binding protein ?

[Swooping]

Why are you even talking about circulating IGF-1 ? Circulating levels are not indicator of tissue and peripheral levels, actually they are usually inversely related.

I don't have time to go through all your posts so please answer me is your best evidence that people with high circulating IGF-1 levels still lose hair ?

If you read my whole post then you can read that I argue that IGF-1 circulating levels don't have any impact on the pathology of AGA. If IGF-1 wants to exert a biological response it must activate cells by binding to cell surface receptors. So theoretically circulating IGF-1 levels could contribute to the pathology of AGA as the DP holds those. However seeing from the observational evidence and papers we can say that this is unlikely/impossible.

Let me give a other example. An unhealthy thyroid function may compromise your hair health unrelated to AGA namely telogen effluvium which is characterized by a shifted telogen/anagen ratio. This can happen through the TSH/TRH receptors on the DP. However this isn't related to the pathology of AGA itself. Even such a thing is unlikely with IGF-1 probably because we don't see evidence in people with Laronn Syndrome and Acrogemaly, whether those are extreme high circulating levels of IGF-1 or extreme low levels

You are correct that in tissue, IGF-1 is produced by mesenchymal type of cells, the dermal papilla being one those type of cells. Some cell to cell communication may be apparent there in the form of paracrine signalling. Although autocrine signalling is possible too. So the dermal papilla may "message" other cells in the micro-environment of the hair follicle with the produced IGF-1 so it can bind to these specific cell regulatory receptors in a complicated manner to other cells. Perhaps IGF-1 isn't that important for the DP itself as you may think but only for the keratonicytes of the hair follicle to name as an example.

Perhaps even pure IGF-1 receptor knockout wouldn't even retard hair growth in humans. IGF-1 receptor knockout mice have fewer, smaller, and earlier hair follicle development but still develop hair. EVEN AFTER FULL KOCKOUT.

It may not be that important as you think not even related to androgenetic alopecia itself but to the whole hair follicle biology.

[FrenchNewbie]

Hey everybody,

It is Tuesday and here with an update as promised. As usual, a few things to address:

First, excluding the attacks, the thread has been very helpful to us in getting up to speed on the history and science of hair loss, as we are relatively new to this field, so thank you. Even swooping and arashi have had some positive contributions, so we believe everyone is valuable here. Even if the ideas ultimately don't pan out or are disproven, healthy discussion is always beneficial.

Kind of along those lines, I can confirm that sdsurfin does have an NDA with us and his ideas have been very helpful. Again, some didn't pan out, but they got us (well, really Dr. Hsu) to think and investigate further and solidify our theories on this.

Further, some have questioned our document prepared by one of our employees (who is now off on his way to MD/PhD program) and we have learned a lot since then. I will be taking that down, and Dr. Hsu is creating a PPT for a different purpose that will clearly explain our theories and the pathways we think this will take to effect hair loss. Some will understand and agree, some will hate it, but you will know where we stand and why we think that works. I will link that on the Follicept site by the end of the week most likely. In talking to Dr. Hsu just now (again more depth on this when we post the document, and I am still learning the science) we think this will be importantly a pulse therapy- use it 3x/week for a month, and it should induce anagen phase for perhaps even 1 year or longer. This will likely mean a higher upfront price, but still saving money long term vs. minox and other treatments.

Regarding use of other therapies, and the question about shedding: this is intended to be a standalone therapy, and we have not tested other therapies with it. Given that minox and fin are after similar things, it is important to use Follicept on its own. Thus, users should either be treatment naive or "baseline" which means letting other treatments be washed out of your system, and yes, the dreaded shedding. I know this will cause a firestorm and ask that you refer to the document I will post later this week to understand why. The layman's/Devon version is that we need to let the follicles/DP go to their natural, inhibited, shrunken state so that we can wake them up again and induce anagen phase for the long term.

As for a forum trial, Dr. Hsu said it would not be prudent for reasons others here have posted: from the Hippocratic Oath- "First, do no harm." Since this is still being tested, we need to control the environment and application to ensure safety. Assuming we get some positive results, we will launch the indiegogo at around the same time as the clinical trial, and those interested on the forum can obtain it and post their results to boost confidence and hopefully the performance of the indiegogo and sway those who are waiting for more proof.

Now, for the big news. Other ingredients have been ordered (slight hitch with another supplier, fixed now), and will arrive tomorrow and Thursday. We will work all weekend to prepare the batch, and I will begin this coming Monday. I will film the application (maybe even do it live if I can find a way to broadcast? Anyone know a way?), and from then on do #folliceptfridays with updates on progress- video and pics, again maybe live.

I am starting a new thread exclusively for trial updates and discussion, let's keep all the flaming and trolling on this one. Let the naysaying commence!

Many thanks Devon for all these news! I can't wait to be on monday!

[Helix]

If you read my whole post then you can read that I argue that IGF-1 circulating levels don't have any impact on the pathology of AGA. If IGF-1 wants to exert a biological response it must activate cells by binding to cell surface receptors. So theoretically circulating IGF-1 levels could contribute to the pathology of AGA as the DP holds those. However seeing from the observational evidence and papers we can say that this is unlikely/impossible.

Let me give a other example. An unhealthy thyroid function may compromise your hair health unrelated to AGA namely telogen effluvium which is characterized by a shifted telogen/anagen ratio. This can be done through the TSH/TRH receptors on the DP. However this isn't related to the pathology of AGA itself.

You are correct that in tissue, IGF-1 is produced by mesenchymal type of cells, the dermal papilla being one those type of cells. Some cell to cell communication may be apparent there in the form of paracrine signalling. Although autocrine signalling is possible too. So the dermal papilla may "message" other cells in the micro-environment with the produced IGF-1 so it can bind to these specific cell regulatory receptors in a complicated manner. Perhaps IGF-1 isn't that important for the DP itself as you may think but only for the keratonicytes of the hair follicle to name as an example.

Perhaps even pure IGF-1 receptor knockout wouldn't even retard hair growth in humans. IGF-1 receptor knockout mice have fewer, smaller, and earlier hair follicle development but still develop hair. EVEN AFTER FULL KOCKOUT.

It may not be that important as you think not even related to androgenetic alopecia itself but to the whole hair follicle biology.

I don't understand what you are trying to say.

You used studies with circulating IGF-1 levels to show that IGF-1 is somehow bad for us because it correlates with AGA.

That is simply wrong. It's the same as saying that insulin is bad for us because people with diabetes (type 2) have high circulating insulin levels.

[TheUltimatePoet]

Thanks for the update, Devon. I too will be in high anticipation for Monday, and I will be here when you post!

[Jagger]

Hey everybody,

It is Tuesday and here with an update as promised. As usual, a few things to address:

First, excluding the attacks, the thread has been very helpful to us in getting up to speed on the history and science of hair loss, as we are relatively new to this field, so thank you. Even swooping and arashi have had some positive contributions, so we believe everyone is valuable here. Even if the ideas ultimately don't pan out or are disproven, healthy discussion is always beneficial.

Kind of along those lines, I can confirm that sdsurfin does have an NDA with us and his ideas have been very helpful. Again, some didn't pan out, but they got us (well, really Dr. Hsu) to think and investigate further and solidify our theories on this.

Further, some have questioned our document prepared by one of our employees (who is now off on his way to MD/PhD program) and we have learned a lot since then. I will be taking that down, and Dr. Hsu is creating a PPT for a different purpose that will clearly explain our theories and the pathways we think this will take to effect hair loss. Some will understand and agree, some will hate it, but you will know where we stand and why we think that works. I will link that on the Follicept site by the end of the week most likely. In talking to Dr. Hsu just now (again more depth on this when we post the document, and I am still learning the science) we think this will be importantly a pulse therapy- use it 3x/week for a month, and it should induce anagen phase for perhaps even 1 year or longer. This will likely mean a higher upfront price, but still saving money long term vs. minox and other treatments.

Regarding use of other therapies, and the question about shedding: this is intended to be a standalone therapy, and we have not tested other therapies with it. Given that minox and fin are after similar things, it is important to use Follicept on its own. Thus, users should either be treatment naive or "baseline" which means letting other treatments be washed out of your system, and yes, the dreaded shedding. I know this will cause a firestorm and ask that you refer to the document I will post later this week to understand why. The layman's/Devon version is that we need to let the follicles/DP go to their natural, inhibited, shrunken state so that we can wake them up again and induce anagen phase for the long term.

As for a forum trial, Dr. Hsu said it would not be prudent for reasons others here have posted: from the Hippocratic Oath- "First, do no harm." Since this is still being tested, we need to control the environment and application to ensure safety. Assuming we get some positive results, we will launch the indiegogo at around the same time as the clinical trial, and those interested on the forum can obtain it and post their results to boost confidence and hopefully the performance of the indiegogo and sway those who are waiting for more proof.

Now, for the big news. Other ingredients have been ordered (slight hitch with another supplier, fixed now), and will arrive tomorrow and Thursday. We will work all weekend to prepare the batch, and I will begin this coming Monday. I will film the application (maybe even do it live if I can find a way to broadcast? Anyone know a way?), and from then on do #folliceptfridays with updates on progress- video and pics, again maybe live.

I am starting a new thread exclusively for trial updates and discussion, let's keep all the flaming and trolling on this one. Let the naysaying commence!

As far as live broadcast, I know of Twitch. I think Youtube also does livestreaming of some sort. Admittedly I'm not well versed in this type of thing.

Great news all around, it seems.

The whole pulse therapy idea is really strange, but inducing anagen phase for up to one year after a month of treatment? That is cool. I hope it works out. Plus pulse therapy is way more convenient than wearing the gel every other night.

I am really excited for you guys and I wish you the best of luck, not just for your company but for the benefit of everyone here.

Do you have any ideas as to whether or not Follicept would work to grow hair on other parts of the body? I know it hasn't been tested yet but I was wondering if the theories say anything about other kinds of hair. My eyebrows have gotten rather light over the last few years and could use a little bit of thickening. Plus if it worked well enough it'd make a fun prank, writing your name in gel on someone's back or something and waiting for their spouse to notice (Why does your new back hair spell "Jagger"?!)

[follicept]

As far as live broadcast, I know of Twitch. I think Youtube also does livestreaming of some sort. Admittedly I'm not well versed in this type of thing.

Great news all around, it seems.

The whole pulse therapy idea is really strange, but inducing anagen phase for up to one year after a month of treatment? That is cool. I hope it works out. Plus pulse therapy is way more convenient than wearing the gel every other night.

I am really excited for you guys and I wish you the best of luck, not just for your company but for the benefit of everyone here.

Do you have any ideas as to whether or not Follicept would work to grow hair on other parts of the body? I know it hasn't been tested yet but I was wondering if the theories say anything about other kinds of hair. My eyebrows have gotten rather light over the last few years and could use a little bit of thickening. Plus if it worked well enough it'd make a fun prank, writing your name in gel on someone's back or something and waiting for their spouse to notice (Why does your new back hair spell "Jagger"?!)

Thanks!

To be clear, it will still be 3x/week for 4 weeks, but then stop. That's what we mean by pulse. Thanks for that! Not sure about other areas, I will ask Dr. Hsu his thoughts at some point. HAHAHAHA dirty.

[Keki]

I can't believe i made the right choice waiting a month before treatments, i hope it works

[IvanXproject]

For how long are you guys going to do the trials? Will the follicept be for sale as soon as you get any results? Or do you have like a "minimum" number of weeks/ months you have to go through first? (For example, if you get visible results after 4 weeks, you still have to continue with the treatment for 3 more months before you can start to sell it?)

[Swooping]

I don't understand what you are trying to say.

You used studies with circulating IGF-1 levels to show that IGF-1 is somehow bad for us because it correlates with AGA.

That is simply wrong. It's the same as saying that insulin is bad for us because people with diabetes (type 2) have high circulating insulin levels.

I did that in the beginning of the topic, pages ago. I wanted to create a nuance that papers can contradict itself and to gauge what Devon would say. AGA is simply the effect of Androgens > AR (which are located on the DP). Then goes downstream.

No circulating levels of IGF-1 have correlation with AGA. Only indirect maybe through hormonal intervention of SHBG, which can make your FAI higher and your estrogen lower. I just argue that. Only paracrine & autocrine signalling mediated IGF-1 and produced from within the DP in the micro environment of the hair follicle may have an effect. But probably not to Androgenetic Alopecia itself, only to hair follicle biology itself. It is quite logical that a miniaturized hair follicle doesn't secrete much or none IGF-1 just as many many other factors. Same with a telogen hair follicle. You can shift anagen/telogen ratio in anyone giving him more hair growth, even on a NW1 person. That's easy, but it won't yield much growth. Reversing AGA is a whole different league.

Hope you understand now.

[follicept]

For how long are you guys going to do the trials? Will the follicept be for sale as soon as you get any results? Or do you have like a "minimum" number of weeks/ months you have to go through first? (For example, if you get visible results after 4 weeks, you still have to continue with the treatment for 3 more months before you can start to sell it?)

No, if/when we start to see good efficacy we will launch the indiegogo. We will maintain trials/monitoring for the long term to see effects in terms of how long the pulse therapy works, but once we are confident we will begin sales and ask your support to keep us updated on results for a nice database.

[Helix]

I did that in the beginning of the topic, pages ago. I wanted to create a nuance that papers can contradict itself and to gauge what Devon would say. AGA is simply the effect of Androgens > AR (which are located on the DP). Then goes downstream.

You might used that as some kind a test for Devon, but other people are quoting that post as a proof that IGF-1 is bad for hair.

Only paracrine & autocrine signalling mediated IGF-1 and produced from within the DP in the micro environment of the hair follicle may have an effect.

On what evidence do you base that conclusion ?