Replicel

[534623]

The placebo groups recieved injections. The wounding process incurred from the injection may be responsible for some the results seen in the placebo group.

i think you're right. cotsarelis and others could show this effect at least in mice. but could also be just the normal result after six month of any dormant, resting, circulating hairs in the skin. but the same for the real treatment site.

[Goldilocks]

I'm not too clear on the study design, so I'm hoping you'll bear with me and someone can explain. From the press release it sounds like they counted actual hairs on the participants' heads. Obviously hair grows in cycles, and the mere irritation from the placebo injection could have resulted in new growth. I use ketoconazole shampoo for this same purpose. Are they not looking at the actual hair follicle, so see whether existing ones have been plumped up as a result of the treatment, or whether ones that weren't even visible before can now be seen? Thanks for any clarification. I would like to understand all this better.

[534623]

From the press release it sounds like they counted actual hairs on the participants' heads. Obviously hair grows in cycles, and the mere irritation from the placebo injection could have resulted in new growth.

they counted hairs with the here described tool

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21188016

[The Alchemist]

It's really tough not to get down about these results. Unless there is a dramatic increase in results from 6-12 months (which i'm not ruling out as a possibility, though I think unlikely to see anything major), i can't see how they could justify investing the cash necessary to push this forward. My guess is that they need to get the terminal hair count over the 20% mark to have anything that would warrant further pursuit. They are very, very far from that. So, it would take a turnaround of epic proportions to get them back in line with what David Hall was saying in the interviews. I'm not holding out any hope for that.

If the results stay as they are, even if they double what they have, Replicel is finished. They're going to have a hard time attracting investor money with those numbers. And I think that attracting a big corporate buyer is very unlikely. Or if it does happen, it's gonna be at a price that makes David Hall cry. So, depending on the next interim results (12 months) this turkey might be cooked. I'll say it doesn't look good at all.

[UK_]

You have to also remember that Replicel has not figured out 'dosing range' yet - this phase was primarily for safety, when they explore what dose works best I am sure we will see far better results.

[BoSox]

You have to also remember that Replicel has not figured out 'dosing range' yet - this phase was primarily for safety, when they explore what dose works best I am sure we will see far better results.

I'm glad you're not the only one besides Spencer that has common sense.

[Goldilocks]

they counted hairs with the here described tool

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21188016

Thanks! It's interesting that the study authors conclude that this device is "error-prone" and "awaits refinement".

[john2399]

Im just intrested to see what david hall says about this. Anyone know if we are getting the interview tonight?

[gmonasco]

Also, remember that the Replicel injections were to the subjects' temples, which are considered much more difficult to treat than the crown. It could be more effective in other parts of the scalp, we just don't know yet.

Since the primary purpose of this clinical trial is safety, I wonder if Replicel chose the temple region for injection because they had some reason to believe that was where any negative health effects would be most apparent?

[Maradona]

Total disaster, never expected such REALLY bad results and this is an overdose .

Time to get on fin, **** ! I'm scared.

[lpenergy]

While I am hoping for the best from Replicel, I have to say that I am out as an investor until I see something that provides very positive results or a similar indication. I sold half of my position upon the announcement of the delay and the other half this morning. I got in at a decent price, so a relatively small loss isn’t that bad given what could have happened.

If the results were considered to be strong (>20%), they would have raised additional funds after the results, which would have resulted in a lower shareholder stock dilution. Because they are simply using DSC cells, I do not see how they can “tweak” a formula to produce better results.

I am looking forward to any interviews, and wish the best for Replicel. If something changes, I may get back on board with buying their stock, but not at this point. It is going to be long slow slog as far as an investment.

At this point, it seems that we have to hope for any of the following:

1) The site location on the temples was sub-optimal, other spots would perform better
2) 6 months was not enough time
3) Overdosing actually hurt the results,
4) Results are compoundable
5) The treatment is more effective at stopping/slowing hair loss instead of regrowth
6) It is an augmenting treatment option
So, David Hall needs to explain why they expect future results to improve. Why did they get the high percentage hair regrowth in animals and not humans?

[kaandereli]

http://www.replicel.com/wp-content/uploads/Implanted-SCID-Mice_PONGED-655x426.png

50% growth on mice, 6% for human.it is damn frustrating

[BaldinLikeBaldwin]

Believe both Replicel and the hair loss community are disappointed by these results. Oh, well..

[Kirby_]

You have to also remember that Replicel has not figured out 'dosing range' yet - this phase was primarily for safety, when they explore what dose works best I am sure we will see far better results.

Isn't the Phase I dose an overdose? (Correct me if I'm wrong, somebody!)

[lpenergy]

Isn't the Phase I dose an overdose? (Correct me if I'm wrong, somebody!)

Yes, if they overdosed the mice and got 3% results, wheras if they gave the proper lower dosage and that resulted in +50%, then it is significant. Otherwise, we don't have a good reason for the variance.