RepliCel - Spencer Kobren's Follow Up Interview With CEO David Hall

[Kiwi]

Early semester exercise: Let's say for example Replicel proves to be a real or at least satisfying solution after Phase 1 / during Phase 2. What happens to the other companies? I'll give you a hint: Shareholder Value

U.S Bachelor degrees...

Sorry, it's not that easy. You know, I don't want to be rude but it's really annoying to see someone trying to silence other people by saying "trust me, I studied economics and I'm reading science magazines"
If you want to sell your "I studied" gun, ship it with arguments please.

U.S Bachelor degree. I rest my case. Thanks to you lot (USA) the world is having another recession. That was the least insulting or patronizing thing anybody has ever said to somebody outside of the confines of Fox news.

Maybe I dont have the most amazing education but it doesn't take a genius to know that once all of these companies reach the market they will all sell their products. The shareholders of the companies that exist now (aderans etc) and all of the others that come later will only have one thing in mind... I'll give you a hint shareholder "return". Its that simple.

And in terms of my statement around reading scientific journals and magazines - its a hell of a lot more valid then some bitter and balding tenny bobber stating that Replicell should trial its products on humans first - that is totally absurd. If I had to pick over my somewhat studied and researched opinion over "test it on humans - she'll be right" attitude... I pick me everytime.

I find it hard to believe that people are giving me a hard time for being practical about all of this. If we're practical and keep the push in the real world we're all going to get the products we want sooner.

Arguing to test things on humans first is exactly the kind of retarded distraction all these companies want.

[Kiwi]

Make no mistake, this is a race to the finish line. Replicel are being smart about it by dosing up in phase one. Under the veil of safety they will determine efficacy at the same time, and satisfy shareholders and set the market. There is room for more than one treatment provided they all work...at least initially. Ultimately the market will dictate who comes out on top though. That is until another more effective treatment comes along.

YES! Sense at last.

The market will dictate who is on top - just like the market decided Porche is better then Holdens.

But they will ALL get filthy rich. Mark my words. Come on folks!!! Even the TrX2 douche bags are making money ripping people off!!! And thats just the world we live in!!!

[RichardDawkins]

it is called Porsche and not Porche

[Kiwi]

it is called Porsche and not Porche

LOL - thanks Rich

[Kiwi]

What really sux about TRX2 is that Spencer hasnt deleted that thread. Is that because Spencer thinks it might be a real solution?

I am curious about that one...

[Jundam]

No really, listen to Jundam, he thinks we should skip trailing drugs on mice and go straight to human testing.... idiot...

Never said that. If you possessed a moderate level of reading comprehension you'd know that. In fact if you ever feel compelled to backtrack my posts you'd see me in a lengthy argument against that exact thing a few months back.

You don't understand science as well as you think you do. You sure as **** don't understand business. But you're on these forums spouting off as if you and telling other people to shut up without any coherent argument as to why except "I've studied this" or "I've read that".

Personally I don't care that you're an idiot, but you're being a ****ing asshole about it.

[Kiwi]

Never said that. If you possessed a moderate level of reading comprehension you'd know that. In fact if you ever feel compelled to backtrack my posts you'd see me in a lengthy argument against that exact thing a few months back.

You don't understand science as well as you think you do. You sure as **** don't understand business. But you're on these forums spouting off as if you and telling other people to shut up without any coherent argument as to why except "I've studied this" or "I've read that".

Personally I don't care that you're an idiot, but you're being a ****ing asshole about it.

You seriously don't know what you're talking about.

I own a company with 8 staff members. Which isnt bad for a first time company that pulls over 70K per month. I also invest in small tech firms and help people grow their businesses. I've worked my ass off to be where I am today.

I have been reading science magazines and journals for 10 years. Long before I had an interest in Hairloss. It might not give me as greater understanding as an actual scientist or an actual company in the industry - but I do feel as though I have a grasp on how these things work. I also have a friend who living in the USA who is a lawyer for a pharmaceutical company in America. So I understand why the big pharmaceutical companies want to protect their investments (I don't agree with patent laws but I understand them), I have a friend living in the USA who is working on a vacine for HIV with whom I have had MANY lengthy conversations with about what their business goes through both regulatory and about how they go about getting their funding, and I have another friend here in NZ that was working on a drug to help people with diabetes, a guy who I've hounded for years about this stuff - so that I can understand better what the companies in the USA (and here) have to go through to get drugs on the street and for sale.

What genuinely concerns me is that there are people on this site that;

a) advocate testing untrialed drugs on humans (apologies if it wasnt you - but there was somebody recently actually advocating that - it was pathetic and scary)

b) speak declaratively, as though what they say is fact, about how the first company that hits market will somehow mean all the others fail

It is impossible for us to know this stuff but we do know that their are millions of people loosing their hair. These companies will all win. And the royal "we" are all going to be paying for it.

Richard was right. Some drugs will sell in some countries but not others. Some will work on some people and not others. There are way too many variables for anyone on this site, who doesn't work in one of those companies, to start talking like we know what is going to happen.

In my mind it these people are the people behaving like assholes because it gives out a false message to new our members. And probably do nothing but piss people off in the Companies like Histogen.

Heck I've seen assholes write pathetic emails to people like Gail whatshername demanding information about Histogen. Well I say **** off. She is busy trying to secure millions of dollars worth of funding and I want her focusing on managing a team of people to make my hair grow back - not replying to emails from desperados.

Its no wonder people from these companies with the information that we all want so desperately don't "frequent" this place. Its because certain douche bags pester them away... that is the worst possible thing for our cause!

[Ronin]

You seriously don't know what you're talking about.

I own a company with 8 staff members. Which isnt bad for a first time company that pulls over 70K per month. I also invest in small tech firms and help people grow their businesses. I've worked my ass off to be where I am today.

I have been reading science magazines and journals for 10 years. Long before I had an interest in Hairloss. It might not give me as greater understanding as an actual scientist or an actual company in the industry - but I do feel as though I have a grasp on how these things work. I also have a friend who living in the USA who is a lawyer for a pharmaceutical company in America. So I understand why the big pharmaceutical companies want to protect their investments (I don't agree with patent laws but I understand them), I have a friend living in the USA who is working on a vacine for HIV with whom I have had MANY lengthy conversations with about what their business goes through both regulatory and about how they go about getting their funding, and I have another friend here in NZ that was working on a drug to help people with diabetes, a guy who I've hounded for years about this stuff - so that I can understand better what the companies in the USA (and here) have to go through to get drugs on the street and for sale.

What genuinely concerns me is that there are people on this site that;

a) advocate testing untrialed drugs on humans (apologies if it wasnt you - but there was somebody recently actually advocating that - it was pathetic and scary)

b) speak declaratively, as though what they say is fact, about how the first company that hits market will somehow mean all the others fail

It is impossible for us to know this stuff but we do know that their are millions of people loosing their hair. These companies will all win. And the royal "we" are all going to be paying for it.

Richard was right. Some drugs will sell in some countries but not others. Some will work on some people and not others. There are way too many variables for anyone on this site, who doesn't work in one of those companies, to start talking like we know what is going to happen.

In my mind it these people are the people behaving like assholes because it gives out a false message to new our members. And probably do nothing but piss people off in the Companies like Histogen.

Heck I've seen assholes write pathetic emails to people like Gail whatshername demanding information about Histogen. Well I say **** off. She is busy trying to secure millions of dollars worth of funding and I want her focusing on managing a team of people to make my hair grow back - not replying to emails from desperados.

Its no wonder people from these companies with the information that we all want so desperately don't "frequent" this place. Its because certain douche bags pester them away... that is the worst possible thing for our cause!

Sounds like you're a busy man. How on earth do you find the time and energy to have such vivid presence on anonymous hair loss forums?

[Kiwi]

Sounds like you're a busy man. How on earth do you find the time and energy to have such vivid presence on anonymous hair loss forums?

Because I care about the readers on this site and I'm obsessed with my Hair Loss. Same as everybody else here I guess :P

[Tracy C]

What really sux about TRX2 is that Spencer hasnt deleted that thread. Is that because Spencer thinks it might be a real solution?

I seriously doubt that.

[Sogeking]

What really sux about TRX2 is that Spencer hasnt deleted that thread. Is that because Spencer thinks it might be a real solution?

I am curious about that one...

Forum gives us freedom to discuss about any commercially available treatments. I believe it is a good way to warn people.
To delete that thread would be unfair to those that discuss it and use the product. Besides we all know it is snake oil since we are still in cutting edge/future treatments forum.
And this wait is giving us ample time to bicker and speculate since there is nothing else to do .

[needhairplease]

sorry to start like this

this my first post so i truly am sorry to be negative, but i just can't escape the obvious; If there was a solution, whether it be Replicel, or Histogen, or whatever, and it could reach any kind of break through level of hair regeneration, restoration, regrowth or any other re (which for argument sake lets say is 70%). Don't you think as soon as they were done with their first human clinical trial, they would have had the evidence to create a buzz and clamor over its greatness that this company would have been able to raise so much capital it could easily come to market in less than 3 years.
the bald truth is that the wonder drug or treatment, or miracle (aka over 70 percent) is not out there, and it is not on the pipeline. We may very well have a solution in 2015, but i am sure it will be something that was recently discovered, was shown to be miraculously effective, raised capital determinatively quickly (easy enough to do in a 3.5 billion dollar market) and came to fruition as Korben likes to say.
But I don't believe in miracle or in santa clause, because i have watched people (myself included) wait for the same solution for over 20 years now, and it always seemed to be 5 years away.
Market creates need, and usually a product gets beat by another product, by just a little bit more. It amazes me that people wonder why that is, its because the market is paying for the solution, and as long as the solution is only just enough, the market remains a consistent investor, and grows. So the payoff, in a capitalistic money making utopia, aka.the real world, is not one solution to end all solutions. Its not every going to be a cure, it will just be something that much better.
which is why there is no cure for cancer, there is no cure for aids, and there is no cure for baldness.
Someday they will all be cured, but if you want to estimate when that is, take a simple sample size of all medical issues the world has, divide that by how many have been solved, average out how long each one of those problems have been scientifically researched for a solution, factor in the exponential increase in scientific capability and allow for that to reduce the length of time needed.

my jist and prediction: Replicel will be 50 percent effective, it will beat out the competition, and make some money, just like propecia, and now avodart. There may be a contender or two who do something in the 30-40 percent range before that time. and we will not see a real cure until 2020, and replicel is not it.

Also, just a quick note to Spenz, it really would have been nice for you to not be so nice.
Stop thinking like a consumer, start thinking like a reporter and ask the hard questions.
1. Now that you have tested on humans and we are reaching the 3 month period since patient 0, have you seen growth?
If so, how much?
2. Why are you leaning back on a 20 percent benchmark? what are your exact predictions for efficacy of this treatment?
3. What are the main hurdles that have deterred the development of this treatment, being that it has been in development for over 9 years?
3. How do you see the market maturing around you? Who do you feel are your main competitors, and do you feel that their hopes and projections are similar to your own.
4. In treatment in mice, how have you faired in comparison to other treatments in the pipeline.
5. What are your biggest obstacles in the foreseeable future?

and so many more...

Anyway, glad to be here, think its nice to have a place to rant and release all my pent up anger at my ever-thinning top hat.

Saludos a todos..

[Kiwi]

this my first post so i truly am sorry to be negative, but i just can't escape the obvious; If there was a solution, whether it be Replicel, or Histogen, or whatever, and it could reach any kind of break through level of hair regeneration, restoration, regrowth or any other re (which for argument sake lets say is 70%). Don't you think as soon as they were done with their first human clinical trial, they would have had the evidence to create a buzz and clamor over its greatness that this company would have been able to raise so much capital it could easily come to market in less than 3 years.
the bald truth is that the wonder drug or treatment, or miracle (aka over 70 percent) is not out there, and it is not on the pipeline. We may very well have a solution in 2015, but i am sure it will be something that was recently discovered, was shown to be miraculously effective, raised capital determinatively quickly (easy enough to do in a 3.5 billion dollar market) and came to fruition as Korben likes to say.
But I don't believe in miracle or in santa clause, because i have watched people (myself included) wait for the same solution for over 20 years now, and it always seemed to be 5 years away.
Market creates need, and usually a product gets beat by another product, by just a little bit more. It amazes me that people wonder why that is, its because the market is paying for the solution, and as long as the solution is only just enough, the market remains a consistent investor, and grows. So the payoff, in a capitalistic money making utopia, aka.the real world, is not one solution to end all solutions. Its not every going to be a cure, it will just be something that much better.
which is why there is no cure for cancer, there is no cure for aids, and there is no cure for baldness.
Someday they will all be cured, but if you want to estimate when that is, take a simple sample size of all medical issues the world has, divide that by how many have been solved, average out how long each one of those problems have been scientifically researched for a solution, factor in the exponential increase in scientific capability and allow for that to reduce the length of time needed.

my jist and prediction: Replicel will be 50 percent effective, it will beat out the competition, and make some money, just like propecia, and now avodart. There may be a contender or two who do something in the 30-40 percent range before that time. and we will not see a real cure until 2020, and replicel is not it.

Also, just a quick note to Spenz, it really would have been nice for you to not be so nice.
Stop thinking like a consumer, start thinking like a reporter and ask the hard questions.
1. Now that you have tested on humans and we are reaching the 3 month period since patient 0, have you seen growth?
If so, how much?
2. Why are you leaning back on a 20 percent benchmark? what are your exact predictions for efficacy of this treatment?
3. What are the main hurdles that have deterred the development of this treatment, being that it has been in development for over 9 years?
3. How do you see the market maturing around you? Who do you feel are your main competitors, and do you feel that their hopes and projections are similar to your own.
4. In treatment in mice, how have you faired in comparison to other treatments in the pipeline.
5. What are your biggest obstacles in the foreseeable future?

and so many more...

Anyway, glad to be here, think its nice to have a place to rant and release all my pent up anger at my ever-thinning top hat.

Saludos a todos..

Blah blah blah. You dont have a clue either way. Speculation both positive and negative is only that.

Nice questions though at the end of your rant. I too hope spencer mans up and asks the hard questions next time.

[re22]

If Replicel got 50% that would be a de facto cure. 50% would be magnificent. Most of your arguments are very specious, because, for one, we don't really even know exactly what these companies are doing on the business side of things. Secondly, these companies are still in Phase I/II trials, and have not gone through a rigorous testing protocol. I don't think most of you real realize how extensive this process is: for these companies to just flat out say that they have a cure so prematurely would be wreckless and scientifically unsound. You also have to put into consideration patents and other legal things that we probably don't know about either. I know people on these forums love to jump to conclusions, but let's just focus on the facts as they become available to us.

[needhairplease]

Wow, good thing you pointed out my blog was a speculation, for a second there I was worried everyone in here was working toward an accurate prediction of how the medical world will unfold in the completely unforseeable future.
(Where's the smiley for relieved?)