It is well past time to stop this negative BS concerning Replicel.

[clandestine]

Declaring something negative poison doesn't make it wrong.

People who don't acknowledge the disappointing nature of these results are living in blissful ignorance.

At least we have Gho now and histogen looks somewhat promising.

Back to hair site with you, mayhaps?

[ccmethinning]

Back to hair site with you, mayhaps?

I've been a member here longer than I have at hairsite. I think I have more posts here too.

I'm not a troll. It's just that my balls just got pulverized by RepliCel's non-result results and I'm not gonna keep riding their jock.

[gmonasco]

People who don't acknowledge the disappointing nature of these results are living in blissful ignorance.

People who continually spread misinformation about the nature of those results are actually ignorant, however.

[Maradona]

Declaring something negative poison doesn't make it wrong.

People who don't acknowledge the disappointing nature of these results are living in blissful ignorance.

At least we have Gho now and histogen looks somewhat promising.

If the results are negative what's the point of saying it again and again. We are hurting people here and the company too. Let's keep our opinions to ourselves. I am also detracting from replicel forever but i have my own reasons.

About Gho, you need to know something. Iron_Man knows Gho regenerates hair, it is quite obvious at this point. He pushes Gho because he wants to find out if repeated procedures using the same donor can be done and how far most people can go. I also wonder how consistent Gho's technique is.

From what I've gathered, results haven't been consistent but there is regeneration. What gho claims and what he produces are two different things.

I have the money to go to Gho right now and live in netherlands for a while if I wanted. But while I am convinced of regeneration, I am not convinced if this can be used as a long term treatment due to consistency.

All Gho needs to do is produce a result that cosmetically surpasses FUE and I am not talking about regeneration, just overall results, to impress every skeptic here. There's not much Spencer can do about this, only Gho can.

[UK_]

Does anyone here agree that the "positive" results of Replical MAY affirm the findings of Aderans?

I know the results didnt rock our world, but SOMETHING 'down there' happened - and I think we can ALL agree... every form of technology starts off shit.

[gmonasco]

Will anyone here agree that the "positive" results of Replical MAY affirm the findings of Aderans?

They may, but they also may lead to nothing more than a dead end.

I know the results didnt rock our world, but SOMETHING 'down there' happened - and I think we can ALL agree... every form of technology starts off shit.

Indeed, it's unrealistic to expect that someone is suddenly going to produce a revolutionary new hair loss treatment. Such discoveries are evolutionary in nature, and even seemingly failed efforts contribute to the process by adding to the knowledge base.

[Maradona]

Does anyone here agree that the "positive" results of Replical MAY affirm the findings of Aderans?

I know the results didnt rock our world, but SOMETHING 'down there' happened - and I think we can ALL agree... every form of technology starts off shit.

So far replicel has approximately the same phase 1 results as aderans. I was hoping for replicel to SHIT on aderans results to be honest.

Throwing regrowth aside, if there's one thing that is "positive", is the fact that it was able to thicken up terminal hair. If that hair is immunized from DHT, this could be definitely be a good thing for those with hair and women IF they work hard.

By the time this comes out though I would be a Norwood 7. So, yeah I am done with replicel.

[UK_]

David Hall sounded depressed during his interview with Spencer... I think it was because he was scrolling through this thread as he was speaking on the phone:

http://www.************/hair-loss/bo...ategory-0.html

[The Alchemist]

Yes, in a study that was something like 95% about safety and 5% about efficacy. Phase I trials are far too limited in scope to be anything close to a thorough examination of efficacy. If you've got everything spot-on the first time around, then you can demonstrate efficacy; but if not, such trials don't allow for the adjustment of multiple variables that might produce different results. True efficacy can only be gauged after all a full Phase II trial..

What are you going on about? No one ever said anything about "true efficacy". This trial is being evaluated by the parameters set by David Hall and Replicel. He was the one who came out an said, in regards to the efficacy of this trial (phase I/II), this interim report, that the benchmark would be current treatments i.e. minox and propecia. He is on record as saying (very explicitly) what a success would be defined as, in terms of efficacy. So don't tell me that this trial was 5% efficacy. That is not the picture painted by Hall in his pre-results media interactions. You're simply making things up. This trial was about both safety and efficacy and each dimension carries it's own importance. That's why they even bothered to collect the efficacy data at all, nevermind sending it out in an official report.

You and Tracy can clap your hands over your ears and scream nah, nah, nah i can't hear you all you want . But, these results as they stand, are a disappointment for everyone involved...and that is a mathematical certainty which can't be denied.

Now, if you want to discuss the possibility of more growth in the next 6-12 months, and them turning this around, I'd be glad to. As I don't think this is the nail in the coffin for them. I do believe there is a possibility that the hair cycle time may affect results on a much larger time frame then anyone is used to. But, that remains to be seen.

Regardless of how anyone views these results, the fact of the matter is, they have a very long road ahead of them. 2014/2015 timelines which were being thrown around (by Replicel!) are no longer a reality. Which for some of us, is a disappointment in and of itself.

[sausage]

You can say they are positive results cos some actual growth has happend...BUT the amount of growth is so low which effectively makes the results negative.

I myself am after a treatment/cure that will get all my hair back or at least 50% of the thickness would be satisfactory.

We are miles away from this with Replicel.

[JJJJrS]

I'm not sure what the original poster wants. It appears every time someone doesn't write something glowing about Replicel that she calls them "uneducated," "negative" etc.

Replicel has shown no effectiveness whatsoever. No substantial regrowth, nothing to inspire any confidence in their procedure. Given that David Hall publicly said he was expecting >20% growth and that websites and analysts were paid big money to promote their stock as a potential cure, posters have every right to be upset.

I'm disappointed as well but that doesn't mean we should bury our heads in the sand. As long as posters are being reasonable they have every right to vent or question Replicel.

[gmonasco]

He is on record as saying (very explicitly) what a success would be defined as, in terms of efficacy.

Here is exactly what he said:

"If we achieve 20% percent growth that would be a home run in terms of the comparative technologies out there.”

That ain't the same thing as saying "We expect 20% growth" or "If we don't achieve 20% growth, it'll be an abysmal failure."

You're simply making things up.

That statement is itself an example of your making stuff up.

[gmonasco]

posters have every right to be upset.

Really? Did Replicel do anything that caused anyone to lose hair? Is being hypercritical of one of the few companies actually engaged in hair loss treatment research likely to inspire further efforts along those lines?

[JJJJrS]

Really? Did Replicel do anything that caused anyone to lose hair?

Again, you're selectively quoting my posts. When the CEO appears on interviews claiming that they fully expect to exceed >20% growth, when a bunch of websites and analysts are paid to promote the product as a cure for hair loss, and then results are released which show absolutely no tangible growth, of course people aren't going to be positive about the results and Replicel.

Is being hypercritical of one of the few companies actually engaged in hair loss treatment research likely to inspire further efforts along those lines?

Yeah, I'm sure companies are going to stop their research based on what's written on Bald Truth Talk.

This is a forum, people are here to share their views. Not everyone is going to agree with you. Certainly, there are people on both sides who could show more tact, including the thread starter, but that doesn't mean you should be upset at posters who aren't impressed with Replicel.

[Tracy C]

Certainly, there are people on both sides who could show more tact, including the thread starter, but...

Are you even listening to your own words? No you are not.