Does that help you see the importance that others are missing about being able to immunize hair follicles from the damaging effects of DHT?
Oh yeah of course. I mean if Replicel could achieve that (though I still consider he results thus far poor) it would be great for those in the early stages but we just can't know that now; I have feeling though that it won't unless it's done periodically based on some other cellular therapies that exist.
As for Histogen, well let's wait and see.
05-06-2012 10:08 AM
Tracy C
If Replicel's treatment does in fact immunize hair follicles from the damaging effects of DHT, which it is reasonable to expect that it would, this would be helpful to everyone with hereditary hair loss. Not just those in the early stages. You need to look at the big picture. Not just a small part of it. Addressing the cause of hereditary hair loss is the most important part of the resolving the problem. Once that is achieved, the rest will follow.
The final outcome of Replicel's treatment this round is not yet known - and won't be for another six to 12 months. Sure it would have been great if they had achieved better results this early on - but the results they do have thus far are still significant.
05-06-2012 10:53 AM
jman91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tracy C
If Replicel's treatment does in fact immunize hair follicles from the damaging effects of DHT, which it is reasonable to expect that it would, this would be helpful to everyone with hereditary hair loss. Not just those in the early stages. You need to look at the big picture. Not just a small part of it. Addressing the cause of hereditary hair loss is the most important part of the resolving the problem. Once that is achieved, the rest will follow.
The final outcome of Replicel's treatment this round is not yet known - and won't be for another six to 12 months. Sure it would have been great if they had achieved better results this early on - but the results they do have thus far are still significant.
surely then if you had lost your hair already the treatment would not be an option?
05-06-2012 11:55 AM
Tracy C
There is absolutely no valid reason to make that assumption.
05-06-2012 01:35 PM
jman91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tracy C
There is absolutely no valid reason to make that assumption.
well actually i think its a very reasonable concern.
I have always thought that researchers and big pharma will only find a way/ be bothered to help people by preventing them losing hair, i don't think reversing hair loss is a realistic target, both scientifically and commercially in the long run so they wont bother.
05-07-2012 08:46 AM
Follicle Death Row
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tracy C
If Replicel's treatment does in fact immunize hair follicles from the damaging effects of DHT, which it is reasonable to expect that it would, this would be helpful to everyone with hereditary hair loss.
Is it reasonable though? I'm not so sure and it's one of my big worries. I really hope you're right. You know there is some conjecture that the reseeding of cells is only transient. Let's hope not.
Ultimately one day, way down the line, germ line gene therapy will eradicate this completely, stopping inheritance too. Probably 50 years off.
05-07-2012 10:51 AM
WillhasWill
Quote:
Originally Posted by jman91
I have always thought that researchers and big pharma will only find a way/ be bothered to help people by preventing them losing hair, i don't think reversing hair loss is a realistic target, both scientifically and commercially in the long run so they wont bother.
But researchers are currently only really focusing on the opposite, regenerating and regrowing hair. Histogen, Replicel and Follica are all researching into growing new hair, not necessarily prevention. The possible halting of hair loss with Replicel was not their main aim.
Androgen antagonist drugs (RU, CB-03-01 orASC-J9?) sound very interesting to me and could be the key to halting and preventing hair loss. The way I understand it is that the androgen in this case is DHT, which binds to androgen receptors in the hair follicle and the hair follicle is eventually destroyed.
Androgens bind to many androgen receptors in the male body to control male characteristics such as growth, muscle mass, facial hair, body hair and unfortunately the loss of scalp hair.
So is the key to halting/preventing hair loss is to stop the androgen receptors of the hair follicles? Ultimately eliminating baldness and the secondary problem of repairing already destroyed follicles is a completely separate problem in it self. As the cause of baldness at scalp level would be solved?
And what's the different between the androgens binding to androgen receptors on the face and body which increase hair growth dramatically, whilst when binding to the scalp decrease hair? Maybe this could also be a way of using androgens to induce hair growth in the scalp. Not just to prevent baldness.
05-07-2012 10:56 AM
WillhasWill
Quote:
Originally Posted by Follicle Death Row
Is it reasonable though? I'm not so sure and it's one of my big worries. I really hope you're right. You know there is some conjecture that the reseeding of cells is only transient. Let's hope not.
Ultimately one day, way down the line, germ line gene therapy will eradicate this completely, stopping inheritance too. Probably 50 years off.
Yes, probably another 50 years for life threatening illnesses. Then maybe another 50 years again for what society would say are "minor" ailments like baldness.
Baldness is minor and not life threatening, of course I understand this. There are far more important things of course. However, it does affect the quality of life of millions of men and women. Spencer is right it's a silent epidemic in it's affect on a persons life. More investment needs to be made into finding a cure. Come on , it's gone on for far too long now :-)
05-07-2012 02:26 PM
hellouser
Can someone correct me if I'm wrong;
I listened to the interview and apparently Replicel used a large dosage but only TWO injections? Does that really mean what I think it does; more or like as if getting two needles? Or two SETS of injections?
Could the 6-12% improvement be better if there were more injections?
05-07-2012 10:23 PM
Horseshoe
Quote:
Originally Posted by hellouser
Can someone correct me if I'm wrong;
I listened to the interview and apparently Replicel used a large dosage but only TWO injections? Does that really mean what I think it does; more or like as if getting two needles? Or two SETS of injections?
Could the 6-12% improvement be better if there were more injections?
Yes, there were two injections. One was with DSC cells on one side and the other was a placebo injection on the other side. It was to see safety and efficacy in the localized area of only about 2 centermeters. So of course if they inject thousands of sites 2 cm apart on the scalp there would theoretically be hair growing throughout the treated area. But that's what they are working on. It's a long and arduous road. I still have hope but i'm running out of time.
