Near the end of this presentation they show some before/after images and claim 62% growth, but it didn't seem to me that much growth from those pictures
I agree. It would be much better if they actually showed the person's hair before and after the injection. These microscopical pictures don't say much...
04-05-2012 10:28 AM
534623
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2020
I agree. It would be much better if they actually showed the person's hair before and after the injection. These microscopical pictures don't say much...
and what's the difference between baseline and week 12?
04-05-2012 10:42 AM
2020
Quote:
Originally Posted by 534623
and what's the difference between baseline and week 12?
about tree fiddy
04-05-2012 10:46 AM
gutted
Quote:
Originally Posted by 534623
and what's the difference between baseline and week 12?
lolz...
the growth in the second picture is not spectacular at all.
Those very few new hairs may have just happened to spontaneously regenerated/cycled through after the treatment.
Aderans failed with this, hopefully they went back to the drawing board and upped the dosage or whatever.
04-05-2012 11:54 AM
gmonasco
I was thinking, if Replicel's results are less than they hoped for or expected, is there really anything they could do to improve things? Since they're replicating and injecting dermal sheath cup cells, what else could they do to potentially increase the efficacy beyond upping the dosage?
04-05-2012 11:55 AM
lpenergy
The percentage growth is, obviously relative. If a person is quite bald in a certain location, and has 10 hairs for instance within a certain area, an increase in the 70% range is not going to be cosmetically significant. That individual might need a 5,000% increase to produce any decent results.
It almost seems that for a study, it seems that a generic percentage increase just is not specific enough. I would like to see percentage increases from different density bands, all the way from slick bald to thinning just slightly. They could have 5-10 categories and measure the percentage increase for each category. That would yield decent percentage increase results.
Ultimately, Replicel, and its stock will not be compared against existing treatements which show 10-20% increases, but against its future competitors such as Aderans.
04-05-2012 12:05 PM
Stiles
Quote:
Originally Posted by lpenergy
The percentage growth is, obviously relative. If a person is quite bald in a certain location, and has 10 hairs for instance within a certain area, an increase in the 70% range is not going to be cosmetically significant. That individual might need a 5,000% increase to produce any decent results.
It almost seems that for a study, it seems that a generic percentage increase just is not specific enough. I would like to see percentage increases from different density bands, all the way from slick bald to thinning just slightly. They could have 5-10 categories and measure the percentage increase for each category. That would yield decent percentage increase results.
Ultimately, Replicel, and its stock will not be compared against existing treatements which show 10-20% increases, but against its future competitors such as Aderans.
Yeah, I guess it would help if they said 70% increase relative to baseline
04-05-2012 12:50 PM
The Alchemist
Quote:
Originally Posted by 534623
and what's the difference between baseline and week 12?
About 3 months.
How long does it take for a transplanted hair, which is a structurally complete, fully functioning organ, to start growing hair again?
How long do you think it would take to generate a entirely new follicle and then have it produce a visible hair?
The only thing you can take away from a 12 week photo is that Aderans treatment is indeed starting to grow some hair. Nothing more, nothing less. The only proper assessment you can make of their treatment is after a sufficient period of time has passed to allow for follicle creation and hair generation. 3 months is too early for that. I would think that the 6 and 12 month photos will tell the real story. If they're not any better than this 12 week data, then yeah, this is not going to be what anybody is hoping for.
04-05-2012 01:46 PM
greatjob!
the reason that they don't show full head shots is because they are pointless. These studies are only injecting small test areas with the cells or compounds, the area under study is very small. I hope no one is expecting to see full heads of hair from these trials, because you not going to see that.
04-05-2012 04:28 PM
The Alchemist
Quote:
Originally Posted by DepressedByHairLoss
The Alchemist, you talk about how you can't how the media jumps all over every one of Cots's paper. What I can't stand is how the media reports on hair loss and baldness in the first place. They treat it as some kind of joke. I remember watching Fox News and as their intro for some possible hair regrowth news, they showed a scene from Seinfeld where Elaine is yanking off the wig of that worthless shitbag George Costanza. They treat hair loss like it's some kind of joke, despite the fact that it causes millions of people depression, heartache, and pain. Or sometimes in the print media, they'll show you a photo of some guy's head whose hair is balding and use cutesy terms like "shiny pates" and "denuded domes". I would really love to knock the teeth down the throats of those types of reporters. Sorry for the rant fellas!
Anyway, I think Cotsarelis always makes the news because he's one of only a handful of scientists who are actually actively doing anything to try to cure hair loss. If we had a more people trying to cure hair loss (and more of a race to cure it), then we may have an effective treatment for hair loss out today. I'm very split on Cots. I applaud his work to cure hair loss yet I hate how negative he can be sometimes with regards to potential timelines for treatments/cures. Sometimes I really wish that there were more scientists working to cure baldness who actually suffered from hair loss themselves. If one doesn't experience it, then they really can't know the devastation and misery that baldness causes; hell, I didn't know before I noticed my own hair loss. So I sometimes wish there was a scientist who suffered from hair loss himself who would say something like: "I know firsthand how devastating hair loss can be and I will therefore work as hard as can I can to get a treatment/product out to you as soon as possible, because I know that many of you cannot stand to live another day (let alone 5 years!) with this life-altering disease of hair loss". Anyway, I got off on a tangent again! Also, I don't think that Follica is dead at all. I know it's frustrating that they keep things close to the vest, but that's expected since they're a private company. Actually, I think they're actually in Phase III right now as opposed to Phase II.
Yeah, depressedbyhairloss, i agree, most non-balding people don't understand how difficult it can be for a guy. I've had a couple conversations with women about it and they're always amazed that it bothers guys. They're like "what's the big deal? Lots of men go bald. It's normal". I just have to shake my head and laugh. I always want to say to them: ok, then how about i take a razor and shave the hair off the top of your head and see how you feel about walking around like that for awhile. Then let them contemplate that as their new permanent look. Yeah, it's no big deal if it's not what you're going through, but it's a serious pyschological hit to the person afflicted with it. You develop an image of yourself over the years which you identify with and when you go bald it changes that image quite drastically, you don't feel like the guy you see in the mirror it's like somebody else... a new, far less attractive you. It's a difficult thing to deal with, no doubt. I guess you have to find a way to handle it or else you drive yourself crazy.
Lets hope that we start hearing good things from these companies developing treatments.
