so he implied that a cure to baldness requires combination of different technqiues.when all products will come to market , maybe in 2015-2016, we are gonna need to buy all of them.
He did not imply that a cure to baldness requires a combination of different techniques, unless we listened to different interviews.
He merely stated what we all know, the current companies who are working on the regeneration of hair follicles are using different methods. Simply, there are different routes to take to regenerate hair. Until clinical trials are complete for all of these companies no one will know which is the best method.
Speculating that we may be using all 3 treatments is ridiculous.
Also, am I right that David Hall is not a scientist? His skills lie in leadership and management and although he will be very knowledgeable about his industry he genuinely only really knows as much as what he is told himself? A great interview would be with the scientists working in Replicel's lab, the actual people trying to cure baldness.
05-04-2012 06:16 AM
Hair Bear
^ this was my understanding also but it was only my intention to invoke the thought that perhaps it is unwise to use all three.
I'm sure that a few people will never be happy with their results and will seek additional improvements despite how spectacular the results, therefore at some stage the question of compatibility may arise... lets face it I'm sure there are a few people on this forum that have tried a number of things and will try a great deal more in the future in order to reach their goal and also to keep the fight up rather than feel helpless in any case I'd like to thank everyone at replicel for their efforts and continual effort in solving this mystery.
05-04-2012 07:48 AM
Kirby_
Hall sounds really downbeat and depressed in that interview. :(
05-04-2012 09:49 AM
WillhasWill
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hair Bear
I'd like to thank everyone at replicel for their efforts and continual effort in solving this mystery.
Good man, I don't think replicel get enough appreciation on these forums. They owe no body anything yet so many people have the attitude that Replicel is their god given right to a baldness cure.
To David Hall and everyone else at Replicel, thank you for all you do and I hope that you are successful at bringing to market an impressive alternative treatment for baldness.
05-04-2012 10:22 AM
Conpecia
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillhasWill
Good man, I don't think replicel get enough appreciation on these forums. They owe no body anything yet so many people have the attitude that Replicel is their god given right to a baldness cure.
To David Hall and everyone else at Replicel, thank you for all you do and I hope that you are successful at bringing to market an impressive alternative treatment for baldness.
This is a bit over the top. They are a company driven by economic incentives. It's not like they're making this out of the goodness of their hearts and giving it to us for free. While I do realize they are heavily criticized around here, often unfairly, I can understand why someone who invested in them after relying on all of the hype that's been building up this year would be upset given these results.
Anyways, as far as the battle lines being drawn between Replicel and Gho, that's absolutely futile. They are not mutually exclusive. Why should people side with one against the other? Personally I believe that following GC83UK's progress over the next year or so will tell me what I need to know about Gho.
Returning to Replicel, I am disappointed that there were not stronger results but optimistic that the results will improve over time. The question is how much improvement over how much time? It annoys me to read people claiming that this is good news. It is not good news. It is simply not the worst case scenario.
05-04-2012 11:03 AM
gmonasco
Quote:
Originally Posted by Conpecia
This is a bit over the top. They are a company driven by economic incentives. It's not like they're making this out of the goodness of their hearts and giving it to us for free.
True, companies are based on economic interests, but it's people, not companies, who develop medical treatments. Not everyone who labors to find cures for man's ailments is solely or primarily driven by economic motives (beyond those of making a living) -- many people engaged in such work don't stand to make any more money from developing a successful treatment than an unsuccessful one.
05-04-2012 11:07 AM
gmonasco
Quote:
Originally Posted by jman91
the daily mail is full of drivel
More ignorance. The very same information can be found in plenty of other (more august) outlets than the Daily Mail:
who would have thought the same story would be out there in the world of recycled internet news! I'm glad these credible scientists were at least responsible enough to repeat words like 'if' 'may' 'could' 'hopes' etc. With 3D organ printing being so relevant hair loss treatments one does wonder why the Daily Mail, being the patron saint of baldness cures would somehow miss an opportunity to spin a science research story into a cure for baldness headline, even they didn't go for it, what is the world coming to!
05-04-2012 12:18 PM
WillhasWill
Quote:
Originally Posted by Conpecia
This is a bit over the top. They are a company driven by economic incentives. It's not like they're making this out of the goodness of their hearts and giving it to us for free. While I do realize they are heavily criticized around here, often unfairly, I can understand why someone who invested in them after relying on all of the hype that's been building up this year would be upset given these results.
Replicel do not have a product to market yet and they have not taken money from customers on a promise to cure hair loss. Therefore I don't believe any one in this forum has the right to criticize Replicel so harshly.
If people have invested then this is a different ball game. They should really be thinking with their heads and like investors. Business is business. From an investors point of view, Replicel is high risk and the return on investment will not be quick. We all know they are 5+ years from releasing treatment if it's successful.
If a lot of the criticism is coming from "investors" then this explains the problem. They are desperate sufferers of baldness investing in the cure for baldness. No wonder emotions are so high.
05-04-2012 12:50 PM
gmonasco
Quote:
Originally Posted by jman91
who would have thought the same story would be out there in the world of recycled internet news!
People like you, who clearly can't discern the difference between original reporting and "recycled news."
05-04-2012 01:24 PM
BoSox
Great interview. Although I was depressed after reading through the forums, hearing it directly from David Hall and Spencer calmed me down.
Replicel is moving forward, and that's all that matters.
05-04-2012 01:35 PM
jman91
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoSox
Great interview. Although I was depressed after reading through the forums, hearing it directly from David Hall and Spencer calmed me down.
Replicel is moving forward, and that's all that matters.
[inappropriate image removed]
05-04-2012 01:41 PM
gmonasco
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillhasWill
If people have invested then this is a different ball game. They should really be thinking with their heads and like investors. Business is business. From an investors point of view, Replicel is high risk and the return on investment will not be quick.
Indeed. It's not like someone took their stock away, or Replicel has gone belly-up and made the stock valueless. Sure, the stock isn't currently worth what it was a week ago, but a week ago it wasn't worth nearly as much as it was last September. That's what you should expect when you speculate in stocks.
05-04-2012 02:06 PM
jman91
Quote:
Originally Posted by gmonasco
Indeed.Sure, the stock isn't currently worth what it was a week ago, but a week ago it wasn't worth nearly as much as it was last September. .
surely unless they do another phase of trials, they're toast?
05-04-2012 09:59 PM
Tracy C
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiwi
I agree. I'm super curios to know if the terminal becomes vellus - if it does then they have hit 15% new growth.
Then if you use Aderans or Histogen on top of RepliCel then you might get 40-50-70% and possibly halt your hair loss. Ahhh fingers crossed...
You have that kind of backwards... Use Histogen's treatment to regrow as many new hair follciles as possible, then use Replicel's treatment to immunize those regrown follicles from the damaging effects of DHT. Histogen's treatment does not immunize hair follicles. Regrown hair from Histogen's treatment is expected to last as long as the patients original hair lasted. So if you started balding at 20 years old, the regrown hair from Histogen's treatment could reasonably be expected to last almost 20 years.
Though Aderans has been able to grow hair, they have not been able to get the regrown hair to grow in a proper natural direction of growth. It's all willy nilly like muppet hair. It is too soon to know what regrown hair from Replicel's treatment looks like. However, it is reasonable to expect that Replicel's treatment should immunize hair follicles in addition to repairing damaged hair follicles - and that is a very significant and important thing.
05-05-2012 12:05 AM
Kiwi
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tracy C
You have that kind of backwards... Use Histogen's treatment to regrow as many new hair follciles as possible, then use Replicel's treatment to immunize those regrown follicles from the damaging effects of DHT. Histogen's treatment does not immunize hair follicles. Regrown hair from Histogen's treatment is expected to last as long as the patients original hair lasted. So if you started balding at 20 years old, the regrown hair from Histogen's treatment could reasonably be expected to last almost 20 years.
Though Aderans has been able to grow hair, they have not been able to get the regrown hair to grow in a proper natural direction of growth. It's all willy nilly like muppet hair. It is too soon to know what regrown hair from Replicel's treatment looks like. However, it is reasonable to expect that Replicel's treatment should immunize hair follicles in addition to repairing damaged hair follicles - and that is a very significant and important thing.
Thanks for the clarification. I always enjoy reading stuff from you.
So do you think we'll hear anything from Histogen this year?
Also I was thinking. Even if the Aderans hair is all Willy Wonka - does it matter if in theory you'll be able to wax / style it? (also how do you know about that stuff:)).
05-05-2012 01:27 AM
kaandereli
Even though replicel's results fall back of histogen and aderans, so far they have been more transparent and never resort to rescheduling unlike others.Also currently they are the only one who established direct contact with public via facebook, twitter and spencer.
histogen and aderan's have a prolonged work , dating back to 10 years before.whereas replicel made their 1st human trial 6 months before.
replicel just needs some time.
05-05-2012 01:35 AM
raminjan
I hope so too.
I agree with you too and I wish if more time would solve this baldness problem with repicell but we need to consider this: naturally if your hair cells are weak enough to produce hair, then they produce hair at the microscopic level under your skin so I don't know why Repicell calls it's results a positive and optimistic resutls.
05-05-2012 02:31 AM
Sogeking
The trials results are nothing spectacular actually they are kind of disappointing.
Especially when we know they injected high dosage of DSC cells into the test area.
However if they go back to the drawing board, research this some more than who knows. We will see what time brings us. I hope they succeed.
But our knowledge of hair follicles is still too meager, there are perhaps some crucial growth factors or fillcle parts missing for this to work even better.
05-05-2012 09:48 AM
Tracy C
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiwi
Also I was thinking. Even if the Aderans hair is all Willy Wonka - does it matter if in theory you'll be able to wax / style it?
I feel it does matter. Dr. Washenik has talked about how Aderans is trying to overcome that problem during conferences.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiwi
(also how do you know about that stuff:)).
I pay attention.
05-05-2012 12:05 PM
UK_
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sogeking
The trials results are nothing spectacular actually they are kind of disappointing.
Especially when we know they injected high dosage of DSC cells into the test area.
However if they go back to the drawing board, research this some more than who knows. We will see what time brings us. I hope they succeed.
But our knowledge of hair follicles is still too meager, there are perhaps some crucial growth factors or fillcle parts missing for this to work even better.
Intercytex phase 1:"Although it is too early to determine fully the differences between the sub-groups, the preliminary data are encouraging. In the first sub-group 2 patients out of 5 showed substantial increases in hair count (21 & 55%) at 24 weeks. In the second sub-group (5 patients in total) injected more recently, all patients showed substantial and visible increased hair counts at 6 and/or 12 weeks (13-105%). We believe this increased hair production is attributable to the interaction between the injected DP cells and the stimulated resident hair producing cells."
Intercytex release results that clearly beat that of Replicel - but where are they now? People are telling me Replicel have a better chance with worse results? lmfao.
05-05-2012 03:01 PM
PvH
tbt community trying to interpret and figure out the meaning of clinical results is amusing at best. how is it that the actual scientists that somewhat know what the hell they're doing doesn't disclose shit but the 'experts' on tbt talk about it as if they actually know what they're talking about? i guess it's satisfying to correct fellow idiots and feel good about themselves.
05-05-2012 03:57 PM
DallasTreado
Quote:
Originally Posted by jman91
MPB does not affect children.
Unfortunately, yes it does ... (children below 18 can be and are affected)
05-05-2012 06:27 PM
PvH
Quote:
Originally Posted by DallasTreado
Unfortunately, yes it does ... (children below 18 can be and are affected)
calling late teens children is really stretching it hahahaha but yeah some get it earlier than others.
05-06-2012 03:57 AM
DallasTreado
Quote:
Originally Posted by PvH
calling late teens children is really stretching it hahahaha but yeah some get it earlier than others.
It isnt a stretch. It is a distinction between pediatric and adult patients. For example, when propecia says it isnt for children, they mean it is not for pediatric patients (below 18)
05-06-2012 06:05 AM
Follicle Death Row
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tracy C
Regrown hair from Histogen's treatment is expected to last as long as the patients original hair lasted. So if you started balding at 20 years old, the regrown hair from Histogen's treatment could reasonably be expected to last almost 20 years.
Hope that's the case but I'm not convinced it will be for us men anyway. I think the problem if you start the process at 20 is you've actually only been subjected to high DHT for about 6 or 7 years. So us men in that scenario presumably would only levels get 6 or 7 years before it started again. It would still be fantastic though.
05-06-2012 06:09 AM
Follicle Death Row
Quote:
Originally Posted by UK_
Intercytex phase 1:"Although it is too early to determine fully the differences between the sub-groups, the preliminary data are encouraging. In the first sub-group 2 patients out of 5 showed substantial increases in hair count (21 & 55%) at 24 weeks. In the second sub-group (5 patients in total) injected more recently, all patients showed substantial and visible increased hair counts at 6 and/or 12 weeks (13-105%). We believe this increased hair production is attributable to the interaction between the injected DP cells and the stimulated resident hair producing cells."
Intercytex release results that clearly beat that of Replicel - but where are they now? People are telling me Replicel have a better chance with worse results? lmfao.
Aderans own that intellectual property now I think. We hardly ever mention Aderans because of the Bosley connection but seems like they're going to wrap up phase 2 late this year or early next year. They're miles ahead of the chasing pack and have massive money behind them.
05-06-2012 07:17 AM
UK_
Quote:
Originally Posted by Follicle Death Row
Aderans own that intellectual property now I think. We hardly ever mention Aderans because of the Bosley connection but seems like they're going to wrap up phase 2 late this year or early next year. They're miles ahead of the chasing pack and have massive money behind them.
tbt community trying to interpret and figure out the meaning of clinical results is amusing at best. how is it that the actual scientists that somewhat know what the hell they're doing doesn't disclose shit but the 'experts' on tbt talk about it as if they actually know what they're talking about? i guess it's satisfying to correct fellow idiots and feel good about themselves.
Yes, hilarious, especially when you retrive all the old posts back from 2007 when people were talking about how the Intercytex phase 1 result is absolute proof that new hair can be grown by injecting cells into the scalp, it's like injecting the smallest cellular component of a bladder & expecting a bladder to appear on your skin.
Also funny how even when Intercytex was opened for research again, the hair loss (DP cell) treatment wasnt even on their agenda (http://www.intercytex.com/index.php?...&id=3&Itemid=4) - - -<<<And still isnt LOL, and can anyone name me another company/scientist/researcher/investor since the closure of Intercytex that has decided to attempt the trial once again? (bar the two obvious Aderans/Replicel). You'd think people would be jumping in, especially a with market potential in the billions.
Excuses excuses, face facts... it just doesnt work.
P.S. Anyone holding in any results from Aderans other than the scetchy couple of pictures of a few hairs released back in 2010? Didnt think so.
05-06-2012 07:59 AM
Tracy C
Quote:
Originally Posted by Follicle Death Row
So us men in that scenario presumably would only levels get 6 or 7 years before it started again.
Does that help you see the importance that others are missing about being able to immunize hair follicles from the damaging effects of DHT?
05-06-2012 09:39 AM
Follicle Death Row
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tracy C
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.
