follicept - what's this?

[Swooping]

Jesus f'ing Christ. I and the community as a whole appreciate both of your insights and comments on this product. However, until it is out on the market or more positive clinical tests reported (which apparently could be in the fall of 2015) we might as well just shut the **** up and wait for more information. They've made it clear that they're genuinely sympathetic to the plight of hair loss. Whether their drug works or not remains to be seen. For now, we may as well stop acting like high school girls and quit bickering.

Yeah well that is my point results or GTFO. Secondly they can and are able to easy manipulate results. I smell fish, that's all. Just don't trap into it. Btw just to close it out with some cool studies, to also show the side from a different standpoint!

1. http://www.worldhairresearch.com/?p=64

RESULTS: Results were obtained from logistic regression models, adjusting simultaneously for all the measured hormones and age. Men with higher levels of testosterone were more likely to have vertex baldness (odds ratio [OR] = 2.5, 95% confidence interval [CI: 0.9 to 7.8] per 194 ng/dL increment of testosterone). In addition, for each 59 ng/mL increase in IGF-1, the odds of having vertex baldness doubled (95% CI [1.0 to 4.6]). Those who were found to have higher circulating levels of SHBG were less likely to have dense hair on their chest (OR = 0.4, 95% CI [0.1 to 0.9] per 24 nmol/L increment in SHBG]).

2. http://escholarship.org/uc/item/2v79r893

In summary, regulation of human hair growth by androgen is probably mediated by IGF-1 in the dermal papilla. In male scalp, high levels of IGF-1 may increase the androgen receptor activity and dihydrotestosterone levels and these result in an increased propensity for baldness.

3. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10827403

CONCLUSION: Older men with vertex balding have lower circulating levels of IGFBP-3 and higher levels of IGF-1 when controlling for IGFBP-3 level

[sdsurfin]

You're the one who brought up micro needling, and said that people had used it to deliver Igf. I just showed
You a clinical trial where they did that and it actually worked.

Injecting is a great way to put something in your blood, but not the same as what follicept is doing. The follicept rep has tried to explain to you that they are aware of past trials and that their delivery system is different.

There are simply too many variables to predict much of anything, my only point is that you are speculating using anecdotal evidence. Let it play out and refrain from treating the professionals that are on here to help like they are garbage. That's all we ask.

[nave13579]

Yeah well that is my point results or GTFO. Secondly they can and are able to easy manipulate results. I smell fish, that's all. Just don't trap into it. Btw just to close it out with some cool studies, to also show the side from a different standpoint!

1. http://www.worldhairresearch.com/?p=64



2. http://escholarship.org/uc/item/2v79r893



3. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10827403

Excuse my lack of understanding, but if having higher levels of IGF-1 correlate to balding, why are we trying to put more IGF-1 into the scalp and hair follicles?

[sdsurfin]

Also circulating blood levels of IGF do not correlate to what is happening in the follicle. The scientists at follicept have addressed this in their communication. Higher IGF in balding men's blood does not equal no effect if IGF at the follicle. While I too remain skeptical of efficacy, there is no reason as of yet to "smell fish". You were insulting and dismissive for no reason whatsoever. Anyway, I'm done trying to show you why your logic is mostly unfounded.

[nave13579]

Excuse my lack of understanding, but if having higher levels of IGF-1 correlate to balding, why are we trying to put more IGF-1 into the scalp and hair follicles?

Any answer to this?

[Gerhard]

Please refer to my previous post. You two bickering is plain moronic. We appreciate and are thankful for the studies and comments provided about IGF-1 and it's efficacy. However, no one appreciates the back and forth between you two. Got a problem? PM one another but leave it off the threads.

I'm neither skeptical or optimistic about this. I'm content to admit my knowledge is basic on this subject and as a result I will wait for efficacy showings from their company. If they come back positive that is fantastic and I'm sure many will attempt them. If not, they've already stated they don't plan to bleed anyone dry with a bs treatment. Perhaps I'm naive, but I like to believe that people aren't just douche bags 24/7.

Both of you need to chill out and wait. If you want to discuss why you may or may not be wrong, that's ****ing fantastic. But name-calling, bickering, and whining is some shit that we should all have grown out of a while ago.

[sdsurfin]

So as evidence you talk about anecdotal evidence from another forum and a link to buy some stuff wherein the delivery system is not even specified. Then you use histogen and replicel, which have both shown evidence of possibly being much better than rogaine actually, especially in terms of long term maintenance and side effect profile. If they are both upregulating follicle IGF, then it is working positively. And How do you know the people in that forum applied it with a good delivery system or at the right dose? Then you link some studies about IGF in the blood serum , which has nothing to do with IGF expression in the follicle. Again you are just throwing pure unscientific pessimism out there. I don't even think follicept will be a huge success, but it might be, and I feel the need to call you out on casually throwing out opinions and bro science and claiming it as fact. And also treating people who are nice enough to engage with this forum like shills.

[Swooping]

Any answer to this?

You did understand that study correctly nave.

[nave13579]

Okay christ for people who are "highly educated" you are both bickering babies who are getting into fights that are pointless and don't matter.

Use your "intelligence" to kindly answer my question if you can and help progress informative conversation in this forum.

Thank you.

[Sogeking]

Please refer to my previous post. You two bickering is plain moronic. We appreciate and are thankful for the studies and comments provided about IGF-1 and it's efficacy. However, no one appreciates the back and forth between you two. Got a problem? PM one another but leave it off the threads.

I'm neither skeptical or optimistic about this. I'm content to admit my knowledge is basic on this subject and as a result I will wait for efficacy showings from their company. If they come back positive that is fantastic and I'm sure many will attempt them. If not, they've already stated they don't plan to bleed anyone dry with a bs treatment. Perhaps I'm naive, but I like to believe that people aren't just douche bags 24/7.

Both of you need to chill out and wait. If you want to discuss why you may or may not be wrong, that's ****ing fantastic. But name-calling, bickering, and whining is some shit that we should all have grown out of a while ago.

It won't work mate. This is the same way we lost Ziering and Gardner...

[sdsurfin]

Any answer to this?

Yeah the scientists at follicept have stated that free IGF in the serum is not indicative if it's action at the follicle. In other words, the cells in the follicle could be doing one thing with IGF that does not correlate to how much of it is in the blood. Everyone has IGF. It's what the hair follicle cells are telling each other to do with it that matters.

[sdsurfin]

I'm not bickering with anyone. I was told I had a low IQ and was just pointing out why polluting peoples heads with false anecdotal evidence and pessimism does no good.

I was also reacting to swooping basically insulting the follicept rep.

I've gotten a lot of info out of replicel for this forum and am currently trying to get a pdg2 blocker at a fair price. I know how to treat others with respect. If those of you who are bitter and pessimistic want to discourage new treatments, then at least do so in a way that is coherent. I have no desire to prove or disprove anyone's opinion, just to keep the information useful and rational.

[Swooping]

I'm not bickering with anyone. I was told I had a low IQ and was just pointing out why polluting peoples heads with false anecdotal evidence and pessimism does no good.

I was also reacting to swooping basically insulting the follicept rep.

I've gotten a lot of info out of replicel for this forum and am currently trying to get a pdg2 blocker at a fair price. I know how to treat others with respect. If those of you who are bitter and pessimistic want to discourage new treatments, then at least do so in a way that is coherent. I have no desire to prove or disprove anyone's opinion, just to keep the information useful and rational.

Rofl, I provided all facts. You on the other hand continue to provide anecdote after anecdote. Now you are misinforming nave13579. You really have no clue what the hell you are talking about. Also you are ignorant as hell. You don't even know how IGF works, that's the fun part. Did I insult the rep? Not really I just said right in his face that this treatment isn't going to work with very hard argumentation. We'll see anyway in a few weeks who will have the last laugh baboon .

[EXprettyboy]

+1 if you've had enough reading through tit for tat bullshit.

[follicept]

thanks for taking the time to come to this forum and post. I think it's a good investment of your time.

No problem! Thanks! I agree.