-
-
mediocre results like this.
haha.Comment
-
i have to disagree,
I had sick results with 5% minox, but had to stop due to sides. I would buy a product even if its 50% of what minox gave me...Comment
-
I'm hopeful this will yield better results than Minoxidil, but if not, I can still see people switching to this if the results are similar. The fact that you have an off-period on Follicept should be a big enough draw, if the prices are similar. Most people can't be bothered applying Minoxidil twice a day every day, for the rest of their lives.Comment
-
I understand that their transdermal technology has the ability to transfer molecules of 22 kDa across the skin. If Follicept were to use AAPE in their gel as it is FDA approved and its merely hundreds of proteins that are below the threshold of 22kDa but must be injected otherwise, would that be the key instead of IGF-1?Comment
-
Just read this comment on another forum which I really enjoyed, for being so spot on, so pasting it here:
Follicept is a solution in search of a problem. They've got a somewhat novel delivery method that is sparking very little interest from the pharma industry. So, what can they do? Turn to the desperation of the balding community, of course. Run a half-azzed trial, using concentrations so low the FDA will turn a blind eye to them and generate results that are ambiguous at best. Trial feedback will be something to this effect: "wow, my shedding completely stopped", "my hair feels so much fuller", "i'm maintaining and no side effects!". Young desperate guys will come running with their wallets out and hopes up. This will give follicept a bit of revenue so they can continue to proposition pharma to adopt their technology for a real project.
They're attempting this experiment with the blind hope of a child waiting for Santa to bring them their favorite toy. And, unfortunately, the way they're running this "trial" is so amateurish they've left no way to evaluate this treatment unless it grows massive amounts of hair. Without a comparison versus a proper control, they've no way to conclusively tell if their treatment is working at anything other than an eye popping way. Which, as we know, is nearly impossible to do. Nothing has come close to propecia and minoxidil.
Does anyone honestly think they believe, even for one second, that using 0.0001% solution delivered across the dermis, is gonna generate effects large enough to see from a casual inspection, essentially defeating all known treatments we've seen to date? No, they don't believe that, Dr Hsu is smarter than that. What they're counting on is ambiguity in the results, because that's what they can exploit. I simply refuse to believe they're as naive as they're letting on. Ask yourself, why is this being conducted without a control, without a systematic way of applying the treatment, why no proper baseline photos with great lighting? It's because that would remove the ambiguity. If they really are this naive and they believe this is an honest effort to bring forward a new treatment, well then i have to laugh and wish them best of luck, because they have no clue what they're doing.
Someone over at follicept page actually made reference to Devon as comparable to Jesus. No lie. Unbelievably sad and rather pathetic that some people get suckered in like that.
Maybe this will be the elusive unicorn that saves everyone's hair. But, i wouldn't count on it. I think we can all see this train wreck coming from miles away...Comment
-
Arashi,
I have to MOSTLY agree with this. The potentially promising factor in their formula, and the one that I am interested in, is the vehicle. If they have found a novel way to deliver molecules of that size directly to the hair follicles, without the molecules going entirely systemic, couldn't this hold promise for delivery of other, more potent molecules, such as RU?Comment
-
They clearly said 100 times that they're going to try it on themselves and then if it shows promise, they'll do a full trial. I really think the only way to explain your posts is that you're having a good time getting people all worked up. In reality, no one has ever tried this method before, so no one can say confidently whether it'll work or not. They can only guess, like you have been, but It seems like you don't know the difference between guessing and actually knowing.Comment
-
They said they'll sell right away after this first 'trial' (not sure if you can even call it that), if the results were astonishing. That's also the only way one could even know it worked: if the results are what one could call 'mediocre', like minox, this 'testing method' is just not good enough to document it. But of course they're not aiming for 'incredible results', they're aiming for ambiguity. They'll call the results incredible themselves, start indiegogo and start selling. Anyway that's what this post laid out. And no I wasn't posting that to "work people up" but because I really think Mr Z, who posted this, is going to be spot on wit the above analysis. We'll see soon enough though !Comment
-
Exactly, and Devon SPECIFICALLY Mentioned, that they would not be going based on "opinions of people" but that they will be going based on VERY strong actual data in the approved trial. So Arashi, that guy's point is kaput.
It blows my mind that people are jumping on, "let's use the delivery technolofy for Ru/minox/fin/dut" without even waiting to see how IGF-1 would perform. IGF-1 adresses AR, upregulates other growth factors, does not need regular dosing - who is to say that IGF-1 will not blow Ru out of the water? Wait and see peeps. The problem is that a lot of you have it in your head that IGF-1 will DEFINITELY not grow any kind of hair. We will talk about Ru and other compounds when we can definitely see that IGF-1 will not be doing anything, okay? Good. Plus the delivery system is their blood, sweat and tears, so for the love of god, let the good doctor try out what he believes will bring our hair back using the delivery technology that HE came up with. He has that right do at least that.Comment
-
We should be fairly close to see some results from the in-house trial, so at this point insisting in calling Follicept a scam its not necessary.
If the results are clearly ambiguous, I would gladly team up with the guys not believing in the company since the very beginning, but for now claiming it won't work at all is speculating as much as saying it will save our hair for good.Comment
-
Arashi you are a joke man.
Nobody claimed it gonna be the cure. But clearly we have to wait to see the results so let's not try to destruct something which hasn't even begin !Comment
-
LOL people are now accusing others on the follicept forum of being me
Anyway they switched to a moderation queue there now: only posts that they like will appear on their website. I posted this this morning but it never got through:
Maybe it's nothing, but I found it quite weird that A) that image in the background in the video didnt match with the forum and B) they didnt allow this post on their forum. Maybe they actually WILL show the current forum in the background in the new video. Then we'd be all fine of course !Hi Devon, I asked before but you didnt reply: could you in your new video this week show the last forum posts on your monitor in the back ground ? So we know the video wasn't shot 4 months ago. The monitor in the background in your last video doesnt show a current forum post, I compared them, this is NOT from this forum: http://postimg.org/image/jhv4z8wgj/... That profile picture doesnt appear here in combination with that text !?!?! So I wonder what it's showing ? Can you explain that ? Anyway I think this is very important to show the last forum posts on the pc in the background the next time, so we know this is a recent video and not one from 4 months ago. Thanks !!!
Theoretically they could have shot the video 4 months ago, put their guys 4 months on Minox and present it as 2 week results from their trial. Maybe a bit far thought and there's a good chance of this being wrong. But it's a bit suspicious the least ... a forum in the background that's similar of the current forum, yet with posts not showing ... Let's hope Devon clears this up. Again, I'm not accusing anybody here, there might very well be a logical explanation ! Just hoping that in the next video we'll see some close ups of his current hairline and crown + some proof that this is the CURRENT situation.Comment
-
"Dr. Hsu here. There is a cautionary tale that I learned a long time ago when Dr. Judah Folkman's group at Harvard Medical School identified a new regulatory protein he called "angiostatin" that could prevent tumors in mice from inducing the formation of new blood vessels necessary for their continued growth and eventual metastasis. The strategy was essentially to starve the tumors into regression. When he published his work, the press began to tout this as the new magic bullet for cancer therapy. The American Cancer Society phone lines were ringing non-stop because desperate cancer patients and their families were requesting angiostatin. Dr. Folkman was horrified because he understood what you have rightly pointed out--that mice are not men. And the human clinical trials had not even started and would take many years to complete. Sure enough, angiostatin cured cancer in mice, but not in people.
On the other hand, there are many more success stories in which small animal models have proven to be highly predictive of response in humans. One of the predictors is how good the animal model reflects key features of the human disease. The safety and efficacy of injection or transdermal delivery of exogenous growth factors such as IGF-1 to hair follicles, resulting in increased hair growth rate, hair diameter, and follicle density (so-called follicle neogenesis) in normal mice and hamsters, is well-established by recent studies. It would appear to be a courageous leap of faith to expect that Follicept will achieve the same results in persons with AGA. We have established in our studies that the transdermal delivery of homeopathic doses of IGF-1 induces hair growth in a hairless rat that has a known genetic defect. How good a model is it for AGA? Well, it turns out that an older but excellent publication concluded that all of the key abnormal features of hair follicles in the "fuzzy rat" (same genetic mutation as the "hairless rat") make it an excellent model for AGA. Indeed, the fuzzy rat even responded predictably to minoxidil.
So, yes, you are right that the EFFICACY claim may appear to be premature. However, no, I am not new to the hair growth arena. We made the observation well over a year ago. For me, as a scientist in the digital age, a few months of apprenticeship is already more than enough time to become an expert in hair follicle biology, or any other focus of specialized research and knowledge. I have an intuition based on everything I've learned over 30 years as a clinician-scientist (and mouse geneticist with a PhD in Molecular Pharmacology) that some version of Follicept at the right dose and right dosing regimen will be shown to be safe and effective in a short but rigorous prospective randomized double-blind placebo-controlled study. And I think we will have an answer sometime in June-July. It may not be "THE answer." I don't believe in failure as a hard endpoint. Empirical science begins with a good hypothesis and proceeds through an iterative process to realize an intention. Product development can be viewed as a Comprehensive Anticipatory Design Science, as Buckminster Fuller called it. Follicept will be a product of that Design Science."
Comment
-
Dr. Hsu - a man with a golden mind.Comment
Tweet
Comment