+ Reply to Thread
Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6 7 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 63
  1. #51
    Inactive
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    883

    Thumbs down

    Quote Originally Posted by The Alchemist View Post
    Anyone who can read that news release and come away thinking that efficacy was a minor issue in this trial, either needs glasses or some reading comprehension courses.
    Most people with ordinary reading comprehension skills can understand that the word "if" is a conditional and doesn't promise anything.

    And, of course, my original point was not that demonstrating safety was vastly, vastly more important than demonstrating efficacy, but that the nature of the trial, as in all phase I trials, was skewed very heavily towards testing safety and not efficacy. Sure, the efficacy results were not encouraging, but neither was the trial anything close to being a full-blown test of efficacy.

  2. #52
    Senior Member jman91's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    237

    Thumbs down

    Quote Originally Posted by gmonasco View Post
    Most people with ordinary reading comprahension skills can understand that the word "if" is a conditional and doesn't promise anything.

    And, of course, my original point was not that demonstrating safety was vastly, vastly more important than demonstrating eficacy, but that the nature of the trial, as in all phase I trials, was skewed very heavily towards testing safety and not efficacy. Sure, the eficacy results were not encouraging, but neither was the trial anything close to being a full-blown test of eficacy.
    come on, do you really think that replicel were unconcerned and took a laid back approach to efficacy? they needed it to go well this time so as not to mess up their stocks, proving safety would not impress anyone and they knew it.

  3. #53
    Inactive
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    883

    Thumbs down

    Quote Originally Posted by JJJJrS View Post
    When the CEO appears on interviews claiming that they fully expect to exceed >20% growth, when a bunch of websites and analysts are paid to promote the product as a cure for hair loss, and then results are released which show absolutely no tangible growth, of course people aren't going to be positive about the results and Replicel.
    Would any hair loss sufferer be better off if David Hall had never expressed any optimism, and as a result Replicel had failed to obtaining funding for clinical trials and another avenue of research went unexplored?

    Yeah, I'm sure companies are going to stop their research based on what's written on Bald Truth Talk.
    http://marketingdeviant.com/how-rumo...kill-business/

  4. #54
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    2,744

    Default

    We may not think it - but what we say on these forums reaches further than we'd expect - we all know how small things on the internet can go viral worldwide in a matter of hours. What's saying we havent done the same with this entire burst of interest in the recent Replicel results?

    These threads receive hundreds of thousands of views, there's a colossal community out there that is clearly interested in hair loss research, albeit most of them remaining in silence.

  5. #55
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    263

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gmonasco View Post
    Sure, the efficacy results were not encouraging, but neither was the trial anything close to being a full-blown test of efficacy.
    I agree 100%

  6. #56
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    528

    Default

    Everyone but replicel is bugging out about efficacy and regrowth. Like i really dont think replicel would continue on to the next phase if they didnt think it's going to have twice as much regrowth with more time and fixing. Why the hell would replicel want to waste money and precious time if they think the efficacy is going to be 3 percent or what not. People need to stop freaking about this because replicel seems calm and pleased to stay on track and be the treatment for the future.

  7. #57
    Senior Member jman91's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    237

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Alchemist View Post
    I agree 100%
    again, efficacy was more important to the then proving safety.

    They needed those results to be much more promising.

  8. #58
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    326

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by john2399 View Post
    Everyone but replicel is bugging out about efficacy and regrowth. Like i really dont think replicel would continue on to the next phase if they didnt think it's going to have twice as much regrowth with more time and fixing. Why the hell would replicel want to waste money and precious time if they think the efficacy is going to be 3 percent or what not. People need to stop freaking about this because replicel seems calm and pleased to stay on track and be the treatment for the future.
    Because that is their job. Because it isn't their money they are spending on the trials, or hefty salaries, or stock pumping, or sporting event suites, it is investor money. They need to maximize shareholder (founder) value as much as possible to sell the company to a potential suitor. There will likely be improvement in phase 2 results (how much remains to be seen) and added credibility to phase 2 results, which will raise the company's value. But if it doesn't succeed, it is no skin of their backs. David Hall will just be another $350,000 richer, and Hoffmann and McElwee will pocket some decent change too.

  9. #59
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    326

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jman91 View Post
    again, efficacy was more important to the then proving safety.

    They needed those results to be much more promising.
    No, efficacy wasn't more important than proving safety. But efficacy was a whole lot more important than many here are making it out to be.

    This is a tiny little public company with funding problems and competition (ARI, Histogen, Follica, etc). Because of this, they had to design the trial to produce as much success as they could in a phase 1 safety trial to develop investor interest. This isn't some massive university cancer research department with government funds where they can just throw shit at the wall and hope it sticks. They needed results, and they definitely underwhelmed.

    Over the past couple months, the company completed offerings worth a couple million dollars or so at $1.50/share (which at that time was well below market value). Now market value for shares is $1.27. They are going to have to sell more of their interest for less money now. Not to mention, whoever it was that bought in at $1.50 has to be pretty pissed off to be sitting underwater now and might not throw any more money at the company.

  10. #60
    Senior Member jman91's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    237

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ccmethinning View Post
    No, efficacy wasn't more important than proving safety. But efficacy was a whole lot more important than many here are making it out to be.

    This is a tiny little public company with funding problems and competition (ARI, Histogen, Follica, etc). Because of this, they had to design the trial to produce as much success as they could in a phase 1 safety trial to develop investor interest. This isn't some massive university cancer research department with government funds where they can just throw shit at the wall and hope it sticks. They needed results, and they definitely underwhelmed.

    Over the past couple months, the company completed offerings worth a couple million dollars or so at $1.50/share (which at that time was well below market value). Now market value for shares is $1.27. They are going to have to sell more of their interest for less money now. Not to mention, whoever it was that bought in at $1.50 has to be pretty pissed off to be sitting underwater now and might not throw any more money at the company.
    have they confirmed another trial yet?

Similar Threads

  1. Negative Results - VA Surgical Center
    By jowie2 in forum Hair Transplant: Start Your Own Topic
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-28-2011, 02:12 PM
  2. New Treatment Used in Malaysia for past 5 years..
    By d0072 in forum Hair Loss Treatments
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02-27-2011, 10:21 PM
  3. Is it possible for propecia to have a negative result?
    By Big D in forum Men's Hair Loss: Start Your Own Topic
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 02-21-2011, 01:08 AM
  4. Does Propecia stop working over time?
    By g k in forum Introduce Yourself & Share Your Story
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 10-16-2010, 07:50 AM
  5. head shaved for past 10+ yrs.
    By seatown in forum Introduce Yourself & Share Your Story
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-31-2010, 04:04 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

» IAHRS

hair transplant surgeons

» The Bald Truth

» Recent Threads

1800 graft repair case results by Dr. Lindsey
Yesterday 08:38 AM
Last Post By Dr. Lindsey
Yesterday 08:38 AM
Navigating the German Job Market as a Kenyan Citizen
11-04-2023 06:31 AM
Last Post By Keegan212
Yesterday 03:51 AM
DR HAKAN DOGANAY/ 4500 GRAFTS / Implanter Pen+FUE
03-26-2024 04:15 PM
Last Post By Hakan Doganay, MD
03-26-2024 04:15 PM
The Mane Event for Thursday, June 15th, 2023
06-15-2023 02:59 PM
Last Post By gisecit34
03-26-2024 08:05 AM
Sun Exposure after Hair Transplant
02-26-2009 02:36 PM
Last Post By gisecit34
03-25-2024 08:24 PM