-
Originally Posted by 2020
Weird, I tried to search for it but I didn't find it... that is the same paper though mine is better quality and not covered in those "PENALTIES APPLY" warnings. Oh well, not bothered by $15 and I am happy to support the journal publishing Histogen's results.
Originally Posted by gmonasco
But if you look at the figure referenced in that note, it shows photos displaying a hair count going from a baseline of 214.5 hairs to 324.5 hairs after one year, which is only a 51.2% increase.
That is a typo, it should say there was a 123.4% increase in TERMINAL hair count, not total hair count, and a 51.2% increase in total hair count as you say. This is what it says in Ziering's presentation at ISHRS in Alaska last year, on the last page of his abstract where the same picture is shown. There are a couple of other typos in this paper too, for instance it refers to a 2mm scale bar but there is no scale bar on the pic.
Regardless, BoSox is right, this was a fluke result at this stage. The average result was much lower (30% terminal, 16% total) to the point where we really need the treatment to be compoundable to stand any hope of an effective treatment.
Originally Posted by LarryDavid
Why is the haircount increasing in the placebo group?
Even when you look at the average of all subjects it is increasing after one year.
It's not increasing significantly, in fact statistically most of those values are well within 1 standard deviation. I suspect there is a very small, sub-conscious bias on the part of the testers. In the back of their mind they know that they are counting the 12 month results and even though they don't know if they have a placebo or a real injection, they might count a hair here and there that is borderline, or round off a thickness measurement, etc. It's nothing to worry about here because if it's less than 1 std deviation away from zero it is statistically insignificant.
The other faint possibility that has been raised before about placebos apparently working in these trials is that the wounding caused by the needle and the injection of placebo is actually trigging a small hair growth response. Wounding forms a major part of Follica's research into growing hair.
Originally Posted by 2020
^ that's my biggest worry right now.... 2mm is nothing. That's less than the size of your fingernail.
To apply all that growth on your entire head would need 50,000+ injections...
50,000 is much too high an estimate... 2mm spacing would mean 4mm between injections. Assuming there is a bit of overlap beyond 2mm you could probably get away with a 4x4mm square grid pattern, which is 2.5 injections per linear centimetre or 6.25 per square centimetre. So in a 10x10cm area you'd need 625 injections. Work out how many 10x10cm areas you'd need treatment on and that's how many you need, for me it would be about 1250. Even a NW7 wouldn't need much more than 2000 I think... of course there is no guarantee this stuff works on NW7s, it probably doesn't because the follicles are too far gone and the blood supply isn't there. All the more reason to hang onto every follicle you can while you're waiting!
Originally Posted by Nilli57211
If TOTAL hair count increased, that means that the treatment must have induced a few entirely new follicles to form as well. That's the understanding I always had - I believe what I read in one of their articles or press releases that HSC was effective in transforming vellus hairs back to terminal hairs, and it also appeared to create brand new terminal follicles as well.
Not necessarily. At any time in the balding cycle many of your hair follicles are resting. If total hair count increased, it just means that less of your follicles are resting and more are producing hair. It doesn't mean HSC created brand new follicles from scratch, or even that it reactivated dormant ones. Of course, we hope it did! But it's more likely IMO that the increase in total hair count is just because HSC stimulated some of the short-lived vellus hairs into longer-lived terminal hairs, so more of them were showing when then photo was taken.
I read that press release too, but we've since decided the language was a bit ambiguous, they didn't actually say they created new follicles from scratch, they just said they created new hairs - this may mean a dormant follicle that wasn't producing hair that showed above the skin's surface.
-
Originally Posted by Pate
Weird, I tried to search for it but I didn't find it... that is the same paper though mine is better quality and not covered in those "PENALTIES APPLY" warnings. Oh well, not bothered by $15 and I am happy to support the journal publishing Histogen's results.
That is a typo, it should say there was a 123.4% increase in TERMINAL hair count, not total hair count, and a 51.2% increase in total hair count as you say. This is what it says in Ziering's presentation at ISHRS in Alaska last year, on the last page of his abstract where the same picture is shown. There are a couple of other typos in this paper too, for instance it refers to a 2mm scale bar but there is no scale bar on the pic.
Regardless, BoSox is right, this was a fluke result at this stage. The average result was much lower (30% terminal, 16% total) to the point where we really need the treatment to be compoundable to stand any hope of an effective treatment.
It's not increasing significantly, in fact statistically most of those values are well within 1 standard deviation. I suspect there is a very small, sub-conscious bias on the part of the testers. In the back of their mind they know that they are counting the 12 month results and even though they don't know if they have a placebo or a real injection, they might count a hair here and there that is borderline, or round off a thickness measurement, etc. It's nothing to worry about here because if it's less than 1 std deviation away from zero it is statistically insignificant.
The other faint possibility that has been raised before about placebos apparently working in these trials is that the wounding caused by the needle and the injection of placebo is actually trigging a small hair growth response. Wounding forms a major part of Follica's research into growing hair.
50,000 is much too high an estimate... 2mm spacing would mean 4mm between injections. Assuming there is a bit of overlap beyond 2mm you could probably get away with a 4x4mm square grid pattern, which is 2.5 injections per linear centimetre or 6.25 per square centimetre. So in a 10x10cm area you'd need 625 injections. Work out how many 10x10cm areas you'd need treatment on and that's how many you need, for me it would be about 1250. Even a NW7 wouldn't need much more than 2000 I think... of course there is no guarantee this stuff works on NW7s, it probably doesn't because the follicles are too far gone and the blood supply isn't there. All the more reason to hang onto every follicle you can while you're waiting!
Not necessarily. At any time in the balding cycle many of your hair follicles are resting. If total hair count increased, it just means that less of your follicles are resting and more are producing hair. It doesn't mean HSC created brand new follicles from scratch, or even that it reactivated dormant ones. Of course, we hope it did! But it's more likely IMO that the increase in total hair count is just because HSC stimulated some of the short-lived vellus hairs into longer-lived terminal hairs, so more of them were showing when then photo was taken.
I read that press release too, but we've since decided the language was a bit ambiguous, they didn't actually say they created new follicles from scratch, they just said they created new hairs - this may mean a dormant follicle that wasn't producing hair that showed above the skin's surface.
Does anybody know if histogen will reveal some results by june 2012? the clinical trials website says data for primary study is supposed to be completed june 2012.
I'm trying to avoid FIN at all costs...so maybe should i wait?
-
They supposedly released some results at a conference two days ago, but as yet nobody has been able to find out anything about it.
If you want to avoid fin at all costs you should be praying for CB-03-01 results, not Histogen.
-
Originally Posted by Pate
They supposedly released some results at a conference two days ago, but as yet nobody has been able to find out anything about it.
If you want to avoid fin at all costs you should be praying for CB-03-01 results, not Histogen.
I think i'll be a norwood 7 when CB 03 01 comes out. Norwood 4 optimistically, but i doubt it.
Histogen , if succesful, might be available sooner than we think .
CB Acne vehicle won't do anything, people have been using CB with better vehicles and NOTHING. CB for mpb hasn't even started trials .
So Histogen it is, at least for now ...
-
Originally Posted by Maradona
I think i'll be a norwood 7 when CB 03 01 comes out. Norwood 4 optimistically, but i doubt it.
Histogen , if succesful, might be available sooner than we think .
CB Acne vehicle won't do anything, people have been using CB with better vehicles and NOTHING. CB for mpb hasn't even started trials .
So Histogen it is, at least for now ...
Well you can get CB right now. If you're willing to pay the price for it and mix it yourself. Or RU. Similar stuff.
But if you're talking about getting it on the open market, I think it all comes down to effectiveness for CB. If it achieves what it sets out to do (stop further hair loss, regrow maybe a little bit, no systemic sides) then they can push it through trials and launch it while Histogen might be doing their best Aderans impression and re-running Phase II for five years straight.
CB could easily beat HSC to market, scary as the thought is.
But it's stupid arguing about it anyway. They are both at least 2 years away and if/when one comes to market we will probably all be using it, no matter what it is!
-
Originally Posted by Pate
Not necessarily. At any time in the balding cycle many of your hair follicles are resting. If total hair count increased, it just means that less of your follicles are resting and more are producing hair. It doesn't mean HSC created brand new follicles from scratch, or even that it reactivated dormant ones. Of course, we hope it did! But it's more likely IMO that the increase in total hair count is just because HSC stimulated some of the short-lived vellus hairs into longer-lived terminal hairs, so more of them were showing when then photo was taken.
I read that press release too, but we've since decided the language was a bit ambiguous, they didn't actually say they created new follicles from scratch, they just said they created new hairs - this may mean a dormant follicle that wasn't producing hair that showed above the skin's surface.
So Histogen will be more likely to work on people with thinning rather than bald spots - that's pretty much the case even with Rogaine or anything else out there. I personally hope it will be able to give everyone back all their hair, but that may be too optimistic...
Anyway, if they really are able to re-create the embryonic environment in the scalp, it may actually be possible that they can form entirely new follicles.
Also, I would hope that they would be able to tell the difference between a newly formed follicle and a dormant follicle reawakened. Wouldn't they be able to see the locations of follicles (even if they don't currently have hair in them) with their microscopes? If so, they would be able to tell which follicles were there from the beginning and just now being reawakened, and which ones are brand new. Some clarification on this from the company would be nice.
-
Originally Posted by Nilli57211
So Histogen will be more likely to work on people with thinning rather than bald spots - that's pretty much the case even with Rogaine or anything else out there. I personally hope it will be able to give everyone back all their hair, but that may be too optimistic...
Anyway, if they really are able to re-create the embryonic environment in the scalp, it may actually be possible that they can form entirely new follicles.
Also, I would hope that they would be able to tell the difference between a newly formed follicle and a dormant follicle reawakened. Wouldn't they be able to see the locations of follicles (even if they don't currently have hair in them) with their microscopes? If so, they would be able to tell which follicles were there from the beginning and just now being reawakened, and which ones are brand new. Some clarification on this from the company would be nice.
forget about it, nothing will give hair in a bald scalp. It's like growing a plant out of a rock, the tissue for hair survival is DEAD.
-
Originally Posted by Maradona
forget about it, nothing will give hair in a bald scalp. It's like growing a plant out of a rock, the tissue for hair survival is DEAD.
Not necessarily - research has shown that follicles in bald scalps are still alive decades later. Miniaturized but alive. I'm sure this would be more easily successful on someone with only thinning rather than balding, but you never know - it could be just a matter of dosage. Someone with a bald scalp could just need larger amounts injected.
-
Originally Posted by Nilli57211
So Histogen will be more likely to work on people with thinning rather than bald spots - that's pretty much the case even with Rogaine or anything else out there. I personally hope it will be able to give everyone back all their hair, but that may be too optimistic....
Pretty much. Replicel definitely did grow new follicles from scratch in mice, which was an amazing achievement, especially since there was no supporting skin structure there like sebaceous glands and blood supply. But currently there is probably no realistic prospect of growing new follicles en masse in humans, ie a baldness cure. There are three parts to treating baldness:
1. Protecting healthy follicles from becoming damaged
2. Rejuvenating damaged follicles
3. Growing new follicles in skin where the original follicles have been damaged beyond repair
So far medical science is still struggling with #1, with only one drug approved for it and that drug being far from ideal. CB-03-01 will hopefully improve on it with no sides. Drug therapy has proven almost totally ineffective at #2 except in the early stages. Even castration in males doesn't change those vellus hairs back to terminal, suggesting that whatever the androgens trigger in the follicle is permanent. Histogen is probably going to be best for #2.
#3 is still a pipe dream I'm afraid. Aderans may be able to grow some but haven't been able to regrow a full head of hair (or anything close so far). Replicel, well, we all know how that went. Let's just say they are a long way away from reproducing the effect in their promotional video.
Originally Posted by Nilli57211
Anyway, if they really are able to re-create the embryonic environment in the scalp, it may actually be possible that they can form entirely new follicles
It's a possibility. But I don't think they necessarily create the embryonic environment in the scalp. They create the embryonic environment in their bioreactor and get the cells to start pumping out growth factors, which they collect up and then inject.
I honestly believe somebody will perfect a viable baldness cure through the Replicel/Aderans method eventually. I just don't think I will be this side of 50 when it happens (which is 20 years away).
-
Originally Posted by Pate
Pretty much. Replicel definitely did grow new follicles from scratch in mice, which was an amazing achievement, especially since there was no supporting skin structure there like sebaceous glands and blood supply. But currently there is probably no realistic prospect of growing new follicles en masse in humans, ie a baldness cure. There are three parts to treating baldness:
1. Protecting healthy follicles from becoming damaged
2. Rejuvenating damaged follicles
3. Growing new follicles in skin where the original follicles have been damaged beyond repair
So far medical science is still struggling with #1, with only one drug approved for it and that drug being far from ideal. CB-03-01 will hopefully improve on it with no sides. Drug therapy has proven almost totally ineffective at #2 except in the early stages. Even castration in males doesn't change those vellus hairs back to terminal, suggesting that whatever the androgens trigger in the follicle is permanent. Histogen is probably going to be best for #2.
#3 is still a pipe dream I'm afraid. Aderans may be able to grow some but haven't been able to regrow a full head of hair (or anything close so far). Replicel, well, we all know how that went. Let's just say they are a long way away from reproducing the effect in their promotional video.
It's a possibility. But I don't think they necessarily create the embryonic environment in the scalp. They create the embryonic environment in their bioreactor and get the cells to start pumping out growth factors, which they collect up and then inject.
I honestly believe somebody will perfect a viable baldness cure through the Replicel/Aderans method eventually. I just don't think I will be this side of 50 when it happens (which is 20 years away).
You're missing the key here: MPB, our tissue is designed to kill hair follicles when the gene activates due to DHT. Easy to grow hair on non-MPB areas, jahoda did it long ago. All companies aim for 2 for two reasons: better results, give the appearance of new hair follicles and attract investors. The only company brave enough to try it out on slick bald scalp is ARI.
They've all been incosistent replicel, ARI, intercytex and Gho who started HM a long long time ago. There is in fact a point of no return even if the hair follicles is miniaturized, really miniaturized.
Similar Threads
-
By tbtadmin in forum Histogen's Hair Stimulating Complex (HSC)
Replies: 5
Last Post: 07-21-2016, 01:34 PM
-
By tbtadmin in forum Men's Hair Loss: Start Your Own Topic
Replies: 14
Last Post: 05-09-2011, 03:06 AM
-
By tbtadmin in forum The Bald Truth: Show Archives
Replies: 2
Last Post: 11-04-2010, 09:10 PM
-
By tbtadmin in forum The Bald Truth: Show Archives
Replies: 0
Last Post: 08-17-2010, 01:01 PM
Tags for this Thread
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
Forum Rules
|
» IAHRS
» The Bald Truth
» americanhairloss.org
|
Bookmarks