Replicel

[lpenergy]

The percentage growth is, obviously relative. If a person is quite bald in a certain location, and has 10 hairs for instance within a certain area, an increase in the 70% range is not going to be cosmetically significant. That individual might need a 5,000% increase to produce any decent results.

It almost seems that for a study, it seems that a generic percentage increase just is not specific enough. I would like to see percentage increases from different density bands, all the way from slick bald to thinning just slightly. They could have 5-10 categories and measure the percentage increase for each category. That would yield decent percentage increase results.

Ultimately, Replicel, and its stock will not be compared against existing treatements which show 10-20% increases, but against its future competitors such as Aderans.

[Stiles]

The percentage growth is, obviously relative. If a person is quite bald in a certain location, and has 10 hairs for instance within a certain area, an increase in the 70% range is not going to be cosmetically significant. That individual might need a 5,000% increase to produce any decent results.

It almost seems that for a study, it seems that a generic percentage increase just is not specific enough. I would like to see percentage increases from different density bands, all the way from slick bald to thinning just slightly. They could have 5-10 categories and measure the percentage increase for each category. That would yield decent percentage increase results.

Ultimately, Replicel, and its stock will not be compared against existing treatements which show 10-20% increases, but against its future competitors such as Aderans.

Yeah, I guess it would help if they said 70% increase relative to baseline

[The Alchemist]

and what's the difference between baseline and week 12?

About 3 months.

How long does it take for a transplanted hair, which is a structurally complete, fully functioning organ, to start growing hair again?

How long do you think it would take to generate a entirely new follicle and then have it produce a visible hair?

The only thing you can take away from a 12 week photo is that Aderans treatment is indeed starting to grow some hair. Nothing more, nothing less. The only proper assessment you can make of their treatment is after a sufficient period of time has passed to allow for follicle creation and hair generation. 3 months is too early for that. I would think that the 6 and 12 month photos will tell the real story. If they're not any better than this 12 week data, then yeah, this is not going to be what anybody is hoping for.

[greatjob!]

the reason that they don't show full head shots is because they are pointless. These studies are only injecting small test areas with the cells or compounds, the area under study is very small. I hope no one is expecting to see full heads of hair from these trials, because you not going to see that.

[The Alchemist]

The Alchemist, you talk about how you can't how the media jumps all over every one of Cots's paper. What I can't stand is how the media reports on hair loss and baldness in the first place. They treat it as some kind of joke. I remember watching Fox News and as their intro for some possible hair regrowth news, they showed a scene from Seinfeld where Elaine is yanking off the wig of that worthless shitbag George Costanza. They treat hair loss like it's some kind of joke, despite the fact that it causes millions of people depression, heartache, and pain. Or sometimes in the print media, they'll show you a photo of some guy's head whose hair is balding and use cutesy terms like "shiny pates" and "denuded domes". I would really love to knock the teeth down the throats of those types of reporters. Sorry for the rant fellas!
Anyway, I think Cotsarelis always makes the news because he's one of only a handful of scientists who are actually actively doing anything to try to cure hair loss. If we had a more people trying to cure hair loss (and more of a race to cure it), then we may have an effective treatment for hair loss out today. I'm very split on Cots. I applaud his work to cure hair loss yet I hate how negative he can be sometimes with regards to potential timelines for treatments/cures. Sometimes I really wish that there were more scientists working to cure baldness who actually suffered from hair loss themselves. If one doesn't experience it, then they really can't know the devastation and misery that baldness causes; hell, I didn't know before I noticed my own hair loss. So I sometimes wish there was a scientist who suffered from hair loss himself who would say something like: "I know firsthand how devastating hair loss can be and I will therefore work as hard as can I can to get a treatment/product out to you as soon as possible, because I know that many of you cannot stand to live another day (let alone 5 years!) with this life-altering disease of hair loss". Anyway, I got off on a tangent again! Also, I don't think that Follica is dead at all. I know it's frustrating that they keep things close to the vest, but that's expected since they're a private company. Actually, I think they're actually in Phase III right now as opposed to Phase II.

Yeah, depressedbyhairloss, i agree, most non-balding people don't understand how difficult it can be for a guy. I've had a couple conversations with women about it and they're always amazed that it bothers guys. They're like "what's the big deal? Lots of men go bald. It's normal". I just have to shake my head and laugh. I always want to say to them: ok, then how about i take a razor and shave the hair off the top of your head and see how you feel about walking around like that for awhile. Then let them contemplate that as their new permanent look. Yeah, it's no big deal if it's not what you're going through, but it's a serious pyschological hit to the person afflicted with it. You develop an image of yourself over the years which you identify with and when you go bald it changes that image quite drastically, you don't feel like the guy you see in the mirror it's like somebody else... a new, far less attractive you. It's a difficult thing to deal with, no doubt. I guess you have to find a way to handle it or else you drive yourself crazy.

Lets hope that we start hearing good things from these companies developing treatments.

[gmonasco]

I've had a couple conversations with women about it and they're always amazed that it bothers guys. They're like "what's the big deal? Lots of men go bald. It's normal". I just have to shake my head and laugh. I always want to say to them: ok, then how about i take a razor and shave the hair off the top of your head and see how you feel about walking around like that for awhile. Then let them contemplate that as their new permanent look.

But there's an important distinction there, which is that women view men very differently than men view women. Men are much more focused on physical appearance in the opposite sex than women are, and men therefore place much greater importance on (male) hair loss than women do. It's a common mistake among both men and women to assume that the opposite sex has the same standards for attractiveness as one's own sex.

[2020]

take this whiny crap to "Coping with Hair Loss in Everyday Life"...

[gmonasco]

take this whiny crap to "Coping with Hair Loss in Everyday Life"...

Go to your room. The grown-ups are trying to have an adult discussion.

[Pate]

http://www.aderansresearch.com/presentation/

Near the end of this presentation they show some before/after images and claim 62% growth, but it didn't seem to me that much growth from those pictures

The irony is that the balder the guy is, the less impressive 60% growth is. Although we should really be using the terminal hair count which is 80%.

Which is great, if you have 30% of your original hair. Then adding 80% gives you a total of 54% of your original hair, which will make a cosmetic difference.

But the guy in that photo looks like he has about 5% of his original terminal hair remaining. Let's be generous and say 10%. Add 80% and you now have 18% of your original terminal hair. Still bald. He'd need a 400% increase in terminal hair to get 50% of original density and be able to claim his baldness is cured.

It would be good if they reported their results in terms of percentage of original density as well as percentage of hair increase, but they won't do that because the numbers are not yet very impressive.

The other thing you have to keep in mind is that they are only showing their best results. The average result will be significantly less than that. Histogen had a couple of barn-stormer results of up to 75% increase, from a pretty high density to start with. But the average was only about 15%.

[NeedHairASAP]

They're like "what's the big deal? Lots of men go bald. It's normal".

I'm sorry to break it to you: they don't say the same thing when you're not around.

they're probably being polite while you fish for compliments


they all care. Its just some will f*** you anyway.

[CVAZBAR]

I was thinking, if Replicel's results are less than they hoped for or expected, is there really anything they could do to improve things? Since they're replicating and injecting dermal sheath cup cells, what else could they do to potentially increase the efficacy beyond upping the dosage?

I asked the same question like a month ago but nobody seemed to care. I've been thinking about the same thing. What can they do?

[67mph]

follicle on follicle

Twitter; Replicel remains on track to release the initial TS001-2009 clinical trial results in late April.

...i'm trying not to count the days, hours and minutes ...honest!

and trying not to be overly and stupidily optimistic ...honest!!

We all know hair, losing hair, baldness, diffuse thinning, norwooding, follicles, all things hair etc etc etc is a mine field of info, but can i ask, (if i'm right) if Replicel are rejuvanating exsisting follicles then where are hair grafts placed in HT's going, are they destroying the exsisting hair follicles that already exsist (but are dormant) and that Replicel or any other new cure may need?

[VictimOfDHT]

But there's an important distinction there, which is that women view men very differently than men view women. Men are much more focused on physical appearance in the opposite sex than women are, and men therefore place much greater importance on (male) hair loss than women do. It's a common mistake among both men and women to assume that the opposite sex has the same standards for attractiveness as one's own sex.

Do you really believe yourself saying that? Maybe there's a small number of women who don't care about men's hair or the lack of it. The rest do care. Try getting a hot young girl to go out with you if you're balding, unless you're very handsome.... If you tell me older women don't care that much then yes.

[Tacola]

Twitter; Replicel remains on track to release the initial TS001-2009 clinical trial results in late April.

...i'm trying not to count the days, hours and minutes ...honest!

and trying not to be overly and stupidily optimistic ...honest!!

We all know hair, losing hair, baldness, diffuse thinning, norwooding, follicles, all things hair etc etc etc is a mine field of info, but can i ask, (if i'm right) if Replicel are rejuvanating exsisting follicles then where are hair grafts placed in HT's going, are they destroying the exsisting hair follicles that already exsist (but are dormant) and that Replicel or any other new cure may need?

This is something I also wonder about. I guess that it will, somehow, damage it a bit, but how much is hard to say. I have thought about taking a small treatment at the Hasci clinic (Gho), and then wait for some kind of cure. I dont want to walk around for 3-4 more years when I can do something about it now. I`m now turning 29, so I do want to have kinda good hair until my mid 30s. Though, how much does a hair transplant hurt the dormant follicles. The people at the Hasci clinic, or at least the women I talked to (Marleen), told me that it shouldnt be a problem taking a transplant now and then use the Replicel treatment, if it becomes availible and a success. Why should it ruin the follicles that are dormant? I know it`s not the best way to draw a picture, but if you have a plant and during the winter it goes dormant (until the summer), so you plant another plant just next to it, I guess both if them will grow back if they recieve the same nutrient? Maybe it`s like this with hair as well. One can always draw parallells between everything, so why not?

Maybe I`m just trying to convince myself that it will be ok to go through with a transplant as well as the Replicel/Aderans/Histogen (whoever comes first and are a good solution). Has anyone talked to any of the companies/ht doctors?

[67mph]

i like the plant story Tacola, i was about to reply using a plant as an example and you beat me to it, so on the same note; what if you have the plant bulb waiting in the ground during Winter ready for Summer, but you go ahead and plant another on top (or very close to) disregarding the bulb, damage can be made to the bulb easily right?, perhaps making the bulb die in the process, no amount of flower improver (Replicel) can bring that bulb back to life!

I'm sure there's more science involved but for us guys needing a Dummies guide, we need simple examples.