+ Reply to Thread
Page 62 of 210 FirstFirst ... 12 52 60 61 62 63 64 72 112 162 ... LastLast
Results 611 to 620 of 2095

Thread: Replicel

  1. #611
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    188

    Default

    UK, yes I believe that was at least some of the research that led to Intercytex. My understanding of one of the huge hurdles in turning the Jahoda experiment into a commercially successful treatment was that the cells had to be transplanted quickly or they would lose their identity or potency or both. Plus they had to be multiplied into many cells. So I have always understood that one of the keys to Aderans' and Replicel's success was in the replication process. I believe that I also read that at one point, the cells started to lose their shape and character after the 4th or 5th pass during the culturing process. Hopefully, they have come a long way in solving this. Or possibly, maybe the DSC cells that Replicel starts out with make a difference. We'll find out something soon.

  2. #612
    Senior Member 2020's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,527

    Default

    Replicel is not selling a drug. It sells a treatment that uses YOUR OWN UNMODIFIED cells. I read somewhere that for things like that companies may not even need to go through Phase 3...

    My only question to Replicel would be: will it reverse ALL damage done by DHT? Meaning would those new cells regrow your old follicles to the same quality they were when I was 16? Why is 20% being thrown around? 20% of no hair is still no hair... why can't it be 100%?

  3. #613
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    595

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 2020 View Post
    Replicel is not selling a drug. It sells a treatment that uses YOUR OWN UNMODIFIED cells. I read somewhere that for things like that companies may not even need to go through Phase 3...

    My only question to Replicel would be: will it reverse ALL damage done by DHT? Meaning would those new cells regrow your old follicles to the same quality they were when I was 16? Why is 20% being thrown around? 20% of no hair is still no hair... why can't it be 100%?
    We can probably think of it like this:

    If you never the change/fill the oil and the car seizes up due to dirty oil/lack of oil...you can change everything about the engine surrounding the pistons and shaft to your hearts delight, but ultimately without replacing the useless parts, the engine won't go.

    Now in this case "replacing" the hair follicle that has been "killed" isn't really possible exactly - but a more direct way to provide stimulated nourishment to coax it back into its growth cycles would be necessary.

    Thats why I'm of the mind that Replicel will have the biggest benefit to guys who still have decent coverage, anything less will require a regimen to stimulate growth to get the hair "back into physical shape" as it were.

  4. #614
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Schrodinger's Box
    Posts
    910

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 2020 View Post
    Replicel is not selling a drug. It sells a treatment that uses YOUR OWN UNMODIFIED cells. I read somewhere that for things like that companies may not even need to go through Phase 3...

    My only question to Replicel would be: will it reverse ALL damage done by DHT? Meaning would those new cells regrow your old follicles to the same quality they were when I was 16? Why is 20% being thrown around? 20% of no hair is still no hair... why can't it be 100%?
    The cells aren't "unmodified", they are unnaturally forcing cells to multiply. Anytime you do this you run the risk of introducing mutations, which could ultimately result in bad things like cancer. The FDA typically only approves drugs or treatments after phase 2 for things that treat serious and life-threatening illnesses that lack good treatments. I think it is really rare for accelerated approval and I think the only treatments that have been approved for release after phase 2 are for rare cancers, so I highly doubt they would approve anything early for hair loss. The only hope for early release is going to be outside of the U.S.

    People can say what they want about the FDA or that you would rather be dead than be bald, but if a treatment for baldness caused a serious disease like cancer people would be murdering the company executives. Just look at the back lash for propecia, and that only makes your d*ck limp. Imagine the forum posts and news stories if propecia was causing life threatening illnesses.

  5. #615
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    2,004

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by greatjob! View Post
    People can say what they want about the FDA or that you would rather be dead than be bald, but if a treatment for baldness caused a serious disease like cancer people would be murdering the company executives. Just look at the back lash for propecia, and that only makes your d*ck limp. Imagine the forum posts and news stories if propecia was causing life threatening illnesses.
    Interestingly, some would rather be die than be sexually defunct. Priorities, I suppose.

  6. #616
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    326

    Wink

    Quote Originally Posted by greatjob! View Post
    The cells aren't "unmodified", they are unnaturally forcing cells to multiply. Anytime you do this you run the risk of introducing mutations, which could ultimately result in bad things like cancer. The FDA typically only approves drugs or treatments after phase 2 for things that treat serious and life-threatening illnesses that lack good treatments. I think it is really rare for accelerated approval and I think the only treatments that have been approved for release after phase 2 are for rare cancers, so I highly doubt they would approve anything early for hair loss. The only hope for early release is going to be outside of the U.S.

    People can say what they want about the FDA or that you would rather be dead than be bald, but if a treatment for baldness caused a serious disease like cancer people would be murdering the company executives. Just look at the back lash for propecia, and that only makes your d*ck limp. Imagine the forum posts and news stories if propecia was causing life threatening illnesses.
    There would probably be less backlash if propecia caused death rather than dick limpness lol

  7. #617
    Senior Member 2020's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,527

    Default

    they don't say anything about Phase 3

    http://www.replicel.com/our-science/clinical-trials/

    maybe Phase 3 is only required for western markets....

  8. #618
    Senior Member 2020's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,527

    Default

    These cells are then multiplied many times over in a special patented culture before being injected back into the scalp in their millions, stimulating the formation of new hair follicles or rejuvenating those that have stopped producing hair on the top of the head.
    ^ what do they mean by FORMATION OF NEW HAIR FOLLICLES?
    Do they actually create NEW FOLLICLES FROM SCRATCH or do they just trigger those left over stem cells from dead follicles to start growing new follicles?

  9. #619
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    41

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 2020 View Post
    ^ what do they mean by FORMATION OF NEW HAIR FOLLICLES?
    Do they actually create NEW FOLLICLES FROM SCRATCH or do they just trigger those left over stem cells from dead follicles to start growing new follicles?
    They claim both, but the "secret sauce" as Hall put it is in the triggering of damaged/miniturized hair follicles.

  10. #620
    Senior Member 2020's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,527

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mg39 View Post
    They claim both, but the "secret sauce" as Hall put it is in the triggering of damaged/miniturized hair follicles.
    how is that possible??? If a person is predetermined to have 100K follicles, how could they possibly increase that number?? I thought that the best they could is to REVIVE dead follicles and that's it.
    What if by accident they inject too much and 50K new follicles start growing. 150K follicles that's going to look ridiculous!

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

» 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