Replicel timeline

[yeahyeahyeah]

Sure but that won't change their tactics. They're a business, there's not much sympathy from the CEOs for balding men... they really only care about turning a profit.

They will get one either way.

[hellouser]

They will get one either way.

They're all greedy (CEOs and shareholders), they will want as much as possible. Don't expect anything else.

[J_B_Davis]

They're all greedy (CEOs and shareholders), they will want as much as possible. Don't expect anything else.

Using terms like “tactics” and and “greedy” are so typical for people who think their impotent in life and who have no financial success. These people are in business to make money. Capitalism is what drives innovation. The more money that can be made, the more motivated innovators are. Free enterprise is what moves mountains, and is what will one day provide people with a cure for hair loss.

[hellouser]

Using terms like “tactics” and and “greedy” are so typical for people who think their impotent in life and who have no financial success. These people are in business to make money. Capitalism is what drives innovation. The more money that can be made, the more motivated innovators are. Free enterprise is what moves mountains, and is what will one day provide people with a cure for hair loss.

So basically, you agree with everything I said.

[Pate]

It may have been a dosing issue. The number of cells that formed into follicles may have low percentages, hence repeat treatments being necessary. Let's not forget that the results aren't as fast as we'd like

I doubt it. I wish it were, but since Replicel never released the results of their 2 year follow up, it suggests there was no improvement over time, or else they'd have been all over themselves to get it out.

Also, we know from Desmond's trip (and even before that, from various papers and other snippets) that the rest of the scientific community considers 2D multiplication like Replicel's a dead end. Iron Man even pointed out before Replicel even released their 6 month results that Jahoda had already written that 2D cultures lose inductive potential.

So since we have both theoretical and experimental evidence that Replicel is unlikely to get good results from 2D multiplication, I'm not expecting much.

What I am hoping is that when somebody finally does crack 3D culturing, Replicel will have the funding structures, technology and equipment to adapt it quickly - just change out their 2D multiplication with 3D and away they go.

In the meantime if Replicel really can crack 2D multiplication, that would be good too. But the weight of evidence seems pretty heavily against them. Replicel was arguably using obsolete technology even before they injected their first patients. Unfortunately that's a sign of how slow the damn clinical trials process is.

[joachim]

i think 2D culturing of DSC cells, like replicel does, could work for rejuvenating existing follicles as the injected cells attach to the existing cells and strengthen them. i'm also sure they are aware uf inductivity problems and i assume they worked on that for the last few years. they are not going to just mutliply them in 2D and inject them. this is what every researcher could do (even nigam). they must be working on solving the inductivity/gene expression issues.

however, if it comes to inducing new follicles then yes, 3D culturing is probably the key.
so i think, a combination of both would make sense, and even the rejuvenating part should not be underestimated. as pointed out in another thread, DSC cells could work better then DP cells, as the dermal sheath cup is easily accessible for injected DSC cells from outside, where in contrast the DP is surrounded by all other cells and therefore difficult to reach for injected DP cells. that's just a theory, but if you think of it in pictures, it could make sense.

[hellouser]

I doubt it. I wish it were, but since Replicel never released the results of their 2 year follow up, it suggests there was no improvement over time, or else they'd have been all over themselves to get it out.

Also, we know from Desmond's trip (and even before that, from various papers and other snippets) that the rest of the scientific community considers 2D multiplication like Replicel's a dead end. Iron Man even pointed out before Replicel even released their 6 month results that Jahoda had already written that 2D cultures lose inductive potential.

So since we have both theoretical and experimental evidence that Replicel is unlikely to get good results from 2D multiplication, I'm not expecting much.

What I am hoping is that when somebody finally does crack 3D culturing, Replicel will have the funding structures, technology and equipment to adapt it quickly - just change out their 2D multiplication with 3D and away they go.

In the meantime if Replicel really can crack 2D multiplication, that would be good too. But the weight of evidence seems pretty heavily against them. Replicel was arguably using obsolete technology even before they injected their first patients. Unfortunately that's a sign of how slow the damn clinical trials process is.

There's been talks that Replicel has changed some things in their methods... I think its likely it was their culturing from 2D to 3D.

There are some talks about an expedited release of Replicel's procedure in Japan here;

http://www.baldtruthtalk.com/showthr...t=15036&page=6