It's in here I think: http://www.google.com/patents/US20140080902
Sm04554
Collapse
X
-
-
From what I've seen just browsing SMP forums, the results can look VERY good. Just having some real hair around the hairline can give a very realistic look. I saw one guy who used just 800 grafts to replicate a hair line and the rest was standard tricopigmentation. I'm quite amazed that there's no great interest in it on here.Comment
-
From what I've seen just browsing SMP forums, the results can look VERY good. Just having some real hair around the hairline can give a very realistic look. I saw one guy who used just 800 grafts to replicate a hair line and the rest was standard tricopigmentation. I'm quite amazed that there's no great interest in it on here.Comment
-
I actually have interest in that, and I know what you are talking about, not the case, but the concept. I've been interested for the past year. Only thing is I wanna do the whole head including filling in the donor area to make it appear fuller, which would cost about $4,500 or so (for the whole head).Comment
-
The thing I like most about the concept is the low-risk element. If the FUE doesn't go so well (which it should do anyway) then you still have the SMP which should still look realistic enough if you use the right practicioner. If you use tricopigmentation then you have an exit strategy if the SMP doesn't give you what you want. So it's far from an all or nothing option. You almost have nothing to lose by going for itComment
-
Yeah that's what I was thinking. I feel quite a bit more relieved after this realization. Actually it could also just be a back-up plan if a FUE on its own goes wrong. I would get the temporary 2 year tattoo though, **** gambling on a permanent one that could change colour after a while.Comment
-
No offense guys, but can we stay on topic here?
Im so confused by what SM is trying to do. Their whole phase 2 was only 3 months? How is that possible when it seems they were extending it over and over?
Do all researchers who are in a clinical trial have to present in such a public way? If this is less than stellar, why present this at a conference, couldnt they just have released the results online?
And, why the hell would they be a sponser at the hair congress if they dont assume they can capitalize on it down the road? Where they counting their chickens before they hatched?
So many of their moves sounded encouraging but to have to restart phase 2 again is a kick in the teeth, and it may yeild no better results than we see now.Comment
-
-
another charade .. yo all remember the pitch from fin right? yes it was around 40% close to 50%... so it probably makes 1% affect in reality which would not be cosmetically viable anyways.
so what do you say guys? shall we ask admin to lock this thread...
I now believe we have talked about SM even more than the scientists working for SM
probably they werent even aware that so many people were waiting/talking otherwise they wouldnt have published such funny resultsComment
-
No offense guys, but can we stay on topic here?
Im so confused by what SM is trying to do. Their whole phase 2 was only 3 months? How is that possible when it seems they were extending it over and over?
Do all researchers who are in a clinical trial have to present in such a public way? If this is less than stellar, why present this at a conference, couldnt they just have released the results online?
And, why the hell would they be a sponser at the hair congress if they dont assume they can capitalize on it down the road? Where they counting their chickens before they hatched?
So many of their moves sounded encouraging but to have to restart phase 2 again is a kick in the teeth, and it may yeild no better results than we see now.Comment
-
Don't see why they would restart the phase 2 trial, I haven't read any official statements on that. The results show a steady, albeit slow, increase in hair and density even after discontinuation. That's pretty good news to me, I really believe they will go into phase 3 with this.Comment
Comment