Replicel

[gmonasco]

According to Replicel's interviews, they are able to stimulate dormant follicles-turn them back "on" to growing plus they are able to grow brand new follicles.

In an interview a couple of months ago, David Hall (CEO of Replicel) said:

The second key interim object is an indication of efficacy at 6 months or specifically, the increase in density of existing hair and indication of new hair follicles.

I'm a little puzzled: If Replicel's treatment resulted in an increased hair count, how would they be able to distinguish between regrowth of existing hairs and the creation of new hairs?

[hairysituation]

I think you can bet on stocks dropping in value and then make a profit of it. If you bet on Replicel's trial results beiing unsuccesful, and ergo considering that the stocks will drop in value, you can make a profit of it. That way you will either make money or have a great hope for the future regarding hairloss. It will be kind of a win-win situation!

[NotBelievingIt]

I think you can bet on stocks dropping in value and then make a profit of it. If you bet on Replicel's trial results beiing unsuccesful, and ergo considering that the stocks will drop in value, you can make a profit of it. That way you will either make money or have a great hope for the future regarding hairloss. It will be kind of a win-win situation!

TRADING LESSON
How much can you lose if you bet on a stock going up? Only what you invested in the first place.

How much can you lose if you bet on a stock going down? There is no limit to how much you can lose.

[hairysituation]

TRADING LESSON
How much can you lose if you bet on a stock going up? Only what you invested in the first place.

How much can you lose if you bet on a stock going down? There is no limit to how much you can lose.

Why isn't there a limit to how much you can lose? Please educate me, I'm interested in trading.

[NotBelievingIt]

Why isn't there a limit to how much you can lose? Please educate me, I'm interested in trading.

Well, technically there are two ways to bet on the price of a stock going down.

The most recognized is called short selling.

You borrow someone elses stock and sell it for $X.

But at some point you have to buy the stock back, to cover the short. If the stock price ends up going up, you then fork out of your own pocket the difference.

Think of the actions of short selling as the exact opposite of buying low first and selling high second. When you buy low and sell high, you pocket that difference. So if you can short the stock and sell first, you want to sell high and then buy back low.


So the stock could go to 3 times what you sold it for, so you would have to fork over, from your own cash, 2*$X. But maybe the stock went to 100 times, or 500? Or 1000? The price of the stock knows no ceiling, but there is a floor of $0. So if you bet the price is going up, but it goes to zero, you only lose $X. But if you short it, you could lose anywhere from $0 to $infinite if the price goes up.

The other method of betting against a stock is through the use of options. I do not believe any stock that is "Over The Counter" has options available, plus the market has to be very "liquid" (alot of shares trading hands everyday) for options to even be, well, an option.

[lpenergy]

In an interview a couple of months ago, David Hall (CEO of Replicel) said:



I'm a little puzzled: If Replicel's treatment resulted in an increased hair count, how would they be able to distinguish between regrowth of existing hairs and the creation of new hairs?

I think that is the question the Spencer should ask in the next interview. In the mice tests, they marked the injected cells with fluoresence I believe so that they were able to distinguish between brand new follicles which all had flourescent markers compared with pre-existing follicles that maybe only had a couple of new dsc cells that were recruited into existing follicles. I guess that is a question whether injected cells were marked in some way? It seems that may not be safe.

[Pate]

I think that is the question the Spencer should ask in the next interview. In the mice tests, they marked the injected cells with fluoresence I believe so that they were able to distinguish between brand new follicles which all had flourescent markers compared with pre-existing follicles that maybe only had a couple of new dsc cells that were recruited into existing follicles. I guess that is a question whether injected cells were marked in some way? It seems that may not be safe.

I think they were genetically engineered cells carrying firefly-type genes to make them fluoresce. That won't be happening with the human trials, I imagine.

So I agree, this would be a good question to put to Replicel.