RepliCel - Spencer Kobren's Follow Up Interview With CEO David Hall

[Jundam]

I don't know why you're making assumptions about the release date, not sure what your simple math is telling you. Since Replicel isn't adding anything to the process, just using your own cells, I think the clinical trials will be shorter than what is typical in the medical community. But I agree, the idea that they've used it on themselves or someone else without documenting it is dumb, if they were that unprofessional I wouldn't trust them to begin with.

Why would it be stupid? As David Hall has pointed out in probably every interview he has given there is absolutely no evidence or logical reason to believe a treatment of this nature can induce cancer, in fact everything in the literature points to it being completely harmless. And here's a fun fact; Scientists are suckers for evidence and logical reasoning.

Also, they're not injecting unsuspecting victims with a chemical concoction or performing experimental surgery on their kitchen table with a scissor and a stapler. If they did test this on humans while they were testing it on animals then they would've used the exact same process that they are using on the patients in the current clinical trials. So, assuming this treatment could potentially be dangerous, injecting one or two people with it before they begun clinical trials would actually put less people at risk than immediately going into clinical trials where 20 people would be exposed to the potential risk of it.

That said, there is no evidence or logical reason to believe there is any risk to it.

[Kiwi]

I don't know why you're making assumptions about the release date, not sure what your simple math is telling you. Since Replicel isn't adding anything to the process, just using your own cells, I think the clinical trials will be shorter than what is typical in the medical community. But I agree, the idea that they've used it on themselves or someone else without documenting it is dumb, if they were that unprofessional I wouldn't trust them to begin with.

Why not make assumptions about the date? That is all that they are doing. Everybody is making assumptions and I want to explore the practicalities with you lot to see what we can figure out.

Unfortunately Aderans are also using your own cells and it took them 4 years.

Totally glad you agree with me abou the professionalism. I was thinking about this earlier today - do I want to be taking a medication that has been tested on 20 people or 300 people.

But thats just me. Everybody here is free to do what they like and I'm just putting out my thoughts so new readers don't get too excited... yet...

I guess the best thing about this thread is that when I started reading this site and others about 4 years ago there were no solutions like these ones that were this close. None.

[Kiwi]

Why would it be stupid? As David Hall has pointed out in probably every interview he has given there is absolutely no evidence or logical reason to believe a treatment of this nature can induce cancer, in fact everything in the literature points to it being completely harmless. And here's a fun fact; Scientists are suckers for evidence and logical reasoning.

Also, they're not injecting unsuspecting victims with a chemical concoction or performing experimental surgery on their kitchen table with a scissor and a stapler. If they did test this on humans while they were testing it on animals then they would've used the exact same process that they are using on the patients in the current clinical trials. So, assuming this treatment could potentially be dangerous, injecting one or two people with it before they begun clinical trials would actually put less people at risk than immediately going into clinical trials where 20 people would be exposed to the potential risk of it.

That said, there is no evidence or logical reason to believe there is any risk to it.

That is the stupidest ****ing shit I've read all day. It actually got more stupid each paragraph.

Dude seriously before you talk about science on this site you should start reading some scientific journals. You have no idea.

I know you want your hair back, so do I, but grow up.

[BMT]

Interesting.

THe 20% figure is very low. Adding 20% to a norwood 5 won't make a great visable difference.

For this technology to be a real advancement, they need to compete with hair tranplants.

As far as i understand, Relicel are dosing up in the first trial, to test for efficacy. If they get 20% improvement after a large dose, id say its a big fail, even though they might be able to go forward. Just means they need to do a hell of a lot of tweaks before it gets to market.

Another company Cosmo have already done phase 1 trials and results show 100% thickening of hair follicles and a 75% increase in hair count with thier topical DHT competitive inhibitor CB 03 01. They are currently in phase 2 trials and if successful will release something around 2015/2016.

So Replicel doesn't just have to compete with Finasteride, that will almost be 20 years old when this technology comes out. I beleive for us to get excited we need to see haircounts improve out of sight - way beyond 20%. Especially if the cost rivals a hair transplant.

I hope thats what Replicel must be aiming for.

[krewel]

Oh dear... Why do you bump in this thread, which is about an interview you didn't even listen to. Replicel's target IS NOT 20%. Please, listen to the interview.. I don't want to explain it again...

[RichardDawkins]

They use 20% as an indicator if ts worth to pursue further good god, some people here are really geting on my nerves.

hair loss seems to be solvd in a near future and now people here bickering about " ohhhhh only 60% regeneration there is another company who had 63%"

Btw 20% on a NW5 would make a difference if the hair is permanent you are a NW3 or so after that and then you could use a hair transplant as a filler for the rest and ou are good to go

[Follicle Death Row]

Yeah CB 03 01 had very successful results. Sounds infinitely better than finasteride. The more treatments coming the better.

[Kampung101]

Totally glad you agree with me abou the professionalism. I was thinking about this earlier today - do I want to be taking a medication that has been tested on 20 people or 300 people.

You do realize that by the end of Replicel's trials (if all goes well) they'll have tested this on more than just 20 people, right?

[Kampung101]

Yeah CB 03 01 had very successful results. Sounds infinitely better than finasteride. The more treatments coming the better.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is that the anti-androgen topical treatment (that works only on DHT thats in the scalp) that is currently undergoing clinical trials?

[Jundam]

That is the stupidest ****ing shit I've read all day. It actually got more stupid each paragraph.

Dude seriously before you talk about science on this site you should start reading some scientific journals. You have no idea.

I know you want your hair back, so do I, but grow up.

So you think the third paragraph, stating that there is no evidence or logical reason to suspect this treatment poses any threat to a patient's health, is dumb? I suppose this means you know something that is not recorded in the scientific literature then? Please, do share.

I have no idea what my lack of hair, or rather my imminent loss of hair, has to do with what I wrote. I was merely arguing the possibility that they might have conducted tests on humans while they were studying the effects of their treatment in animals. I have never said they did, nor that I think they should have, I have simply argued that it would not have been stupid to do so. The possibility of proving or disproving a concept before entering the rigorous and expensive process of a 3-phased clinical trial will either confirm your hopes or save you a lot of money. It may be unethical, but it is not stupid. You seem to be though.