-
Originally Posted by kaandereli
so he implied that a cure to baldness requires combination of different technqiues.when all products will come to market , maybe in 2015-2016, we are gonna need to buy all of them.
He did not imply that a cure to baldness requires a combination of different techniques, unless we listened to different interviews.
He merely stated what we all know, the current companies who are working on the regeneration of hair follicles are using different methods. Simply, there are different routes to take to regenerate hair. Until clinical trials are complete for all of these companies no one will know which is the best method.
Speculating that we may be using all 3 treatments is ridiculous.
Also, am I right that David Hall is not a scientist? His skills lie in leadership and management and although he will be very knowledgeable about his industry he genuinely only really knows as much as what he is told himself? A great interview would be with the scientists working in Replicel's lab, the actual people trying to cure baldness.
-
^ this was my understanding also but it was only my intention to invoke the thought that perhaps it is unwise to use all three.
I'm sure that a few people will never be happy with their results and will seek additional improvements despite how spectacular the results, therefore at some stage the question of compatibility may arise... lets face it I'm sure there are a few people on this forum that have tried a number of things and will try a great deal more in the future in order to reach their goal and also to keep the fight up rather than feel helpless in any case I'd like to thank everyone at replicel for their efforts and continual effort in solving this mystery.
-
Hall sounds really downbeat and depressed in that interview.
-
Originally Posted by Hair Bear
I'd like to thank everyone at replicel for their efforts and continual effort in solving this mystery.
Good man, I don't think replicel get enough appreciation on these forums. They owe no body anything yet so many people have the attitude that Replicel is their god given right to a baldness cure.
To David Hall and everyone else at Replicel, thank you for all you do and I hope that you are successful at bringing to market an impressive alternative treatment for baldness.
-
Originally Posted by WillhasWill
Good man, I don't think replicel get enough appreciation on these forums. They owe no body anything yet so many people have the attitude that Replicel is their god given right to a baldness cure.
To David Hall and everyone else at Replicel, thank you for all you do and I hope that you are successful at bringing to market an impressive alternative treatment for baldness.
This is a bit over the top. They are a company driven by economic incentives. It's not like they're making this out of the goodness of their hearts and giving it to us for free. While I do realize they are heavily criticized around here, often unfairly, I can understand why someone who invested in them after relying on all of the hype that's been building up this year would be upset given these results.
Anyways, as far as the battle lines being drawn between Replicel and Gho, that's absolutely futile. They are not mutually exclusive. Why should people side with one against the other? Personally I believe that following GC83UK's progress over the next year or so will tell me what I need to know about Gho.
Returning to Replicel, I am disappointed that there were not stronger results but optimistic that the results will improve over time. The question is how much improvement over how much time? It annoys me to read people claiming that this is good news. It is not good news. It is simply not the worst case scenario.
-
Originally Posted by Conpecia
This is a bit over the top. They are a company driven by economic incentives. It's not like they're making this out of the goodness of their hearts and giving it to us for free.
True, companies are based on economic interests, but it's people, not companies, who develop medical treatments. Not everyone who labors to find cures for man's ailments is solely or primarily driven by economic motives (beyond those of making a living) -- many people engaged in such work don't stand to make any more money from developing a successful treatment than an unsuccessful one.
-
Originally Posted by jman91
the daily mail is full of drivel
More ignorance. The very same information can be found in plenty of other (more august) outlets than the Daily Mail:
http://www.myscience.me.uk/news/2012...2012-Sheffield
-
Senior Member
Originally Posted by gmonasco
who would have thought the same story would be out there in the world of recycled internet news! I'm glad these credible scientists were at least responsible enough to repeat words like 'if' 'may' 'could' 'hopes' etc. With 3D organ printing being so relevant hair loss treatments one does wonder why the Daily Mail, being the patron saint of baldness cures would somehow miss an opportunity to spin a science research story into a cure for baldness headline, even they didn't go for it, what is the world coming to!
-
Originally Posted by Conpecia
This is a bit over the top. They are a company driven by economic incentives. It's not like they're making this out of the goodness of their hearts and giving it to us for free. While I do realize they are heavily criticized around here, often unfairly, I can understand why someone who invested in them after relying on all of the hype that's been building up this year would be upset given these results.
Replicel do not have a product to market yet and they have not taken money from customers on a promise to cure hair loss. Therefore I don't believe any one in this forum has the right to criticize Replicel so harshly.
If people have invested then this is a different ball game. They should really be thinking with their heads and like investors. Business is business. From an investors point of view, Replicel is high risk and the return on investment will not be quick. We all know they are 5+ years from releasing treatment if it's successful.
If a lot of the criticism is coming from "investors" then this explains the problem. They are desperate sufferers of baldness investing in the cure for baldness. No wonder emotions are so high.
-
Originally Posted by jman91
who would have thought the same story would be out there in the world of recycled internet news!
People like you, who clearly can't discern the difference between original reporting and "recycled news."
Similar Threads
-
By tbtadmin in forum Cutting Edge / Future Treatments
Replies: 80
Last Post: 11-03-2011, 07:01 PM
-
By tbtadmin in forum Hair Transplant: Start Your Own Topic
Replies: 9
Last Post: 06-22-2011, 07:14 AM
-
By tbtadmin in forum Cutting Edge / Future Treatments
Replies: 19
Last Post: 03-06-2011, 09:54 AM
-
By tbtadmin in forum The Bald Truth: Show Archives
Replies: 1
Last Post: 11-19-2010, 11:51 AM
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
Forum Rules
|
» IAHRS
» The Bald Truth
» americanhairloss.org
|
Bookmarks