+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 109 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 13 53 103 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 1082
  1. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    3,125

    Default

    I am less than enthusiastic about this one.

  2. #22
    Inactive
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    883

    Post A day at L'Oréal: Insight into hair density research advancements

    The cosmetics giant has recently opened up its new Research and Innovation centre in St Ouen, Paris, dedicated solely to hair care, and gave Cosmetics Design a tour of the new facility as well as an insight into what will be discussed at the European Hair Research Society (EHRS) Congress in Barcelona.

    http://storify.com/amcd87/a-day-at-l...ensity-researc

  3. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
    Posts
    1,257

    Default

    If someone can explain scientifically why this won't be any good I'm all ears/eyes.

  4. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    3,125

    Default

    I cannot explain scientifically. It doesn't matter anyways. What matters is proof of results. I haven't seen any. Thus far all I have seen are words.

  5. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    2,744

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisis View Post
    If someone can explain scientifically why this won't be any good I'm all ears/eyes.
    As far as I understand they're trying to create 'hypoxic' conditions in vivo - which somehow will allow the stem cells to work better. Honestly if this is the treatment that 'reactivates the dormant stem cells' in the scalp that Dr Cots discovered last January you'd think there'd be a major uproar in the medical community about it.

    We all know HSC is about creating those same hypoxic conditions IN VITRO and extracting the components that allegedly form new hair follicles, but that's completely different as they're recreating the environment at embryogenesis. But if conditions of hypoxia are the answer to all our problems, where does DHT fit in? Where does PGD2 fit in? How does minoxidil and vasodilatation relate to reducing oxygen and aiding hair growth?

  6. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    648

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UK_ View Post
    As far as I understand they're trying to create 'hypoxic' conditions in vivo - which somehow will allow the stem cells to work better. Honestly if this is the treatment that 'reactivates the dormant stem cells' in the scalp that Dr Cots discovered last January you'd think there'd be a major uproar in the medical community about it.

    We all know HSC is about creating those same hypoxic conditions IN VITRO and extracting the components that allegedly form new hair follicles, but that's completely different as they're recreating the environment at embryogenesis. But if conditions of hypoxia are the answer to all our problems, where does DHT fit in? Where does PGD2 fit in? How does minoxidil and vasodilatation relate to reducing oxygen and aiding hair growth?
    The oxygen thing is curious. Thats a big part of HSC. I believe they claim that there is a difference in growth factors and other molecules at different oxygen levels.

    Sure this product probably wont make us all happy, but they might have a point about this hypoxic stuff...

  7. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    427

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisis View Post
    If someone can explain scientifically why this won't be any good I'm all ears/eyes.
    Nobody can explain scientifically from a media article. Even if we were experts in the field we'd need the peer-reviewed published paper and the full data set to refute it.

    The argument is not scientific but logical. It's being marketed as a cosmetic which means a) they don't have to prove efficacy and b) they can't market it as a hair loss treatment in the US - the single biggest market.

    Do you honestly think that if they had something that could demonstrate clear clinical efficacy and get FDA approval, allowing marketing in the US, they wouldn't do it?

    We can't say for sure it won't work, and there may be some limited effect on women or very early stage NWs, but the odds of this being a cure, or even an effective treatment, aren't good.

  8. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    465

    Default

    As much as people complain about evil Big Pharma, I'm pretty sure cosmetic companies are the ones that get the vast majority of profit from the hair loss sufferers

  9. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    213

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kirby_ View Post
    Because its a cosmetics product, not a medicine.
    thats not a very good reason.

  10. #30
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pate View Post
    Nobody can explain scientifically from a media article. Even if we were experts in the field we'd need the peer-reviewed published paper and the full data set to refute it.

    The argument is not scientific but logical. It's being marketed as a cosmetic which means a) they don't have to prove efficacy and b) they can't market it as a hair loss treatment in the US - the single biggest market.

    Do you honestly think that if they had something that could demonstrate clear clinical efficacy and get FDA approval, allowing marketing in the US, they wouldn't do it?

    We can't say for sure it won't work, and there may be some limited effect on women or very early stage NWs, but the odds of this being a cure, or even an effective treatment, aren't good.
    Just as their choice to market this product as a cosmetic (logical and calculated). Seeing a product from design all the way through clinical trials is close to a billion dollar venture. L'Oreal's decision is likely a very smart one, it would take another 3-5 years to complete phase III trials for a new product and by marketing as a cosmetic, they avoid all the red tape/costs.

    I agree with you, one can't argue/confirm these results until they are published in a peer reviewed journal (which won't likely happen due to publishing constraints within industry). Seeing some data would be nice though...

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

» IAHRS

hair transplant surgeons

» The Bald Truth

» Recent Threads

purchase requisition in business central
12-19-2023 05:38 AM
Last Post By David9232
Today 11:39 AM
Sun Exposure after Hair Transplant
02-26-2009 02:36 PM
Last Post By gisecit34
Today 10:12 AM
An inconvenient truth about FUE
Today 07:24 AM
Last Post By Dr. Lindsey
Today 07:24 AM
Surgeons in SE Asia (Thailand)
10-20-2018 10:30 AM
by martino
Last Post By EFab
04-17-2024 08:34 AM