Just Seems Too Good to be True....

[porajj]

I dont want to be a downer, but this whole thing seems rather skeptical. Maybe someone can totally prove me wrong

The whole process seems very complex. Intercy says that the procedure involves extracting hairs for cells, sending the cells to their "production facility", they grow more cells there, then you head back to wherever and have all the new cells injected into your scalp.

Ok, but how do they monitor x of solution to inject into your scalp for y amount of radius-based regrowth? If there is no proper way to measure it, a lot of people are going to end up with very patchy looking hair. The whole "production facility" element seems very complex too. I dont know if its going to be very easy to setup an industrial facility that can support the mass production of cells. It seems extremely costly.

There is also not a lot of media on this, and no bigger companies seem to be taking any kind of interest in it. If it was such a revolutionary procedure with actual results.... shouldnt it be getting a TON more interest from the media and other hair care product companies?


Maybe I am totally incorrect and I hope I am

but still.... just something I think about sometimes.

 

[barnabas]

I'm too lazy to address your questions about the science involved, but as for the media one:

You basically never hear about any kind of medical research in the news, and rarely do you even hear about medical breakthroughs even when they become available to the public. A purely cosmetic medical procedure that only matters to less than 1/3 of men is even less likely to attract any major media attention.

 

[Guest]

I'm too lazy to address your questions about the science involved, but as for the media one:

You basically never hear about any kind of medical research in the news, and rarely do you even hear about medical breakthroughs even when they become available to the public. A purely cosmetic medical procedure that only matters to less than 1/3 of men is even less likely to attract any major media attention.

That's funny, because new AIDS drugs like AZT(Zidovudine) got lots of publicity, and they benefit way less than 1% of people(the people with AIDS). This follicle cloning would be on a par with AZT in terms of the level of medical breakthrough.

 

[Felk]

That's funny, because new AIDS drugs like AZT(Zidovudine) got lots of publicity, and they benefit way less than 1% of people(the people with AIDS).

Eh? What about Africa? "Epidemic" is a word that springs to mind...

 

[exstatic]

I'm too lazy to address your questions about the science involved, but as for the media one:

You basically never hear about any kind of medical research in the news, and rarely do you even hear about medical breakthroughs even when they become available to the public. A purely cosmetic medical procedure that only matters to less than 1/3 of men is even less likely to attract any major media attention.

That's funny, because new AIDS drugs like AZT(Zidovudine) got lots of publicity, and they benefit way less than 1% of people(the people with AIDS). This follicle cloning would be on a par with AZT in terms of the level of medical breakthrough.

So you are comparing AIDS to cosmetic surgery? :roll:

Right..

 

[jeffsss]

acutally i saw a news story on HM once. it was like a 3 min clip but had all the info you find here wrapped into a short film.

I think HM is too good to be true also.. and just like the first day i joined... all you'll hear is "5 more years"

 

[Guest]

I'm too lazy to address your questions about the science involved, but as for the media one:

You basically never hear about any kind of medical research in the news, and rarely do you even hear about medical breakthroughs even when they become available to the public. A purely cosmetic medical procedure that only matters to less than 1/3 of men is even less likely to attract any major media attention.

That's funny, because new AIDS drugs like AZT(Zidovudine) got lots of publicity, and they benefit way less than 1% of people(the people with AIDS). This follicle cloning would be on a par with AZT in terms of the level of medical breakthrough.

So you are comparing AIDS to cosmetic surgery? :roll:

Right..

uh when i do that? i just said it would be on a par in terms of the scope of the medical breakthrough.

 

[biglemoncoke]

wouldn't this breakthrough make the news more? no one really knows how it works in detail

 

[barnabas]

That's funny, because new AIDS drugs like AZT(Zidovudine) got lots of publicity, and they benefit way less than 1% of people(the people with AIDS). This follicle cloning would be on a par with AZT in terms of the level of medical breakthrough.

Oh jesus christ, this is the worst argument I've ever seen. This is like saying a new headache pill should get more publicity than a cure for cancer cause more people get headaches. You're usually a rational guy, but this...ouch. This is roughly on a par with a new plastic surgery treatment, of course it's not going to receive as much attention as progress done on a disease that is almost invariably fatal and is found all over the world (and what percentage of people in africa have it? 20 or something?). The actual science involved might be about as advanced, but in terms of actual importance....jeez.

 

[Guest]

That's funny, because new AIDS drugs like AZT(Zidovudine) got lots of publicity, and they benefit way less than 1% of people(the people with AIDS). This follicle cloning would be on a par with AZT in terms of the level of medical breakthrough.

Oh jesus christ, this is the worst argument I've ever seen. This is like saying a new headache pill should get more publicity than a cure for cancer cause more people get headaches. You're usually a rational guy, but this...ouch. This is roughly on a par with a new plastic surgery treatment, of course it's not going to receive as much attention as progress done on a disease that is almost invariably fatal and is found all over the world (and what percentage of people in africa have it? 20 or something?). The actual science involved might be about as advanced, but in terms of actual importance....jeez.

Oh, god. Way to totally misunderstand my post. I wasn't talking morality, importance or anything on that wavelength. I was talking about on the level of scientific breakthrough.

 

[porajj]

Yea, you guys might be right.

I never knew anything about wtf "botox" was until the media started mentioning that John Kerry had it done.


Still, hairloss affects a ton of guys espicially those who hit the 30+ mark. Even before I began to start losing hair, I always thought a cure to hairloss would be a remarkable breakthrough that would make some company very rich.

Intercy seems a little small imo. I never heard about them before frequenting this site.


The thing that irritates me is that even if the science behind it is very well proven, then a lot of other companies should be scrambling to develope this. Since that isnt happening, that kinda shows that maybe the science behind it isnt very well proven....

 

[barnabas]

I thought merck was not making much money at all off of propecia. Which would certainly imply that baldness treatments are not be a particularly lucrative enterprise. If the initial companies make a bunch of money and the procedure is something that can be done without a whole lot of trouble (like...clinics can offer the procedure without devoting the entire facility to the process) then I'm sure others will use it. But I doubt they want to put money into developing it because it probably won't make the company that rich. Americans at least will always pay more to have the fat sucked out of their butt and their boobs enhanced, so companies are going to focus on that. Guys just don't tend to have plastic surgery sorts of procedures as much as women.

 

[IBM]

.