That's assuming it can grow new hair.
Which, based on their recent claims on Twitter, seems unlikely.
Replicel Is On Fire Lately — Data In Feb.
- Thread starter That Guy
- Start date
That's assuming it can grow new hair.
Which, based on their recent claims on Twitter, seems unlikely.
thomps1523
Established Member
- Reaction score
- 298
I think he was meaning he has vellus hairs below his original hairline, and was worried he'd be potentially reviving hair down to his eyebrows. Hopefully we'll get an idea if they can even maintain hair soon, and fingers crossed it can revive vellus hairs!
Just to confirm - am i right in thinking, that initially, Replicel hypothesised that they would be able to regrow new hair with their technique in cloning the derma sheath cells (hence the promo video),
However now, after initial trials, they're claiming it can instead provide terminal hairs with a defence mechanism against the affects of DHT, yet not actually regrow in areas of the scalp where hair loss has already taken place?
Thanks
However now, after initial trials, they're claiming it can instead provide terminal hairs with a defence mechanism against the affects of DHT, yet not actually regrow in areas of the scalp where hair loss has already taken place?
Thanks
- Reaction score
- 5
I believe their original plan was to immunize hair, but correct me if I'm wrong.
Yes I was talking about existing non-terminal, non-miniaturized vellus hair that is all over your face and forehead.
If it cant show any thickening or some re-growth of miniaturized hairs then this treatment is finished from a financing point of view. Simply because even if it works at preserving your existing hair, it's going to be a hard sell as there are no before/after shots. Also proving that it is a long term cure means you're going to need a lot more data over a long time. If this is true, it makes sense that they cant get much investment for this.
Don't get me wrong, I hope this is not the case but it could be.
If it cant show any thickening or some re-growth of miniaturized hairs then this treatment is finished from a financing point of view. Simply because even if it works at preserving your existing hair, it's going to be a hard sell as there are no before/after shots. Also proving that it is a long term cure means you're going to need a lot more data over a long time. If this is true, it makes sense that they cant get much investment for this.
Don't get me wrong, I hope this is not the case but it could be.
Well not according to the marketing: http://replicel.com/product-pipeline/rch-01-hair-regeneration/
They even talk about new hair follicle generation.
- Reaction score
- 2,634
To chime in, when I spoke with Dr. Claire Higgins and asked her what she thought about Replicel and if it'd work she said 'In theory, it should work'.
Everything everyone is saying in this thread is pretty much ALL speculation. If anyone wants my thoughts; I have none, I'm only waiting on Phase 2 results to get a better idea... (too bad we dont have 1 year data from Phase 1)
- Reaction score
- 96
I hope to god that if it works to thicken hair and surviving follicles, it doesn't get shut down just because it didn't regrow an entire hairline, or maintains hair like aderans (allegedly) did and gets disapproved anyway. We still need the antiandrogenic function as a replacement to finasteride. It would still be an extremely useful treatment if it works. To set the standard above finasteride for certain treatments, especially an antiandrogenic treatment is illogical, everyone would be on finasteride if it didn't have side effects, and that's what replicel is at minimum supposed to be.
Yeah well everything in the pipeline should work "in theory" so no disrespect to you or Claire, but what she said really doesn't mean anything.
Also, yeah there's speculation, but when they openly say on Twitter that's it's not a cure for alopecia but revitalizes existing follicles, saying something like "it probably doesn't create new hair" isn't really speculation so much as a sensible deduction.
Exactly. Things rarely work in practice the way they work in theory, because theories are based on limited knowledge. There are so many unknown variables which our theories don't take into account.
Can we just wait on their 24 month data they'll release at the end of February instead of all the speculating? Then we know whatever is regrown stays there or not and whether the total hair is maintained, that itself would be revolutionary as it likely means Finasteride isn't needed anymore. I'd still like to see the 5 year efficacy data too but 24 month would be very interesting.
Well I'm not too bothered either way, the point was I what they where initially saying because that's what investors are looking at.
br1
Senior Member
- Reaction score
- 2,161
I might have let this one passed, as I have read/listened to all official released material and I remember hearing "1st quarter" and not "February"..
- Reaction score
- 540
Has anyone told you that you read into things too much?
Anyway, every company has trouble getting investors.
It takes forever to enter clinical trials, the hair cycle takes a long time so it takes years to assess results and it's all for vain losers like us who should just shave it (bro) anyway.
They'd rather invest in something that isn't a "cosmetic" issue and they'll see returns on quickly
- Reaction score
- 4,602
Who cares about replicel anyway we have shiseido which is a big and reliable company.