Replicel Is On Fire Lately — Data In Feb.

[Stupidon]

Just release the f*****g treatment already, enough is enough, even if after these long trials and phase 3 is done, nothing guarantees that it's a safe treatment, who's to say some type of people won't get some problems due to the therapy? The more people try the treatment, the more data they have and the quicker they know if there's issues with it and how to improve it.

I would rather become a NW7 than listen to people like you.

 

[resu]

I would rather become a NW7 than listen to people like you.

The way things are going you'll reach NW7 and still be reading my posts.

 

[Stupidon]

The way things are going you'll reach NW7 and still be reading my posts.

And?

 

[Follisket]

It was a SAFETY trial... ONE injection.

That's true. But we need to remember it was one high-dose injection and if I'm not mistaken the actual treatment isn't aiming for that.

While Replicel expects repeat injections at a lesser dose to yield even better results, it's really just conjecture. The results could just as well be worse, no?

 

[SamFT]

Well Replicels stock is up by 5% today

 

[inham123]

That's true. But we need to remember it was one high-dose injection and if I'm not mistaken the actual treatment isn't aiming for that.

While Replicel expects repeat injections at a lesser dose to yield even better results, it's really just conjecture. The results could just as well be worse, no?

Because Replicel says smaller dosages are better.

 

[finnymikeg]

Didn't Replicel state that ALL of those who received treatment experienced stabilization of hairloss? Doesn't this include those who were the "non-responders" in the 6-month analysis? Those who did not have regrowth could have been bald long enough that they have formed fibrotic tissue around their follicles (which is common in the areas of the scalp that have been bald for a long time) which doesn't allow for the hair to grow back.

 

[br1]

Didn't Replicel state that ALL of those who received treatment experienced stabilization of hairloss? Doesn't this include those who were the "non-responders" in the 6-month analysis? Those who did not have regrowth could have been bald long enough that they have formed fibrotic tissue around their follicles (which is common in the areas of the scalp that have been bald for a long time) which doesn't allow for the hair to grow back.

AFAIK all participants had mild to moderate hair loss.

Also, I would agree that maybe, those who didn't see any progress (or saw loss) during the first 6mo maybe recovered later (next 12months, for example) ?

 

[Grasshüpfer]

Because Replicel says smaller dosages are better.

I would also totally say that if I was Replicel. Doesn't mean it's true though.


About the 'stabilisation' of hairloss. You generally have to read between the lines with those companies.
But stabilisation clearly means: No more hair loss, no?

 

[thomps1523]

I would also totally say that if I was Replicel. Doesn't mean it's true though.


About the 'stabilisation' of hairloss. You generally have to read between the lines with those companies.
But stabilisation clearly means: No more hair loss, no?

I believe they said this a few years ago, so it isn't just to vindicate themselves from this current release. When @hellouser interviewed then at the hair conference they told him this as well.

 

[nameless]

According to Market News, the investors are not enthusiastic
about the next 39-Month (3 Year) Phase 2 Study.

Seekingalpha.com

That 2015 release sounds mighty fine right about now.

What is going on with these 39 month studies? Is the FDA making them do such long studies?

 

[nameless]

Also, I would agree that maybe, those who didn't see any progress (or saw loss) during the first 6mo maybe recovered later (next 12months, for example) ?

You might be right but we shouldn't assume that. I'm sure you've heard about how "assume" can make an *** of you and me.

I think there's probably a logical explanation for the red flag (30% of patients losing significant amounts of hair at 6 months = a red flag) but it is a red flag, and it needs to be resolved. If it turns out to be nothing then I think Replicel is the most significant advance in hair loss treatments since the very first hair transplant.

 

[Ghostofchristmas]

Just wait on hair cloning man , I give up on everything else lol.. all these theories don't mean sh*t

 

[Rudiger]

You might be right but we shouldn't assume that. I'm sure you've heard about how "assume" can make an *** of you and me.

I think there's probably a logical explanation for the red flag (30% of patients losing significant amounts of hair at 6 months = a red flag) but it is a red flag and it needs to be resolved. If it turns out to be nothing then I think Replicel is the most significant advance in hair loss treatments since the very first hair transplant.

Heh the NW6 is the most worried about this drug wasting his time.

 

[inham123]

Didn't Replicel state that ALL of those who received treatment experienced stabilization of hairloss? Doesn't this include those who were the "non-responders" in the 6-month analysis? Those who did not have regrowth could have been bald long enough that they have formed fibrotic tissue around their follicles (which is common in the areas of the scalp that have been bald for a long time) which doesn't allow for the hair to grow back.

There is no evidence that they didn't respond to the treatment, a possibility is that they lost more hair than they regrew. Which would imply regrowth and potentially (likely) more regrowth with multiple injections.

Didn't Jahoda inject they same cells that Replicel are using in his wife's arm and did that cause head hair to grow? The mouse study that Replicel is based on (and the study which the science guy behind Replicel participated in) grew hair on mouse ears, which as noted in the study is hard to grow (non-vellus) hair on. Obviously mouse aren't men.

 

[inham123]

Just wait on hair cloning man , I give up on everything else lol.. all these theories don't mean sh*t

Replicel treatment is hair cloning, they clone the cells which are behind hair graft formation. Tusji and TissUse are creating embryonic like hair grafts. Both treatments create cloned hair.

 

[nameless]

Heh the NW6 is the most worried about this drug wasting his time.

Do you eve say anything smart?

Your sh*t-assed ridiculing of someone who's lost more hair than you is no different from someone with a full head of hair ridiculing you. You deserve to lose hair.

 

[RichieRich]

Do you eve say anything smart?

Your sh*t-assed ridiculing of someone who's lost more hair than you is no different from someone with a full head of hair ridiculing you. You deserve to lose hair.

As much as i like to poke fun at nameless for his negativity, there was no need for your comment h.l.
Poor taste.

 

[nameless]

Didn't Replicel state that ALL of those who received treatment experienced stabilization of hairloss? Doesn't this include those who were the "non-responders" in the 6-month analysis? Those who did not have regrowth could have been bald long enough that they have formed fibrotic tissue around their follicles (which is common in the areas of the scalp that have been bald for a long time) which doesn't allow for the hair to grow back.

I think you're asking a good question. And we have no idea what the explanation is for your question. Replicel is the one who should supply the answers to your question.

 

[nameless]

There is no evidence that they didn't respond to the treatment, a possibility is that they lost more hair than they regrew. Which would imply regrowth and potentially (likely) more regrowth with multiple injections.

You're right that this is possible but we don't know for certain if that is what happened.

It's a bad idea for us to assume the best possible answer to the question and fill in the blanks with that best positive possibility. Replicel should just publicize enough data so we can determine for certain how the data from the 6-month non-responders ironed out.