Replicel Is On Fire Lately — Data In Feb.
- Thread starter That Guy
- Start date
It's definitely backpedaling, but it's marketing at the end of the day and getting investors to invest in a product that basically just maintains is a lot more difficult than promising restoration. Nothing wrong with maintaining, the only thing I'd be worried about is if it is marketable enough for it to be released.
- Reaction score
- 4,602
- Reaction score
- 15
I agree although I'm of the belief that any company proving they have the tech to maintain (essentially HALT HAIRLOSS) would be headline news everywhere. It'd be a massive breakthrough and very marketable
The problem is for the majority of people hair loss is slow and by the time you release maintenance is not what you want ideally. I'm not saying there isn't a big market for this but the issue at the back of an investors mind is, why should I invest in product X when a better product Y may come out before I've realised a profit from my investment.
- Reaction score
- 11,938
A maintenance drug free of side effects should in principle be a great complement to histogen.
WereInaRecession
Member
- Reaction score
- 30
The buildup of this data release is lol. How about they just fckin release it already. I swear after all this buildup if the results are meh ima be pissed
You obviously weren't around for the Sammued release.
- Reaction score
- 636
They are on hibernation until the results are there.
Ten employees cost about one million per year including taxes, rent ect.
Ten employees cost about one million per year including taxes, rent ect.
I get it that we won't know for sure until we get actual results but I wanted to re-post a couple posts by Dr. Gardner at TBT from a few years ago - 2014. Please note that both posts indicate that DSCs lose hair inductivity during mass pass culture. This is why I'm doubtful that Replicel will be the breakthrough we're hoping for. I have emailed Replicel inquiring if they have found a way around the mass pass culture loss of inductivity but they have not responded. If Replicel has found a way to solve the mass pass loss of inductivity problem then I think that Replicel would give us a major breakthrough but if they haven't found a way around that problem then I think it will fail.
FIRST POST:
05-22-2014 12:16 AM#103agardner
So I'll summarise our workings on the DS:
As for Replicel I honestly don't know as I've not seen any data. I know they reported the findings of their clinical trial in Japan but I've not seen the data myself. I would imagine they have the same issues as other and other groups, but, they may be doing something different that has allowed them to get past this. Again, it will be very interesting to see the findings and I think it's a very valid approach as a whole but I don't know the specifics.
SECOND POST:
agardner
Because the study used fresh DS sections from inductive follicles. The cells weren't expanded in culture. This expansion step is when inductivity is lost, but is required to generate the large numbers of cells required to make thousands of follicles.
FIRST POST:
05-22-2014 12:16 AM#103agardner
So I'll summarise our workings on the DS:
- Freshly isolated DS is as competent as the DP.
- The DS acts as a reservoir for DP cells during the morphological changes of the hair cycle, see:
http://www.akclinics.com/images/regrowth-cycle.jpg - In our hands 2D expanded DS do not retain inductivity.
- In our hands 3D culture of DS does not restore inductivity.
- We are attempting to restore inductivity in the DS by increasing expression of DP specific genes in the DS, but have currently not had any success.
- This is designed to help us identify key genes so that we can hopefully in the future use dermal fibroblasts, a much easier to isolated and expand population than DS or DP. See the Rendl labs work, they are attempting to go direct from DF already, very exciting work.
As for Replicel I honestly don't know as I've not seen any data. I know they reported the findings of their clinical trial in Japan but I've not seen the data myself. I would imagine they have the same issues as other and other groups, but, they may be doing something different that has allowed them to get past this. Again, it will be very interesting to see the findings and I think it's a very valid approach as a whole but I don't know the specifics.
SECOND POST:
agardner
Because the study used fresh DS sections from inductive follicles. The cells weren't expanded in culture. This expansion step is when inductivity is lost, but is required to generate the large numbers of cells required to make thousands of follicles.
Gardner was talking about cloning hair follicles while Replicel is injecting into the scalp....Replicel has already shown hair growth. It's a whole different area. We'll see if there is maintained regrowth when they release their 24 month efficacy data.
Wrong.
I admit that he worded it in a confusing manner but he was also talking about the cells.
Last edited:
You: How is it wrong? The cells naturally, in your scalp, work that way...they're just injecting new ones.
Me: The new cells they're injecting change before they're injected. The change the cells undego (before being injected) result in them losing their programming to grow hair.
You: They already proved they have hair regrowth so they know it works, at least for 6 months.
Me: 1. You trust their hair counts but I think their hair counts deserve closer inspection. 2. I think the alleged "shock loss" (for the test subjects that lost hair) could be a sign that something *might* be wrong with Replicel's hair counts. 3. Some improvement in hair counts could be the result of hairs going from resting phase to growing phase.
Last edited:
WereInaRecession
Member
- Reaction score
- 30
The resting phase part is scary. You might have hit the nail on head possibly. Well see when 24month get released. I think they should wait til last day in Feb cocksuckers. In before excuse on subpar results about dosage just for safety
The "shock loss" story sounds fishy to me.
How is there anything wrong with their hair counts?
It's impossible for improvement to be due to hairs going from resting to growing phase, 2 patients had over 19% improvement. No ones hair would improve after 6 months of no treatment if they suffer from Androgenetic Alopecia. I'm pretty sure the shockloss theory was one created on forums, I've never seen replicel state that was the reason some were below baseline at 6 months
I don't know how or "if" their hair counts are wrong - I just know that I don't trust them.
Dr. Aron Gardner said DSCs rapidly lose inductivity in culture. This means that unless Replicel has found a way to solve the inductivity problem their cultured DSCs should NOT grow hair no matter how much you want them to.
Dr. Gardner worked with Dr. Jahoda on trying to solve the inductivity problem and Dr. Jahoda is still trying to solve the inductivity problem, as are many other researchers. Are you suggesting that Replicel has solved the inducitivity problem and Replcel is keeping that fact a secret? Why would Replicel keep that fact a secret?
I perused their patent and I saw nothing about them employing a special culture technique that preserves inductivity. If they had some culture technique that preserves inductivity of course they would have made that technique part of their patent so they could protect their exclusive rights to use that technique.
Keep in mind that researchers have been aware of the inductivity problem for a long time but some researchers still foolishly try to bring cellular treatments (for hair loss) to market without first solving the inductivity problem, Adreans and Intercytex for example.
I read somewhere at this site that Replicel said the patents who lost hair did so due to shock loss. Here's a link to an article where Replicel indicates that the subjects who lost hair did so due to the process of the injections, which is similar to blaming shock loss.
http://replicel.com/further-analysi...wth-in-replicels-first-in-man-clinical-trial/
Here is the key quote from the above linked article:
"Mr. Panich went on to say, “A negative measurement from baseline at six months is not unexpected as many hair fibres in the area of injection typically fall out from trauma; not unlike hair transplant surgery."
Last edited:
I do think that a solution to the inductivity problem will be announced soon since scientists are really focusing on this issue now, they're trying new things, and they appear to be getting close to a solution.
But keep in mind that the Replicel study we talk about was publicized over 5 years ago. This means that Replicel's treatment is well over 5 years old. It's probably at least 6 or 7 years old. So if their treatment works that would mean that they alone figured out a solution to the inductivity problem at least 6 or 7 years ago, and for some reason they're keeping that fact a secret and not mentioning the technique in their patent.
I really don't think so.
Replicel is old. I think that Replicel is part of the old Intercytex and Aderans wave, from back before the scientific community decided they have to take the inductivity problem seriously. When Aderans and Intercytex failed (due to the inductivity problem) they didn't go down easy. They resisted going under. I think Replicel is doing the same thing now.
I hope I'm wrong but I think I'm right.
But keep in mind that the Replicel study we talk about was publicized over 5 years ago. This means that Replicel's treatment is well over 5 years old. It's probably at least 6 or 7 years old. So if their treatment works that would mean that they alone figured out a solution to the inductivity problem at least 6 or 7 years ago, and for some reason they're keeping that fact a secret and not mentioning the technique in their patent.
I really don't think so.
Replicel is old. I think that Replicel is part of the old Intercytex and Aderans wave, from back before the scientific community decided they have to take the inductivity problem seriously. When Aderans and Intercytex failed (due to the inductivity problem) they didn't go down easy. They resisted going under. I think Replicel is doing the same thing now.
I hope I'm wrong but I think I'm right.
Last edited: