Replicel Is On Fire Lately — Data In Feb.

Reaction score
30
This paragraph interesting
“Furthermore,” continued McElwee, “with this 24-month post-injection data, and the availability of patient biopsy material and DSCC, we are now able to commence gene expression analysis with a goal of identifying the differences between products which result in superior responses and those that produce less-than-optimal responses. Ultimately, the goal here is to correlate and optimize cell dose and use repeat treatment sessions to achieve peak efficacy in terms of increased hair density.”

Hopefully they can Figuare out why the responders did respond and why some people had worse results.
 

distracted

Established Member
Reaction score
141
Very pleased with these results! As we expected for awhile this is more beneficial for maintenance than regrowth, but I am curious to see efficacy with repeated injections. That would most likely yield better results.Looking forward to Shiesido data.
 

nameless

Banned
Reaction score
1,091
WereinaRecession, the more I think about it the more I'm convinced that the inductivity problem is mostly related to making aggregated hair cells morph into new follicles rather than maintaining/preserving existing follicles.

Ponder what happens in the wild. And when I say "in the wild" I'm referring to what naturally occurs in your follicles inside the skin of your scalp rather than what occurs with follicles in scientific test tubes.

If cellular inductivity is necessary to maintain/preserve already existing follicles then all hair cells in the wild would need to be induced cells. And if all cells in the wild are induced cells then what would prevent them all from forming new follicles? And if all cells in human follicles are induced and producing new follicles what would prevent the ever-increasing amounts of new follicles from clogging your skin?

It's my understanding that properly induced cells will produce complete new follicles. Back in the 1960s Dr. Jahoda injected his own properly induced cells into his wife's arm and it's my understanding that this resulted in new follicles on his wife's arm. If that is correct then this proves that induction is necessary to create new follicles but it doesn't prove that induction is necessary to maintain/preserve a human's already existing follicles.

I think induction might be nature's way of making cells produce new follicles rather than maintaining already existing follicles.
 
Last edited:

Ghostofchristmas

Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
23
Man f*** all these talks .. show me visuals .. point A to Point B.

Point A , the mofo got 10 hairs on head
point B , the mofo got 20 hairs on head

Something like that . A picture speaks thousand words
 

tjnpdx

Banned
Reaction score
377
Elon Musk is so overrated as a visionary and intellectual. He is a damn good salesman though. He convinced the world that battery powered cars are a good idea. All he did was create massive malinvestment, and make himself rich at the future's expense. There is new battery tech on the horizon that will make electric cars a good idea, but all this investment in electric cars would've been better off going into fuel cells. Electric power isn't good for the environment. The batteries don't last forever, and the electricity comes from power plants that pollute. And what happens when everyone is driving electric cars? We are going to need a lot more power plants, or electric prices will skyrocket, and the middle class will be turning down the thermostat or parking their vehicle.

This made my teeth itch so god damn bad.
 

Follisket

Established Member
Reaction score
288
I'm glad to hear progress is being made but it's also worth noting that all we'll be maintaning if/when this is released at least two years from now is whatever is still left by then.

If this was out this second, yeah, I'd probably be over the moon - but with how much I've lost in just the past two years, I'm not sure I have much to look forward to.

And let's not count on cumulative results yet - it could be that the max regrowth of around 15% we're seeing with most current and developing treatments is simply just the extent of potentially reversible damage. The effects may cap off there because the rest of the follicles are simply beyond repair - regardless of a treatment's strength or number of sessions.

(Not sure how much the regrowth seen in the best cases of m2f transition amounts to percentage-wise though admittedly it should be well beyond 15%.)
 
Last edited:

GotHair?

Established Member
Reaction score
174
I'm glad to hear progress is being made but it's also worth noting that all we'll be maintaning if/when this is released at least two years from now is whatever is still left by then.

If this was out this second, yeah, I'd probably be over the moon - but with how much I've lost in just the past two years, I'm not sure I have much to look forward to.

And let's not count on cumulative results yet - it could be that the max regrowth of around 15% we're seeing with most current and developing treatments is simply just the extent of potentially reversible damage. The effects may cap off there because the rest of the follicles are simply beyond repair - regardless of a treatment's strength or number of sessions.

Yup this is my main concern. If this were out now it could hold me off until Tsuji comes out. However I'm a diffuser and at this point I'm at a point of no return. However safety profile for this is, of course as expected, excellent. The other concern I have is what differentiates responders from non-responders.

Unfortunately will potentially come out in Japan in 2019. By then who knows what small amount of hair I will have left... At that point I might just wait for Tsuji which I'm hoping will come out by end of 2021...
 

Stupidon

Established Member
Reaction score
184
Man f*** all these talks .. show me visuals .. point A to Point B.

Point A , the mofo got 10 hairs on head
point B , the mofo got 20 hairs on head

Something like that . A picture speaks thousand words
CtiRIwtVIAQE93g.jpg
 

CharAblaze

Established Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
439
This is Histogen, what are you trying to fool?
I really wish for Replicel's success in preventing further loss and Iike many here I would have prefered if such treatment was out a few years ago when I had 2 Norwoods less.
 
Last edited:

nameless

Banned
Reaction score
1,091
This paragraph interesting
“Furthermore,” continued McElwee, “with this 24-month post-injection data, and the availability of patient biopsy material and DSCC, we are now able to commence gene expression analysis with a goal of identifying the differences between products which result in superior responses and those that produce less-than-optimal responses. Ultimately, the goal here is to correlate and optimize cell dose and use repeat treatment sessions to achieve peak efficacy in terms of increased hair density.”

Hopefully they can Figuare out why the responders did respond and why some people had worse results.

I also think this paragraph is VERY important.

They need to find out why the treatment didn't work on some patients. Either this treatment does work or it doesn't work. And if it does work then it should work on everyone IMO. This is not like minoxidil where some juice is being applied to the scalp. In Replicel's case, cells are being injected directly to the follicles and the test subjects should all be either responders or nonresponders.
 
Last edited:

thomps1523

Established Member
Reaction score
298
I also think this paragraph is VERY important.

They need to find out why the treatment didn't work on some patients. Either this treatment does work or it doesn't work. And if it does work then it should work on everyone IMO. This is not like minoxidil where some juice is being applied to the scalp. In Replicel's case, cells are being injected directly to the follicles and the test subjects should all be either responders or nonresponders. They need to get to the bottom of this.

So my response is to your inductivity comment... So hypothetically because of inductivity issues replicel may struggle inducing new hair, but what if you used follica to create hundreds of vellus hairs, then used replicel. Would the inductivity issue prevent the dsc cells from developing the cellys hairs into terminal hairs? Just curious... oh and @inham123 they don't have data for 5 years of efficacy trials specifically, sheisido will be releasing the efficacy data they've gathered at I believe the end of the year, but it isn't 5 year data.
 

nameless

Banned
Reaction score
1,091
So my response is to your inductivity comment... So hypothetically because of inductivity issues replicel may struggle inducing new hair, but what if you used follica to create hundreds of vellus hairs, then used replicel. Would the inductivity issue prevent the dsc cells from developing the cellys hairs into terminal hairs?

I don't know. That remains to be seen. BUT if Replicel caused some hair regrowth it probably regrew the hairs that were only partially miniaturized. Fully miniaturized hairs (peach fuzz) would be hardest to regrow because they've shrunk a lot. I hope that repeat Replicel injections might help the peach fuzz but this remains to be seen. So whether or not Replicel can help follicles created by Follica may depend on how developed the Follica follicles are.
 
Last edited:

inham123

Established Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
59
In the 6-month study there were some nonresponders.

If they're saying now that after the 2 1/2 years data ALL patient's hair loss stopped (stayed at least the same as baseline) that may means that there were NO nonresponders. But they need to address this issue because the 6 month data showed some nonresponders.
Replicel never said they were non-responders, they just had some extra hair loss over baseline and they're saying now their hair loss stabilized too.. If they didn't lose any further hair over the 5 year period (the 5 year data will be released soon) then they did respond.

I don't want to criticize you for being negative, but could you take a bit more of a realistic look to the situation? I commend you for your skepticism. We eventually still need to have people do the treatment and show their 1 year result before we know if things actually work. But the upcoming 5 year efficacy study result will be crucial. After that we might get some extra presentations from the Replicel and then in H2 2018 we'll get Shisedo's trial data.
 

inham123

Established Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
59
BTW

People who had hairs below baseline could still have had hair regrowth, just existing hair numbers declining faster than new hair being grown. So the people below baseline could still be both stabilizing (if the 5 year data shows this) and could also still get hair regrowth (we can't proof this I guess).
 

Tracksterderm

Established Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
119
Replicel never said they were non-responders, they just had some extra hair loss over baseline and they're saying now their hair loss stabilized too.. If they didn't lose any further hair over the 5 year period (the 5 year data will be released soon) then they did respond.

I don't want to criticize you for being negative, but could you take a bit more of a realistic look to the situation? I commend you for your skepticism. We eventually still need to have people do the treatment and show their 1 year result before we know if things actually work. But the upcoming 5 year efficacy study result will be crucial. After that we might get some extra presentations from the Replicel and then in H2 2018 we'll get Shisedo's trial data.
They are not releasing 5 year efficacy data. They stated that they will release 24 month data for efficacy and 5 year data for safety, which they have done now.

Also, it's funny how every time a company releases some news about their products and treatments we are left with even more questions than answers. I'm guessing it must be very frustrating for the companies themselves as well that they cannot give out too much information they are not certain about, as they will be crucified by angry baldies if they are slightly off their marks.
 
Top