Stopping hair loss isn't good enough to bring it to market; there is already a very effective protocol that stops hair loss in four out of five men, and it costs .15$/pill. And no, being "side effect-free" (and it WILL have side effects, because everything has side effects) won't differentiate Replicel - as it is, a significant portion of the marketplace doesn't care enough about hair loss to treat it, and of those that do, only a small percentage don't because of side-effect fears, and of those that don't because of side-effect fears, only a small percentage will pay / can pay 1000x the cost of a script for finasteride just to avoid the 2% chance of experiencing side effects. So you're talking about a sliver of a sliver of a market.
It will have to achieve 10%< regrowth to come to market, and substantially more than that. That is the operative metric, because equal to / less has been in the marketplace for the last fifteen years. I suspect that is why Replicel is conducting this study - they know that if they can't deliver consistent regrowth, they're dead in the water. Sorry, but this isn't positive news, and I don't know how anyone would characterize it as such.
As a side note, by the time hair loss is noticeable to the eye, you've already lost 50% of your hair, so even if something could completely halt any further loss, you're still down 50-75k hairs. So unless something can ALSO grow hair, it's not a "cure."
