Replicel Is On Fire Lately — Data In Feb.
- Thread starter That Guy
- Start date
hanginginthewire
Senior Member
- Reaction score
- 1,428
Phase this, phase that. When Replicel/Shiseido makes a hill of beans difference to anyone here’s head of hair, we’ll talk about being on fire. That’s likely years and years away though, and it is still very much in question if it will even be effective, ever. It’s not like it’s an inevitability that this is even legit. It doesn’t inspire pyromaniac feelings in me.
pray to lord brotzu, go down on your knees and let him overcome you. brotzu juice will heal you.
- Reaction score
- 1,709
Sorry bud, it seems like you've chosen to misunderstand what clinical trials are, why they are done, and how the process works. What you just said above, as I quoted, is nonsense.
The benchmark of success is not whether or not the technology will come save you in particular. Only from a myopic, ego-centric view would you voice your concerns the way you have been.
It would be a safe assumption for YOU to believe that this technology in all likelihood will not deliver YOU from suffering, sure, fair enough. But note the difference between that and whether or not the technology will perform, in absolute terms. In other words, you won't have a clear view of the situation until you take yourself out of the equation; if you were truly objective, you would be impressed even if the technology came out well past your ability to use it, and despite any temptation to covet the next generation's good fortune.
Consider that benchmark a challenge to you - can you look at the technology without only thinking of your own fate?
Last edited:
Man, you are talking to the Thanos of Pessimism
- Reaction score
- 1,709
No. He is not the embodiment of pessimism. He is a real person, he is human, he is fallible, and most obvious of all - he is suffering.
People may view him as a burden, but from my point of view, he is leaning on others because he has already tried to save himself and it didn't work. Unfortunately, we do not have the panacea either and are also simultaneously struggling with our own condition.
- Reaction score
- 1,132
Thanos is the most literal character ever created, that's not pessimism
We all suffer from this hair loss curse. However, there is no reason to impose one 's pessimism onto others. Tbh, most of his comments that I saw are "years away" "there s no cure coming any soon". etc. We all know this, he does not need to say a same thing over and over again.
- Reaction score
- 123
lmao, balding awakening inner freuds and nietzsches in people, i see
- Reaction score
- 373
The real problem is that these repetitive negative comments only make information distort.
hanginginthewire
Senior Member
- Reaction score
- 1,428
On your last point - no, absolutely not. While I of course empathize with and care about others, obviously I want a solution to this problem for myself ASAP. Because, as you pointed out, I am suffering. While it’s interesting to look at it objectively, it’s not going to help me. And f*** yeah, that’s what I care about.
However I thought I was looking at it objectively in this case. Either Replicel/Shisedo have a workable, cosmetically-significant treatment or they do not. It seems you are agreeing that that is far from confirmed at this point. I
As to distorting information, hyping stuff up is much more dangerous and distorting than some good old fashioned pessimism. People are making surgical, medical, and life-altering decisions based on what we know or think we know about the current state of the hair loss industry. And certainly a thread like Replicel Is On Fire or Italian Hair Loss Lotion to Hit the Market in 2016 (lol) is far more distorting. Somewhere out there there’s prob a dude who got himself a transplant figuring that Lord Brotzu will save his native hair. Replicel and Shiseido have the patina of credibility but can we investigate that a little further beyond trumpeting their Phase trajectory or saying their “on fire?”
Last edited:
- Reaction score
- 1,709
If you cannot discuss the technology without removing the bias your own personal situation adds, then please recognize that your viewpoints are tainted and therefore irrelevant to others, most of whom are discussing the state of the technology itself.
And if you can see that is the case, please be respectful to all those who are here merely seeking information, especially those who are new and without a frame of reference, and those who come here often (and thus are 1) vulnerable emotionally due to their own situation and 2) receive high exposure to this website) by not always broadcasting negative, opinionated posts about the various technologies. Please be mindful that this degrades the quality of information on this website and is essentially akin to propaganda and smear campaigning, as opposed to objective reporting. We rely on each other for news around here.
It's not that you aren't allowed to have a bias, mind you, or that it is not understandable that you have one. But the fact is that I am not you, and neither is everyone else. They do not need the perspective through the lens of another person; we each have our own situation. And your personal perspective is not germane to the actual companies discussed here.
Consider for a moment that hypothetically we receive news that 1) RCH-01 is an absolutely flawless treatment that provides eternal maintainence, 2) produces absolutely no regrowth or neogenesis whatsoever, 3) is a one-time treatment, 4) is offered at an incredibly low price point of $200/person and 5) will be released worldwide on January 1st, 2035.
What you would interpret as an absolute deathblow would be a boon to those around the world born today with a strong family history of male pattern baldness or more generally anyone destined to bald (the majority of men). In that situation, I hope it is clear that any frustration or vitriol you may express toward Replicel would be unfair toward the company and the technology and would be irrelevant as a review for any prospective customer. I am simply saying that your current perspective here is along the same vein.
RCH-01 is in actuality trudging along as well as one can hope to expect. It's technological basis is as sound as one can hope to expect. However, it would be absolutely unsurprising if the release date does not conform to your particular needs. This reflects nothing on the company. Many have tried and failed to solve this problem. This is how it goes. If it were so easy, it would be finished by now. There really isn't as much justification as you are suggesting for throwing rocks at a company that is teetering along; biotechnology startups are notoriously difficult to bring to success.
And if you can see that is the case, please be respectful to all those who are here merely seeking information, especially those who are new and without a frame of reference, and those who come here often (and thus are 1) vulnerable emotionally due to their own situation and 2) receive high exposure to this website) by not always broadcasting negative, opinionated posts about the various technologies. Please be mindful that this degrades the quality of information on this website and is essentially akin to propaganda and smear campaigning, as opposed to objective reporting. We rely on each other for news around here.
It's not that you aren't allowed to have a bias, mind you, or that it is not understandable that you have one. But the fact is that I am not you, and neither is everyone else. They do not need the perspective through the lens of another person; we each have our own situation. And your personal perspective is not germane to the actual companies discussed here.
Consider for a moment that hypothetically we receive news that 1) RCH-01 is an absolutely flawless treatment that provides eternal maintainence, 2) produces absolutely no regrowth or neogenesis whatsoever, 3) is a one-time treatment, 4) is offered at an incredibly low price point of $200/person and 5) will be released worldwide on January 1st, 2035.
What you would interpret as an absolute deathblow would be a boon to those around the world born today with a strong family history of male pattern baldness or more generally anyone destined to bald (the majority of men). In that situation, I hope it is clear that any frustration or vitriol you may express toward Replicel would be unfair toward the company and the technology and would be irrelevant as a review for any prospective customer. I am simply saying that your current perspective here is along the same vein.
RCH-01 is in actuality trudging along as well as one can hope to expect. It's technological basis is as sound as one can hope to expect. However, it would be absolutely unsurprising if the release date does not conform to your particular needs. This reflects nothing on the company. Many have tried and failed to solve this problem. This is how it goes. If it were so easy, it would be finished by now. There really isn't as much justification as you are suggesting for throwing rocks at a company that is teetering along; biotechnology startups are notoriously difficult to bring to success.
Last edited:
hanginginthewire
Senior Member
- Reaction score
- 1,428
Why would we be seeking information about treatments that we don’t think or know will benefit us? This isn’t a laboratory, we are just hair loss sufferers looking for solutions. Your post was truly mystifying to me. I’d like there to be a cure for hair loss because it negatively impacts my quality of life, not as some kind of mission for future generations.
At any rate, one would think a clear indication would be given from Replicel/Shiseido as to when they will release results. I don’t feel at this point a firm date that they stick to should be as difficult and vague as it apparently is.
At any rate, one would think a clear indication would be given from Replicel/Shiseido as to when they will release results. I don’t feel at this point a firm date that they stick to should be as difficult and vague as it apparently is.
Last edited:
- Reaction score
- 1,709
By "we" and "us" you need to realize that you are talking about yourself. People can want information for whatever reason they damn well please. I really like entrepreneurship and technology; that's the main reason I stick around. I've otherwise learned everything I need to know to understand my current situation - there's really not much out there. I've learned a lot about regenerative medicine here. Dr. Tsuji's text "Organ Regeneration" is amazing and I have shared and discussed it with friends and colleagues.
And I wasn't saying YOU should be happy for future generations. I was saying the future generation will be happy for their own sake - they have their future, you have yours. But if you get screwed, it isn't necessarily a problem with the company or technology, it is then only a personal problem for you, is what I am saying. You don't have to give a sh*t about future generations or for that matter anyone else. But consider it the other way for a moment too - in the same way, nobody gives a sh*t about the strong bias you have in favor of your own situation, which is so obviously the point of view you take with your posts. To be blunt, your portrayal of Replicel, it's technology, progress, and expectations, is not accurate. Your focus is more on expressing your frustration with the situation.
"At any rate one would think..."
No. Only YOU would think this. People who read the press reports of these companies and know how startups usually operate do not think this. The current events are consistent with their press releases. Their operation is not abnormal for a company and the inherent difficulties they are having with respect to running HUMAN trials are unsurprising given the history of stem cell research and standard regulatory protocols for medical research.
Replicel is one of the most promising methods to date and even it may not be enough/arrive quickly enough to save you.
You don't seem to like the second half of that statement, so you assume that the first part isn't true. No, both can be true. To say otherwise is inaccurate given phase 1 results. Again, whether or not phase 1 benefited you directly isn't the metric of success here. How do phase 1 results of Replicel compare with those of other successful treatments? Really well. 2 year maintenance after 1 injection. There is absolutely nothing whatsoever available currently that can freeze the miniaturization process that astonishingly, short of actual castration.
Note that this does not mean maintenance for only up to two years. It means the longest data point we have is for two years. The upper limit for the duration of maintenance has not been established.
In summary, let me be really clear - you are spreading misinformation.
Last edited:
hanginginthewire
Senior Member
- Reaction score
- 1,428
What source or sources do you consider most objective? Outside of Replicel/Shiseido’s press releases?
- Reaction score
- 850
Lol no, I’m not showing off. Not intentionally anyway.You don t belive a random post on the internet! (good job)
You ask other random people if the random post is legit! (not smart)
Admit it you just want to show off that you keept one month away from this forum
I guess if it’s going to take many months for any news to come out, it may be a good idea to not look for updates every damn day.
How about answering my question now? Any news from our bros in Japan?
- Reaction score
- 850
Seriously, if you really care, why dont skim through the thread and get the info you want ? If there is news, do you think this thread is this quiet ?
- Reaction score
- 1,709
I look primarily to the data they publish (reputable journals are peer reviewed, meaning that experts in the field evaluate your work before allowing it to be posted), data from clinical trials (proper micrographs, biopsies, and the like from well designed experiments), and to a lesser extent their patents, and of course the press releases of the company (they have an obligation to their shareholders to give updates and be transparent about the milestones achieved). Of note is their publication record and the impact factor/number of citations for the papers they publish.
Next, I look at any conference presentations they have given as well; I recommend watching this one:
Now all that being said, the company can still fail miserably. It could have poor financial backing or financing structure. It could have poor talent, bad execution and leadership, terrible luck, and the list goes on. There is an excellent resource called "The Founder's Dilemma" that goes into detail of many of the failure modes of startups and how to avoid them. On top of that, biotechnology startups have additional difficulties to deal with:
1) Due the product being physical, there is significant overhead for the creation of labs and facilities in order to do the work
2) Cell culturing is time consuming; the amount of time required to run experiments is high so data gathering is slow: consider how there is no way to avoid just waiting 5 years straight, in order to establish safety for at least 5 years (which is a relatively SHORT amount of time for the customer, who is thinking about decades).
3) The final product is administered in humans and the risk of cancer always hangs overhead. Therefore, to avoid a public health crisis, the regulation around product approval is very stringent, as is the case for all medical and pharmaceutical technologies. The trials are expensive and slowed down by bureaucracy. This is exactly why Replicel has turned to Shiseido and YOFOTO - softer regulations overseas and more capital from larger companies.
You can start a billion dollar internet company from your basement with very little overhead other than a few computers and cloud services. It'd be practically impossible for you to start a company that sells drugs or medicines in the same way - this is exactly why the giants in the pharmaceutical industry have exclusive access to pushing the frontier of medicine; they have the ridiculous capital required to make an attempt and still survive if the product fails.
On a personal note, one of my colleagues worked at Merck during a time that they successfully developed a way to vaccinate mice against HIV. But much to their dismay, after significant work on humans, it was found that the treatment was ineffective on people due to differences in the nature of the immune response between the two species. No cigar, mice win again :\. But such is life.
Entrepreneurship is a kind of chicken and egg problem. If you had a product, you could sell it and make money. But to have a product ready, you need a developed technology. To develop the technology, you need money. To get money from people....well, having a product on hand would be helpful.
What really happens is that there is a bit of a leap of faith - the investors are called as such because they take on the risk of failure in exchange for promise of future success. So what happens is that an idea with scraps of data and intellectual property protection - research publications and a patent - is used to convince people to "seed" the company with funding to get started. This money is then used to DEVELOP the product, which does not yet exist. So to your point of "either they have the technology and it works or they don't," this is not how it works. The data so far implies that this approach has a high likelihood of working. But the development of the product and completion of the studies is far from done. As we know, proving that the product works in mice is insufficient to imply success in humans. So there is no way around running experiments on human beings. This introduces another problem of public safety. So instead of getting to run optimization studies to explore the technology, one has to start off on the other end of the spectrum, worrying about safety and only safety at first. That was phase 1. After that, one may slowly approach actually running experiments to figure the technology out, still keeping safety as top priority. The only way to really know if the medicine is safe for 5 years is to run a 5 year experiment, as I mentioned. Clinical trials are grueling and inescapable. The development of the technology is concurrent with the growth of the company due to the heavy financial requirement of developing the technology.
Last edited:
- Reaction score
- 686
The famous replicel phase one trial pictures a little.
right bevore and left after 6 months...
I converted the pictures to black and white (255 grey steps) then i applied a threshold to have a clear cut.
I hoped I could see with this technic some vellus hair turn into terminal... But from this pictures it seems the opposite is true ???