CBS Evening News tommorow...balding cure
- Thread starter ang_99
- Start date
jumpedthegun
Established Member
- Reaction score
- 2
that worries me that they plan to have it out so soon, especially since it will only be offered in conjunction with a transplant.
my concern is that it is not a very perfected treatment and i can't imagine very much changing in the next year or so. they might just be testing it for safety, and then they will offer it as a "supplement" to a transplant as a marketing ploy. everybody will rush out to get a transplant just so they can get hm, when the hm may only cause 50-100 scraggly hairs to grow on their head.
i hope to God they prove me wrong. it's just that the idea of walking into a doctor's office and growing a head of hair a month later seems too good to be true. especially with bosley leading the way.
my concern is that it is not a very perfected treatment and i can't imagine very much changing in the next year or so. they might just be testing it for safety, and then they will offer it as a "supplement" to a transplant as a marketing ploy. everybody will rush out to get a transplant just so they can get hm, when the hm may only cause 50-100 scraggly hairs to grow on their head.
i hope to God they prove me wrong. it's just that the idea of walking into a doctor's office and growing a head of hair a month later seems too good to be true. especially with bosley leading the way.
crayola
Member
- Reaction score
- 0
While this is great news, I have one question. With the current hair transplant methods the hairs can be arranged..."pointed" I suppose is a good way of putting it, so that the hair transplant looks natural. With this HM, the cells are injected and a follicle develops, but will the direction of hair growth be sporadic or erratic? I fear that if the direction each new hair grows out at is random and uncontrollable that HM just won't look good, especially if done on a large scale, like to a slick bald head. I haven't seen this matter addressed yet, and I would like to be assured that it is not a problem, but I don't see how HM can match the natural follicular pattern. I really hate to be negative about this, but if this isn’t an issue then I don’t see how this won’t pretty much be a ‘cure’.
jumpedthegun
Established Member
- Reaction score
- 2
but aren't they also having trouble getting the hair to grow in the first place? i'm talking pigmented, thick, terminal hairs. i don't want to pay 10k to get a head full of peach fuzz.
JustBreathe
Established Member
- Reaction score
- 0
Yea I thought I heard mention of a biodegradeable scaffholding system, and also that they were using some kind of machine for implantaion that affected direction....?
So if HM comes out as an adjunct to traditional hair transplant, will ARI/ICX just send cloned follicles from the lab to bosely and then bosley will just implant them as if they were follicles taken from the back of your head?
Or they actually injecting the "cell fluid" into your scalp and letting the follicles grow from inside your scalp?
So if HM comes out as an adjunct to traditional hair transplant, will ARI/ICX just send cloned follicles from the lab to bosely and then bosley will just implant them as if they were follicles taken from the back of your head?
Or they actually injecting the "cell fluid" into your scalp and letting the follicles grow from inside your scalp?
nervx
Established Member
- Reaction score
- 0
jumpedthegun said:
Growing hair is not a problem.
There was a patent for something like this but there hasn't been any other talk on it.
Direction used to be a problem but apparently isn't anymore which is why the procedure is finally going through fda trials. How they solved it is unknown since a lot of secrets are being kept for obvious reasons... wouldn't want a rival company ripping your ideas and stealing the market.
We'll likely have full details later this year at the end of phase II since they have to do the full procedure and show it works to pass. Phase III is the same thing but on a ton more people.
Cell fluid i believe.
markelbentley
Established Member
- Reaction score
- 0
stock, equity
has anybody purchased aderans or intercytex stock? just curious
has anybody purchased aderans or intercytex stock? just curious
http://www.allp.com/drug_dev.htm
if you follow the phases of product development in the link above it would suggest that if Phase 2 trials are successful (which takes about 2 years) then there is a further 6 years to wait after this point which would make 2013 - 2014 a more "realistic expectation"
unless surgical procedures somehow differ from approval of pharmaceuticals of which I havent a clue.
if you follow the phases of product development in the link above it would suggest that if Phase 2 trials are successful (which takes about 2 years) then there is a further 6 years to wait after this point which would make 2013 - 2014 a more "realistic expectation"
unless surgical procedures somehow differ from approval of pharmaceuticals of which I havent a clue.
jumpedthegun
Established Member
- Reaction score
- 2
I posted a thread yesterday on a researcher at Wake Forest who is using similar cloning techniques to regrow organs. He said after having trouble for several years, it was just an issue of getting the right "mix" of everything, and that once you got that, the cells knew what to do from there bacause of their programming. So, i'm sure once they get the kinks sorted out in hm, the follicles will know what to do, and direction will no longer be an issue.
this is primarily to Nervx or someone who otherwise has more knowledge about the status of HM.
What is the reason for the combo hair transplant + HM? Is it just corporate greed or will HM debut in a form that requires the help of hair transplant for tings like hair-line creation and such?
if not, is there any reason this couldn't be offered very cheaply? I'm thinking way cheap. I'm thinking 1000 maybe 2000 dollars tops. I don't know anything about medical procedures, but I do know that hair transplant needs a staff of people, say ten people working for 8 hours on a tedious task. The command chain on HM seems to be one or two people. A doctor who nips a sample, another one who grows the sample in a petri-dish and then the doctor applies the multiplicated fluid into your head.
It's possible the actual multiplication will be automated by machines, as I said I don't really know. Please enlighten me to this procedure if you can.
If *I* were intercytex or whichever company that will bring the procedure to commercial status I'd absolutely go for a low price such as 1-2 grand. This way you make it available to pretty much anyone who really wants it. Even I, a poor student, can get a part-time job and work for 3-4 months and gather that kind of money. By giving into this price-range you can also attract a female audience who wants more volume to their hair. Very few females would be part of your customer-pool if it cost 10k, most females don't have a hair problem severe enough to make them as desperate as us balding men.
This would be what I would do, any thoughts on this kind of price happening? Unless the process of multiplicating your hair is expensive, I on't see why this is a bad financial move. You'd totally undermine the hair transplant business as well all shut down pretty much all sales of hair restoration products. Why the hell would i keep taking medicine I don't really need and that I don't really know if my body can take for the rest of my life if I can get pretty much a full head of hair for say, 1500 dollars? I'd definately stop using any of my stuff I use, and I'm sure most people would react like I do. And I'm not even a heavy user, just propecia and nizoral basically. No big deal if my sensitive hair fell out, the faster it does the better actually. Just get a second HM.
Hopefully intercytex/other company will try to capitalize on the tiresome procedure that daily hair routines bring. It's not a big deal to pop a pill and use a schampoo but to me it's enough of a bother to constantly remind myself to do this routine that I would gladly raise enough money for two HM procedures. The amount of mind-space these hair-products claim is something people usually don't realize before they start taking them.
It would be a huge misstake to let short-time financial greed take over and push this towards the margins of hair transplant. But on the other hand, botox doesn't seem like the priciest of "medication" to produce yet it's very expensive to have it done. Or so I've heard, and that's just injecting fluid from a bottle. I'm unfortunately a little cynical and believe the same thing will happen with HM, it will capitalize on peoples desperation. If they're desperate enough they'll raise the money. let's hope I'm wrong on this one (though it's very hard to decipher what those doctors mean when they say it will be much cheaper than a hair transplant. A hair transplant can run anything from 3-20K dollars)
I don't know, these are my thoughts anyway. Would love to hear from you all, this thread has been about the most positive and uplifting I've found on these forums in a long, long time. It's made me realizing my routine is only hampering my hairloss, not reversing it, much MUCH more bearable.
This past week I've only shrugged my shoulders when I see that my temples keep being eaten up. A month ago I would surely have almost teared up.
Hopefully we can keep the thread alive with much positive news, the internet is so devastatingly depressing when it comes to hair loss. I can't wait for 2007/2008 to roll around and quickly see all these crappy snake-oil ads just finally die. I do realize not all are snake-oils, but it's not much of a "bald-cure" (just google it.. it's depressing) if you have to stand infront of the mirror with a magnifier to see some results after a year of use. A cure is River Phoenix in a bottle
HM can't come a day too early.
What is the reason for the combo hair transplant + HM? Is it just corporate greed or will HM debut in a form that requires the help of hair transplant for tings like hair-line creation and such?
if not, is there any reason this couldn't be offered very cheaply? I'm thinking way cheap. I'm thinking 1000 maybe 2000 dollars tops. I don't know anything about medical procedures, but I do know that hair transplant needs a staff of people, say ten people working for 8 hours on a tedious task. The command chain on HM seems to be one or two people. A doctor who nips a sample, another one who grows the sample in a petri-dish and then the doctor applies the multiplicated fluid into your head.
It's possible the actual multiplication will be automated by machines, as I said I don't really know. Please enlighten me to this procedure if you can.
If *I* were intercytex or whichever company that will bring the procedure to commercial status I'd absolutely go for a low price such as 1-2 grand. This way you make it available to pretty much anyone who really wants it. Even I, a poor student, can get a part-time job and work for 3-4 months and gather that kind of money. By giving into this price-range you can also attract a female audience who wants more volume to their hair. Very few females would be part of your customer-pool if it cost 10k, most females don't have a hair problem severe enough to make them as desperate as us balding men.
This would be what I would do, any thoughts on this kind of price happening? Unless the process of multiplicating your hair is expensive, I on't see why this is a bad financial move. You'd totally undermine the hair transplant business as well all shut down pretty much all sales of hair restoration products. Why the hell would i keep taking medicine I don't really need and that I don't really know if my body can take for the rest of my life if I can get pretty much a full head of hair for say, 1500 dollars? I'd definately stop using any of my stuff I use, and I'm sure most people would react like I do. And I'm not even a heavy user, just propecia and nizoral basically. No big deal if my sensitive hair fell out, the faster it does the better actually. Just get a second HM.
Hopefully intercytex/other company will try to capitalize on the tiresome procedure that daily hair routines bring. It's not a big deal to pop a pill and use a schampoo but to me it's enough of a bother to constantly remind myself to do this routine that I would gladly raise enough money for two HM procedures. The amount of mind-space these hair-products claim is something people usually don't realize before they start taking them.
It would be a huge misstake to let short-time financial greed take over and push this towards the margins of hair transplant. But on the other hand, botox doesn't seem like the priciest of "medication" to produce yet it's very expensive to have it done. Or so I've heard, and that's just injecting fluid from a bottle. I'm unfortunately a little cynical and believe the same thing will happen with HM, it will capitalize on peoples desperation. If they're desperate enough they'll raise the money. let's hope I'm wrong on this one (though it's very hard to decipher what those doctors mean when they say it will be much cheaper than a hair transplant. A hair transplant can run anything from 3-20K dollars)
I don't know, these are my thoughts anyway. Would love to hear from you all, this thread has been about the most positive and uplifting I've found on these forums in a long, long time. It's made me realizing my routine is only hampering my hairloss, not reversing it, much MUCH more bearable.
This past week I've only shrugged my shoulders when I see that my temples keep being eaten up. A month ago I would surely have almost teared up.
Hopefully we can keep the thread alive with much positive news, the internet is so devastatingly depressing when it comes to hair loss. I can't wait for 2007/2008 to roll around and quickly see all these crappy snake-oil ads just finally die. I do realize not all are snake-oils, but it's not much of a "bald-cure" (just google it.. it's depressing) if you have to stand infront of the mirror with a magnifier to see some results after a year of use. A cure is River Phoenix in a bottle
HM can't come a day too early.