Very Minimal at best. Probably what can be described as a good hair day. After how many months now and I see no real noticable changes in anyone in that thread. This is no more a cure or better treatment than anything that has come out in the last 25-30 years.....
Follica Announce Expected Fda Filing In 2020
- Thread starter Hippocrates21
- Start date
Very Minimal at best. Probably what can be described as a good hair day. After how many months now and I see no real noticable changes in anyone in that thread. This is no more a cure or better treatment than anything that has come out in the last 25-30 years.....
We really don't know until they release any data.
But its not about just "needling" with follica. They can't to disrupt the skin so it starts its healing process that activates different kinds of healing in the skin, Their approach is also within that "healing window" to have a compound that leads to hair follicle regeneration instead of only skin or so. which their study with fgf9 shown that you can lead that healing process into hair follicle neogenesis after wounding.
As history have shown, we can establish a closed lab environment that have its problem with real life results, and that is what takes MANY years to break that code. So even though some sit with a possible way to do something, the real challenge is to upscale it and make it work safely every time.
- Reaction score
- 892
Dar don’t know sheeeeet.
It absolutely works with Minoxidil for some people with awesome cosmetic results. I have seen pics. Way better WAY better than good hair day.
Dar is just bitter that he hasn’t had one of those since he was a teeny bopper.
- Reaction score
- 892
Strongly agree with this. We’re all tinkerers and hackers trying to guess closed lab regimes. I’ve seen some epic pics I’m jealous of where some people are smashing it but for lots of peeps it’s zero game.
It’ll be awesome when the playing field is leveled and we can all access the proper way with the best tools and best protocols.
Yep, I'm not interested in what some forum users tried because failed results could obviously be the result of the fact that we don't actually know all of the variables when actual, lab-environment tests of microneedling, primitive unto themselves, have produced veritable results. Even those studies were unsure of exactly what influences the response, but random 21-year-old illegal immigrants obsessed with miscegenation of white women, hanging out on hairloss forums, are certain this is a dud and "it's JuSt NEeDling loLz"
Aderans' treatment, as I'd linked to many times in years past on here, had actually been successful in stopping further hairloss, and they shelved it because they didn't feel the market was there for permanent maintenance.
Yet, somehow, the nuts that hang out here 24/7 are convinced that one can look can look to strangers' DIY experiments on the internet as a reliable benchmark for a product for professional dermatological use that's been under R&D for 13 years, has had tens of millions invested into it, and is being put through phase 3.
As if doctors are generally out to ruin their own reputations, as if this is China or Turkey we're talking about, and as if private biotech companies are interested in pissing away millions they'll never make back on a therapy that obviously doesn't work or is totally unreliable.
First off my hair is pretty good. Second I do know. I saw the pics of the guy in the other thread. He's early 20's, had his head shaved the first pic ,and in bright light and the last pic it was grown out. When I was in my early 20's my hair at really short lenghts looked like crap and than thickened as it grew out.
Sorry follica doesn't look like anything good to me. It's not this magic bullet soany desperately want. You would do better with topix...
History has shown sh*t. Nothing has every been cured. Treated better yes. But anything short of reversing the aging process most likely won't do it ...imo
You've never seen Follica's treatment.
You've seen pics from a few guys who are screwing around with stuff that Follica was doing over a decade ago.
If Follica considered those results commercially viable, then they wouldn't have spent millions of dollars and a decade continuing to work on it.
Thanks, I read thru it and he also seemed to change his diet right around the same time to a non inflammatory diet. Could also be a contributor to his success.
- Reaction score
- 479
"As if doctors are generally out to ruin their own reputations, as if this is China or Turkey we're talking about, and as if private biotech companies are interested in pissing away millions they'll never make back on a therapy that obviously doesn't work or is totally unreliable."
I'm not saying Follica will or won't work because there's just not enough information, but this isn't valid logic at all.
Have you not learned your lesson from prior products?
Does this logic look familiar?
-A respected vascular surgeon wouldn't risk his reputation on this.
-Italy is one of the leading countries in the pharmaceutical industry unlike Turkey.
-He wouldn't have worked on this for over 7 years for no reason.
-Fidia is a private company, they wouldn't waste money and time buying and testing and producing something that doesn't work.
It may seem like you're using rational logic that supports Follica's treatment, but they're all fallacies.
I have no opinion on whether Follica's treatment will work because there isn't enough actual evidence for me to support any claim. The only scientific support is from the original Dhurat studies in 2013 and 2015 which showed some improvement, but in my opinion wasn't aesthetic.
2013 study
http://www.ijtrichology.com/article...lume=5;issue=1;spage=6;epage=11;aulast=Dhurat
2015 study
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4458936/
If Follica doesn't give aesthetic results, nobody except for the typical GourmetStyleWellness users will give it the time of day.
Then you haven't followed much in the stem cell research department.
But since not everyone sits with a million dollar income, then those really complex treatments isn't going to be marketed and get out to consumer market.
People have been cured from HIV with stem cell treatment, its a really expensive and complex treatment. Their have been treatment for
alopecia areata
Things take time, why is it so hard to understand?
We can't do landslide breakthrough in science every 5 minutes.
- Reaction score
- 1,003
Aloecia Areata s very different to common pattern hair loss
I said "generally"
You're missing that Brotzu was not under government mandate to undergo the kind of trials that Follica is, it wasn't a product meant to be used by actual dermatologists, and it wasn't like they put literally tens of millions into it. So, you can get away with a lot more shenanigans regarding efficacy there.
Making a few million off a shitty lotion that does nothing and is not subject to FDA rigor is not at all comparable to the lofty goal of something that will have to make back millions before seeing a profit and is subject to rigorous testing.
I'm not sure how you don't consider the results of Dhurat aesthetic.
...k. It's pretty clear you don't really understand "logic"; you seem to be conflating it with "truism"
Here's what we do know:
• Wounding has been shown, in actual lab tests, to be a viable method of growing new hair.
• Follica has spent more time on this than anyone, and is the first American hairloss treatment to enter phase III since Propecia
• As Swoop posted before, PureTech's own market research showed that a new hairloss treatment would have to provide more regrowth to be profitable. Yet, they are proceeding toward the market launch of their product.
• PureTech has invested seemingly more money into this than any other American hairloss treatment research to date. So much so that, they will lose millions upon millions of dollars if the product it isn't able to produce aesthetically-worthwhile results because it would quickly lose it's customer base and the support of physicians. If they did not feel that it stood a strong chance of making millions and millions, they would've stopped funneling money into it by now.
So, while it's not impossible that it could be a dud or something, that's not the logical conclusion one would draw from this information.
It is, but it is easier to show something visual with before and after pictures than with people that suffers from HIV or a like.
Even Michael Schumacher have gotten a stem cell treatment for his head injury and he is a man with really deep pockets. My point is, that there are some experimental treatments out there, but they aren't going for "average joe" money.
And to become average joe money, they need to scale things up and come up with a treatment that works for a very large world population. if you can't do that, you need to be a person with really deep pockets
- Reaction score
- 892
Best post of the day. Thank you sir.
Last edited:
Puretech has told its investors that they are headed to Phase III trials - a material statement that, if untrue, is a federal crime. 70-90% of drugs that enter phase III trials complete them successfully. So, in fact, there is evidence that it works; the real question that none of us can answer is how well.
- Reaction score
- 1,126
Cope artistry