- Reaction score
- 1,709
Educated guess. Past is prologue. What evidence do you have that they are “on track?” We don’t have tangible evidence that the treatment truly works at halting hair loss, and even less that it could cause regrowth.
Also, we are in the fourth month of 2018. 2018, the magical wondrous year that was alleged to transform the hair loss industry. How many of you truly believe things are going to be any different or that there will be legitimate, effective new treatments on December 5, 2018?
Not an educated guess. Past is prologue is bullshit, let's be critical and look at the specific nuances of the technology at hand rather than smear it with the failures of unrelated people, science and business strategy.
Data readout from Shiseido's plase 2 in June. You can complain about it being the fourth month, but unless they suggest a delay, they appear on track.
Phase 1 showed hair counts mildly above baseline AFTER TWO YEARS since single injection. That is closer than any other single piece of evidence we have thus far regarding new treatment efficacy. It also bodes well for success.
The treatment was never marketed as something that offers regrowth. This is the official stance of the company. Immunization, not regrowth. Speculatively, dermarolling/wounding may work much better on an immunized region than a balding region.
Why not wait till June before providing an emotion-driven conclusion to new users?
There are no guarantees, I'm with you there. But don't lose hope for the sake of avoiding pain. Let's give everyone a fair chance. If they're carrying out the study now and say data in June and initial release this year, that is very reasonable since we know in Japan, they can legally release after phase 2. We will also have a better idea of efficacy by June. But you know, Replicel has spent a lot of time working with animals to show where the cells migrate and integrate themselves within follicles, which is not something people here care about but it is work that shows in part the mechanism of the approach. Now either human skin is totally different and injected cells will not do the same (untrue; Cots suggests mouse follicles and skin are very similar to human skin), and the phase I data is total BS (keeping hair counts above or at baseline for TWO years is abnormal considering the progressive nature of hair loss), or there is sound reasoning to expect at least partial success (i.e. we almost got it right but we may need to optimize X) with phase II.
Last edited: