How come people seem to forget this?
The data was from 6 and 12 week data and it most likely means that the 13 % was meaured at 6 week and 105% was a subject injected 12 weeks earlier.
If I could get a 13 % regrowth after 1,5 months I would be really happy and you would too!!
To put things in perspective people should rememember NEOSH101, they got a 5 % regrowth after 24 weeks and people was in general getting very excited over this.
People should calm down and wait for the 24 weeks data of the second cohort, I can bet my life that we will se a better range then.
13% regrowth after 6 weeks and 105% after 12 weeks is amazing! We are seeing the progress of the best treatment ever and you guys are going crazy over some really early data (that really rocks if you think about it).
And please. Try to act like adult men and post something worth reading.
On the surface it does sound pretty fantastic that they got results in 6 weeks. However, as has been stated before, 13% doesn’t mean anything. If there were 15 hairs in the treatment area to start with, that would mean they got 2 new hairs. Not really much to get excited about. Until they give us hair counts, there is nothing to get excited about. Or depressed about either. They just didn’t tell us enough to be positive or negative. My own personal view is that the results really weren’t that good, otherwise they would have given hair counts. That’s just my opinion, and have nothing to base it on other than the information (and lack thereof) that was released. I look forward to their next results. Hopefully in 6 months. And hopefully with actual before and after hair counts.
» On the surface it does sound pretty fantastic that they got results in 6
» weeks. However, as has been stated before, 13% doesn’t mean anything. If
» there were 15 hairs in the treatment area to start with, that would mean
» they got 2 new hairs. Not really much to get excited about. Until they
» give us hair counts, there is nothing to get excited about. Or depressed
» about either. They just didn’t tell us enough to be positive or negative.
» My own personal view is that the results really weren’t that good,
» otherwise they would have given hair counts. That’s just my opinion, and
» have nothing to base it on other than the information (and lack thereof)
» that was released. I look forward to their next results. Hopefully in 6
» months. And hopefully with actual before and after hair counts.
I have always been under the impression that the percentage points referred to the amount of new hairs versus the number on injections. Remember, at this moment, they are only counting the hairs in the small test area which received 100 hits of TRC. So 13% meant they got 13 new hairs from the injections. I could be wrong, that’s just the way I see it!
RE: Hair Counts, I’d be surprised if they didn’t use percentages. Using hair count numbers would just be obtuse from a research point of view, when doing the figures.
Totally disagree. Hair counts are the most precise measurement. Not obtuse at all. Once you have before and after hair counts, the percentages are easy to calculate, if that’s the number you prefer. Given only the percentage, you can’t tell anything.
I don’t think anybody really knows. It certainly needs to grow normally for a certain period of time, or else it is a waste. At least long enough where you can get a “top off” treatment to keep it where it is. I think that has been mentioned a few times. That people might have to come in for maintenance treatments. While it wouldn’t be ideal from a customer perspective, it would be acceptable to me. If I have to pay every few years, I’m fine with it. As long as I have a full head of hair. Anything less is unacceptable. And of course from a business perspective, having to be a repeat client is the best option. Why treat somebody once when you can get their money multiple times? We’ll have to wait and see how permanent the hair really is.
If it was proven to regrow a full head of hair, then cost is not an issue with me. I know it is to many people. But if it gets to the point where it grows a full head of hair, the cost will eventually come down. I personally would pay $10,000 every 3 years no problem, if it would guarantee me a full head of hair. That’s only like $300/month. I would probably pay more. But again, it has to be proven to me to actually restore a full head of hair.
And so far it isn’t to the point where it is proven to me. Actually not close. Yet. I still hold out hope that the next bit of information released will give me more confidence that they are getting close. I know the science is there, I just don’t know if the implementation is there. I am not optimistic, nor am I pessimistic. But I do want to see them release more detailed information next time, so we can actually see how close they really are. Of course they are under no obligation to do so. I just hope they do. The more vague they are, the less confident I become.
» Totally disagree. Hair counts are the most precise measurement. Not
» obtuse at all. Once you have before and after hair counts, the
» percentages are easy to calculate, if that’s the number you prefer. Given
» only the percentage, you can’t tell anything.
AJ, cockneyninja is rigth!
Sure the two methods:
telling the new hairs versus injections, given the injections
telling the new hairs versus old hairs, given the old hairs
are mathematically good.
But for ICX-TRC procedure has more sense the second.
The efficacy for that procedure is based on the received injections: the concept is “how many X are the hairs grew given Y received injections indipendently by the existing hairs?”
The efficacy is based on a specific number, that is the number of injections. As for the minox or dutas is based on the dosing.
Another way to express the concept is:
if the subject were totally bald, and 1 hair grows up, telling the new hairs versus old hairs the percentage would be infinitive!!!
I think it is far from certain that he is right. One of the problems is that the information is not very clear. At least not to me. Are the numbers based on the injections? I don’t know. I assumed it was based on number of hairs grown compared to what was there before. If you can show me in the information where it definitively says one way or the other, I certainly can be swayed.
I think a lot of the HM discussion in general fails to take heed of something: As I understand it, this HM still demands a certain amount of donor skin to do its job each time.
It’s not gonna be infinite new hair. It’s gonna be a finite amount of new hair that just happens to overcompensate for the amount destroyed in the process. We’re all assuming that it will make A WHOLE LOT more hairs, but we don’t really know yet.
IMHO it is very important that the new/fixed hairs do not need a bunch of additional “booster shots” every couple of years. I could see maybe doing it a few times in a lifetime, but if these new hairs are gonna croak every other cycle then we haven’t gotten nearly as far as we’re all thinking we have.
What concerns me the most is that I see no way to be sure of this issue. (Aside from literally doing several decades of clinical trials and waiting it out.)
This is an advertising site for paid
advertisers to showcase successful hair restoration results only. It is not the
mandate of this site to engage in the discussion of failed, unsuccessful
procedures, lawsuits, litigations, refunds or complaint cases. Surgical hair
restoration procedures carry risks. Please do thorough research, consult your
own physician and investigate a doctor's background carefully before making a
decision. By proceeding to use our site, you agree to abide by our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy at http://hairsite.com/terms-of-use/ where you can also find a list of HairSite's sponsoring physicians.
