Given that Aderans is in phase 2, there’s a strong possibility, if they have a product that actually works, that they’ll have a commercial product in 4-5 years.
If you don’t believe that Aderans has a product that works, then HM is going to be here in 10 years, 20 years, 13 years, 1001 years 32.7 years, 88 years, 15 1/2 years, 1,000,000 years, e^10 years… anything is pure speculation here.
Having said that, those who are insistent that Aderans doesn’t have something that works have zero facts on the matter.
Sceptic, I’m not arguing that the likelyhood is low or high. I’m arguing that the absolute terms that you speak in are not warranted.
Aderans starts offering their HM outside the US = within 4-5 years. It could happen.
Folica is very possible to work. I see no reason to think otherwise except for “HM is decades away” mental inertia. It’s dealing with wounding-based regrowth and that principle has shown as much promise as anything we’ve ever seen.
Acell? Show me where to get it (powdered form) and I’ll try it tomorrow.
» Aderans starts offering their HM outside the US = within 4-5 years. It
» could happen.
In that timeframe it’s also possible for Aderans to start offering HM in the US. They’re months away from finishing phase 2, and they’re well past the half way point of the alleged 10 year timeline for FDA trials.
With all due respect to the older guys on this forum:
someone here claimed that the noobs will say HM is 5 years away while the pros here will claim it is 10-15 years away. But i just wonder… perhaps having followed the HM developments for the past years has lead them to develop a certain bitternes and they have taken a general stance that “nothing will happen” since that is the only way things have ever been.
I think that 5 years might in fact be possible however at the same time i acknowledge that 10-15 years might be a more realistic figure.
» With all due respect to the older guys on this forum:
»
» someone here claimed that the noobs will say HM is 5 years away while the
» pros here will claim it is 10-15 years away. But i just wonder… perhaps
» having followed the HM developments for the past years has lead them to
» develop a certain bitternes and they have taken a general stance that
» “nothing will happen” since that is the only way things have ever been.
»
» I think that 5 years might in fact be possible however at the same time i
» acknowledge that 10-15 years might be a more realistic figure.
i think the same, i guess. i was really happy if it would happen in 10 years time.
like you say, 5 years is possible and 10-15 years is more realistic. to come back to my initial question, i think i count on that it is reality in 10-15 years. but im not so sure about it and if its indeed out by then. but i dont count on 5 years. if i would have done, i wouldnt have got a transplant probably. i take fin and minox, too, to keep what i’ve got. i dont know what i do , if the meds stop working. especially because i got a transplant. i think the meds can work for 10-15 more years, but i think some time they will stop working. then i will need HM (or get more transplants). i hope for the first one.
» With all due respect to the older guys on this forum:
»
» someone here claimed that the noobs will say HM is 5 years away while the
» pros here will claim it is 10-15 years away. But i just wonder… perhaps
» having followed the HM developments for the past years has lead them to
» develop a certain bitternes and they have taken a general stance that
» “nothing will happen” since that is the only way things have ever been.
»
» I think that 5 years might in fact be possible however at the same time i
» acknowledge that 10-15 years might be a more realistic figure.
10 to 15 yrs would be very quick , in my opinion even if they did find or discover something that is viable
10 yrs is nothing, it goes by like the blink of an eye. Hell i have been on this site for 10 yrs and it seems like only yesterday, 1999
» » With all due respect to the older guys on this forum:
» »
» » someone here claimed that the noobs will say HM is 5 years away while
» the
» » pros here will claim it is 10-15 years away. But i just wonder…
» perhaps
» » having followed the HM developments for the past years has lead them to
» » develop a certain bitternes and they have taken a general stance that
» » “nothing will happen” since that is the only way things have ever been.
» »
» » I think that 5 years might in fact be possible however at the same time
» i
» » acknowledge that 10-15 years might be a more realistic figure.
»
» 10 to 15 yrs would be very quick , in my opinion even if they did find or
» discover something that is viable
»
» 10 yrs is nothing, it goes by like the blink of an eye. Hell i have been
» on this site for 10 yrs and it seems like only yesterday, 1999
I agree with hangin in the sense that it will be 10-15 years before true HM technology is available to the public. However, I see a much more effective treatment being released before then, in the next 5 years or so. Either Histogen or Follica or both will release something. There’s too much smoke there for there not to be any fire. Not a cure, but a more effective treatment than fin/minox.
» » With all due respect to the older guys on this forum:
» »
» » someone here claimed that the noobs will say HM is 5 years away while
» the
» » pros here will claim it is 10-15 years away. But i just wonder…
» perhaps
» » having followed the HM developments for the past years has lead them to
» » develop a certain bitternes and they have taken a general stance that
» » “nothing will happen” since that is the only way things have ever been.
» »
» » I think that 5 years might in fact be possible however at the same time
» i
» » acknowledge that 10-15 years might be a more realistic figure.
»
» 10 to 15 yrs would be very quick , in my opinion even if they did find or
» discover something that is viable
»
» 10 yrs is nothing, it goes by like the blink of an eye. Hell i have been
» on this site for 10 yrs and it seems like only yesterday, 1999
honestly, your subjective perception of time holds little scientific ground… 10 years remain 10 years… a lot can change in 10 years. But i know what you mean…
however people on the board tend to be in their 20s and 10 yrs is half their life so it seems like a LONG time, and really its not
Also I think people on the board tend to gauge the estimated arrival time of HM through the “i need this tomorrow” glasses. In other words they want and need it so bad that anything longer than 2 to 3 yrs is so depressing to contemplate, that they really do not want to consider that possibility. so they throw out the 2 to 3 yrs figure to keep hope alive.
If the people on the board were not losing their hair, and couldnt care less when HM arrived, my bet would be that they would present a more realistic time table of its arrival date
» I know 10 yrs is 10 yrs
» that cannot change
»
» however people on the board tend to be in their 20s and 10 yrs is half
» their life so it seems like a LONG time, and really its not
»
» Also I think people on the board tend to gauge the estimated arrival time
» of HM through the “i need this tomorrow” glasses. In other words they want
» and need it so bad that anything longer than 2 to 3 yrs is so depressing to
» contemplate, that they really do not want to consider that possibility. so
» they throw out the 2 to 3 yrs figure to keep hope alive.
»
» If the people on the board were not losing their hair, and couldnt care
» less when HM arrived, my bet would be that they would present a more
» realistic time table of its arrival date
you always say “people on this board”. but people in here are individuals. everyone thinks other.
» I know 10 yrs is 10 yrs
» that cannot change
No two decades are alike.
Just because nothing happened from 1999-2009 doesn’t mean the next decade will follow suit.
» » I know 10 yrs is 10 yrs
» » that cannot change
» No two decades are alike.
» Just because nothing happened from 1999-2009 doesn’t mean the next decade
» will follow suit.
It’s even not true that “nothing happened”. First research needs to happen before a marketable product happens. And in this decade, quite a lot of research happened.
» » » I know 10 yrs is 10 yrs
» » » that cannot change
» » No two decades are alike.
» » Just because nothing happened from 1999-2009 doesn’t mean the next
» decade
» » will follow suit.
»
» It’s even not true that “nothing happened”. First research needs to
» happen before a marketable product happens. And in this decade, quite a
» lot of research happened.
True enough, but consider I was talking to hanging.
He considers that decade a failure because none of the research teams personally addressed him with an individualized progress report and a slideshow of before/ after photos.
Anyways, I don’t want to start another argument. Let’s just say that some people feel better thinking a cure’s within reach while others feel better demeaning anything foreign to their mindset.
guys you make things more complicated than what they really are.the truth is simple the companies that are on the hm race they will either make it or not.the 10 to 15 years that some say means that they believe that these companies wont do it.
The timelines that i hear are ridiculous when a companys… drug or protocole works as it should in regards to safety and efficasy.when there are delays it means that something doesnt work its very simple. So it all comes down to if it will work or not, if it does one sudden day out of nowhere…everyone will be happy and it will be news that will go beyond forums immediately.if it doesnt work then maybe some other company one day will bring it to the market with a different approach and the 10…15 years timeline is applicable.but if you think that these companies invest and commence trials with a timeline of 10…15…20 years then i am sorry to say you are clueless.
Ofcourse that doesnt mean that they will succeed and we should be optimistic.
» The timelines that i hear are ridiculous when a companys… drug or
» protocole works as it should in regards to safety and efficasy.when there
» are delays it means that something doesnt work its very simple. So it all
» comes down to if it will work or not, if it does one sudden day out of
» nowhere…everyone will be happy and it will be news that will go beyond
» forums immediately.if it doesnt work then maybe some other company one day
» will bring it to the market with a different approach and the 10…15 years
» timeline is applicable.but if you think that these companies invest and
» commence trials with a timeline of 10…15…20 years then i am sorry to
» say you are clueless.
The 3 stages of FDA trials take most of 10 years for everybody. That’s the bottom line. It has been the bottom line for years & decades already.
It has become a time-honored tradition for the researchers to imply & predict short-ass timelines because it keeps up the optimism & stock prices. And then the product approval trials always suffer “delays” in every which way . . . until it adds up to . . . about the original 10 years.
Hangin,
HM doesn’t need a viable plan. It already has one. Replacing the dermal papillae cells in the damaged hair follicles with MPB-resistant cells works to reverse the MPB symptoms. The healed hairs don’t have problems with direction or characteristics. It works consistently if the copied cells are produced successfully/consistently, and if they reach the follicles consistently.
Aderans (and ICX up until they quit the race) have been working off this basic principle for their HM project.
Folica’s wounding-based method is fixing the MPB problem through a different method. It’s probably got all 3 stages of the FDA trials ahead of it, but if they continue the project then I think it’s just as likely as Aderans to ultimately work.
» » The timelines that i hear are ridiculous when a companys… drug or
» » protocole works as it should in regards to safety and efficasy.when
» there
» » are delays it means that something doesnt work its very simple. So it
» all
» » comes down to if it will work or not, if it does one sudden day out of
» » nowhere…everyone will be happy and it will be news that will go
» beyond
» » forums immediately.if it doesnt work then maybe some other company one
» day
» » will bring it to the market with a different approach and the 10…15
» years
» » timeline is applicable.but if you think that these companies invest and
» » commence trials with a timeline of 10…15…20 years then i am sorry
» to
» » say you are clueless.
»
»
» The 3 stages of FDA trials take most of 10 years for everybody. That’s
» the bottom line. It has been the bottom line for years & decades already.
»
» It has become a time-honored tradition for the researchers to imply &
» predict short-ass timelines because it keeps up the optimism & stock
» prices. And then the product approval trials always suffer “delays” in
» every which way . . . until it adds up to . . . about the original 10
» years
These timelines have nothing to do with the fda trials.these timelines sometime they give them even before any fda trials.the original 10 years you say…where did you come up with this number?for a change why dont we invite a doctor in this forum ask him how many years a full
Fda trial takes for a drug that works not a drug that doesnt deliver.ask him how fast some medicines got approved when they clearly showed how good they worked…if every drug took this so called originall 10 years to be approved we would have also many dead people for nothing…remember there are drugs that save lifes out there.
» » » The timelines that i hear are ridiculous when a companys… drug or
» » » protocole works as it should in regards to safety and efficasy.when
» » there
» » » are delays it means that something doesnt work its very simple. So it
» » all
» » » comes down to if it will work or not, if it does one sudden day out
» of
» » » nowhere…everyone will be happy and it will be news that will go
» » beyond
» » » forums immediately.if it doesnt work then maybe some other company
» one
» » day
» » » will bring it to the market with a different approach and the 10…15
» » years
» » » timeline is applicable.but if you think that these companies invest
» and
» » » commence trials with a timeline of 10…15…20 years then i am
» sorry
» » to
» » » say you are clueless.
» »
» »
» » The 3 stages of FDA trials take most of 10 years for everybody. That’s
» » the bottom line. It has been the bottom line for years & decades
» already.
» »
» » It has become a time-honored tradition for the researchers to imply &
» » predict short-ass timelines because it keeps up the optimism & stock
» » prices. And then the product approval trials always suffer “delays” in
» » every which way . . . until it adds up to . . . about the original 10
» » years
»
»
»
» These timelines have nothing to do with the fda trials.these timelines
» sometime they give them even before any fda trials.the original 10 years
» you say…where did you come up with this number?for a change why dont we
» invite a doctor in this forum ask him how many years a full
» Fda trial takes for a drug that works not a drug that doesnt deliver.ask
» him how fast some medicines got approved when they clearly showed how good
» they worked…if every drug took this so called originall 10 years to be
» approved we would have also many dead people for nothing…remember there
» are drugs that save lifes out there.
You’re wasting your time, i have twice posted a message from another forum that was put up by a guy who had done some research into clinical trials. This is it.
I was doing some research about clinical trials the other day to dispel a lot of the rumors I had been hearing. As it turns out “research studies”, “clinical research”, and “human proof of concept studies” can all be used interchangeably for Phase 1 and Phase 2 clinical trials. Once these are done, Phase 3 takes about another year in most cases. Most of us, because we are so concerned, would be perfect candidates for Phase 3 and can have access to these treatments before they ever hit the market.
I don’t know how this is misconstrued as optimism. I am well aware, and have said repeatedly, that companies in Phase 2 often fail. But companies in Phase 2 also never take 10 years to market. This is just factual, it’s not “hopeful.”
And people seem to ignore it and just keep posting the same nonsense about 10 years.
» » » » The timelines that i hear are ridiculous when a companys… drug or
» » » » protocole works as it should in regards to safety and efficasy.when
» » » there
» » » » are delays it means that something doesnt work its very simple. So
» it
» » » all
» » » » comes down to if it will work or not, if it does one sudden day out
» » of
» » » » nowhere…everyone will be happy and it will be news that will go
» » » beyond
» » » » forums immediately.if it doesnt work then maybe some other company
» » one
» » » day
» » » » will bring it to the market with a different approach and the
» 10…15
» » » years
» » » » timeline is applicable.but if you think that these companies invest
» » and
» » » » commence trials with a timeline of 10…15…20 years then i am
» » sorry
» » » to
» » » » say you are clueless.
» » »
» » »
» » » The 3 stages of FDA trials take most of 10 years for everybody.
» That’s
» » » the bottom line. It has been the bottom line for years & decades
» » already.
» » »
» » » It has become a time-honored tradition for the researchers to imply &
» » » predict short-ass timelines because it keeps up the optimism & stock
» » » prices. And then the product approval trials always suffer “delays”
» in
» » » every which way . . . until it adds up to . . . about the original
» 10
» » » years
» »
» »
» »
» » These timelines have nothing to do with the fda trials.these timelines
» » sometime they give them even before any fda trials.the original 10
» years
» » you say…where did you come up with this number?for a change why dont
» we
» » invite a doctor in this forum ask him how many years a full
» » Fda trial takes for a drug that works not a drug that doesnt
» deliver.ask
» » him how fast some medicines got approved when they clearly showed how
» good
» » they worked…if every drug took this so called originall 10 years to
» be
» » approved we would have also many dead people for nothing…remember
» there
» » are drugs that save lifes out there.
»
» You’re wasting your time, i have twice posted a message from another forum
» that was put up by a guy who had done some research into clinical trials.
» This is it.
»
» I was doing some research about clinical trials the other day
» to dispel a lot of the rumors I had been hearing. As it turns out “research
» studies”, “clinical research”, and “human proof of concept studies” can all
» be used interchangeably for Phase 1 and Phase 2 clinical trials. Once these
» are done, Phase 3 takes about another year in most cases. Most of us,
» because we are so concerned, would be perfect candidates for Phase 3 and
» can have access to these treatments before they ever hit the market.
»
» I don’t know how this is misconstrued as optimism. I am well aware, and
» have said repeatedly, that companies in Phase 2 often fail. But companies
» in Phase 2 also never take 10 years to market. This is just factual, it’s
» not “hopeful.”
»
» And people seem to ignore it and just keep posting the same nonsense about
» 10 years.
Don’t they usually have multiple phase 2 studies though?
» » » » » The timelines that i hear are ridiculous when a companys… drug
» or
» » » » » protocole works as it should in regards to safety and
» efficasy.when
» » » » there
» » » » » are delays it means that something doesnt work its very simple.
» So
» » it
» » » » all
» » » » » comes down to if it will work or not, if it does one sudden day
» out
» » » of
» » » » » nowhere…everyone will be happy and it will be news that will go
» » » » beyond
» » » » » forums immediately.if it doesnt work then maybe some other
» company
» » » one
» » » » day
» » » » » will bring it to the market with a different approach and the
» » 10…15
» » » » years
» » » » » timeline is applicable.but if you think that these companies
» invest
» » » and
» » » » » commence trials with a timeline of 10…15…20 years then i am
» » » sorry
» » » » to
» » » » » say you are clueless.
» » » »
» » » »
» » » » The 3 stages of FDA trials take most of 10 years for everybody.
» » That’s
» » » » the bottom line. It has been the bottom line for years & decades
» » » already.
» » » »
» » » » It has become a time-honored tradition for the researchers to imply
» &
» » » » predict short-ass timelines because it keeps up the optimism &
» stock
» » » » prices. And then the product approval trials always suffer
» “delays”
» » in
» » » » every which way . . . until it adds up to . . . about the original
» » 10
» » » » years
» » »
» » »
» » »
» » » These timelines have nothing to do with the fda trials.these
» timelines
» » » sometime they give them even before any fda trials.the original 10
» » years
» » » you say…where did you come up with this number?for a change why
» dont
» » we
» » » invite a doctor in this forum ask him how many years a full
» » » Fda trial takes for a drug that works not a drug that doesnt
» » deliver.ask
» » » him how fast some medicines got approved when they clearly showed
» how
» » good
» » » they worked…if every drug took this so called originall 10 years to
» » be
» » » approved we would have also many dead people for nothing…remember
» » there
» » » are drugs that save lifes out there.
» »
» » You’re wasting your time, i have twice posted a message from another
» forum
» » that was put up by a guy who had done some research into clinical
» trials.
» » This is it.
» »
» » I was doing some research about clinical trials the other
» day
» » to dispel a lot of the rumors I had been hearing. As it turns out
» “research
» » studies”, “clinical research”, and “human proof of concept studies” can
» all
» » be used interchangeably for Phase 1 and Phase 2 clinical trials. Once
» these
» » are done, Phase 3 takes about another year in most cases. Most of us,
» » because we are so concerned, would be perfect candidates for Phase 3
» and
» » can have access to these treatments before they ever hit the market.
» »
» » I don’t know how this is misconstrued as optimism. I am well aware, and
» » have said repeatedly, that companies in Phase 2 often fail. But
» companies
» » in Phase 2 also never take 10 years to market. This is just factual,
» it’s
» » not “hopeful.”
» »
» » And people seem to ignore it and just keep posting the same nonsense
» about
» » 10 years.
»
» Don’t they usually have multiple phase 2 studies though?
I honestly don’t know, and that’s part of the problem. None of us know the true ins and outs of what clinical testing involves. The person who put that post up about what he found when he looked into is a very good poster and finds lots of great information so i don’t doubbt what information he found.
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.
