I don’t think they called it a proof of concept study, it was a wounding study as far as I can remember.
» I don’t think they called it a proof of concept study, it was a wounding
» study as far as I can remember.
Well, let me remind you then. We have talked about this trial many times in the forum.
NOTE THE DATE OF THE ARTICLE: 04-January-2008. It was 2.5 years ago, and still no news of the trial. but Zohar is saying “things are moving quickly”.
http://www.hairsite.com/hair-loss/forum_entry-id-66453.html
http://www.hairsite.com/hair-loss/forum_entry-id-26706.html
Zohar says Follica has further developed this work and filed additional patents to protect the technology. What’s so beautiful about the approach, she says, is that translating it into a treatment for humans involves only devices and drugs that are already on the market. A doctor would first use a microdermabrasion tool, say, or a laser to remove the top layers of the skin—as is already commonly done in a number of dermatologic and cosmetic procedures—knocking some cells back into a primitive state. The doctor can then use this newly created therapeutic window to inject drugs that push the cells to develop along one pathway or another and grow hair or skin. Zohar won’t reveal what drugs Follica is using, except to say that they are small molecule drugs normally taken orally for purposes with no relation to hair growth.
Because the components of the system are already approved, the regulatory path is pretty straightforward, and Follica can perform human studies without jumping through a lot of governmental hoops. That’s exactly what the company plans to do with the money it has just raised. A proof of concept study involving 15 to 20 patients (Follica has no shortage of volunteers, as several hundred people sent in e-mails when word of Cotsarelis’s work reached the public) should begin in the next few months. The trial has several phases, however, and Zohar cautions that final data won’t be in for at least a year. So don’t pull your hair out waiting for results.
<<<<<<<<<<<
That wasn’t what she said though was it? that came from the author of the article, after that article they made it clear from what I remember that it was a study to test the wounding process.
They don’t have to release the results from that, Obviously they were looking for a specific response to the wounding that would make the method work, maybe they got the response they were looking for and now it’s just a case of getting the device that we saw a patent for right, wasn’t it a device that wounded and delivered the drugs at the same time? after that they will probably test it on humans, we still don’t know what FDA trials they will be required to do after that, people keep making assumptions without any real facts to back it up.
» That wasn’t what she said though was it? that came from the author of the
» article, after that article they made it clear from what I remember that it
» was a study to test the wounding process.
I don’t think the xconomy reporter invented the “proof of concept” trial.
I have looked at it, and it is true, that afterwards, it was reported that it was just a dermabrasion test.
Anyway, this dermabrasion test should have been ended by October 2008.
We have no news about this dermabrasion test, no news about the POC trial, nothing.
The only news we have, is that the University of Pennsylvania is running a hair prevention trial.
About the dermabrasion test:
D
9/3/08 5:58 pm
KK: We are posting on the other webpage, look at JS last comment. The trials have already begun over a month ago, they are done at Harvard and are supposed to take 60 days. So maybe at the end of September or sometimes in October the trials should end (maybe some weeks later if we take into account how much time it took for people to see the advertisement they made at Harvard). It is said the trials are only testing “dermabrasion” and skins response to disruption, but they didn’t dismiss the comment whether they might apply something at this phase. So we will just have to wait and see. Meanwhile, go to http://www.hairsite.com and take a look at some guys result with Follica’s home made version!
<<<<
»
» They don’t have to release the results from that, Obviously they were
» looking for a specific response to the wounding that would make the method
» work, maybe they got the response they were looking for and now it’s just a
» case of getting the device that we saw a patent for right, wasn’t it a
» device that wounded and delivered the drugs at the same time? after that
» they will probably test it on humans, we still don’t know what FDA trials
» they will be required to do after that, people keep making assumptions
» without any real facts to back it up.
I remember the patent about that machine, and it was very RAW. Patents don’t mean much anyways.
You say that “people is making assumptions”, but you also make assumptions.
After 10 years of LIES in the HM industry, making positive assumptions is terribly foolish.
I saw this on xconomy, and thought some people might be interested.
“Follica received a federal grant totaling $488,000 towards expenses incurred in 2009.
Follica Incorporated Drug Delivery Program for inducing Follicular Neogenesis for Scarless Wound Healing $ 237,563.01 $ 6,916.23
Follica Incorporated Clinical Program for Inducing Follicular Neogenesis for Scarless Wound Healing $ 244,147.19 $ 332.05
http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=229001,00.html
» I saw this on xconomy, and thought some people might be interested.
»
»
» “Follica received a federal grant totaling $488,000 towards
» expenses incurred in 2009.
»
» Follica Incorporated Drug Delivery Program for inducing Follicular
» Neogenesis for Scarless Wound Healing $ 237,563.01 $ 6,916.23
»
» Follica Incorporated Clinical Program for Inducing Follicular Neogenesis
» for Scarless Wound Healing $ 244,147.19 $ 332.05
»
» http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=229001,00.html
good find mahhhn. don’t know about my faith in follica but i guess it’s still a good sign?
Yes, great, but what does it mean? Has Follica filed for IND? Have they achieved proof-of-concept on humans? Is there any news about trial recruitments? I mean seriously, why is Follica such a frigid b*tch?
» I saw this on xconomy, and thought some people might be interested.
»
»
» “Follica received a federal grant totaling $488,000 towards
» expenses incurred in 2009.
»
» Follica Incorporated Drug Delivery Program for inducing Follicular
» Neogenesis for Scarless Wound Healing $ 237,563.01 $ 6,916.23
»
» Follica Incorporated Clinical Program for Inducing Follicular Neogenesis
» for Scarless Wound Healing $ 244,147.19 $ 332.05
»
» http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=229001,00.html
» Yes, great, but what does it mean? Has Follica filed for IND? Have they
» achieved proof-of-concept on humans? Is there any news about trial
» recruitments? I mean seriously, why is Follica such a frigid b*tch?
@rev - the one thing you need to know:
“Things are not what they appear to be – nor are they otherwise.” 
»
»
» » For those of you who think Follica may have put the hair loss treatment
» on
» » the back burner, I saw this posted on xconomy, Daphne Zohar has
» confirmed
» » that Follica’s lead clinical program is a treatment for androgenetic
» » alopecia. It looks like she has a twitter account and has been bombarded
» by
» » angry bald men, so I expect she won’t be using twitter much anymore.
» »
» » http://twitter.com/daphnezohar
» »
» » I really don’t understand why they didn’t make this clear when they
» » announced more funding.
» Yes, great, but what does it mean? Has Follica filed for IND? Have they
» achieved proof-of-concept on humans? Is there any news about trial
» recruitments? I mean seriously, why is Follica such a frigid b*tch?
»
»
I really don’t know, is a clinical program the same thing as a clinical trial? this was for costs from 2009 so I’m assuming the clinical program was what they previously said was a wounding study. It’s all guess work, why would they need money for expenses they had in 2009 when they’ve raised more money since then?
Six figure numbers are huge to folks like me, but I doubt they matter much a group, like Follica, that considers Seven+ figure investments commonplace.
This makes me wonder if Follica’s backed by better administrators (Folks that can sniff out funding) than actual researchers (Folks that can materialize results)?
» I really don’t know, is a clinical program the same thing as a clinical
» trial? this was for costs from 2009 so I’m assuming the clinical program
» was what they previously said was a wounding study. It’s all guess work,
» why would they need money for expenses they had in 2009 when they’ve raised
» more money since then?
» I really don’t know, is a clinical program the same thing as a clinical
» trial? this was for costs from 2009 so I’m assuming the clinical program
» was what they previously said was a wounding study. It’s all guess work,
» why would they need money for expenses they had in 2009 when they’ve raised
» more money since then?