Home | News | Find a Doctor | Ask a Question | Free

Follica


#1

money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/prnewswire/NE94506.htm


#2

Interesting. Thanks for posting. I think most have written of follica as dead. Seems like they’re not quite dead, maybe more like walking dead???

How great would it be for them to surprise everyone? Come on, bald guys could use a break!


#3

Follica: good research, done with good intentions, which has resulted in little more than patent-trolling.


#4

[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by cal[/postedby]
Follica: good research, done with good intentions, which has resulted in little more than patent-trolling.[/quote]

Yes. This is just a “Notice of Allowance” from the US Patent and Trademark Office. All it means is that the USPTO has accepted the patent application for “skin disruption”, after an initial review. It doesn’t mean the patent was granted, but it probably will be.

Follica’s “technology” is based on two things: (1) tissue disruption; and (2) adding some chemical or drug which would work with endogenous factors released in the tissues as a result of disruption. The idea cannot work just by tissue disruption alone, there MUST be some chemical added to the skin as well to actually grow hair.

Their problem is I think they’re still basically at square 1 in finding a chemical or drug to satisfy prong 2 of their method. If they had any tangible success with any specific substance, I think we would have heard about it by now.

So, in my opinion, Follica’s method is something that works in theory, but putting it into practice is another story.

Also, what will be the characteristics of any hairs produced? Will growth be thick, or sparse? What about size of follicles, diameter of individual hairs, direction, spacing, etc.?

I’ve said before that I think Follica is an “orphan technology” that’s already been superseded by stem cell research. Follica is based on disrupting the skin to mimic the effects of activated stem cells and inductive DP cells, but if someone can harness those cells and come out with a cell-based cure (Stanford-Burnham, etc. are near), then why bother to mimic the effects of the cells, why not just use the cells themselves?


#5

Most likely in need of money to continue their research. That 15 million they received several years ago must be running out. It about time for them to make a new discovery.


#6

Follica will have to excuse me, because i’m not going to get excited by any news article or patent related stuff coming from them again. After all the hype that occurred 7 years ago (can’t believe it’s that damn long ago now!), and the disappointment of waiting and waiting with no news from the company. The left us and continue to leave us hanging. Forced to piece the picture together with bits and pieces of info from various sources. It’s BS. They’ve used up all my goodwill capital. From here on in, show me a damn picture with good results and a plan to commercialize in the next couple years, or stfu and go away.


#7

I read somewhere that some of these types of medications are in the pipeline right now. Does anyone know what stage???


#8

[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by jarjarbinx[/postedby]
I read somewhere that some of these types of medications are in the pipeline right now. Does anyone know what stage???[/quote]

The first question I have is do they work with or without wounding. If they require wounding to work (doubtful), then Follica would be all over them and they may even be forced to do business with Follica, if Follica gets its patent. If they work on this principle but don’t actually require wounding of the skin, then Follica is probably obsolete before they even start selling anything.

I’m not too optimistic on drugs either way, I think the most significant breakthroughs and what amounts to be a cure will come from using live stem cells or inductive DP cells generated from stem cells.