Follicept has just started a convenience experiment

Stem cell; cell based hair therapy
1

Listen I do not know if this is going to work or not. But I do think that every last person at this site knows that if I see that it does not work that is the way I will call it. Follicept is tracking the experiment in a thread at their own site. Here is the link to the thread:

http://www.follicept.com/

I wish Roger would ask some genius questions and I know I can count on Roger to be civil even if he sees no potential to this experiment. I personally expect that the experiment will fail but I guess I’m not 100% sure of that or else I wouldn’t go to the site for updates, would I?

2

Thanks. Looks like a good group of people there, and I applaud their openness and transparency in doing these experiments in full view of the public. Most companies wouldn’t do that, because if they had a sh*tty product, they’d want to hide that fact for as long as possible (like many companies we’ve seen), but these folks are obviously different.

Still, I’m not overly optimistic about this, being yet another topical. But I’ll keep an open mind, will wait to see what happens, and may post a few comments or questions when I’ve studied this technology a little bit more.

3

Over-the-top hype, promises, and claims, yet no actual human research has been done yet. The University of Florida has been name-dropped, but it looks more like an undergrad student built a website based on the only research paper he ever bothered to read. From there, he extrapolated the mice results as a human cure and began promising everyone they were on the verge of getting their hair back.

This is the worst sham ever. Please don’t give this clown any of your money.

4

[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by James Bond[/postedby]
Over-the-top hype, promises, and claims, yet no actual human research has been done yet. The University of Florida has been name-dropped, but it looks more like an undergrad student built a website based on the only research paper he ever bothered to read. From there, he extrapolated the mice results as a human cure and began promising everyone they were on the verge of getting their hair back.

This is the worst sham ever. Please don’t give this clown any of your money.[/quote]

I am not super confident this will work, but I think that is a massive mischaracterisation.

They won an MIT startup competition. They are presenting at different events. I’m not saying these things mean that it will work, but that (1) there is more than one person involved and (2) it is more than an undergrad.

I think they were just unaware of how incredibly massive the pent-up demand is for a hair loss cure… I wouldn’t be surpsied if igf1 fails but they keep testing/search just because they were so suprised at the level of demand.

5

It’s more of an understatement than an overstatement. These clowns haven’t done any meaningful experiments yet, and they are already touting their treatment as being superior to minoxidil and finasteride. If only it were that easy!

This is grossly irresponsible, and these tactics will (more likely than not) cause psychological harm to a lot of people who buy into the hype.

6

come to stop aga

7

[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by James Bond[/postedby]
It’s more of an understatement than an overstatement. These clowns haven’t done any meaningful experiments yet, and they are already touting their treatment as being superior to minoxidil and finasteride. If only it were that easy!

This is grossly irresponsible, and these tactics will (more likely than not) cause psychological harm to a lot of people who buy into the hype.[/quote]

True, James. As far as I can tell, their claims are purely speculative, based on no emprical evidence whatsoever.

8

I also think they’re way jumping the gun with at least one statement they’ve made. And I’ve told them so in their thread at the Follicept website. At the top of the page the big bold type says, “SAFE. EFFECTIVE. AFFORDABELE.” I take issue with them using the word “EFFECTIVE”. They’re jumping the gun here. They don’t know this treatment will be effective yet. It may not be effective. There are multiple reasons the treatment might fail. For example:

  1. The dose might be too low

  2. IGF-1 may be a minor growth factor for hair growth but not a KEY growth factor for hair growth

  3. IGF-1 may make hair grow but it may only work in tandem with other growth factors.

  4. The vehicle may not hold the IGF-1 in the target location inside of the skin long enough.

And these 4 items are off the top of my head. There ARE more possible reasons the treatment might fail. I strongly doubt that the present experiment will work.

As far as I know these are the first experiments ever done using ONLY topical IGF-1 on live human scalps to treat hair loss and it’s premature to assume that this treatment will be “EFFECTIVE”. Like I said, I have asked them to reconsider their use of the word “EFFECTIVE”.

But it also does NOT seem totally baseless speculation to conclude that the treatment has potential and there IS some empiricle evidence that such a treatment might work. As a matter of fact, there have been numerous credible experiments with IGF-1 that have proved that IGF-1 does play a role in hair loss/growth and that IGF-1 should be considered as a potential treatment candidate for hair loss. And since numerous independent credible scientists have established a connection between IGF-1 and hair loss/growth to say there is NO empirical evidence to support testing IGF-1 as a treatment for hair loss is inaccurate.

9

[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by James Bond[/postedby]
It’s more of an understatement than an overstatement. These clowns haven’t done any meaningful experiments yet, and they are already touting their treatment as being superior to minoxidil and finasteride. If only it were that easy!

This is grossly irresponsible, and these tactics will (more likely than not) cause psychological harm to a lot of people who buy into the hype.[/quote]

Boem, exactly. Most knowledgeable member here on the board. I expected no different than such a response from you. Thank you.

Both from a rational & scientific level IGF-1 has no chance anyway. Better than minoxidil? Give me a break lol. It won’t even come close to minoxidil.

10

[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by James Bond[/postedby]
It’s more of an understatement than an overstatement. These clowns haven’t done any meaningful experiments yet, and they are already touting their treatment as being superior to minoxidil and finasteride. If only it were that easy!

This is grossly irresponsible, and these tactics will (more likely than not) cause psychological harm to a lot of people who buy into the hype.

[postedby]Originally Posted by Swooping[/postedby]

Boem, exactly. Most knowledgeable member here on the board. I expected no different than such a response from you. Thank you.

Both from a rational & scientific level IGF-1 has no chance anyway. Better than minoxidil? Give me a break lol. It won’t even come close to minoxidil.[/quote]

You’re probably right but there are credible scientists that say IGF-1 does play a role in hair loss/growth and should be tested as a treatment candidate for hair loss. These scientists are independent and their conclusions are in legitimate scientific journals. I can’t ignore what those scientists are saying, although none of them are saying that IGF-1 will definitely treat hair loss, much less more effectively than minoxidil.

11

Weak argument jarjarbinx. If we extrapolate data from in vitro models & in-vivo rodent models to humans, yes we all would be sitting with the hair of Brad Pitt currently now.

These results suggest that [INSERT COMPOUND HERE…] may be a novel approach for androgenetic alopecia.

I know what you mean. Do you want me to name a minimum of 50 compounds which are suggested like this in papers? In reality they do completely nothing though. What’s your point exactly?

You do understand why IGF-1 derived from e.coli [1-10PPM] is allowed by the FDA & EU law right? That is because they have been reviewed already and those products are available for quite some time in cosmetic formulations. Ohw, wait perhaps it’s their “magic vehicle”? Yeah SURE lol!

Then there are 20 other arguments to make both from a scientific & logical standpoint why this won’t work or minor beneficial at best.

James_bond is right, watch out with these clowns.

12

[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by Swooping[/postedby]
Weak argument jarjarbinx. If we extrapolate data from in vitro models & in-vivo rodent models to humans, yes we all would be sitting with the hair of Brad Pitt currently now.

These results suggest that [INSERT COMPOUND HERE…] may be a novel approach for androgenetic alopecia.

I know what you mean. Do you want me to name a minimum of 50 compounds which are suggested like this in papers? In reality they do completely nothing though. What’s your point exactly?

You do understand why IGF-1 derived from e.coli [1-10PPM] is allowed by the FDA & EU law right? That is because they have been reviewed already and those products are available for quite some time in cosmetic formulations. Ohw, wait perhaps it’s their “magic vehicle”? Yeah SURE lol!

Then there are 20 other arguments to make both from a scientific & logical standpoint why this won’t work or minor beneficial at best.

James_bond is right, watch out with these clowns.[/quote]

  1. I think most people are still cautious. It may seem this isn’t the case, but that’s because a disproportionate amount of the posters are the overly optimistic… I think the majority of people are’t posting and bring healthy skepticism…

  2. Yes everything works on Mice. But, it does not logically follow that something that works on mice, therefore it will not work on humans. We can plainly see that in follicepts trial… minox grew hair on the mouse… and we know it can in humans.

I love aruing about “what could be”… but I can admit it is pointless as their testing it now, and we’ll know whats up in a couple more weeks.

13

[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by Swooping[/postedby]
Weak argument jarjarbinx. If we extrapolate data from in vitro models & in-vivo rodent models to humans, yes we all would be sitting with the hair of Brad Pitt currently now.

These results suggest that [INSERT COMPOUND HERE…] may be a novel approach for androgenetic alopecia.

I know what you mean. Do you want me to name a minimum of 50 compounds which are suggested like this in papers? In reality they do completely nothing though. What’s your point exactly?

You do understand why IGF-1 derived from e.coli [1-10PPM] is allowed by the FDA & EU law right? That is because they have been reviewed already and those products are available for quite some time in cosmetic formulations. Ohw, wait perhaps it’s their “magic vehicle”? Yeah SURE lol!

Then there are 20 other arguments to make both from a scientific & logical standpoint why this won’t work or minor beneficial at best.

James_bond is right, watch out with these clowns.[/quote]

Follicept is a solution in search of a problem. They’ve got a somewhat novel delivery method that is sparking very little interest from the pharma industry. So, what can they do? Turn to the desperation of the balding community, of course. Run a half-azzed trial, using concentrations so low the FDA will turn a blind eye to them and generate results that are ambiguous at best. Trial feedback will be something to this effect: “wow, my shedding completely stopped”, “my hair feels so much fuller”, “i’m maintaining and no side effects!”. Young desperate guys will come running with their wallets out and hopes up. This will give follicept a bit of revenue so they can continue to proposition pharma to adopt their technology for a real project.

They’re attempting this experiment with the blind hope of a child waiting for Santa to bring them their favorite toy. And, unfortunately, the way they’re running this “trial” is so amateurish they’ve left no way to evaluate this treatment unless it grows massive amounts of hair. Without a comparison versus a proper control, they’ve no way to conclusively tell if their treatment is working at anything other than an eye popping way. Which, as we know, is nearly impossible to do. Nothing has come close to propecia and minoxidil.

Does anyone honestly think they believe, even for one second, that using 0.0001% solution delivered across the dermis, is gonna generate effects large enough to see from a casual inspection, essentially defeating all known treatments we’ve seen to date? No, they don’t believe that, Dr Hsu is smarter than that. What they’re counting on is ambiguity in the results, because that’s what they can exploit. I simply refuse to believe they’re as naive as they’re letting on. Ask yourself, why is this being conducted without a control, without a systematic way of applying the treatment, why no proper baseline photos with great lighting? It’s because that would remove the ambiguity. If they really are this naive and they believe this is an honest effort to bring forward a new treatment, well then i have to laugh and wish them best of luck, because they have no clue what they’re doing.

Someone over at follicept page actually made reference to Devon as comparable to Jesus. No lie. Unbelievably sad and rather pathetic that some people get suckered in like that.

Maybe this will be the elusive unicorn that saves everyone’s hair. But, i wouldn’t count on it. I think we can all see this train wreck coming from miles away…

14

LOL I know. thats why I hate forum trials… if I have to hear another “I think shedding stopped” “It may have maintined my hair” “I think there are new hairs by my hairline,but it could just be miniturizing hairs, I’m not sure”

15

Really well put Mr.Z. Jup, their technology does indeed spark little to no interest from the pharmaceutical industry. Not only that… They horribly failed with their funding for their insulin patch on indiegogo. They put much effort into a 1 million campaign but only managed to get in like 12K. That is on their target audience. Everyone who stands with both feet on the ground knows how terrible this is. Devon knows this, as he was clearly upset when I pointed him on that. Also, they said on facebook that they want to use follicept to fund their insulin patch.

It’s just one big joke. The studies from IGF-1 are so old. As if nobody tried delivering IGF-1 already! Off course many people did try this including doctors/scientists on humans. Who the hell wouldn’t… Why didn’t prometheon pharma actually immediately proceed with testing on humans after they saw these changes in mice? Why do they need to come on the forum?

So what is their only defense? Jup, their “magical” vehicle and the strange “pulse” therapy.

I actually wondered like you if they are playing a game or are just delusional. It might be the latter though. Dr. Hsu is a guy who didn’t leave the classroom for 50 years. Calls himself a hair biologist expert now and compares the fuzzy rat to an excellent model for androgenetic alopecia. Jup Dr. Hsu :-D!

Does he say that to be ambigious and mislead people? Or is he really delusional? It might be the latter.

This was the campaign btw; http://www.nopricks.com/;

-Are there other uses for this technology?
As a platform technology, there are many potential uses. So far we have data confirming that we can deliver insulin; human growth hormone; and IGF-1 both as a patch for hormone replacement therapy and as a gel to stimulate hair growth better than Rogaine.-

Dr. Hsu where is your evidence for such statements?

Let’s be honest here. It is far from easy to beat out minoxidil. In the history nothing comes close to minoxidil (aside from 17b-estradiol). Even replicel/histogen/bimatoprost can’t even come close to minoxidil currently. Far from it actually. But you Dr. Hsu? Yes you will just use IGF-1 with your magical vehicle!

Well it is clear to me. I think Dr. Hsu should return to the classroom to be the dreaming absent professor that he is. Good grades won’t make you a innovator Dr. Hsu.

Let’s see now if follicept will stimulate hair growth better than minoxidil ;-).