| Home | News | Find a Doctor | Ask a Question | Free |
»» Very interesting, thank’s for this link baldie…
I knew I’d read it somewhere.It took some finding.I only browse Hairsite on a regular basis.I only ccassionally browse the other hair loss forums.
By the looks of it this Mick the patient co-ordinator posts on that forum quite regularly.
» Baldie, that interview is essentially the exact same interview,
» word-for-word, as an interview with Dr. Kemp that appeared here on
» HairSite well over a year ago. Maybe David can find the interview. I
» don’t remember the NHS coverage question being asked, but other than that,
» the wording is very similar – in fact, for the question about direction,
» it is practically 100% word-for-word the same, and JB and I have already
» discussed the possibility that when Dr. Kemp gave that answer in the
» original interview, he didn’t think about his answer before he gave it.
Yes maybe.I assume he’s only allowed to say on a public forum what Intercytex and the Farjo clinc want to be reported.They no longer give anything out - they just point to their website FAQ page.
Here is the interview from Intercytex’s site:
http://www.intercytex.com/icx/products/aesthetic/icxtrc/faqsicxtrc
Someone even posted this interview to Dr. Rassman’s BaldingBlog, and asked him about it, and in vitro cloning as well, all in the same question. These people really get around!
Here’s what Mick said:
“the future is about planting hairs produced out of cloned cells rather than simply planting cells. He added that this would potentially make growth and aesthetics far more predictable.”
This means that they have developed the technology. It doesn’t mean that it’s in clinical trials yet. And clinical trials are necessary for it to be commercialized.
There’s a lot of misunderstanding here. Just because Mick mentions they’ve devleloped it doesn’t mean it’ll be ready for commercialization any time soon.
Also, SPQR should note that Mick says, “the future is about planting hairs produced out of cloned cells rather than simply planting cells”.
Yes, that is the future.
Planting hairs produced out of cloned cells = the future.
Planting cells = TRC.
Planting hairs produced out of cloned cells is the FUTURE and will come AFTER TRC, because it is more advanced than TRC, was developed AFTER TRC WAS DEVELOPED, and has not gone into clinical trials yet.
» Here’s what Mick said:
»
» “the future is about planting hairs produced out of cloned cells rather
» than simply planting cells. He added that this would potentially make
» growth and aesthetics far more predictable.”
»
» This means that they have developed the technology. It doesn’t mean that
» it’s in clinical trials yet. And clinical trials are necessary for it to
» be commercialized.
»
» There’s a lot of misunderstanding here. Just because Mick mentions
» they’ve devleloped it doesn’t mean it’ll be ready for commercialization
» any time soon.
»
» Also, SPQR should note that Mick says, “the future is about planting
» hairs produced out of cloned cells rather than simply planting
» cells”.
»
» Yes, that is the future.
»
» Planting hairs produced out of cloned cells = the future.
»
» Planting cells = TRC.
»
» Planting hairs produced out of cloned cells is the FUTURE and will come
» AFTER TRC, because it is more advanced than TRC, was developed AFTER TRC
» WAS DEVELOPED, and has not gone into clinical trials yet.
»
Ok, if this is an official release or a statement of an expert that work inside i can believe this… i repeat, my was only opinions…
i’m waiting ofr hairs, the way for have this is indifferent…
» Next week 
END YOUR MOTHER TOMORROW:-D
I think the futur way is to cultivate hair in vitro and then transplaning them in the head later on.
It will be the same thing with big organs as lungs, hearts, livers, etc… They won’t inject cells in vivo to make a new heart, they will make it in vitro and change your old one with the new one.
Same thing apply with intercytex. Their first protocol will be basic as injecting cells in vivo but later on they’ll go as JTR said with making organ ( hair ) outside the body and transplanting them later on.
Enjoy…
Just fly-on-the-wall curiosity –
Compared to the eventual implantation of whole follicles, would the TRC cellular injection method pose any cosmetic downsides to the final results other than the lack of growth consistency? (hair direction, color, quality, etc.)
By an email to a friend, ICX says that the release of in vitro tech is indipendent by the release of TRC… and they don’t know now a possible date for this release… bye
» By an email to a friend, ICX says that the release of in vitro tech is
» indipendent by the release of TRC… and they don’t know now a possible
» date for this release… bye
Thanks. Yes, that’s true. The release of in vitro tech is totally separate from TRC and the release will be later.
I have two questions about the “in vitro” technology:
If ICX-TRC (the standard protocol, i.e. the one where cells are injected into the scalp) works by “rejuvenating” dormant follicles, then why would the “in vitro” technology be better? (Okay, okay, you don’t know exactly how many dormant follicles will be “rejuvenated” with ICX-TRC, whereas with the “in vitro” method you know exactly how many hairs you will put on a bald head, BUT: I have seen quite a few hair transplants, and NONE of them looked natural. The angle was always wrong, and I figure you’d have the same problem with the “in vitro” method. However, if you managed to rejuvenate dormant follicles it would look 100% natural.
Did they find a matrix to grow the hairs in? Dr. Washenik stated in an interview that this would be a problem:
Q: Is there any way they can grow the follicles in a lab so that when they do implant them they are partially developed so they are able to control the angle and direction of growth?
DR WASHENIK: I don’t see that. The reason I don’t think so is that incubator you need to grow the follicles from the progenitor cells is the human skin and you can’t quite reproduce that. You would have to find a matrix to grow it in.
Q: Can’t they grow it in cultured skin right now?
DR WASHENIK: The thing that cultured skin, or skin that’s been grown in a lab lacks now, are appendages like sweat glands, follicles, sebaceous glands etc. These are the appendages that go with skin and make it true human epidermis. The skin you are able to grow in a lab right now only contains keratinocytes. So you are right that that it could be done in this type of incubator, but before this can be done the skin has to resemble true human skin with all the appendages. So this would be great if it could happen and someone was able to develop lab-cultured skin like this.
» I have two questions about the “in vitro” technology:
»
» 1) If ICX-TRC (the standard protocol, i.e. the one where cells are
» injected into the scalp) works by “rejuvenating” dormant follicles, then
» why would the “in vitro” technology be better? (Okay, okay, you don’t know
» exactly how many dormant follicles will be “rejuvenated” with ICX-TRC,
» whereas with the “in vitro” method you know exactly how many hairs you
» will put on a bald head, BUT: I have seen quite a few hair transplants,
» and NONE of them looked natural. The angle was always wrong, and I figure
» you’d have the same problem with the “in vitro” method. However, if you
» managed to rejuvenate dormant follicles it would look 100% natural.
The goal of unlimited new follicles, or close to unlimited numbers of new follicles, has always been considered the “Holy Grail” of HM, and this, if anything else, must be understood as the fundamental end-point of HM research. This is what we have all been waiting for for many years.
The real reason you have seen hundreds of transplants that looked “wrong” had nothing, or very little, to do with the “angles” of the grafts. The real reason is that there were far too hairs transplanted for it to look natural, so that problems with “angles” stood out. Imagine now that the fundamental problem – that of density – is completely removed from the equation.
HT has a rightfully-deserved bad reputation all around, but I think we really have to ask ourselves the objective question, “why?” We need to separate our emotions, developed a over long time, about HT – seeing and hearing about untold horror stories and horrible examples of HT – from the real, objective causes of what we are seeing with our eyes.
The real reason all these HT jobs look so bad, is not poor angling, but terrible, meager density that magnifies any minor problem with angling and positioning. And if the plugs or grafts are positioned like hair on a doll’s head, it looks much worse, because then you have meager density together with horrible placement. But the fundamental problem is lack of density. As I said, it grossly magnifies any other problems, and may trick the eye (and the mind) into imagining that the problem is with the angles of the plugs. The truth of the matter is that our perceptions of these problems would be 95% wiped out if there was sufficient density in play, but no one’s ever seen such an example of HT, because thus far, it’s never really existed.
Granted, this in vitro HM is not here yet – that is, it hasn’t been subjected to trials yet, and that’ll obviously take a while. But, apparently, they now have a grasp on the technology!
I agree with everything you say, but it kinda misses the point I was trying to make. The point is this: Before I started losing my hair I had a full head of hair. In other words: If they can make all that hair regrow then I don’t NEED an unlimited number of new follicles. I would be quite happy just to re-grow all the hair I once had, and if they could do that by injecting some cells into my scalp I think it would probably look more natural than if they grew the follicles “in vitro” and then put it on my head.
True: The reason a conventional HT doesn’t look natural is that they cannot achieve the original density. However, I must point out that I’ve never seen an HT-hairline that looked natural, and you would have the same problem with “in vitro”-HM.
Maybe there’s going to be a combination of the two protocols: They inject some cells into our scalp, and where there’s insufficinet re-growth they “top it up” with “in vitro”-HM.
» I agree with everything you say, but it kinda misses the point I was trying
» to make. The point is this: Before I started losing my hair I had a full
» head of hair. In other words: If they can make all that hair regrow then I
» don’t NEED an unlimited number of new follicles. I would be quite happy
» just to re-grow all the hair I once had, and if they could do that by
» injecting some cells into my scalp I think it would probably look more
» natural than if they grew the follicles “in vitro” and then put it on my
» head.
News, if your view of TRC is that it’s a simple, wham-bam procedure where cells are injected and they just revive or rejuvenate all your old, miniaturized follicles, and it’s that simple, I think you have to revise your thinking.
The truth is that it’s more complicated than that, and Interctyex people like Dr. Kemp have said already that they do not yet understand fully how TRC works (at the cellular level) – in other words, they’re not sure if the “new” hairs are brand new follicles (i.e., follicular neogenesis), or existing miniaturized follicles that have been re-enlarged (“rejuvenation”.) They think that most likely, it’s a combination of both methods.
That’s right, I said it… they think it’s a COMBINATION OF BOTH METHODS. And this is a very reasonable assumption, in my view.
The truth is that if you had to rely just upon “rejuvenation”, I think the current generation of HM (like TRC) wouldn’t be very good, because the “batting average” or success rate of any given injection resulting in significant regrowth of existing, miniaturized follicles, wouldn’t be that great in many people.
I think it’s impossible to assume that, with current HM technology, you can have a situation where all you have to do is inject a bunch of cells and that’ll regrow all your existing, miniaturized follicles.
To grossly simplify this as an illustration, I think for most people, it will probably be a much more complicated situation like this:
You inject the cell suspension, and the donor cells interact with both the existing, miniaturized follicles, and the surrounding epidermis and underlying dermis.
SOME of your existing miniaturized follicles might respond favorably to the new cells, and regrow into big follicles with visible, terminal hairs. Other existing miniaturized follicles in or around the same areas, or in other areas, might not respond favorably, or might not respond at all. In any random sample of patients, you might get, say, a success rate (on a per-follicle basis) of perhaps 30%, o4 40%, or 50%. It might range from a success rate of 0% to near 100%, in fact, depending on the person, the area of the scalp, the duration of baldness, and a host of other factors. But I think that in most patients, the success rate of this “rejuvenation” process will be very far short of 100%. I think it will average nowhere near 100%.
However, combined with potential follicular neogenesis, plus repeat procedures, it may definitely be enough to result in a cosmetically acceptable head of hair.
On the follicular neogenesis (FN) side, you might get similar success rates, or “yields” , per injection. So, for instance, for every 10 injections, maybe 3 or 4 of them might result in BRAND NEW HAIR FOLLICLES (i.e., follicles which didn’t exist before).
My numbers and figures here are PURE SPECULATION. I am only presenting them to illustrate my point, i.e., that HM is likely to shake out as far more complicated than just a simple “one-to-one” process of rejuvenating all your old, miniaturized MPB follicles.
Instead, it’s likely to be a very complex combination of some rejuvenation of old follicles, with an average success rate of far less than 100% per injection, plus creation of brand new follicles (FN), also with an average success rate of far less than 100%.
These two simulaneous, or concurrent, processes, combined, plus the ability to do repeat treatments and thereby “up” the eventual yield, will, in my opinion, account for the success of this generation of HM, i.e., injection-based HM like TRC.
Yes i see also: most important is “ability to do repeat treatments”. If you have 20% 30% 50% response it deosnt matter you can repeat treatment and get more.
I wouldn’t think that regulatory approval for hair cloning would be as stringent, or even necessary for implanted “cloned” hairs. Since the incubus for the “cloning” or culturing, takes place in vitro. Eficacy would seem to be the only real issue here. Perhaps someone could enlighten me as to any health or safety issues regarding such a technique.
» News, if your view of TRC is that it’s a simple, wham-bam procedure where
» cells are injected and they just revive or rejuvenate all your old,
» miniaturized follicles, and it’s that simple, I think you have to revise
» your thinking.
I did not say it was going to be easy; in fact I did not comment on the likelyhood of the procedure being successful at all. I used the subjunctive: If they COULD regrow the hair I once had it WOULD look more natural than if they had to implant hair they regrew in vitro and implanted it.
I am well aware of the fact that HM isn’t going to an easy procedure. (In fact I don’t think that there is going to be a simple procedure to restore a full head of hair for many years to come.)
I am also aware that Intercytex’s current protocol is most likely a combination of rejuvenation and neogenesis. (I even mentioned this in a previous post.)
The only point I was trying to make was that it WOULD probably look more natural if they COULD regrow the hair I once had.
» I did not say it was going to be easy; in fact I did not comment on the
» likelyhood of the procedure being successful at all. I used the
» subjunctive: If they COULD regrow the hair I once had it WOULD look more
» natural than if they had to implant hair they regrew in vitro and
» implanted it.
Okay News, now I understand what you meant. I’m sorry, I misunderstood you. You are right, if (hypothetically) they could accomplish this 100% through rejuvenation of miniaturized follicles, yes, that would give perfect results as far as spacing and orientation are concerned.
| Home | News | Find a Doctor | Ask a Question | Terms of Use & Privacy |
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.