Follica and Acell are basically the only HM projects that are real these days, and anything truly new in the future would almost surely face the 10-year clinical trials process.
If Follica hasn’t at least started the human testing within about a year (I didn’t say finished the testing by then, just started it), then I think in all likelyhood the procedure will end up commercially dead.
We’ll probably get an idea about Acell’s efficacy for follicle regeneration inside of a year from now too.
So the way I see it, either we will hear of a real working HM inside of 2 years or HM is a total write-off. If it’s not Follica or Acell in 2009 or 2010, then the next step forward (whatever it is) probably can’t hit the market until 2025 or beyond.
In a strange way, I’m actually kind of comforted by this. At least it will end the long drawn-out torture of “probably 5 years away” that the MPB world has been suffering through for the last twenty years or more.
These arguments are useless, HM could rise between one year or between 40 years, there are no plausible assessments about the time, everything can happen.
» These arguments are useless, HM could rise between one year or between 40
» years, there are no plausible assessments about the time, everything can
» happen.
yes, discussions like this are without sense, it’s only fantasy of people that suffer for a problem… use your time in different way, it’s better… hm could be here tomorrow, in 2 years, or never… nobody know when, so don’t speak about it, it’s only stupid speculations!
» » These arguments are useless, HM could rise between one year or between
» 40
» » years, there are no plausible assessments about the time, everything
» can
» » happen.
»
» yes, discussions like this are without sense, it’s only fantasy of people
» that suffer for a problem… use your time in different way, it’s
» better… hm could be here tomorrow, in 2 years, or never… nobody know
» when, so don’t speak about it, it’s only stupid speculations!
No, its completely spot on. The trial process alone necessitates at least a 5-7 year process for any new treatment that has progressed enough to earn a trial.
The cases of Follica & Acell (getting HM from already-approved substances) are rare.
In most cases it’ll take the full clinical trials to bring something new to market. And most clinical trials take most of a decade with no setbacks.
10 years to begin with.
And right now there’s essentially nothing coming down the long-term pike besides A&F, so the idea that it might take 5 years just to brew up a new potential HM method before going into trials is totally sensible IMO.
10 + 5 = 15 years.
Probably nothing will be started if they still think Acell or Follica might work, so that pushes the probable start-date to 2010.
» The cases of Follica & Acell (getting HM from already-approved substances)
» are rare.
»
»
»
» In most cases it’ll take the full clinical trials to bring something new
» to market. And most clinical trials take most of a decade with no
» setbacks.
»
» 10 years to begin with.
»
»
»
» And right now there’s essentially nothing coming down the long-term pike
» besides A&F, so the idea that it might take 5 years just to brew up a new
» potential HM method before going into trials is totally sensible IMO.
»
» 10 + 5 = 15 years.
»
»
»
» Probably nothing will be started if they still think Acell or Follica
» might work, so that pushes the probable start-date to 2010.
»
» 2010 + 15 = 2025
»
»
»
» :no:
I dont think (as far as I know) Acell is planning any trials for MPB ??? It will only become available for human use within the year (supposed to at least)…and it is us who are going to have to get a HT surgeon to try the Acell product to see if it can regenerate the donor areas
» I dont think (as far as I know) Acell is planning any trials for MPB ??? It
» will only become available for human use within the year (supposed to at
» least)…and it is us who are going to have to get a HT surgeon to try
» the Acell product to see if it can regenerate the donor areas
acell is expect to become avaiable in a less than a year, by the end of 2008
I would prefer your method (if it were permanent), but I think if the regrown hair wasnt from the donor region it would just minaturize and fall back out again…if Acell could regrow the donor area back…then a combination of Acell and transplants could give you your hair back permanetly…maybe both methods (yours and the donor regrowth method) would work and people could choose which they would want ???
I’m not arguing that dermabraded/Acelled skin is “safe and effective” as a general description. I just think it would be a lot safer and easier to try it on abraded skin than using Acell on open bleeding HT extraction wounds.
Follica and Cotsarelis believe that dermabrasion alone is a significant enough “wound” to regenerate follicles. I can’t see the logic for ignoring the possibility that Acell could work with nothing more than dermabrasion too.
It’s sensibly the first thing to test Acell for. Getting 10,000-30,000 FUE grafts transplanted over the course of several years is not a small operation. It’s not cheap, not quick, not easy, not consistent, and not without some surgical risk involved.
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.