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

Hm how far away


#1

Perhaps this thread is in bad taste. . . I write it only because this sort of informstion will have an impact on the order of magnitude inasmuch as what I choose to do with my HT. I understand that no one here knows, but I wanted to get opinions from some of the more informed posters on this. Do you guys think 10 years is realistic or just pipe dreams? If I knew (or had good reason to think) HM would be a reality in 10 years that would significantly alter the course of action I take now. Does 10 years seem like a conservative estimate?


#2

…the forecast will be ready to answer your question


#3

» …the forecast will be ready to answer your question

What about Follica, still 5 years ?


#4

10 years seem pretty realistic to me …According to the data we have right now thats a bad case scenario for the industry…Of course there is the worst case scenario. Yet it seems realistic to me.


#5

Something that is substantially better then ht? If you are super lucky, then less then 5 years, if you are lucky then 5, but most probably longer then that.
throw a dice twice. if you get 12 together then it’s the superlucky, 10 or 11 is lucky, everything bellow means 5years or plus.


#6

Right now, we’re probably looking at HM either very soon or VERY far off, and nothing in between.

– There are basically two horses still in this race: Folica, and maybe Acell’s regrowth powder in some way.

We’ll know a lot more about both these options in a year or two. (I’m not saying these things will be on the commercial market by then, I’m just saying the researchers’ testing should be very progressed by then.)

– If Folica & Acell both fail, then I think it’s very realistic to say that nothing else is likely to work for another 10-20 years.

Any future totally new idea would almost surely demand the full clinical trials process before it can see the market. And that’s realistically a 10-year-long process, starting AFTER the researchers have already dreamed up a specific idea and convinced investors to fund the development of it.

Much of the disappointment about HM’s long wait comes from people not understanding the 10-year timeline for trials.

Medical research often involves telling VERY “optimistic” timelines to everyone, because if the researchers always told the truth then nobody would ever fund their work enough to get anything done.

The truth is that full clincal trials = minimum 7-10 years. Sometimes more. Often the trials aren’t finished and the work is abandoned.

(We’re only counting on Folica & Acell to happen any sooner than this because both F&A happen to be using all drugs that have already been FDA-approved in the past for other purposes. A very rare situation.)


#7

» Right now, we’re probably looking at HM either very soon or VERY far off,
» and nothing in between.
»
»
» – There are basically two horses still in this race: Folica, and maybe
» Acell’s regrowth powder in some way.
»
» We’ll know a lot more about both these options in a year or two. (I’m not
» saying these things will be on the commercial market by then, I’m just
» saying the researchers’ testing should be very progressed by then.)
»
»
»
»
» – If Folica & Acell both fail, then I think it’s very realistic to say
» that nothing else is likely to work for another 10-20 years.
»
» Any future totally new idea would almost surely demand the full clinical
» trials process before it can see the market. And that’s realistically a
» 10-year-long process, starting AFTER the researchers have already dreamed
» up a specific idea and convinced investors to fund the development of it.
»
»
»
»
»
» Much of the disappointment about HM’s long wait comes from people not
» understanding the 10-year timeline for trials.
»
» Medical research often involves telling VERY “optimistic” timelines to
» everyone, because if the researchers always told the truth then nobody
» would ever fund their work enough to get anything done.
»
» The truth is that full clincal trials = minimum 7-10 years. Sometimes
» more. Often the trials aren’t finished and the work is abandoned.
»
» (We’re only counting on Folica & Acell to happen any sooner than this
» because both F&A happen to be using all drugs that have already been
» FDA-approved in the past for other purposes. A very rare situation.)

How can anyone possibly predict what is going to happen in the next 10-20 years? We didn’t know anything about Follica a year ago and it may be a possibility in the next couple years, so even if it fails, how can we say that another company won’t come along and produce something in the next few years? There’s no way to make a prediction either way (that something will or won’t come out).

Why will it take a couple of years for Acell be tried for hairloss? It’s supposed to be released for human use later this year. Once it is released for human use, can’t it be utilized for hairloss? I spoke with the people at Acell and they seemed to think that it would be worth a try…and I didn’t get the impression that it would require any further regulatory testing to try it. Maybe I’m wrong about this? If I’m not, I would think that we would just have to find a HT doctor that is willing to use Acell during a HT (strip or FUE) and see what happens. I’ve already spoken with a couple of HT doctors that would be willing to try Acell when it is released for human use. (Although that was several months ago…so hopefully they haven’t changed their minds).


#8

fatalevolution and debris would be last people to pay attention to

both of them said TRC was dead after march’s results. Both of them were wrong because if trc was dead it would have been in the bin and not at a conference in Italy

The only people who said that TRC was alive was Nathan and 1 or 2 others and they were right.

As for the timeline no knows for real but they had the 24 weeks results for the pre stim group in dec. Now it’s been 48 weeks so they know what they are seeing and will disclose to us later.

Remember that they are looking for a commericial partner after phase 2 so I’m not sure why it would take 5 yrs for that. It might take 5 years to treat women though who knows.

read this

http://www.cosmeticsdesign-europe.com/news/ng.asp?n=85654-intercytex-baldness-hair-loss


#9

Willy, I don’t think you & I really disagree. I’ve just said “a year or two” about Acell & Follica as a general idea.

Folica is just starting their tests about now. Even just a couple of rounds of tests before they declare success, maybe waiting a few months to make sure the hair cycles right, there’s also usually a lag between when the researchers learn something and when the public hears about it . . .

And even if somebody tries Acell tomorrow . . . suppose it doesn’t grow hair right away, but it still does several months later (like a traditional HT usually does)? Then throw in a few months for the news to be confirmed & the implications to get around, etc.

As for my “10-20 years” comments, I stand by those.

Either the answer to HM is already on the pharmacy shelves right now as we speak and we’ve managed to totally miss it (like with Folica & Acell), or else it takes a bare minimum of a decade to get any new HM thing commercially sold because of the 3-trials process. It’s that simple.


#10

I’ve never said it’s dead. I said its most probably not going to deliver before 2013 and that likehood of failing / not making it to the market is very high. Thats something I consider valid still.

If you want to see whose right about follica then you’ll have to wait few years. I say its not going to deliver any time soon (missing 5 years mark or failing to fultfill expectations is very likely).

I rarely commented ACELL at all. That bit sounds very good. I’m still struggling to believe it. This actually is such a science fiction that if it is not a scam, then the probability of it working on hair is quite high in my opinion.


#11

» Much of the disappointment about HM’s long wait comes from people not
» understanding the 10-year timeline for trials.
»
» Medical research often involves telling VERY “optimistic” timelines to
» everyone, because if the researchers always told the truth then nobody
» would ever fund their work enough to get anything done.
»
» The truth is that full clincal trials = minimum 7-10 years. Sometimes
» more. Often the trials aren’t finished and the work is abandoned.

Please read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinical_trial#Length

From above link: “The biggest barrier to completing studies is the shortage of people who take part.” - We definitely don’t have any shortage of people willing to get on hairloss trials.

Also, as I mentioned in my reply to debris(I think) in another thread. Guys at FDA are NOT stupid. The trials are designed depending on the drugs/treatments and how they interact with human chemistry. It is true that for most oral drugs the trials are long, but the reason is that FDA wants to make sure that the drug is not causing any serious effects/changes in the body etc. Trials for other treatments lasers, topicals etc are also designed based on their mode of action, and they don’t necessarily have to be 10 years long.

Another thing, which I am considering btw, is that if any hairloss drugs makes it through phase-I & II with flying colors then you can possibly get on phase-III and sort-of get the drug/treatment before FDA approval.


#12

Honestly I would give Folica at least a 50/50 shot at working.

It looks to me like the question is mainly the immunosuppression issue. If we were clear that the mice’s immunosuppression wasn’t the causing factor for all that growth, then everything else about the Folica deal seems to make perfect sense to go as planned.

(Whereas with the ICX and other previous efforts, those operations were all likely to be still facing a long uphill battle after the first new hairs grew on humans. Good repeatable consistency & good cosmetic results were still looking years away at that point.)


#13

I agree that immune system is the main risk. I give it 10% chances of smooth pass in the human trials at the most. aditional 20% likehood of long and painful trials that bring something to us. and 70% chances of a failure for reasons like lack of efficiency or financial reasons.


#14

» I agree that immune system is the main risk. I give it 10% chances of
» smooth pass in the human trials at the most. aditional 20% likehood of long
» and painful trials that bring something to us. and 70% chances of a failure
» for reasons like lack of efficiency or financial reasons.

I used to worry about Follica/the immune system, but then I realized:
Your hair grows on your head all the time, your transplanted hair grows on your head as well. The point is it’s YOUR HAIR. Follica isn’t trying to grow a foreign structure on your head.

The Acell guy’s finger didn’t fall off after it regrew. I don’t see how this would be any different.

.


#15

Sorry but I think what you say is flawed.

It’s your immune system, your head, your skin, and still that immune system made you bald.

So if follica treatment creates new follicles, and these are balding follicles. I do expect immune system to switch into a rampage mode to kill it all before it even forms that damn follicle.

The difference is in the fact that it is balding follicles, the ones that express the genes, that your immune system does not like. This is imho the main reason why 99% of the succesfull mouse treatments do not work on humans.


#16

» Sorry but I think what you say is flawed.
»
» It’s your immune system, your head, your skin, and still that immune
» system made you bald.
»
» So if follica treatment creates new follicles, and these are balding
» follicles. I do expect immune system to switch into a rampage mode to kill
» it all before it even forms that damn follicle.
»
» The difference is in the fact that it is balding follicles, the ones that
» express the genes, that your immune system does not like. This is imho the
» main reason why 99% of the succesfull mouse treatments do not work on
» humans.

We’ll see I guess.

They expect their process to change the microenvironment of the skin around the new follicles. That should give them a fighting chance… and to repeat what benji said before: If the new hair is DHT susceptible than, at least, it will give most people a second chance to get on some regime.

.


#17

If you take a vellus (MPB-killed) hair off a man and implant it into the human skin/mouse deal, then it grows back to full terminal size.

Immunosuppression really could be the only thing making the human Follica hairs grow on the lab mice.

We just won’t know until there’s human testing. That’s all there is to it.


#18

» Perhaps this thread is in bad taste. . . I write it only because this sort
» of informstion will have an impact on the order of magnitude inasmuch as
» what I choose to do with my HT. I understand that no one here knows, but I
» wanted to get opinions from some of the more informed posters on this. Do
» you guys think 10 years is realistic or just pipe dreams? If I knew (or
» had good reason to think) HM would be a reality in 10 years that would
» significantly alter the course of action I take now. Does 10 years seem
» like a conservative estimate?

It’s amazing how fast things can change, a few months ago the focus was on Intercytex and Aderans, now nobody talks about these two anymore, instead the focus is on Follica and Acell.


#19

I actually thing this is not a case with follica.

They know it is new hair. As they were sure that the mouse did not have any follicles before the experiment.

So what I expect is that the experiment really does form new follicles. Unfortunately it is quite likely that immune system in humans will kill most of them before they even manage to get to any mature state.


#20

debris fatalevolution troyo and spanishdude said that trc was dead after hearing phase 2 results and they were wrong. So now we know that any further remarks from any of these hold no value and should be disregarded.

me, nathan gwulaw and the game all said it was good news and we were right :slight_smile: