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

Hopefully Vavelta won\'t be like Isolagen


#1

See links


#2

» See links
»
» http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=478158&in_page_id=1766&ito=1490

“It is too early to say if there will be any long-term side-effects such as bloating or disfigurement, which could take years to emerge, according to the British Association of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons.”

“Already, lip implants culled from cadavers in the U.S. are available in London and “placenta shampoo” (harvested from a selection of new mothers in the U.S.) and anti-wrinkle gel containing an ingredient from the foreskin of a circumcised baby - the tissue cells of which were replicated in a laboratory - can be purchased with a few clicks of a computer mouse.”

“It was a humiliating process. I was shuffled from room to room having needles poked into me and people taking photographs of me. To make matters worse, my face swelled hugely and it was very painful. I couldn’t bite down on food properly for a week after the injections.”

"Reassured, I had the cell sample taken. Twelve weeks later it was reinjected into my face and neck. I suffered from bad swelling and couldn’t return home for three days. When I did, I was devastated to see no difference at all.

"My dentist was really understanding. He said that his wife hadn’t noticed a difference either and he had contacted Isolagen. They had said that occasional cases do not respond.

“I knew then I’d been the victim of hype.”

Douglas McGeorge, president of the British Association of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons, described Isolagen’s claims that it ‘rejuvenated’ the skin as ‘nonsense’ and said the product was ‘completely oversold’. He said it was no more than ‘an expensive biological filler’ used to plump out wrinkles.

But it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that clinics, and not just the men behind Isolagen, failed women like Julie, Julia, Josephine and Patricia, who says: "What they did to me and everyone else who spent good money on this useless treatment, was sell false dreams.

“They preyed on the vulnerable and lonely. I am angry and upset and to be honest - even if I do get my money back, it won’t take away from how cheated I feel.”

huuu …???

now are you ready for HM people !!!..?

:slight_smile:


#3

» See links
»
» http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=478158&in_page_id=1766&ito=1490

After reading this article, I see your point. I do share in your concern since Intercytex has used Isolagen as a way of gaining credibility by stating that this company was able to employ this type of cellular base treatment safely and effectively.

Intercytex’s product is slightly different. Research shows that using infant cells, cellular activity doesn’t drop off dramatically like it would by using the patients own cells; hence, the inherent problem with Isolagens treatment. However, Isolagen has damaged consumer confidence so why would Intercytex make associations with Isolagen?

How does this apply to HM? This product efficacy and its regulation are supposedly closely related to ICX-TRC so what happens with this product basically foreshadows what’s to come with ICX-TRC.

We have to evaluate the company as a whole.


#4

» » See links
» »
» »
» http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=478158&in_page_id=1766&ito=1490
»
» “It is too early to say if there will be any long-term side-effects such
» as bloating or disfigurement, which could take years to emerge, according
» to the British Association of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons.”
»
» “Already, lip implants culled from cadavers in the U.S. are available in
» London and “placenta shampoo” (harvested from a selection of new mothers
» in the U.S.) and anti-wrinkle gel containing an ingredient from the
» foreskin of a circumcised baby - the tissue cells of which were replicated
» in a laboratory - can be purchased with a few clicks of a computer mouse.”
»
» “It was a humiliating process. I was shuffled from room to room having
» needles poked into me and people taking photographs of me. To make matters
» worse, my face swelled hugely and it was very painful. I couldn’t bite down
» on food properly for a week after the injections.”
»
» "Reassured, I had the cell sample taken. Twelve weeks later it was
» reinjected into my face and neck. I suffered from bad swelling and
» couldn’t return home for three days. When I did, I was devastated to see
» no difference at all.
»
» "My dentist was really understanding. He said that his wife hadn’t noticed
» a difference either and he had contacted Isolagen. They had said that
» occasional cases do not respond.
»
» “I knew then I’d been the victim of hype.”
»
» Douglas McGeorge, president of the British Association of Aesthetic
» Plastic Surgeons, described Isolagen’s claims that it ‘rejuvenated’ the
» skin as ‘nonsense’ and said the product was ‘completely oversold’. He said
» it was no more than ‘an expensive biological filler’ used to plump out
» wrinkles.
»
» But it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that clinics, and not just the
» men behind Isolagen, failed women like Julie, Julia, Josephine and
» Patricia, who says: "What they did to me and everyone else who spent good
» money on this useless treatment, was sell false dreams.
»
» “They preyed on the vulnerable and lonely. I am angry and upset and to be
» honest - even if I do get my money back, it won’t take away from how
» cheated I feel.”
»
»
» huuu …???
»
» now are you ready for HM people !!!..?
»
» :slight_smile:

That’s my point dude??? Are you ready for the famous and marvellous cell therapy !!!:slight_smile:

People in this board will tell you, oh HM is different from Isolagen. Yeah right, they multiply your cell and inject back to you. And they will tell you that 6 people is enough statistically due to placebo effect. Weren’t any placebo effect for Isolagen, as fas as I know, wrinkle doesn’t dissapear by itself…


#5

» See links
»
» http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=478158&in_page_id=1766&ito=1490

Yeah, so the treatment is not consistent. Thus, some people see benefit and others don’t. This was shown to be the case in their phaseIII trials and is known to be the bane of cell therapy treatments. Dr. Gho also experienced inconsistent results. The difference is that he refused to release it as a treatment because he was smart enough to know that if he did, the people who didn’t respond would put together class action lawsuits and inspire newspaper articles like in the link.

IMO, the people that forked out the money should have researched cell therapy and this treatment before they went under the syringe. Too bad for them that they were too lazy to do that. I say, instead of giving them their money back. Make them sweep the shop floors at Isolagen for 80 hrs. Then call it even.

Dr. Gho’s prophecy of the long line of whiners who pay money but don’t respond turns out to be 100% accurate. I expect no difference even from the 25% of people who respond poorly to HM when it is first rolled out. Here is a tip. You (speaking figuratively; not you personally :)) are not paying for hair. You are paying for a procedure that has a chance of giving you hair. It costs the clinic the same to perform the procedure whether you respond or not. Why should the clinic give anybody a free roll of the dice. Casinos don’t give you your money back after your cards come up wrong :slight_smile:


#6

simple solution, when HM comes out if you’re worried about not responding, don’t try and get a full head of hair all at once. ge a small session and if that responds well then go back for more. even though HM may be a type of hairloss solution doesn’t mean it will be flawless in everyone. i think that’s why they’ve been saying it should be used with an HT initially.

once HM is released some people are expecting a miracle.


#7

» IMO, the people that forked out the money should have researched cell
» therapy and this treatment before they went under the syringe. Too bad for
» them that they were too lazy to do that. I say, instead of giving them
» their money back. Make them sweep the shop floors at Isolagen for 80 hrs.
» Then call it even.

Sorry JB - in my eyes you just lost a lot of credibility.


#8

never mind


#9

»
» IMO, the people that forked out the money should have researched cell
» therapy and this treatment before they went under the syringe. Too bad for
» them that they were too lazy to do that. I say, instead of giving them
» their money back. Make them sweep the shop floors at Isolagen for 80 hrs.
» Then call it even.
»

Sounds like you’re saying the consumers should have known better? By the same token, shouldn’t the manufacturer have known better? (About getting slapped with a class action suit after they put out a product they knew didn’t work). According to you, Gho knew better, so he didn’t release his procedure. What’s the maker of Isolagen’s excuse?

What I find disturbing is that your reasoning suggests it’s ok to take advantage of other human beings who are less capable or less informed, and then simply dealing with the consequence after the money has already traded hands.

Is this the kind of person you are, JamesBond?


#10

ESP, I think that James Bond has stock in isolagen. I do. So of course I wan the stock to go up. But I do not want people/customers mistreated. And i think the stock is going to go up anyway, despite “some” nonresponders and/or poor responders. You see, there are nonresponders and poor responders in all these cosmetic treatments/cures. Even facelifts have their failures and poor outcomes. Since I think that eventually my stock will pay off I’m not worried about being fair with customers. Keep that in mind when I ask the following question:

Why should people/customers be refunded when a treatment doesn’t work on them? I’ve tried many hairloss treatments and some did not work on me. Should I get back all the money I’ve spent on minoxidil over the years because it didnt work on me? Everyone knows that minoxidil doesn’t work on some people, but nonresponders do not get their money back, do they. Finaterirde didn’t work on me so should I get back all the money I spent on finasteride? Are you being refunded for the money you spent on hairloss treatments that didn’t work on you?

Why is it that nonresponders should be refunded only when it comes to isolagen? Why not minoxidil? Why not finasteride? Why not all these other treatments? Why should just isolagen patients be refunded?

I’m sure you’ve used hairloss treatments that didn’t work such as minoxidil. When these treatments didn’t work, did you get your money back? If not, then why would you think that you should get your money back if isolagen didn’t work on you? You don’t expect refunds for nonresponding when you use other treatments so why would you expect a refund when you use isolagen?

I don’t get it??? The companies that make minoxidil and finasteride don’t have to refund nonresponders so are you saying that the companies that make minoxidil and finasteride have more rights than the company that makes the isolagen process? Is there some point I’m missing here?

» »
» » IMO, the people that forked out the money should have researched cell
» » therapy and this treatment before they went under the syringe. Too bad
» for
» » them that they were too lazy to do that. I say, instead of giving them
» » their money back. Make them sweep the shop floors at Isolagen for 80
» hrs.
» » Then call it even.
» »
»
»
» Sounds like you’re saying the consumers should have known better? By the
» same token, shouldn’t the manufacturer have known better? (About getting
» slapped with a class action suit after they put out a product they knew
» didn’t work). According to you, Gho knew better, so he didn’t release his
» procedure. What’s the maker of Isolagen’s excuse?
»
» What I find disturbing is that your reasoning suggests it’s ok to take
» advantage of other human beings who are less capable or less informed, and
» then simply dealing with the consequence after the money has already traded
» hands.
»
» Is this the kind of person you are, JamesBond?


#11

It is not just the bane of cell therapy treatments. Minoxidil doesn’t work on everyone and minoxidil-nonresponders don’t get their money back. Finasteride doesn’t work on everybody and finasteride-nonresponders don’t get their money back. Why is it that only in the case of isolagen nonresponders should get their money back? I don’t understand that.

Of course, patients should be told that the isolagen process doesn’t work on everyone. Since isolagen is more expensive than minoxidl and finasteride it will hurt sales if patients are told that the process doesn’t work on everyone, but the patients should still be told. Also, prior to doing the big treatments they could do a small area as a test to see if a patient responds or not.

»
» Yeah, so the treatment is not consistent. Thus, some people see benefit
» and others don’t. This was shown to be the case in their phaseIII trials
» and is known to be the bane of cell therapy treatments. Dr. Gho also
» experienced inconsistent results. The difference is that he refused to
» release it as a treatment because he was smart enough to know that if he
» did, the people who didn’t respond would put together class action
» lawsuits and inspire newspaper articles like in the link.
»
» IMO, the people that forked out the money should have researched cell
» therapy and this treatment before they went under the syringe. Too bad for
» them that they were too lazy to do that. I say, instead of giving them
» their money back. Make them sweep the shop floors at Isolagen for 80 hrs.
» Then call it even.
»
» Dr. Gho’s prophecy of the long line of whiners who pay money but don’t
» respond turns out to be 100% accurate. I expect no difference even from
» the 25% of people who respond poorly to HM when it is first rolled out.
» Here is a tip. You (speaking figuratively; not you personally :)) are not
» paying for hair. You are paying for a procedure that has a chance of
» giving you hair. It costs the clinic the same to perform the procedure
» whether you respond or not. Why should the clinic give anybody a free roll
» of the dice. Casinos don’t give you your money back after your cards come
» up wrong :slight_smile:


#12

»
» Why should people/customers be refunded when a treatment doesn’t work on
» them? I’ve tried many hairloss treatments and some did not work on me.
» Should I get back all the money I’ve spent on minoxidil over the years
» because it didnt work on me? Everyone knows that minoxidil doesn’t work
» on some people, but nonresponders do not get their money back, do they.
» Finaterirde didn’t work on me so should I get back all the money I spent
» on finasteride? Are you being refunded for the money you spent on
» hairloss treatments that didn’t work on you?

» Why is it that nonresponders should be refunded only when it comes to
» isolagen? Why not minoxidil? Why not finasteride? Why not all these
» other treatments? Why should just isolagen patients be refunded?

This is not a fair comparison. Isolagen is not intended for day to day use, like minox or propecia, over an extended period of time (years). This distinction is important because people who use minox or propecia are spending a little bit of money over a long period of time instead of a ton of money at one time (up front). This allows them to judge how effective the daily treatment is and decide if it’s worth continuing and spending the big money over the long haul to keep it working. This is not an option for consumers of products like Isolagen, which isn’t intended to be used regularly over time, but costs a lot of money (again, up front).

Example. Today, you can spend only $50 to buy enough minox to see if it it’s worth it over, say 3-4 months. Isolagen = thousands of $$ up front, and then you wait to see if the representations made by the seller turn out to be accurate.

»
» I’m sure you’ve used hairloss treatments that didn’t work such as
» minoxidil. When these treatments didn’t work, did you get your money
» back? If not, then why would you think that you should get your money
» back if isolagen didn’t work on you? You don’t expect refunds for
» nonresponding when you use other treatments so why would you expect a
» refund when you use isolagen?
»

Your painting with too broad of a brush here. See what I wrote above regarding minox and the like. On the other hand, if HM didn’t work for a consumer who didn’t know any better and that consumer was misled (by the seller) into believing that it would work for him (and decided to get the procedure based those representations), then hell yes, I absolutely think they should get their money back.

And getting more to the point, I sure as hell don’t think consumers should be forced to mop the floors at a clinic for wanting to get their money back, just because they are less intelligent or more naive than those of us who knew better, as was suggested by James Bond. This was the main point of my prior post.

» I don’t get it??? The companies that make minoxidil and finasteride
» don’t have to refund nonresponders so are you saying that the companies
» that make minoxidil and finasteride have more rights than the company that
» makes the isolagen process? Is there some point I’m missing here?
»

Yes. It is inhumane to take advantage of fellow human beings by misleading them and taking their money by promising something that won’t be delivered. This is especially true if you are preying upon desires which stem from a weakness they wish to overcome (eg., being overweight, bald, poor, etc.) regardless of whether they should have known better.

If it’s ok for a company to operate this way, then it’s equally ok for lawyers to sue them.


#13

» » See links
» »
» »
» http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=478158&in_page_id=1766&ito=1490
»
» Yeah, so the treatment is not consistent. Thus, some people see benefit
» and others don’t. This was shown to be the case in their phaseIII trials
» and is known to be the bane of cell therapy treatments. Dr. Gho also
» experienced inconsistent results. The difference is that he refused to
» release it as a treatment because he was smart enough to know that if he
» did, the people who didn’t respond would put together class action
» lawsuits and inspire newspaper articles like in the link.
»
» IMO, the people that forked out the money should have researched cell
» therapy and this treatment before they went under the syringe. Too bad for
» them that they were too lazy to do that. I say, instead of giving them
» their money back. Make them sweep the shop floors at Isolagen for 80 hrs.
» Then call it even.
»
» Dr. Gho’s prophecy of the long line of whiners who pay money but don’t
» respond turns out to be 100% accurate. I expect no difference even from
» the 25% of people who respond poorly to HM when it is first rolled out.
» Here is a tip. You (speaking figuratively; not you personally :)) are not
» paying for hair. You are paying for a procedure that has a chance of
» giving you hair. It costs the clinic the same to perform the procedure
» whether you respond or not. Why should the clinic give anybody a free roll
» of the dice. Casinos don’t give you your money back after your cards come
» up wrong :slight_smile:

actually what really worries me the most are the statements made in the article relative to health issues. The article Frankhair1 posted clearly underlines the total lack of efficiency of the MHRA vs FDA regarding safety, and quality/efficiency of the products being tested in the area of tissue engineering. Statements like this :

“It is too early to say if there will be any long-term side-effects such as bloating or disfigurement, which could take years to emerge, according to the British Association of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons.”

“my face swelled hugely and it was very painful. I couldn’t bite down on food properly for a week after the injections.”

…sound not too much reassuring to me. I don’t now if they are relevant though, but i will think twice before i shall take the jump on hm, if i ever have (or offer me) a chance to take it.

» Dr. Gho’s prophecy of the long line of whiners who pay money but don’t
» respond turns out to be 100% accurate. I expect no difference even from the
» 25% of people who respond poorly to HM when it is first rolled out. Here is » a tip. You (speaking figuratively; not you personally :)) are not paying for
» hair. You are paying for a procedure that has a chance of giving you hair.
» It costs the clinic the same to perform the procedure whether you respond or
» not. Why should the clinic give anybody a free roll of the dice. Casinos
» don’t give you your money back after your cards come up wrong :slight_smile:

There’s one little detail you omitted : casinos offer you a chance to win, whereas Isolagen (for the sake of example) guarantees the customer to win the lottery. That makes quite a huge difference to me : casinos offer you chances to fool yourself, vs Isolagen seemed to have taken the opportunity to fool the customers.


#14

» » » See links
» » »
» » »
» »
» http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=478158&in_page_id=1766&ito=1490
» »
» » Yeah, so the treatment is not consistent. Thus, some people see benefit
» » and others don’t. This was shown to be the case in their phaseIII
» trials
» » and is known to be the bane of cell therapy treatments. Dr. Gho also
» » experienced inconsistent results. The difference is that he refused to
» » release it as a treatment because he was smart enough to know that if
» he
» » did, the people who didn’t respond would put together class action
» » lawsuits and inspire newspaper articles like in the link.
» »
» » IMO, the people that forked out the money should have researched cell
» » therapy and this treatment before they went under the syringe. Too bad
» for
» » them that they were too lazy to do that. I say, instead of giving them
» » their money back. Make them sweep the shop floors at Isolagen for 80
» hrs.
» » Then call it even.
» »
» » Dr. Gho’s prophecy of the long line of whiners who pay money but don’t
» » respond turns out to be 100% accurate. I expect no difference even from
» » the 25% of people who respond poorly to HM when it is first rolled out.
» » Here is a tip. You (speaking figuratively; not you personally :)) are
» not
» » paying for hair. You are paying for a procedure that has a chance of
» » giving you hair. It costs the clinic the same to perform the procedure
» » whether you respond or not. Why should the clinic give anybody a free
» roll
» » of the dice. Casinos don’t give you your money back after your cards
» come
» » up wrong :slight_smile:
»
» actually what really worries me the most are the statements made in the
» article relative to health issues. The article Frankhair1 posted clearly
» underlines the total lack of efficiency of the MHRA vs FDA regarding
» safety, and quality/efficiency of the products being tested in the area of
» tissue engineering. Statements like this :
»
» “It is too early to say if there will be any long-term side-effects such
» as bloating or disfigurement, which could take years to emerge, according
» to the British Association of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons.”
»
» “my face swelled hugely and it was very painful. I couldn’t bite down on
» food properly for a week after the injections.”
»
» …sound not too much reassuring to me. I don’t now if they are relevant
» though, but i will think twice before i shall take the jump on hm, if i
» ever have (or offer me) a chance to take it.
»
» » Dr. Gho’s prophecy of the long line of whiners who pay money but don’t
» » respond turns out to be 100% accurate. I expect no difference even from
» the
» » 25% of people who respond poorly to HM when it is first rolled out. Here
» is » a tip. You (speaking figuratively; not you personally :)) are not
» paying for
» » hair. You are paying for a procedure that has a chance of giving you
» hair.
» » It costs the clinic the same to perform the procedure whether you
» respond or
» » not. Why should the clinic give anybody a free roll of the dice. Casinos
»
» » don’t give you your money back after your cards come up wrong :slight_smile:
»
» There’s one little detail you omitted : casinos offer you a chance
» to win, whereas Isolagen (for the sake of example) guarantees the
» customer to win the lottery. That makes quite a huge difference to me :
» casinos offer you chances to fool yourself, vs Isolagen seemed to have
» taken the opportunity to fool the customers.

FatalEvolution, you got the point. The MHRA is way too soft compared to the FDA. Imagine, even the FDA with their tough process have to withdraw some drug out of the market. Think about it, the MHRA allows ICX to release their Vavelta after testing it on around 20 people at the most, isn’t it crazy???

People here are so desesperate to get hair, they would do anything. I think we need a lot of data before to get into the boat.

I totally disagree when people compars Isolagen with minox and they say minox doesn’t work either on everybody. Hey, minox cost 30$ and Isolagen cost 5000$ dollars. You’ll change your mind when you will have spent 20000$ on HM and you won’t see a damn hair on your head because you are not a responder…


#15

I read your response and you said the things I suspected that you were going to say. On some issues I think you have valid points, but on other issues I don’t think you have valid points. Let me explain:

Yes, you are correct that isolagen (the entire process) is more expensive than minoxidil or finasteride. That point is valid. But I do not think that this really makes any difference. The point is that the makers of minoxidil and the makers of finasteride get money from bald people for hairloss products that do not work on many people, and we all know it. These nonresponders are not entitled to refunds. The fact that isolagen costs more money should not be relevant because the point is that something is either compensable or it is not. There has to be a civil law/code in order for someone to collect compensation for being a nonresponder, and if there is such a law then all of us who minoxidil and finasteride did not work on, well, we should get our money back, and so should everyone else that minoxidil and finasteride did not work on. It doesn’t seem right that there should be a law that says that only the people who buy isolagen are guaranteed success or their money back, but other drug companies do not have to guarantee success. What kind of shit is that?

Also, of course if isolagen lied to customers then that is different. I think that if the company, and I mean any company, gives you the truth and that truth includes that there is a possibility that the treatment won’t work on you because the treatment doesn’t work on some people, then the company should not have to refund nonresponders. However, I agree with you that if the company misrepresents that the product will “definitely” work on the patient or that the product “works on everybody so don’t worry that it might not work on you” well then that is fraud/misrepresentation and the company should have to refund nonresponders. But since the patients signed waivers it doesn’t seem possible that the patient wasn’t informed truthfully. If the patient is handed a disclaimer to sign (it is her responsibility to read it, not the doctor’s responsibility to read it to her) and so she reads it, and it tells her that there is a chance the procedure won’t work on her, and then she signs it, and the treatment doesn’t work on her, well, I don’t think she should get a refund. She knowingly took a chance. But then that one lady took the doctor to small claims court in England and got 4,000. If she signed a waiver then I think it’s unjust that she got a refund. If she didn’t sign a waiver then it is just that she got a refund. It all gets down to whether or not she was informed that the procedure could fail and the only way to be sure of that is if the doctor has a signed waiver or not. If the doctor does have a signed waiver then I think he should win, if he doesn’t then I think he should lose. If she won even though the doctor had a waiver signed by her then that is sad.

» »
» » Why should people/customers be refunded when a treatment doesn’t work
» on
» » them? I’ve tried many hairloss treatments and some did not work on me.
»
» » Should I get back all the money I’ve spent on minoxidil over the years
» » because it didnt work on me? Everyone knows that minoxidil doesn’t
» work
» » on some people, but nonresponders do not get their money back, do they.
»
» » Finaterirde didn’t work on me so should I get back all the money I
» spent
» » on finasteride? Are you being refunded for the money you spent on
» » hairloss treatments that didn’t work on you?
»
» » Why is it that nonresponders should be refunded only when it comes to
» » isolagen? Why not minoxidil? Why not finasteride? Why not all these
» » other treatments? Why should just isolagen patients be refunded?
»
»
» This is not a fair comparison. Isolagen is not intended for day to day
» use, like minox or propecia, over an extended period of time (years).
» This distinction is important because people who use minox or propecia are
» spending a little bit of money over a long period of time instead of a ton
» of money at one time (up front). This allows them to judge how effective
» the daily treatment is and decide if it’s worth continuing and spending
» the big money over the long haul to keep it working. This is not an
» option for consumers of products like Isolagen, which isn’t intended to be
» used regularly over time, but costs a lot of money (again, up front).
»
»
» Example. Today, you can spend only $50 to buy enough minox to see if it
» it’s worth it over, say 3-4 months. Isolagen = thousands of $$ up front,
» and then you wait to see if the representations made by the seller turn
» out to be accurate.
»
» »
» » I’m sure you’ve used hairloss treatments that didn’t work such as
» » minoxidil. When these treatments didn’t work, did you get your money
» » back? If not, then why would you think that you should get your money
» » back if isolagen didn’t work on you? You don’t expect refunds for
» » nonresponding when you use other treatments so why would you expect a
» » refund when you use isolagen?
» »
»
» Your painting with too broad of a brush here. See what I wrote above
» regarding minox and the like. On the other hand, if HM didn’t work
» for a consumer who didn’t know any better and that consumer was misled (by
» the seller) into believing that it would work for him (and decided to get
» the procedure based those representations), then hell yes, I absolutely
» think they should get their money back.
»
» And getting more to the point, I sure as hell don’t think consumers should
» be forced to mop the floors at a clinic for wanting to get their money
» back, just because they are less intelligent or more naive than those of
» us who knew better, as was suggested by James Bond. This was the main
» point of my prior post.
»
»
» » I don’t get it??? The companies that make minoxidil and finasteride
» » don’t have to refund nonresponders so are you saying that the companies
» » that make minoxidil and finasteride have more rights than the company
» that
» » makes the isolagen process? Is there some point I’m missing here?
» »
»
» Yes. It is inhumane to take advantage of fellow human beings by
» misleading them and taking their money by promising something that won’t
» be delivered. This is especially true if you are preying upon desires
» which stem from a weakness they wish to overcome (eg., being overweight,
» bald, poor, etc.) regardless of whether they should have known better.
»
» If it’s ok for a company to operate this way, then it’s equally ok for
» lawyers to sue them.


#16

Yea isolagen is more expensive, but that is not the point. The point is that nonresponders are entitled to a refund or they are not. There has to be a law to base compensation on. For example, I don’t think it’s nice of my neighbor to be a little impolite to me and it bothers me, but there is no law that allows me to collect compensation from my neighbor for being a little impolite to me. If there is a law against that then I can get compensation for it, and such a law would apply to everyone. All persons, not just me, could collect compensation from their neighbors all across the country if their neighbors were a little impolite to them. That is how the law is supposed to work. So if isolagen has to refund nonresponders then so do all the other companies, including the makers of minoxidil and finasteride. Either there is a law allowing compensation or there isn’t, and if there is then it applies to all consumers and all companies. The law can’t single out isolagen and apply just to isolagen.

Now, if isolagen is making promises that aren’t true then that is totally different. If isolagen is guaranteeing success then the nonresponders deserve a refund. If isolagen is not informing patients that some people don’t respond to isolagen treatment and it might not work on a patient, then isolagen should have to refund nonresponders because in cases like that isolgen isn’t giving full disclosure or is involved in misrepresentation.

But if someone is told up front that there is a chance that it won’t work because it doesn’t work on everybody and if isolagen isn’t guaranteeing success then I don’t isolagen should have to refund nonresponders.

Also, they could easily do a small cheap test area first to see if a person will respond to treatment or not before doing the large expensive treatment area. That would weed out some of the nonresponders cheaply.

»
» FatalEvolution, you got the point. The MHRA is way too soft compared to
» the FDA. Imagine, even the FDA with their tough process have to withdraw
» some drug out of the market. Think about it, the MHRA allows ICX to
» release their Vavelta after testing it on around 20 people at the most,
» isn’t it crazy???
»
» People here are so desesperate to get hair, they would do anything. I
» think we need a lot of data before to get into the boat.
»
» I totally disagree when people compars Isolagen with minox and they say
» minox doesn’t work either on everybody. Hey, minox cost 30$ and Isolagen
» cost 5000$ dollars. You’ll change your mind when you will have spent
» 20000$ on HM and you won’t see a damn hair on your head because you are
» not a responder…


#17

» I read your response and you said the things I suspected that you were
» going to say. On one issue I think you have a valid point, but on another
» issue I don’t think you have a valid point. Let me explain:
»
» Yes, you are correct that isolagen (the entire process) is more expensive
» than minoxidil or finasteride. That point is valid. But I do not think
» that this really makes any difference. The point is that the makers of
» minoxidil and the makers of finasteride get money from bald people for
» hairloss products that do not work on many people, and we all know it.
» These nonresponders are not entitled to refunds. The fact that isolagen
» costs more money should not be relevant because the point is that
» something is either compensable or it is not. There has to be a civil
» law/code in order for someone to collect compensation for being a
» nonresponder, and if there is such a law then all of us who minoxidil and
» finasteride did not work on, well, we should get our money back, and so
» should everyone else that minoxidil and finasteride did not work on. It
» doesn’t seem right that there should be a law that says that only the
» people who buy isolagen are guaranteed success or their money back, but
» other drug companies do not have to guarantee success. What kind of shit
» is that?
»

Well, that wasn’t exactly my point, but close. Minox and finesteride are used daily and paid for on a regular, consistent basis (say, monthly, as to opposed to full pay up front, like Isolagen). This permits a user of minox or finesteride to see how well he is responding to treatment during the early phase of treatment and then determine whether it’s effective and worth continuing, before he’s several thousand dollars into the treatment. If a consumer elects to continue using minox or finesteride after a long time (even if its not effective), then it’s his own fault for blowing his money. But at least he had the option of discontinuing treatment and saving his money if the treatment proved ineffective. This option doesn’t exist for Isolagen. Consumers pay for it, then hope it works, based on representations of the manufacturer.

Which leads me to another point. Minox and finesteride (at least in the U.S.) were pretty straight up about how effective they were. T.V. and magazine advertisements for Rogaine, indicated that a certain percentage of people were expected to respond very well–“dense” regrowth; another percentage were expected to have “moderate” regrowth; and yet another percentage were expected to have just “some” regrowth. They also indicated that it would be more effective in younger, newly thinning men than in older guys who had been bald for a long time. These ads were not misleading to consumers. The U. S. AMA is very picky about what they let companies say in their advertisements about medical products, so as not to mislead.

» Also, well of course if isolagen lied to customers then that is different.
» I think that if the company, and I mean any company, gives you the truth
» and that truth includes that there is a possibility that the treatment
» won’t work on you because the treatment doesn’t work on some people, then
» the company should not have to refund nonresponders. However, I agree
» with you that if the company misrepresents that the product will
» “definitely” work on the patient or that the product “works on everybody
» so don’t worry that it might not work on you” well then that is
» fraud/misrepresentation and the company should have to compensate the
» patient. But since the patients signed waivers it doesn’t seem possible
» that the patient wasn’t informaed the truth. If the patient is handed a
» disclaimer to sign (it is her responsibility to read it, not the doctor’s
» responsibility to read it to her) and so she reads it, and it tells her
» that there is a chance the procedure won’t work on her, and then she signs
» it, and the treatment doesn’t work on her, well, I don’t think she should
» get a refund. She knowingly took a chance. But then that one lady took
» the doctor to small claims court in England and got 4,000. If she signed
» a waiver then I think it’s unjust that she got a refund. If she didn’t
» sign a waiver then it is just that she got a refund. It all gets down to
» whether or not she was informed that the procedure could fail and the only
» way to be sure of that is if the doctor has a signed waiver or not. If the
» doctor does have a signed waiver then I think he should win, if he doesn’t
» then I think he should lose. If she won even though the doctor had a
» signed waiver then that is sad.
»

Generally speaking, what you say is true. But not 100% of the time. A waiver has to be knowingly and voluntarily entered into, and must be in writing. This involves subjective elements, which are not always easy to prove from a legal stand point. Quick and basic example: Say a disclaimer clearly provides that 25% of patients showed no improvement after undergoing a given cosmetic procedure. That disclaimer is acknowledged and signed by a 55 year old woman who then pays for the procedure and doesn’t respond at all. She then learns that of the 25% who didn’t respond, every single one of those non-resonders was over the age of 35. She didn’t know this when she signed the disclaimer, but does now. Could she really have appreciated the chance of failure when she underwent the procedure? By extension, was the waiver really knowingly entered into?


#18

»
» actually what really worries me the most are the statements made in the
» article relative to health issues. The article Frankhair1 posted clearly
» underlines the total lack of efficiency of the MHRA vs FDA regarding
» safety, and quality/efficiency of the products being tested in the area of
» tissue engineering. Statements like this :
»
» “It is too early to say if there will be any long-term side-effects such
» as bloating or disfigurement, which could take years to emerge, according
» to the British Association of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons.”

Give me a break! They’re injecting your own cells back into you. There isn’t going to be any long term problems.

»
» “my face swelled hugely and it was very painful. I couldn’t bite down on
» food properly for a week after the injections.”

This lady is partly motivated to say this type of stuff because she wants to get money back. Also, here judgement about what a huge swelling she had is a subjective judgement. If you had seen her swelling you might have viewed it as a little swelling. When I got a needle stuck into me for routing liver biopsy I signed a disclosure statement that warned me that there could be swelling at the puncture site. Whoopty doo! When a needle is stuck into you sometimes there is a little swelling. I think that lady is exagerating when she says huge. She gives the impression that her face swelled up like a baseball or something. Give me a break! Also, perhaps there was a little excessive swelling in her case but that could be the result of the doctor injecting it in the wrong place/depth. Also, as far as pain goes, I get a blood draw and it bothers me a little, but there are some people who get really pained by a simple blood draw. Some people pass out. This lady might be a bit of a nervous nelly type who is overeacting.