» Again, if it is generating a new follicle, I agree. But if it is
» rejuvenation, even in part, then hair counts do matter.
Rejuvenation can mean turning a follicle that’s not producing any visible hair, into a terminal hair producing one. This way hair counts can be of little significance even if HM is 100% rejuvenation.
» Current baldness
» treatments rejuvenate existing follicles. They don’t create new
» follicles. As has been stated by Intercytex (I think) HM is probably a
» combination of both. If HM can grow the same number of hairs in a
» completely bald area as one that already has a fair amount of hair, then
» that is amazing information. If it is harder to grow hair in a completely
» bald area, then that is not good news. But we don’t know which it is.
» Which is why hair counts are important.
It may be harder to grow hair in a completely bald area, but that’s not directly related to the number of hairs there. It’s due to the severity of the damage done by DHT, which is directly related to the amount of time that the area has been balding. Now, it so happens that areas that have been balding longer, have fewer hairs.
So even if there is some relationship between the number of current hairs, to the number of new hairs, to say that this person or that person can grow 40 more hairs because he has 20 already there, like a certain someone is saying, is not very meaningful.
» Not all of us are sitting around doing nothing for our hair. I have pretty
» damn good hair, with recessed temporal points-------
»
» I use finasteride, nizoral, prox-n, and a topical I make myself from
» peppermint oil/purified water (anti-androgen). Im also considering adding
» t-gel a couple of times a week. Ive kept what Ive had since about 01’ and
» indeed have darkened my hair and even thickened it up a tad (and it is
» thick).
»
»
» Diet and hair------------my uncles have full heads of hair in their
» fifties, are both overweight and eat fast food diets and dont excercise.
»
If you do not have the genetics and your hair is not getting trashed by DHT your diet will have much less effect, however diet DOES have a negative effect on hair overall, and taking these super hair vitamins makes a huge difference in overall hair health and it can cause a lot of regrowth in the EARLY stages of balding, however as the DHT accumulates it will become less and less effective
I noticed way more regrowth from the DHT blockers than the vitamins, but overall both helped immensely
If you dont think the hair vitamins would help, how do you know if you never tried it
»
» Hair is genetics, period. Very few men lose ALL of their hair in the back
» and at least have a wreath----this is where HM cells will be taken from,
» your “best” hair–if you stay on finas this hair certainly should not go.
»
»
»
»
» Hell, the HM test subjects only got one round of injectsand over
» time could go back and get more in addition to useful things like finas,
» peptides, nizoral, emu oils, etc. Future is bright for hair.
HM is still very unproven, ever seen pics, seen an interview of a test subject? nope, nobody has, well the ICX docs have but thats not us
I will believe it when i see it, until then im not getting overly excited
» HT moves
» » hair that’s already been exposed to DHT, while HM creates new hair
» that
» » hasn’t, so it can be preserved.
»
»
» FF- are you sure about this one? If this is true this would be the good
» news I have been looking for.
Well, by deductive reasoning, since HM creates newly hair producing follicles, when (if?) HM becomes available, that’s what it’ll do. But I’m no expert.
» » HT moves
» » » hair that’s already been exposed to DHT, while HM creates new hair
» » that
» » » hasn’t, so it can be preserved.
» »
» »
» » FF- are you sure about this one? If this is true this would be the good
» » news I have been looking for.
»
» Well, by deductive reasoning, since HM creates newly hair producing
» follicles, when (if?) HM becomes available, that’s what it’ll do. But I’m
» no expert.
I find the claim that they produce new hair follicles, to be a bit dubious
i would like to see proof of this
Actually, it’s quite meaningful. Knowing the efficacy of the treatment based on different treatment area conditions is very important. If their results say that it doesn’t work that well for people who have been totally bald for 20 years, I would say that is extremely meaningful. I have no idea if that is the case. Hopefully not. But that’s why it’s important to find out. And that’s why it is most definitely meaningful. We need to know.
» Actually, it’s quite meaningful. Knowing the efficacy of the treatment
» based on different treatment area conditions is very important. If their
» results say that it doesn’t work that well for people who have been
» totally bald for 20 years, I would say that is extremely meaningful. I
» have no idea if that is the case. Hopefully not. But that’s why it’s
» important to find out. And that’s why it is most definitely meaningful.
» We need to know.
if ICX knew they certainly are not telling us
I think they are lucky to get any regrowth, and they are hiding the specifics of the data, in order to keep everyone positive
» Actually, it’s quite meaningful. Knowing the efficacy of the treatment
» based on different treatment area conditions is very important. If their
» results say that it doesn’t work that well for people who have been
» totally bald for 20 years, I would say that is extremely meaningful. I
» have no idea if that is the case. Hopefully not. But that’s why it’s
» important to find out. And that’s why it is most definitely meaningful.
» We need to know.
Is this referring to my post? But I wasn’t talking about people who have been totally bald for 20 years. I was talking about correlating pretreatment hair counts with post treatment hair counts. So unless there is very strong direct correlation between the former and the latter in a TRC treatment, then there’s no conclusion we can draw from 5 people, and therefore it’s pretty much meaningless for this study. What if TRC is good at growing hair on totally bald scalp, which no other treatment is? Then we can’t even express hair growth in terms of percentage of preexisting hair. It’s a little bit like trying to talk about pre-existing hair counts when referring to hair transplants.
» Actually, it’s quite meaningful. Knowing the efficacy of the treatment
» based on different treatment area conditions is very important. If their
» results say that it doesn’t work that well for people who have been
» totally bald for 20 years, I would say that is extremely meaningful. I
» have no idea if that is the case. Hopefully not. But that’s why it’s
» important to find out. And that’s why it is most definitely meaningful.
» We need to know.
Also, my thought is that ICX does not need to figure out this particular aspect of HM before commercialization. HM only needs to work well for a segment of the population to be a viable commercial enterprise… sorry to be so cruel.
I was also talking about pre-treatment and post-treatment hair counts. If you have been slick bald for 20 years, your pre-treatment count would be zero, or maybe 2 or 3, depending on the size of the treatment area (so-called slick bald people often have a few straggler hairs). If you have been balding for less time, your pre-treatment count would be much higher.
Just for the sake of an example (it’s only an example. Not based on anything they are doing), let’s say the treatment area being treated would normally hold 500 hairs in a non-balding person. And lets say you treat a guy that’s slick bald and only has 1 or 2 hairs at most in this area. Another person you treat has 100 hairs in this area. Assuming each get the same number of injections, the final hair counts will give you a good idea on how well the treatment works in different types of balding areas. It’s possible that both will end up with 300 hairs in the area. Or maybe the slick bald guy ends up with 10 and the other guy ends up with 300. This is why it’s important to have pre and post treatment hair counts. Percentages don’t cut it.
At this point they are only treating a few patients. So the information they give can’t give you a complete picture of what is going on. You need a larger sample size for the information to have better meaning. But since this is all the people they are treating, they might as well give us the information that actually means more. And that is pre and post treatment hair counts, not percentages.
Fallacy #1) You claim the superiority of vitamins/topicals to HM.
Whether or not you are impressed with your own regimen of internals/topical cow dung, the fact of the matter is that this sort of combination has been very ineffective for the vast majority of balding individuals. I think alot of us have tried all sorts of supplements, meds and topicals with little success and that is why we have viewed HM with high hopes. Whether or not you claim that it is a pipedream is irrelevant. HM has been reported to cycle even back when Gho was pioneering the research, consistency has always been the issue and continues to be so. However, as JB has commented, even if the consistency issue wasn’t improved from its current state, there would be plenty of individuals who would undergo the procedure with repeat procedures to obtain the results desirable. There are all kinds of adjustements that can be made to the dosage protocol that could potentially improve the response. I don’t think anyone was expecting intercytex to knock the ball out of the park with the first report of phase II results. In many regards, the results are an astounding success, which will undoubtedly be built upon.
The fact that any amount of hair is being grown with injections that maintains the DHT resistant properties of the hair in terminal areas is a HUGE advantage over any lame-ass vellous, mild regrowth that needs to be maintained by committing to some whack internal/topical combination. You’ll likely refer to some cases in which a lot of decent, cosmetically acceptable hairgrowth was observed with topicals, etc., but that is not the norm for most, so compared to terminal, cosmetic quality hair that is being posed by HM, there is no comparison…even if booster injections are needed ten years down the line.
Some may have particular types of hairloss that is more responsive to your cow-dung regimens than others. The inconsistent results of topicals/internals also should be explained as to why some recipients respond better than others, or even moreso, what exactly in a multiple-approach regimen is resulting in benefit and to what degree. Why don’t you explain why so many do NOT respond to topicals/ingested agents…seems a bigger crapshoot to go for hair with minimal expectations, and that need to be maintained by continual usage of the product to boot. Your insistence to push your regimen is lame, outdated, and the emphasis of science lately toward cellular therapies confirms the direction that treatment, not only for hairloss, is going.
You claim that HM posters need to live their lives and quit waiting for a pipedream
How does an idiot that has obsessively posted on more than one forum insist that it is us that need to live our lives? All of us, including you, have been living our lives with hairloss. All of us have dealt with the condition in our own way, why is it you make patronizing statements directed at the psyche of forum members when it is obviously disingenuine. You’ve taken on some self-serving agenda to discredit HM. All of us can interpret the results of HM and speculate for ourselves as to how successful HM will be and what the rollout timeframe will likely consist of. You are free to be doubtful, but there is an entire lack of coherence demonstrated by your incessant ranting posts of scathing disbelief. You remind me of a religious fanatic and to what end? So that we would all downplay any of the progress or reports of HM? You remind me of someone who would continually chastise any achievement by NASA which brought us closer to the moon. You can’t deny the potential of HM even if you disagree with the optimism of most. You’ve more than made your point of skepticism…now shut your <>.
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.
