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

In perspective: Minoxidil increases haircount by 37% (average result)


#1

so, those of you who are very happy with the idea that ARI could increase haircounts by 20%, look: Minoxidil 5% does increase haircounts by 37% on average (at 8 months):

Results

One study in healthy males aged 18–50 years with androgenic alopecia (male pattern baldness) found that compared to a baseline of 103 to 106 hairs/cm2, those who applied a 5% solution of minoxidil for 32 weeks increased their non-vellus hair counts by an average of 39 hairs/cm2, in contrast to 5 hairs/cm2 in subjects who received a placebo.[5]
<<<

Conclusion:

  1. When ARI includes Minoxidil in the trials, they will totally mess-up results obtained by cells alone.
  2. ARI have posted a photo with 79% hair increase (terminals)at 3 months. This is probably best case, not average case. So Minoxidil very well could achive best cases like that one.

#2

I tried minoxidil for a year (every day) and my regrowth was 0%, so if the HM procedure will give me back 20% each time I do the procedure (which is repeatable I guess) I should be happy


#3

» so, those of you who are very happy with the idea that ARI could increase
» haircounts by 20%, look: Minoxidil 5% does increase haircounts by 37% on
» average (at 8 months):
»
» http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minoxidil
»
» >>>
» Results
»
» One study in healthy males aged 18–50 years with androgenic alopecia (male
» pattern baldness) found that compared to a baseline of 103 to 106
» hairs/cm2, those who applied a 5% solution of minoxidil for 32 weeks
» increased their non-vellus hair counts by an average of 39 hairs/cm2, in
» contrast to 5 hairs/cm2 in subjects who received a placebo.[5]
» <<<
»
» Conclusion:
» 1. When ARI includes Minoxidil in the trials, they will totally mess-up
» results obtained by cells alone.
» 2. ARI have posted a photo with 79% hair increase (terminals)at 3 months.
» This is probably best case, not average case. So Minoxidil very well could
» achive best cases like that one.

I don’t think minoxidil does a thing for someone who is slick bald.

Will ARI grow hair on someone who is slick bald?


#4

If ARI can get a 20% yield consistently, its a major success. A 3000 unit FUE can achieve some pretty good results for all but the completely bald, and an ARI treatment (if it works) would deliver at least that much hair if not much more. If its competitive in cost (say $10k or less), it would be a commercial hit.


#5

» If ARI can get a 20% yield consistently, its a major success. A 3000 unit
» FUE can achieve some pretty good results for all but the completely bald,
» and an ARI treatment (if it works) would deliver at least that much hair if
» not much more. If its competitive in cost (say $10k or less), it would be
» a commercial hit.

Even if we hate each other you are absolutely right, couldnt have said it better with my own words.

@ Spanish Dude : Hairsite, Hairsite…its party time Excellent


#6

If another topical drug came out with a 20% yield, we wouldn’t be standing around saying, “Who cares? I can get 20% already with Minoxidil.” We would be ecstatic that there was a way to get another 20% on top of the Minox gains. We would be thrilled at another way to do ANYTHING against the MPB problem.

ARI could probably go commericial with as little as 10% yield and still do okay with it. Our other options are zilch. And a 10% consistent yield will produce enough occasional great transformations to get the sales pitch done.


#7

» If another topical drug came out with a 20% yield, we wouldn’t be standing
» around saying, “Who cares? I can get 20% already with Minoxidil.” We
» would be ecstatic that there was a way to get another 20% on top of the
» Minox gains. We would be thrilled at another way to do ANYTHING against
» the MPB problem.
»
»
» ARI could probably go commericial with as little as 10% yield and still do
» okay with it. Our other options are zilch. And a 10% consistent yield
» will produce enough occasional great transformations to get the sales pitch
» done.

I suppose the basic question is if it can produce one follicle it should be possible to produce 100,000 as it is the same basic principle. Unfortunately this does not seem to be the case and i’m nowhere near qualified enough to speculate why. However what I will say is that I also think that a 10% increase is huge. If we take a full density head of hair to be 100,000 hairs and ARI can produce 10 to 15% of that your talkin a figure of around 15000 hairs. Now take Histogen if at best it can only produce the same a figure of around 15000 hairs. For arguements sake lets say thomas whitfield also produces the same. Add this to a HT of between 7000 and 10000 grafts and a patient could have a return of 65% of original density. I would argue that 65% would give more than just an illusion of full coverage it would restore a very full natural looking head of hair. My point is we are all waiting for this silver bullet cure when the case maybe that a number of treatments will do the trick for us. I know that there are also cost implications to this but for now to say that there is something out there would be a huge plus


#8

» However what I will say is that I also
» think that a 10% increase is huge. If we take a full density head of hair
» to be 100,000 hairs and ARI can produce 10 to 15% of that your talkin a
» figure of around 15000 hairs.

  1. Note that a balding man doesn’t have 100.000 hairs. The “typical baldie” has around 30.000, most of it in the donor area. 10% of 30.000 is just 3000.

  2. Note that this 10% yield we are talking about is in the recipient area, not the donor. The recipient area has little hair, so 10% of little hair is even less hair. If the recipient, balding area has 10000 hairs, we would get just 1000 extra hairs.
    Another chance is to inject in the donor area, hoping that this 10% still applies, and thus, getting better multiplication. but how do you know that this will happen? The donor area is already saturated with hair, and you probably can’t increase that amount.
    Thats why you don’t apply Minox to the donor areas.


#9

You are dumb as sht i cannot believe this.
Even complete NW7 People have 100.000 hairs but they are sleeping or do you stupid as
hole think that the follicles are gone forever? You are retarded.

The 10% regrow is actually from the complete area and so to speak will equals arounfd 5000 grafts, cause the measurement we have to consider is GRAFTS and not single hairs.

So the average person has around 50.000 Grafts and and therefore 10% are 5000 Grafts which is a real good increase casue you can keep your diffuse pattern plus you geht 5000 additional Grafts which means if you go for an HT you can at first make your frontal area dense, not in an illusional way, in a real way and for ypur vertex area you can use concealer and try HM on this some time later.

Ok you moron 10% of something will always be 10%. So lets say you have diffuse pattern and only 10.000 grafts left, then 10 % is 1000 Grafts.

Ok please tell us once and for all, are you handicapped? Its a serious menat question, do you have some deficies?


#10

Leeroy, I wonder what is your mission in this world. I see you are a terribly confused person. And it seems you try to confuse others.

When we talk about “hair increase” (fe. Minoxidil increases haircount 37%), this is referred to the terminal hairs, not the “sleeping hairs”.
For example, if you have 100 terminal hairs in a certain area, Minox will give you 37 extra terminal hairs. Statistics are done this way.

» You are dumb as sht i cannot believe this.
» Even complete NW7 People have 100.000 hairs but they are sleeping or do
» you stupid as
hole think that the follicles are gone forever? You are
» retarded.
»
» The 10% regrow is actually from the complete area and so to speak will
» equals arounfd 5000 grafts, cause the measurement we have to consider is
» GRAFTS and not single hairs.
»
» So the average person has around 50.000 Grafts and and therefore 10% are
» 5000 Grafts which is a real good increase casue you can keep your diffuse
» pattern plus you geht 5000 additional Grafts which means if you go for an
» HT you can at first make your frontal area dense, not in an illusional way,
» in a real way and for ypur vertex area you can use concealer and try HM on
» this some time later.
»
» Ok you moron 10% of something will always be 10%. So lets say you have
» diffuse pattern and only 10.000 grafts left, then 10 % is 1000 Grafts.
»
» Ok please tell us once and for all, are you handicapped? Its a serious
» menat question, do you have some deficies?


#11

» Leeroy, I wonder what is your mission in this world. I see you are a
» terribly confused person. And it seems you try to confuse others.
»
» When we talk about “hair increase” (fe. Minoxidil increases haircount
» 37%), this is referred to the terminal hairs, not the “sleeping hairs”.
» For example, if you have 100 terminal hairs in a certain area, Minox will
» give you 37 extra terminal hairs. Statistics are done this way.
»
» » You are dumb as sht i cannot believe this.
» » Even complete NW7 People have 100.000 hairs but they are sleeping or do
» » you stupid as
hole think that the follicles are gone forever? You are
» » retarded.
» »
» » The 10% regrow is actually from the complete area and so to speak will
» » equals arounfd 5000 grafts, cause the measurement we have to consider
» is
» » GRAFTS and not single hairs.
» »
» » So the average person has around 50.000 Grafts and and therefore 10%
» are
» » 5000 Grafts which is a real good increase casue you can keep your
» diffuse
» » pattern plus you geht 5000 additional Grafts which means if you go for
» an
» » HT you can at first make your frontal area dense, not in an illusional
» way,
» » in a real way and for ypur vertex area you can use concealer and try HM
» on
» » this some time later.
» »
» » Ok you moron 10% of something will always be 10%. So lets say you have
» » diffuse pattern and only 10.000 grafts left, then 10 % is 1000 Grafts.
» »
» » Ok please tell us once and for all, are you handicapped? Its a serious
» » menat question, do you have some deficies?

I think you both suck and should stop spamming this forum with your arguments.

On another note, I don’t think any of us have a clue what protocol Aderans is following in their clinical trials. They could be using Minoxidil for all kinds of different reasons. Any conclusion posted on this forum about why ARI is using Minox is just a shot in the dark. We just plain don’t know.

Likewise, there is no way we can know the average yield of ARI’s procedure because ARI doesn’t even know it yet. They have currently only completed part one of a four-pronged approach:

Washenik said in a recent press conference that they expect increasing efficacy from each trial. Also note on the Gantt Chart that they plan to commercialize Ji Gami CN. Not any of the others. I think it is way too early for anyone on hairsite to draw conclusions.


#12

»


» Also note on the Gantt Chart that they plan to
» commercialize Ji Gami CN. Not any of the others. I think it is
» way too early for anyone on hairsite to draw conclusions.

Cool. Seems you’re the only one, who is relating to facts. And fact is, that it is not only for anyone on HairSite way too early to draw any accurate conclusions, it’s far to early for ARI itself.

So all interested people can do is waiting either for any PR releases OR any infomation by any trail subjects. Hopefully we hear something by Dr. Ken Washenik in October in Boston (ISHRS meeting). But actually not even there he is able to give any accurate trail data, because it’s way to early. But I think by the end of the year we will know something more accurate about how the different Ji Gami’s are working. But according to the Gantt Chart, not even until then.


#13

» »
»


» » Also note on the Gantt Chart that they plan to
» » commercialize Ji Gami CN. Not any of the others. I think it is
» » way too early for anyone on hairsite to draw conclusions.
»
» Cool. Seems you’re the only one, who is relating to facts. And fact is,
» that it is not only for anyone on HairSite way too early to draw any
» accurate conclusions, it’s far to early for ARI itself.
»
» So all interested people can do is waiting either for any PR releases OR
» any infomation by any trail subjects. Hopefully we hear something by Dr.
» Ken Washenik in October in Boston (ISHRS meeting). But actually not even
» there he is able to give any accurate trail data, because it’s way to
» early. But I think by the end of the year we will know something more
» accurate about how the different Ji Gami’s are working. But according to
» the Gantt Chart, not even until then.

Iron_Man you think there will be any chance to understand by the end of this year how many chance we have to see (in the future) the product just hit the market? I mean, I don’t care if will be in 2013, 2014, 2015… but just I want to understand how many chance (in term of percentage) they have both aderans and/or histogen to hit the market or completely FAIL… I have a nightmare which is they works for years and then they just disappears :stuck_out_tongue:

by now I think that understand this is impossible because of not much info we have


#14

Your attitude really poisons this forum Leeroy.

Even when you are in the wrong you go ahead and use foul language and insult others…
OF COURSE the 10% refers to the remaining hairs or do you think the scientists examine childhood photos to assess how many hairs you had as a youngster? How would such an assessment even be possible. You obviously have been misinterpreting every study if that is what you believed.

I could now go ahead and call you a stupid as*hole and stuff like that… but as i have the ability to control my temper, i am able to conduct civil discussion… a trait you seem to be lacking.

my favorite sentence however is this

» Ok please tell us once and for all, are you handicapped? Its a serious
» menat question, do you have some deficies?

lol its full of mistakes and non existing words… absolutely hilarious


#15

O RLY. Spanish Dude is poisoning this forum with his stupid one sentence related toppics and its frustrating. I dondt know how many times i saw this Simpsons Homer as Elvis CHart because Spanish Dude is pulling another stunt full with assumptions.

Is Rogaine really giving you back 37% of hairs, good lord i will start with this today

» Your attitude really poisons this forum Leeroy.
»
» Even when you are in the wrong you go ahead and use foul language and
» insult others…
» OF COURSE the 10% refers to the remaining hairs or do you think the
» scientists examine childhood photos to assess how many hairs you had as a
» youngster? How would such an assessment even be possible. You obviously
» have been misinterpreting every study if that is what you believed.
»
» I could now go ahead and call you a stupid as*hole and stuff like that…
» but as i have the ability to control my temper, i am able to conduct civil
» discussion… a trait you seem to be lacking.
»
» my favorite sentence however is this
»
» » Ok please tell us once and for all, are you handicapped? Its a serious
» » menat question, do you have some deficies?
»
» lol its full of mistakes and non existing words… absolutely hilarious


#16

Leeroy and Iron_Man both use the same tactic.
When they ran out of arguments, they start posting nonsense to confuse the readers. Its a “smoke screen” tactic.

» Is Rogaine really giving you back 37% of hairs, good lord i will start
» with this today

37% of existing terminal hairs, and of course, in a balding area.
Not 37% of “native, miniaturized, invisible hairs”.


#17

the figure of a 100,000 hairs is based on a common assumption that everyone is born with 100,000 hairs. some may have 80 others may have 150,000 it is just an an average takin for arguements sake. Also my point was that when it becomes a finished product not based on the test amounts that they have been using in th trial. They have also be using this on a 3 x 3 inch test area, if and when they use it on an entire scalp and it works to restore both minitureised and velus hair and promote growth of dormont follicles then this is what I mean by restoring 10 to 15%. I have based it it on a finished product used on the entire scalp. With regards to the rogaine i really have no clue why they use that so its pointless me speculating


#18

A typical “full density appearance” transplant is gonna represent barely half the original # of hairs. The clinic will give you 50-65% of what was originally there, and if you’re lucky then the majority of those grafts will actually survive. (I personally do not believe the kinds of figures that are commonly preached in the HT industry. Strip graft survival is bad enough, but then we even get FUE clinics throwing around numbers like 97% survival . . . no way.)

So how does 10-15% compare to 50-60%? About a quarter as much of it.

So hypothetically, if you had enough donor grafts to cover 75% of your balding area with full-looking density, then you would be able to complete the job if you had Aderans delivering another 10-15% growth from the whole balding area.

This is not exactly the end of MPB as we know it, but it’s progress. Real, measurable, usable, progress.

And I personally think this is probably the least amount of hair that ARI is likely to provide. This is talking about if the procedure works to the bare miniumum at all, and we’re not assuming any repeat-session compounding ability whatsoever.


#19

» A typical “full density appearance” transplant is gonna represent barely
» half the original # of hairs. The clinic will give you 50-65% of what was
» originally there, and if you’re lucky then the majority of those grafts
» will actually survive. (I personally do not believe the kinds of figures
» that are commonly preached in the HT industry. Strip graft survival is bad
» enough, but then we even get FUE clinics throwing around numbers like 97%
» survival . . . no way.)
»
»
» So how does 10-15% compare to 50-60%? About a quarter as much of it.
»
» So hypothetically, if you had enough donor grafts to cover 75% of your
» balding area with full-looking density, then you would be able to complete
» the job if you had Aderans delivering another 10-15% growth from the whole
» balding area.
»
» This is not exactly the end of MPB as we know it, but it’s progress.
» Real, measurable, usable, progress.
»
» And I personally think this is probably the least amount of hair that ARI
» is likely to provide. This is talking about if the procedure works to the
» bare miniumum at all, and we’re not assuming any repeat-session compounding
» ability whatsoever.

Thats my point and throw Histogen into the mix if they can come up with something it could be a case that these 3 treatments can provide 1 strong overall treatment, not cure, but treatment that will prove very beneficial.


#20

» » A typical “full density appearance” transplant is gonna represent barely
» » half the original # of hairs. The clinic will give you 50-65% of what
» was
» » originally there, and if you’re lucky then the majority of those grafts
» » will actually survive. (I personally do not believe the kinds of
» figures
» » that are commonly preached in the HT industry. Strip graft survival is
» bad
» » enough, but then we even get FUE clinics throwing around numbers like
» 97%
» » survival . . . no way.)
» »
» »
» » So how does 10-15% compare to 50-60%? About a quarter as much of it.
» »
» » So hypothetically, if you had enough donor grafts to cover 75% of your
» » balding area with full-looking density, then you would be able to
» complete
» » the job if you had Aderans delivering another 10-15% growth from the
» whole
» » balding area.
» »
» » This is not exactly the end of MPB as we know it, but it’s progress.
» » Real, measurable, usable, progress.
» »
» » And I personally think this is probably the least amount of hair that
» ARI
» » is likely to provide. This is talking about if the procedure works to
» the
» » bare miniumum at all, and we’re not assuming any repeat-session
» compounding
» » ability whatsoever.
»
» Thats my point and throw Histogen into the mix if they can come up with
» something it could be a case that these 3 treatments can provide 1 strong
» overall treatment, not cure, but treatment that will prove very beneficial.

So you guys assume, that just with ARI’s and/or Histogen’s approaches ALONE, you will NOT get such results as the people in this video?

You think, you (e.g. NW4 - NW6-7 candidates) would need traditional hair transplants in addition?