I would not call him a liar. He’s just an optimist. And optimists, by definition, are always too optimistic and thus wrong.
debris:
He’s just an optimist. And optimists, by
definition, are always too optimistic and thus wrong.
the same could be said about pessimists.
and nomatter how you slice it and dice it Dr Washenik is a liar. He’s the Executive VP of Scientific and Medical Development at Aderans. He’s privy to all their research, and research pitfalls, yet he goes about giving interviews… claimimg HM is just around the bloody corner. He’s one of the major reasons behind the resentment towards HM today.
.
“He’s the Executive VP of Scientific and Medical Development at Aderans. He’s privy to all their research, and research pitfalls, yet he goes about giving interviews… claimimg HM is just around the bloody corner. He’s one of the major reasons behind the resentment towards HM today.”
Thats precisely how I feel. I dont think Ken Washenik is a liar per se. He just was way overoptimistic about their ability to have a working procedure back in 2000 or so. He came out and said “five years” and all that jazz back then and many of us were expecting a working HM procedure by 2005-2006 because of that. At that time of the Deutch show appearance, Aderans wasn’t even in fucking phase one trials and we were all feeling shafted.
Washenik should have came out and said “hey, its been alot harder than we thought and although we are working on it, its going to be some more years as of yet”, but he didn’t. He actually came on TV and said perhaps as soon as 2009, WHEN THEY STILL WERENT EVEN IN HUMAN FUCKING TESTING. Obviously as an employee of Aderans he was doing this at the behest of upper management. Bosley wants you to think that HM is “about a decade away” for as long as possible while they aren’t sure about it so that you will get a Hair transplant in the meantime, confident in it becoming a reality. The truth is until we see at least a few trialees growing some fairly impressive hair, its best to assume that nothing is coming down the pike and that they are stuck.
Aderans has been fucking around with HM since about 2000 or so. Its been SEVERAL YEARS NOW. To be honest, each day that Aderans goes on with no good news, no hair growing on trialees…it actually makes me think they are banging their heads up against a goddamned wall over there in Atlanta and Philidelphia. One can make all the arguments about them waiting on ICX all they want, but Aderans stock and profits have been taking a beating here as of late, and since they own first dibs on ICX’s procedure, they have no real reason to ‘hold back’ what they have in research. I personally think they are probably running into thinnish, unsatisfactory results that ARE NOT improving with ensuing sessions. Body hair transplants for instance often dont get any better with second and third passes. One guy spent 128K and had less hair after the procedure, but hairsite removes his posts everytime he tries to show us his pictures immediately.
It will be ICX or Follica if there is to be anything in the near term. I think Aderans must be at least three years behind ICX. I’d love to be wrong about that, but dont think that I am.
» I just wish ICX would give us a clear answer on the question in the back of
» all our minds:
»
» Can’t the TRC procedure just be done repeatedly, over & over again in
» the same areas of the scalp, until we eventually accumulate enough
» regrowth to cosmetically restore most of our heads that way?
»
» All this cautioning about the “limited effectiveness of the first
» generation,” but never an answer to the simple question that immediately
» occurs after hearing it.
Go the icx website and read the FAQ about TRC, they say clearly that u can repeat the treatment!!
12. Would I need several treatments with ICX-TRC?
ICX-TRC will not stop the natural process of hair loss so what you might need is a series of “top-up” treatments over time so that a full head of hair could always be maintained as you continued to lose your own hair. We anticipate that only one small biopsy would be required at the start though as the cells would be cryopreserved and thawed as needed.
I would love to believe that the issue is really that cut and dried, but I don’t believe it yet. ICX has been uncomfortably quick to remind everyone that their first generation HM will be so limited.
If it was as simple as just repeating round after round of TRC until the head is finished, then I don’t understand why ICX would be banging the drum of “limited effectiveness” and “not a standaone procedure yet” so loudly all the time.
Just my opinion.
I wonder if maybe their first-gen TRC really is infinitely repeatable like we would assume, but the results of each round are just SO limited that they still want to strongly caution everyone not to expect much.
» I wonder if maybe their first-gen TRC really is infinitely repeatable like
» we would assume, but the results of each round are just SO
» limited that they still want to strongly caution everyone not to expect
» much.
My best guess is that not even ICX knows the exact limitations of TRC. They are still pretty early in the trials. For now, they are just trying to figure out how to improve the consistency. Later on they will probably do some experiments that involve multiple procedures in the same areas to see how much they can improve density.
Gho stated “the limitation of HM is not density because repeat procedures increase the density. The limitation of HM is consistency.” For instance, if you only get 5 hairs per 100 injections, there is not much point in getting 50 procedures at 10 grand a piece.
Thus, the key to ICX’ experiments is to increase the number of hairs that can be grown per 100 injections. It is imperative to get this treatment to the point where you get a lot of hair per treatment session. It needs to be roughly as consistent as HT and deliver better results. In terms of an emerging treatment, that is not asking for much, but in terms of science, the consistency requirement will be difficult to deliver.
If Intercytex have to alter there formula to create better growth,quality,would they have to undertake new safety trial
» » I wonder if maybe their first-gen TRC really is infinitely repeatable
» like
» » we would assume, but the results of each round are just
» SO
» » limited that they still want to strongly caution everyone not to expect
» » much.
»
» My best guess is that not even ICX knows the exact limitations of TRC.
» They are still pretty early in the trials. For now, they are just trying
» to figure out how to improve the consistency. Later on they will probably
» do some experiments that involve multiple procedures in the same areas to
» see how much they can improve density.
»
» Gho stated “the limitation of HM is not density because repeat procedures
» increase the density. The limitation of HM is consistency.” For instance,
» if you only get 5 hairs per 100 injections, there is not much point in
» getting 50 procedures at 10 grand a piece.
»
» Thus, the key to ICX’ experiments is to increase the number of hairs that
» can be grown per 100 injections. It is imperative to get this treatment to
» the point where you get a lot of hair per treatment session. It needs to be
» roughly as consistent as HT and deliver better results. In terms of an
» emerging treatment, that is not asking for much, but in terms of science,
» the consistency requirement will be difficult to deliver.
JB’s analysis makes perfect sense to me but maybe I have a slightly different interpretation of Gho’s statement : Gho said “the limitation of HM is not density because repeat procedures increase the density. The limitation of HM is consistency.” I interpret Gho’s statement as “The limitation of HM is” cost. Perhaps the reason Gho never offered cellular HM was because the cost of repeated HM procedures “manufactured” on a small scale of production was prohibitive. With inconsistent results this could mean very significant price differentials between two individuals trying to achieve similar outcomes. If ICX can “manufacture” “repeat procedures (which) increase the density” at a reasonable cost, then HM maybe a viable option, probably regardless of how many procedures (injection sessions) an individual requires. A significant lowering in cost may in part be possible via ICX’s automation of the processing of autologous cells by the $1.85m pound “robot” funded by the British government. But there must be more to it than just the “robot”, given this was a relatively late stage event in the evolution of the technology. Anyway, I agree with JB that it is “imperative to get this treatment to the point where you get a lot of hair per treatment session” but only from a cost lowering point of view. If the technology is proved, albeit inconsistent, but reasonably priced, there should be a substantial market in waiting.
ps : Half cut tonight so if this doesn’t make sense my apologies.
» » I wonder if maybe their first-gen TRC really is infinitely repeatable
» like
» » we would assume, but the results of each round are just
» SO
» » limited that they still want to strongly caution everyone not to expect
» » much.
»
» My best guess is that not even ICX knows the exact limitations of TRC.
» They are still pretty early in the trials. For now, they are just trying
» to figure out how to improve the consistency. Later on they will probably
» do some experiments that involve multiple procedures in the same areas to
» see how much they can improve density.
»
» Gho stated “the limitation of HM is not density because repeat procedures
» increase the density. The limitation of HM is consistency.” For instance,
» if you only get 5 hairs per 100 injections, there is not much point in
» getting 50 procedures at 10 grand a piece.
»
» Thus, the key to ICX’ experiments is to increase the number of hairs that
» can be grown per 100 injections. It is imperative to get this treatment to
» the point where you get a lot of hair per treatment session. It needs to be
» roughly as consistent as HT and deliver better results. In terms of an
» emerging treatment, that is not asking for much, but in terms of science,
» the consistency requirement will be difficult to deliver.
IIRC they are also experimenting with varying the amount of injections in the given area on this stage of trial also. I believe between 100 and 1000 injections in 1cm square.
» IIRC they are also experimenting with varying the amount of injections in
» the given area on this stage of trial also. I believe between 100 and 1000
» injections in 1cm square.
Hmmm…never heard of this before. From what I know, its 100 injections in a completely bald area of 1 sq-cm and 900 injections in a larger thinning area.
» » IIRC they are also experimenting with varying the amount of injections
» in
» » the given area on this stage of trial also. I believe between 100 and
» 1000
» » injections in 1cm square.
»
» Hmmm…never heard of this before. From what I know, its 100 injections in
» a completely bald area of 1 sq-cm and 900 injections in a larger thinning
» area.
Totally wrong their patient information stated 100 injections in 1cm square and upto 900 injections made more randomly in thinning areas,this information came off the patient information sheet sent to me 18 months ago.I never got on trials before you ask!
» » » IIRC they are also experimenting with varying the amount of injections
» » in
» » » the given area on this stage of trial also. I believe between 100 and
» » 1000
» » » injections in 1cm square.
» »
» » Hmmm…never heard of this before. From what I know, its 100 injections
» in
» » a completely bald area of 1 sq-cm and 900 injections in a larger
» thinning
» » area.
»
» Totally wrong their patient information stated 100 injections in 1cm
» square and upto 900 injections made more randomly in thinning areas,this
» information came off the patient information sheet sent to me 18 months
» ago.I never got on trials before you ask!
oops my bad, sorry.
I agree that consistency is a major issue that needs to be progressed until some kind of reliable dollar-value can be maintained.
But even so, it would really be nice if somebody from ICX would jusst clear the air for us. Just grab a microphone during a big press conference and say,
“And for those of you who are wondering, YES, you could theoretically get all your lost hair back just from TRC treatments if you were willing to throw enough money at it. We have advanced far enough to know that.”