If we really want to make some contribution, I propose the U of Penn dermatology department… specifically Follica. I, like Benji, really don’t understand why this technology isn’t getting the hype that ICX was getting. IMO ICX is like beating a dead horse.
After reading… no wading through the patent for Follica, it seems the only reason for a long period of trials is… which wnt protein will inhibit the signaling of HF(hair follicle) creation or neogenesis. By wounding the epidermis a precursor cell such as epidermal stem cells, dermal papilla cells, epithelial cells, etc. must be activated.
The key here is getting the right protein be it nucleotide encoding an EGF protein or EGF receptor to inhibit all this cell activity by means of some sort of b-catena protein or encoding a Hedgehog protein(??? WTF do I know).
I know this is just a brief synopsis but the point here is I think this will work and the science creates brand new HF. If we pour our efforts ($$$) into this technology maybe at least we can bring it to market sooner than “5 years”.
I would support Follica as long as we could have some direct and regular correspondence with them then…I really dont care much if we could buy in as stockholders or not…I would be donating my money more to just hopefully help a promising company and to get some honest answers about their progress, potential for hair regrowth and timeline for release…the only downside to donating the money is once we do, its gone, whereas with stock, we could pull out if things dont show promise and have (some) of or money to back someone else again…and there would be no return on a donation, but like I said…I dont think we are here to make money…I think most of us be estatic to get our hair back
From my point of view, Follica sounds more interesting and legit than ICX and ARI united, but we’ll probably have to wait ages before we hear it has some cancer issues like Curis and will never reach the market, too bad
» » Anybody know why follica are taking so long to start their trials?
»
»
» From what I gather, they are starting trials this year. There is even a
» link on their website where you can volunteer as a trialist.
Another reason is that the science behind Follica has never been shown to work on a human. Yes, the human skin on mouse thing. I know. But that’s not a human.
The science behind Intercytex has been shown to work on humans. For over 10 years actually. Which is why there was more hype to it. Unfortunately every person that has attempted this route always comes up against the roadblock of consistency of results. And of course that makes Intercytex pretty much useless at this point. And unless they can overcome the consistency issues, there’s no point in getting excited about it anymore.
Once Follica has been tried in humans, and there are good results, then it might be time to look into it. Many things held as much, if not more, promise than Follica, only to fail once it was tried on actual humans.
I’m not saying that will happen with Follica. I don’t know. Nobody does. It could be the greatest thing ever. But I personally am not getting too excited about anything until I see some results that are worth getting excited about.
» Another reason is that the science behind Follica has never been shown to
» work on a human. Yes, the human skin on mouse thing. I know. But that’s
» not a human.
»
» The science behind Intercytex has been shown to work on humans.
If you say so. Those were very dismal pictures IMO.
I gave it an “F”. And besides who is to say those weren’t “mouse” pics as abstract as they were.
» I’m not talking about the Intercytex pics. I’m talking about the science
» behind what they are doing. They aren’t the first ones to pursue this
» avenue.
But the pics were all we had to substantiate the science behind ICX. Where, btw, is Kemp to answer these questions and concerns? Don’t hold your breath.
That’s not true. There have been many papers published by many different scientists describing the technique. Intercytex didn’t dream this up themselves, and aren’t the first ones to try it. And while it is scientific, it obviously does not mean success in practice just because scientific papers are published. That is why I am not too excited about Follica. At least not yet. They are also just on paper. And there is much less scientific information, and none on humans. Hopefully in time that will change. But right now I see no reason to get excited about Follica.
I would prefer to see ICX work than Follica for a better guarantee of DHT resistance.
But having said that, IMO the Follica thing has as much potential as anything right now. I think there’s a number of cases of scalp injuries causing surprising regrowth already. That’s probably more evidence that it could work (before the science even got involved) than ICX gave us (even after the science got involved).
The human body has a lot of programming to automatically heal itself, espeically the skin. It seems like there’s a whole lot of programming to make the body regenerate itself when wounded, and then just a few overruling commands to stop that process and form scar tissue instead once you’re out of the womb. I don’t have a very hard time believing that the eventual HM solution could end up being some very simple method of kick-starting the body’s natural regeneration processes.
The concept is hard to understand, that’s why people are not excited. This is from one of the posters in the thread, pardon my French but WTF is that? nucleotide encoding, EGF protein, EGF receptor, B-catena protein, hedgehog protein…
"no wading through the patent for Follica, it seems the only reason for a long period of trials is… which wnt protein will inhibit the signaling of HF(hair follicle) creation or neogenesis. By wounding the epidermis a precursor cell such as epidermal stem cells, dermal papilla cells, epithelial cells, etc. must be activated.
The key here is getting the right protein be it nucleotide encoding an EGF protein or EGF receptor to inhibit all this cell activity by means of some sort of b-catena protein or encoding a Hedgehog protein(??? WTF do I know). "
But at least the ICX method (if it ever sees the market) would likely grow you new/fixed hairs that have more DHT resistance than the original ones in that spot.
I’m less optimistic that the Follica method will improve the hairs over the originals they replace.
Or for example, lots of guys have different hair types on the body (e.g. fair, thin hair on the top; dark, thick hair on the body). Which type of hair would be produced by the Follica method? I am enough a D…head not to have pubic-looking hair at the top:-P
That’s one thing I’m not worried about with Follica.
Hairs are basically programmed by the DNA in the skin & surrounding tissue that they’re formed in. For the same reason that I don’t think we will get additional DHT resistance with Follica’s hairs, I also don’t think we will get anything other than the correct hair characteristics.
I think the Follica method would most likely just be recreating exactly what was previously at any given spot on your scalp, both the good aspects of it and the bad ones.
Hey BB,
I know a while back you heard through a friend of a friend that Follica is legit and coming soon (2 years). Are you still fairly confident with that assessment?
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.
