They had a segment on Dr. C’s research at U Penn (my school) and reported that human trials will begin shortly and Today’s reporting doctor said they are very optimistic about the outcome and see market potential in the next 3 years. I know this has been reported in the Future Treatments forum, with much debate as we’ve all encountered numerous snake oils and “promising cures” that turn our to be nothing, but I do research at U Penn in Cardiology and understand the scrutiny any research done there is put under before going public (i.e. Institutional Review Board Submissions, etc. etc.) and Dr. C. would not be going on the Today Show unless he was damn sure he had something big. This isn’t coming from a junkyard dog lab or pharmacy - this is one of the top three medical research entities in the country. Anyway here’s the link - don’t flame me - be nice - just trying to help - watch the video:
» They had a segment on Dr. C’s research at U Penn (my school) and reported
» that human trials will begin shortly and Today’s reporting doctor said
» they are very optimistic about the outcome and see market potential in the
» next 3 years. I know this has been reported in the Future Treatments
» forum, with much debate as we’ve all encountered numerous snake oils and
» “promising cures” that turn our to be nothing, but I do research at U Penn
» in Cardiology and understand the scrutiny any research done there is put
» under before going public (i.e. Institutional Review Board Submissions,
» etc. etc.) and Dr. C. would not be going on the Today Show unless he was
» damn sure he had something big. This isn’t coming from a junkyard dog lab
» or pharmacy - this is one of the top three medical research entities in the
» country. Anyway here’s the link - don’t flame me - be nice - just trying to
» help - watch the video:
»
» http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032633/
»
» Should still be up today, but you might have to find it in the archives
» after today.
I’ve said it before: the mere fact that Penn is attached to this should be reason enough for some healthy optimism. This is a major AMERICAN (I.E. the gold standard) research entity that values its reputation above everything else. This is a school with a multi-billion dollar endowment. They aren’t chasing money any more; everything they do is about building and protecting their reputation. If they are allowing Dr. C. to discuss his research publicly, its because they have vetted it and determined it will not harm the integrity of the school.
I think Follica is far ahead of ITX in bringing anything to market, and frankly, I’d trust them more.
» Can someone report the Cotsarelis’ interview in written form?
» I’m Itaian and so I don’t understand very well.
»
» Thank you!
There is no new information in that interview. They expect a product within 2-3 years.
What is exciting is that Dr. C went on the Today Show (it is a very popular television show in America) to discuss his work publicly. If they are willing to discuss their work on such a popular program, it means they think they have something very promising.
I’m sorry mate, but all it means is that they want publicity and investors attention. They want money. That’s all.
Today all scientists do similar things. They work on cancer (and have government funding) or they exagerrate and advertise unless they want to face situation where they have no money, no project, no wage, just bills to pay.
Question about Follica? I watched the video here… Does their procedure involve some calculated damage to the skin combined with a topical application which has successfully grown this hair in mice? In the video, there is white hair surrounded by brown. Is this a human skin graft onto a mouse? What exactly are we looking at? Thanks guys. Sounds promising and exciting. So great to hear ICX is not the only serious group working on this for us!
Also, does anyone know more precisely when trials are proposed to commence?
» I’m sorry mate, but all it means is that they want publicity and investors
» attention. They want money. That’s all.
»
» Today all scientists do similar things. They work on cancer (and have
» government funding) or they exagerrate and advertise unless they want to
» face situation where they have no money, no project, no wage, just bills
» to pay.
I’d agree with you if this work wasn’t connected to the University of Pennsylvania. That is an Ivy League, top five university. They protect their reputation. They would not allow their name to be used like this unless those conducting the research could ensure that it would not negatively impact the school’s integrity. Follica may be looking for investors, but Penn is not; they have a multi-billion dollar endowment that is so great that the vast majority of their students don’t pay a dime in tuition (free-rides, not loans). If not for Penn’s involvement, I wouldn’t be nearly as excited. As mentioned by the OP, Penn is meticulous in their vetting of their research programs. They’ve done their dilligence on Costeralis and his study, and have clearly given him the green light to not only continue to use their labs, but their name as well. That is a very, very big deal.
it’s mice growing unpigmented hair. They wounded the mice, and applied something, and this is the result.
It grew hair in mice. In mice which don’t even suffer from MPB and DHT. Even in mice the hair was not pigmented hair, but still they have guts to claim that they believe that in humans the hair will cycle (because of what? because they wish it would? well that’s not enough! cells that grew DHT sensitive hair before will most probably grow DHT sensitive hair even now), and be pigmented.
lol.
In my opinion it will grow baby hair at best. or a hair that lasts several months before DHT kicks its ass second time.
I mean even rogaine grew better hair in mice than this shit
All the odds are against this technology. There is not a single logical scientific evidence that it should work any good in humans.
They already have investors - Puretech… I’m sure they want to boost attention and support, but U Penn is a highly academic peer reviewed institution. Money maybe a factor for Dr. C. - I’m not really sure how this works. But, I can guarantee he doesn’t want to go on the Today Show talking about a possible medical breakthrough that has little merit. If anything he wants to get published in JAMA. As for U Penn - Mate’s right - they’re more worried about their reputation as having two of the nation’s best hospitals for research and teaching HUP and Pennsylvania Hospital and the nation’s best pediatric hospital C.H.O.P. I work in research for physicians and PhD’s and they are much more worried about getting published and reviewed which takes true submissions and results. True, there are scientists like this in the pharma business who can get away with exagerrating, but time has put more due diligence on these types (see VIOXX, SEROQUEL litigations). The company who wants to profit is Puretech - the venture capitalists who are helping fund everything. Go on their website. I get the feeling that they don’t throw down some 50+ million on a hunch or a snake oil. I think these guys in Boston are a little more savvy than that.
As for the efficacy of what they’re doing on humans - I don’t know. All I’m saying is that the people behind this are not known for being snake oil salesmen or junk scientists. This isn’t Dr. Gho or Regrowth.com or some back alley wannabe biochems trying to make RU. Sure they want to make money, but all parties involved have bigger reputations at stake then revivogen…
» I’m sorry mate, but all it means is that they want publicity and investors
» attention. They want money. That’s all.
»
» Today all scientists do similar things. They work on cancer (and have
» government funding) or they exagerrate and advertise unless they want to
» face situation where they have no money, no project, no wage, just bills
» to pay.
» They already have investors - Puretech… I’m sure they want to boost
» attention and support, but U Penn is a highly academic peer reviewed
» institution. Money maybe a factor for Dr. C. - I’m not really sure how
» this works. But, I can guarantee he doesn’t want to go on the Today Show
» talking about a possible medical breakthrough that has little merit. If
» anything he wants to get published in JAMA. As for U Penn - Mate’s right
» - they’re more worried about their reputation as having two of the
» nation’s best hospitals for research and teaching HUP and Pennsylvania
» Hospital and the nation’s best pediatric hospital C.H.O.P. I work in
» research for physicians and PhD’s and they are much more worried about
» getting published and reviewed which takes true submissions and results.
» True, there are scientists like this in the pharma business who can get
» away with exagerrating, but time has put more due diligence on these types
» (see VIOXX, SEROQUEL litigations). The company who wants to profit is
» Puretech - the venture capitalists who are helping fund everything. Go on
» their website. I get the feeling that they don’t throw down some 50+
» million on a hunch or a snake oil. I think these guys in Boston are a
» little more savvy than that.
»
» As for the efficacy of what they’re doing on humans - I don’t know. All
» I’m saying is that the people behind this are not known for being snake
» oil salesmen or junk scientists. This isn’t Dr. Gho or Regrowth.com or
» some back alley wannabe biochems trying to make RU. Sure they want to
» make money, but all parties involved have bigger reputations at stake then
» revivogen…
»
» » I’m sorry mate, but all it means is that they want publicity and
» investors
» » attention. They want money. That’s all.
» »
» » Today all scientists do similar things. They work on cancer (and have
» » government funding) or they exagerrate and advertise unless they want
» to
» » face situation where they have no money, no project, no wage, just
» bills
» » to pay.
» » They had a segment on Dr. C’s research at U Penn (my school) and
» reported
» » that human trials will begin shortly and Today’s reporting doctor said
» » they are very optimistic about the outcome and see market potential in
» the
» » next 3 years. I know this has been reported in the Future Treatments
» » forum, with much debate as we’ve all encountered numerous snake oils
» and
» » “promising cures” that turn our to be nothing, but I do research at U
» Penn
» » in Cardiology and understand the scrutiny any research done there is
» put
» » under before going public (i.e. Institutional Review Board Submissions,
» » etc. etc.) and Dr. C. would not be going on the Today Show unless he
» was
» » damn sure he had something big. This isn’t coming from a junkyard dog
» lab
» » or pharmacy - this is one of the top three medical research entities in
» the
» » country. Anyway here’s the link - don’t flame me - be nice - just trying
» to
» » help - watch the video:
» »
» » http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032633/
» »
» » Should still be up today, but you might have to find it in the archives
» » after today.
»
» I’ve said it before: the mere fact that Penn is attached to this should be
» reason enough for some healthy optimism. This is a major AMERICAN (I.E.
» the gold standard) research entity that values its reputation above
» everything else. This is a school with a multi-billion dollar endowment.
» They aren’t chasing money any more; everything they do is about building
» and protecting their reputation. If they are allowing Dr. C. to discuss
» his research publicly, its because they have vetted it and determined it
» will not harm the integrity of the school.
»
» I think Follica is far ahead of ITX in bringing anything to market, and
» frankly, I’d trust them more.
For me it sounds like “with 1000 injections you get 60000 hairs”
You cant say that Follica is far ahead of ICX because theres no results in humans yet…
»
» For me it sounds like “with 1000 injections you get 60000 hairs”
»
» You cant say that Follica is far ahead of ICX because theres no results
» in humans yet…
Follica has been far more transparent than ICX. They have gone public with their research and are touting their potential. ICX has taken the opposite route. Information from them is spotty at best, and even the Doc they teamed with is being evasive about their tech’s potential. And in terms of reputation, I trust the people behind Follica far more than ICX, as it seems US researchers more closely adhere to the principles of peer review. Further, the manner in which funding is awarded in the US (private sources vs. public) requires more certainty in the proposal. Finally, Penn’s association alone should indicate just how real their research is. If I were to invest in one of these companies, it would be Follica.
I agree, the use of Penn’s name and the names of highly reputable dermatologists (from Harvard, Stanford, “household” names like Cots and Vera…) puts too much reputation on the line for this to not have significant and encouraging data and science behind it. Debris, you are right that all of this boils down to money. However, there is a lot more money in reputation than investment. Follica won’t pull a ICX and go public, they don’t need public financial backing. They will get all there money from investment firms and hold on to a significant percentage of the company. That is where the money is at. They are drumming up publicity now so that when this thing hits the market it will be a big splash. That is what makes me optomistic. Unlike ICX who must make big promises so that its stock does not plummet in the short term and put them out of business (too late), Follica will be looking to make conservative estimates about timelines so that the public does not feel dicked around when it comes out. Thus, when ICX says 5 years it could be 8, by the time the 5 years are up it will say only 3 more and will look for a new round of public funding. When Follica says within 4 they want to land at 2 or 3, and the public is excited when it comes out.
Also, I find it a bit funny that the internet scientists on this board use google to determine that this procedure causes cancer. If the safety profile of this drug were a problem, and one evident by a simple search and matching up terms like WNT, Penn would probably have waited to announce its finding. Moreover, there is NO way that these prominent scientists would start human trials soon if they thought cancer would develop. No scientist wants “killed 10 people” on their CV. Especially not ones that are already rich and reputable.
Science is a guessing game and nothing is certain. But there can not be more positive signs than we have been given so far.
See what I’m talkin about in 3-4 years we will all be cured by Dr. Cotsarelis. Watch the video and listen to what Dr. Nancy Snyderman says. 4 years = 2012. Baldbaby was dead on as usual.
I’m WAAAYYY more impressed by a product backed by UPenn than I am of a product associated with Farjo. When it comes to reputation, it really doesn’t get much better than UPenn (except for Johns Hopkins).
I’m very excited by how reputation have this research group… they know for sure what they are doing… and this is very important because i’m sure that the competitor ICX now have to speed up their work, if they don’t want lose all the money of 10 years of research… if follica is before them on the market, they lose millions of euro’s…
This situation, in my opinion, make an hypotetical release of a trc, the famous small scale commercialization, in 2009… they need a product for stop the competitor and have a little slice of market…
» All the odds are against this technology. There is not a single logical
» scientific evidence that it should work any good in humans.
Oh there is! There are inactive stem cells all over your head. They stimulated them in mice. So there is no single logical argument, that it should NOT work in human…but of course, its a matter of time. DHT and MPB are not that big problem i guess, because this new hair would be “really new”. Worst case scenario is to lose your hair 17-20 years later, when you normally start to bald.
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.