The Farjo clinics new website page
WHAT’S NEW IN HAIR RESEARCH in 2008?
See link
nice one
Good find, BALDIE42. I can’t help but wonder why this info would be posted on Farjo’s website since it is apparently Follica’s progress they are referring to, especially considering that Follica and ICX have competing interests. Makes me a little suspicious.
It’s very depressing read this page… he speak like a researcher of the 1990… minoxidil, finasteride, new hairs on mouses… what’s that shit!!!
And it’s depressing because this is a medical centre where ICX works, so he know the progress of the study… what to says? We have to wait march for the results of the phase2… but if the reality is like he say, HM it’s really 5 years away…
» It’s very depressing read this page… he speak like a researcher of the
» 1990… minoxidil, finasteride, new hairs on mouses… what’s that
» shit??!!
» And it’s depressing because this is a medical centre where ICX works, so
» he know the progress of the study… what to says? We have to wait march
» for the results of the phase2… but if the reality is like he say, HM
» it’s really 5 years away…
I totally agree. That post could have been made in 2000. Sounds like ICX isn’t working out. Oh well, back to “5 years”…
HM will always be 5 years away 
» HM will always be 5 years away
It looks like HM is proving to be a consistent procedure after all. 
» » HM will always be 5 years away
»
» It looks like HM is proving to be a consistent procedure after all.
Its quite pathetic. I recently went to see a dermatologist about my hair loss, just to see if there were any off-label stuff I might be missing. Very well-know doc in a large, top metro area. I knew more about treatment than he did. All he could offer was finasteride and minoxidil. He didn’t even know about Nizoral!
This is why I question the medical industry’s dedication to treating this problem. It just doesn’t seem to be on their radar.
Good find, Baldie42! But it’s bizarre that they are lauding Follica. It’s like Coca-Cola running advertisements for Pepsi.
I think it is extremely odd that they didnt mention Intercytex at all either…Intercytex did say they grew new hair in their trails also…I wonder if the deal between Intercytex and Farjo prohibits Farjo from mentioning the research project they are working on at all ??? If I remember, was it when the trials began at Farjo that Intercytex posted their question and answer page and Katherine Harris started giving form letter answers to e-mail questions ??? Maybe its wishful thinking on my part but I bet Farjo cant mention their research with ICX and thats why nothing was said in this article.
» Good find, Baldie42! But it’s bizarre that they are lauding Follica. It’s
» like Coca-Cola running advertisements for Pepsi.
My thoughts exactly, BB. I know I’m speculating and I hate to say it, but under the circumstances, this is the kind of news I’d expect to precede some other bad news (as in, “HM doesn’t look like it’ll be here anytime soon, but at least you poor bald bastards will have an alternative” ).
Understanding that Farjo must be under some type of non-disclosure agreement with ICX, the only arguable interpretation of positive news on the horizon (concerning HM) is the “watch this space” phrase at the end of the report. I say this only because I don’t think Farjo would expect people to “watch [Farjo’s] space” for a breakthrough news release from Follica’s product. The only breakthrough one would expect to hear from Farjo would be directly related to their field of involvement (ie., ICX has done it!).
Then again, “watch this space” could mean anything (or nothing), HM-related or not.
Maybe its wishful thinking on my
» part but I bet Farjo cant mention their research with ICX and thats why
» nothing was said in this article.
I think your instincts are correct, Raptor. I just don’t understand why they (Farjo) would be reporting on Follica while doing work for ICX.
I think you are all reading too much into this. It is a “Guest Research Article.” This is a very basic introduction to what is going on in general and it is someone who doesn’t work at Farjo or ICX so chill on the doomsday senarios. Check out his website http://www.staff.brad.ac.uk/dtobin/DT.html and notice that the Farjo website says that the U. of Bradford collaborated with them on a minoxidil study, I would think that includes Dr. Tobin. He is not a HM guy just a hair guy.
» Maybe its wishful thinking on my
» part but I bet Farjo cant mention their research with ICX and thats why
» nothing was said in this article.
I can understand that he may be under a non-disclosure contract, but why even mention the competition? That is what is unsettling. It is as if he knows that ICX isn’t going to work out and so he has no reason not to mention other potential treatments on the horizon.
» I think you are all reading too much into this. It is a “Guest Research
» Article.” This is a very basic introduction to what is going on in general
» and it is someone who doesn’t work at Farjo or ICX so chill on the doomsday
» senarios. Check out his website http://www.staff.brad.ac.uk/dtobin/DT.html
» and notice that the Farjo website says that the U. of Bradford
» collaborated with them on a minoxidil study, I would think that includes
» Dr. Tobin. He is not a HM guy just a hair guy.
Baldingene,
Regardless of who wrote the article or why it was written, it was posted on Farjo’s website after they were commissioned by ICX.
A few observations:
-
The title of the article is: “What’s New in Hair Research in 2008”.
-
The author specifically mentions that research is being conducted at the Farjo Lab in Manchester.
-
The article consipuously doesn’t even allude to HM.
Considering the foregoing, the author obviously must know something about HM. Given that HM is a very promising “new…hair research [project] in 2008” and considering that there’s already tons of info about HM available to the public (on ICX’s very own web page), it’s very unusual that nothing is even mentioned about HM in the article. There can’t even be a real concern of breaching confidentiality by simply describing the concept of HM, and he could have done this just as easily as he described Follica’s procedure without ticking off anybody at ICX. On the other hand, I could definitely see where ICX would be ticked off after reading about Follica’s progress on a website they (ICX) are indirectly helping to sponsor.
The point is, the author knowingly chose not to even mention HM in an article about promising treatments for hairloss that was posted on the same website that HM has helped to make possible. This is definitely unusual.
all this speculation…you interpret way too much into anything. i think it doesnt mean anything. its just an article written by any guy. just my two cents…
» all this speculation…you interpret way too much into anything. i think it
» doesnt mean anything. its just an article written by any guy. just my two
» cents…
i agree…everybody is acting like there is something in there that says the process is flawed or will be delayed. it’s an article that says nothing. wtf were you expecting out of this??? a fucking psychic reading and a hard lined date ad time of the cure for baldness release???
I emailed the author of that article with the following and his response.
Hello Professor Tobin,
I recently read an article entitled “WHAT’S NEW IN HAIR RESEARCH in 2008?” on
Farjo’s web site. I was curious why hair multiplication wasn’t mentioned?
I’m am aware the Farjo is conducting phase 2 clinical trials for Intercytex.
Isn’t this more of a viable option than wounding/wnt in the near future?
Thank you for your comments.
Yes, the research I mentioned is still in its infancy, and did not look at
multiplication of hair, rather the formation of new hair follicles. The
research which underpins the Intercytex work is indeed more advanced. If is
still early days for both strategies however.
Kind regards,
Des Tobin
» Yes, the research I mentioned is still in its infancy, and did not look
» at
» multiplication of hair, rather the formation of new hair follicles.
That would suggest ICX-TRC has more to do with rejuvenation of existing follicles than neogenesis.
» I emailed the author of that article with the following and his response.
»
» > Hello Professor Tobin,
» >
» > I recently read an article entitled “WHAT’S NEW IN HAIR RESEARCH in
» 2008?” on
» > Farjo’s web site. I was curious why hair multiplication wasn’t
» mentioned?
» > I’m am aware the Farjo is conducting phase 2 clinical trials for
» Intercytex.
» > Isn’t this more of a viable option than wounding/wnt in the near
» future?
» >
»
»
» Thank you for your comments.
»
» Yes, the research I mentioned is still in its infancy, and did not look
» at
» multiplication of hair, rather the formation of new hair follicles. The
» research which underpins the Intercytex work is indeed more advanced. If
» is
» still early days for both strategies however.
»
» Kind regards,
» Des Tobin
Sorry for beating the absolute crap out of this issue, but I sent Dr. Tobin an email and basically asked the same question on 1/22/04:
…I (and a number of my bald brethren) am
curious as to why your article did not mention anything about the concept of “Hair Multiplication”.I would be grateful if you could take a moment to respond to my query
on this issue as, until recently, Hair Multiplication has been the
single-most promising treatment proposal to ever come along for bald
men.
Here’s a copy/paste of his reply:
Thank you for your email and for your kind words on the small piece I >contributed to the Farjo Medical Centre Website.
Yes, I did not mention the Intercytex work, but only because I wish to >mention evern more recent work (i.e. published in 1997) within a tight word >limit. I agree, the Intercytex research, and the trial involving the Farjo >clinic, is indeed exciting. It remains to be seen however just how impactful >either research strategy will be.
Kind regards,
Des TObin
This didn’t clear anything up for me. I already knew he was aware of ICX/HM, etc. (check out his credentials–he’s a very knowledgeable individual when it comes to hair loss), so I basically concluded he was either intentionally holding back on his real reason for not mentioning HM, or that he would just make a lousy scientific journalist. It’s confusing that he would claim to be interested in “evern [sic] more recent work” and follow it up with “(ie., published in 1997)” (huh???). Plus, HM is current–you can’t get anymore “recent” than that, so this makes no sense. Neither does spending as much time as he did on minoxidil or finesteride if your article is entitled “What’s New in Hair Research in 2008” when you have a “word limit” and there’s a bunch of other much more interesting stuff out there you could be reporting on.
Also, why would he give you a different reason than he gave me about why HM wasn’t mentioned in his article? I noticed in his response that he cc’d Dr. Nilofer Farjo (wife). Maybe he’s just trying to help Farjo promote their name, as others have alluded to.