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

Please, help me transcribe this video about Follica (just a bit)


#1

from this thread:
http://www.hairsite.com/hair-loss/forum_entry-id-24767.html

video:

At the end, that stupid woman (Dr. Nancy Snyderman, NBC News chief medical editor) says stupid things.
I have transcribed 90% of it, please help me with the rest, and correct the errors.

(about Cotsarellis-Follica)

-THIS WORKS CONSISTENTLY ENOUGH
THEY ARE CONVINCED THEY HAVE A BREAKTHROUGH WHEN THEY PLAN TO BRING THIS TO MARKET
-SO HOW SOON COULD WE SEE A PRODUCT
-(WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO SEE?) HUMAN TRIALS WHICH WILL BE THE NEXT YEAR OR TWO AND I WOULDN’T BE SURPRISED IF THIS — IN THE MARKET NEXT THREE-FOUR YEARS, MAYBE EVEN SOONER!!

—skip—

WE ARE GOING TO BE TALKING ABOUT THIS MORE AND MORE AND MORE
STEM CELLS STEM CELLS FOR LIFE SAVING STUFF… AND PERHAPS NOT SO MUCH FOR THE LIFE SAVING STUFF…


#2

Its a doctor who was bad enough so she rather switched to journalism.

she has no connection with follica and is just plain stupid journalist. no transcription necessary


#3

» Its a doctor who was bad enough so she rather switched to journalism.
»
»
» she has no connection with follica and is just plain stupid journalist. no
» transcription necessary

yeah, but at the time this was posted, people was enthusiastic with this piece of yellow journalism. Now we can see how ridiculous it is, looking at it in perspective. So this is a very good lesson.
The things that are said in that video are ridiculous, but you feel the full flavour of it when you see it transcripted.

But well, in a forum full of americans, I ask for a transcription of the video, and the only reply I get is from a czech guy (spell?). If my memory works, you are czech, isn’t it debris?

I suppose it is more important to engage in lenthy discussion about who is being too negative or too positive.

regards debris.

sd


#4

» » Its a doctor who was bad enough so she rather switched to journalism.
» »
» »
» » she has no connection with follica and is just plain stupid journalist.
» no
» » transcription necessary
»
» yeah, but at the time this was posted, people was enthusiastic with this
» piece of yellow journalism. Now we can see how ridiculous it is, looking at
» it in perspective. So this is a very good lesson.
» The things that are said in that video are ridiculous, but you feel the
» full flavour of it when you see it transcripted.
»
» But well, in a forum full of americans, I ask for a transcription of the
» video, and the only reply I get is from a czech guy (spell?). If my memory
» works, you are czech, isn’t it debris?
»
» I suppose it is more important to engage in lenthy discussion about who is
» being too negative or too positive.
»
» regards debris.
»
»
» sd

You should have been more specific that you wanted an English speaking American. Your original post indicates you were open to any english speaking person.


#5

» from this thread:
» http://www.hairsite.com/hair-loss/forum_entry-id-24767.html
»
» video:
» http://video.msn.com/video.aspx?mkt=en-US&brand=msnbc&vid=3b251041-8028-403d-a6fc-e749264afc01
»
» At the end, that stupid woman (Dr. Nancy Snyderman, NBC News chief medical
» editor) says stupid things.
» I have transcribed 90% of it, please help me with the rest, and correct
» the errors.
»
»
» (about Cotsarellis-Follica)
»
» -THIS WORKS CONSISTENTLY ENOUGH
» THEY ARE CONVINCED THEY HAVE A BREAKTHROUGH WHEN THEY PLAN TO BRING THIS
» TO MARKET
» -SO HOW SOON COULD WE SEE A PRODUCT
» -(WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO SEE?) HUMAN TRIALS WHICH WILL BE THE NEXT YEAR
» OR TWO AND I WOULDN’T BE SURPRISED IF THIS — IN THE MARKET NEXT
» THREE-FOUR YEARS, MAYBE EVEN SOONER!!
»
» —skip—
»
» WE ARE GOING TO BE TALKING ABOUT THIS MORE AND MORE AND MORE
» STEM CELLS STEM CELLS FOR LIFE SAVING STUFF… AND PERHAPS NOT SO MUCH FOR
» THE LIFE SAVING STUFF…

I am pretty sure everything said at the end is still true so far.

It worked consistently in the lab on mice, the doctors are convince they have a breakthrough, what researching doctor wouldn’t be, they have started human trials this year, and they feel they can have a product in 3 to 4 years.

Many doctors and researchers believe that stem cells hold the key for many areas of medicine. I believe in 2006 doctors perform 7 organ transplants of organs they were developed from stem cells. Stems cells are not the future of medicine, they are the present.

Does this mean they will have a product in 3 to 4 years, no. There is no concrete evidence they will, but the only evidence that they wont have a product is opinions of some pretty miserable people on a hair loss forum.


#6

» » from this thread:
» » http://www.hairsite.com/hair-loss/forum_entry-id-24767.html
» »
» » video:
» »
» http://video.msn.com/video.aspx?mkt=en-US&brand=msnbc&vid=3b251041-8028-403d-a6fc-e749264afc01
» »
» » At the end, that stupid woman (Dr. Nancy Snyderman, NBC News chief
» medical
» » editor) says stupid things.
» » I have transcribed 90% of it, please help me with the rest, and correct
» » the errors.
» »
» »
» » (about Cotsarellis-Follica)
» »
» » -THIS WORKS CONSISTENTLY ENOUGH
» » THEY ARE CONVINCED THEY HAVE A BREAKTHROUGH WHEN THEY PLAN TO BRING
» THIS
» » TO MARKET
» » -SO HOW SOON COULD WE SEE A PRODUCT
» » -(WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO SEE?) HUMAN TRIALS WHICH WILL BE THE NEXT
» YEAR
» » OR TWO AND I WOULDN’T BE SURPRISED IF THIS — IN THE MARKET NEXT
» » THREE-FOUR YEARS, MAYBE EVEN SOONER!!
» »
» » —skip—
» »
» » WE ARE GOING TO BE TALKING ABOUT THIS MORE AND MORE AND MORE
» » STEM CELLS STEM CELLS FOR LIFE SAVING STUFF… AND PERHAPS NOT SO MUCH
» FOR
» » THE LIFE SAVING STUFF…
»
» I am pretty sure everything said at the end is still true so far.
»
» It worked consistently in the lab on mice, the doctors are convince they
» have a breakthrough, what researching doctor wouldn’t be, they have started
» human trials this year, and they feel they can have a product in 3 to 4
» years.
»
» Many doctors and researchers believe that stem cells hold the key for many
» areas of medicine. I believe in 2006 doctors perform 7 organ transplants
» of organs they were developed from stem cells. Stems cells are not the
» future of medicine, they are the present.
»
» Does this mean they will have a product in 3 to 4 years, no. There is no
» concrete evidence they will, but the only evidence that they wont have a
» product is opinions of some pretty miserable people on a hair loss forum.

Some people’s opinions could be miserable.
But others are the oppinions of people who are in this forum for a decade and they have witnessed many cycles of promised “breakthroughs”.
These who have experience, know pretty well how this works, and how worthless is to have “good results on mice”. The latests news about Follica indicate clearly that this project is at a very primitive stage, and the chances for success are right now close to zero. And the development will be long.

So having this journalist talking happily of “3 or 4 years, maybe even sooner” EVEN SOONER? What does it mean? Maybe 2 years? Note that this video is from Jan of 2008. So is she saying that we maybe have it in the market in 2010?? Is that what is she saying?
Cotsarellis in that video is saying “a few years” if everything goes well. Of course I cannot critizise Cotsarellis for saying that. I am angry at the stupid journalist, and how this is said in TV-programs with millions of viewers.


#7

» » » from this thread:
» » » http://www.hairsite.com/hair-loss/forum_entry-id-24767.html
» » »
» » » video:
» » »
» »
» http://video.msn.com/video.aspx?mkt=en-US&brand=msnbc&vid=3b251041-8028-403d-a6fc-e749264afc01
» » »
» » » At the end, that stupid woman (Dr. Nancy Snyderman, NBC News chief
» » medical
» » » editor) says stupid things.
» » » I have transcribed 90% of it, please help me with the rest, and
» correct
» » » the errors.
» » »
» » »
» » » (about Cotsarellis-Follica)
» » »
» » » -THIS WORKS CONSISTENTLY ENOUGH
» » » THEY ARE CONVINCED THEY HAVE A BREAKTHROUGH WHEN THEY PLAN TO BRING
» » THIS
» » » TO MARKET
» » » -SO HOW SOON COULD WE SEE A PRODUCT
» » » -(WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO SEE?) HUMAN TRIALS WHICH WILL BE THE NEXT
» » YEAR
» » » OR TWO AND I WOULDN’T BE SURPRISED IF THIS — IN THE MARKET NEXT
» » » THREE-FOUR YEARS, MAYBE EVEN SOONER!!
» » »
» » » —skip—
» » »
» » » WE ARE GOING TO BE TALKING ABOUT THIS MORE AND MORE AND MORE
» » » STEM CELLS STEM CELLS FOR LIFE SAVING STUFF… AND PERHAPS NOT SO
» MUCH
» » FOR
» » » THE LIFE SAVING STUFF…
» »
» » I am pretty sure everything said at the end is still true so far.
» »
» » It worked consistently in the lab on mice, the doctors are convince
» they
» » have a breakthrough, what researching doctor wouldn’t be, they have
» started
» » human trials this year, and they feel they can have a product in 3 to 4
» » years.
» »
» » Many doctors and researchers believe that stem cells hold the key for
» many
» » areas of medicine. I believe in 2006 doctors perform 7 organ
» transplants
» » of organs they were developed from stem cells. Stems cells are not the
» » future of medicine, they are the present.
» »
» » Does this mean they will have a product in 3 to 4 years, no. There is
» no
» » concrete evidence they will, but the only evidence that they wont have
» a
» » product is opinions of some pretty miserable people on a hair loss
» forum.
»
» Some people’s opinions could be miserable.
» But others are the oppinions of people who are in this forum for a decade
» and they have witnessed many cycles of promised “breakthroughs”.
» These who have experience, know pretty well how this works, and how
» worthless is to have “good results on mice”. The latests news about Follica
» indicate clearly that this project is at a very primitive stage, and the
» chances for success are right now close to zero. And the development will
» be long.
»
» So having this journalist talking happily of “3 or 4 years, maybe even
» sooner” EVEN SOONER? What does it mean? Maybe 2 years? Note that this video
» is from Jan of 2008. So is she saying that we maybe have it in the market
» in 2010?? Is that what is she saying?
» Cotsarellis in that video is saying “a few years” if everything goes well.
» Of course I cannot critizise Cotsarellis for saying that. I am angry at the
» stupid journalist, and how this is said in TV-programs with millions of
» viewers.

Past failures doesn’t mean this will be a failure. Most progress in mankind has met some failure along the line. I just don’t understand how people can let past failure dictate how they think and live. I like coming reading this forum because I enjoy the science and I would prefer to have nice hair. I haven’t had a hairline since I was 21. But the only time I feel bad about my hairloss is reading this forum.

Maybe this lady should have reported like this:

There is a researcher at the University of Pennsylvania, who has a decade of research in hair follicles and skin. He thinks he has a major breakthrough , but I don’t think so, because everybody knows this will fail. I don’t understand why these scientists keep researching hairloss. Don’t they know that they will never stop hairloss. And even if does work, it’s going to take decades for it to get approved. Even though it uses devises and drugs already approved, the FDA will make sure it goes through extensive trails because it wants men with hairloss to suffer. So for their sake, lets just shut down all research on hairloss so they wont be disappointed.


#8

» Maybe this lady should have reported like this:
»
» There is a researcher at the University of Pennsylvania, who has a decade
» of research in hair follicles and skin. He thinks he has a major
» breakthrough , but I don’t think so, because everybody knows this will
» fail. I don’t understand why these scientists keep researching hairloss.
» Don’t they know that they will never stop hairloss. And even if does work,
» it’s going to take decades for it to get approved. Even though it uses
» devises and drugs already approved, the FDA will make sure it goes through
» extensive trails because it wants men with hairloss to suffer. So for
» their sake, lets just shut down all research on hairloss so they wont be
» disappointed.

How about this:

We have a researcher, Dr. Cotsarellis. He was been a researcher in the field of hair regeneration for many years.
Now he thinks he has found a potential cure. Results on mice are promising.
But we must be cautious. So many times before, results on mice have not translated to humans. Now he has funding for human trials and development. Lets cross our fingers. But even if everything goes well, this could take at least 4 years to reach the market. So don’t be too anxious about it.

YEAH, BUT THIS JOURNALIST WOULD BE TOO GRAY, NOT A BEST SELLER ON PRIME TIME, SO THIS JOURNALIST WOULD PROBABLY NEVER GET A JOB ON TV. INSTEAD, THAT STUPID BITCH GETS THE JOB, AND TALKS HAPPILY ABOUT “STEM CELLS AND LIFE-SAVING STUFF”.


#9

» » Maybe this lady should have reported like this:
» »
» » There is a researcher at the University of Pennsylvania, who has a
» decade
» » of research in hair follicles and skin. He thinks he has a major
» » breakthrough , but I don’t think so, because everybody knows this will
» » fail. I don’t understand why these scientists keep researching
» hairloss.
» » Don’t they know that they will never stop hairloss. And even if does
» work,
» » it’s going to take decades for it to get approved. Even though it uses
» » devises and drugs already approved, the FDA will make sure it goes
» through
» » extensive trails because it wants men with hairloss to suffer. So for
» » their sake, lets just shut down all research on hairloss so they wont
» be
» » disappointed.
»
» How about this:
»
» We have a researcher, Dr. Cotsarellis. He was been a researcher in the
» field of hair regeneration for many years.
» Now he thinks he has found a potential cure. Results on mice are
» promising.
» But we must be cautious. So many times before, results on mice have not
» translated to humans. Now he has funding for human trials and development.
» Lets cross our fingers. But even if everything goes well, this could take
» at least 4 years to reach the market. So don’t be too anxious about it.
»
» YEAH, BUT THIS JOURNALIST WOULD BE TOO GRAY, NOT A BEST SELLER ON PRIME
» TIME, SO THIS JOURNALIST WOULD PROBABLY NEVER GET A JOB ON TV. INSTEAD,
» THAT STUPID BITCH GETS THE JOB, AND TALKS HAPPILY ABOUT “STEM CELLS AND
» LIFE-SAVING STUFF”.

All the evidence so far shows they plan to get FDA approval, even though they may be hoping for quicker then usual trials. All in all, if you consider that cancer trial usually takes a decade (and in case of cancer pretty much everyone involved hopes for a quick trial), 5 years for a hairgrowth trial is probably pretty optimistic scenario where all the FDA shortcuts are taken in account. A scenario thats pretty unlikely to happen in real life.

Add another evidence we have and that is that everyone on this board and regrowth dot com, trying to replicate the procedure has nothing but failed growing any useful hair. And you should now understand that it may also never hit the market.

==================

Anyway I can transcribe the whole stuff to you if you like, though they talk quicker then I can type so it would be pretty annoying job to do for me, pausing it every few sentences. Too tired to do it today anyway.


#10

Weird stuff, probably taken from some older news report about another possible hair loss cure.

AZT is HIV drug, and hypertrychosis is one of the sideeffects.


#11

» » » Maybe this lady should have reported like this:
» » »
» » » There is a researcher at the University of Pennsylvania, who has a
» » decade
» » » of research in hair follicles and skin. He thinks he has a major
» » » breakthrough , but I don’t think so, because everybody knows this
» will
» » » fail. I don’t understand why these scientists keep researching
» » hairloss.
» » » Don’t they know that they will never stop hairloss. And even if does
» » work,
» » » it’s going to take decades for it to get approved. Even though it
» uses
» » » devises and drugs already approved, the FDA will make sure it goes
» » through
» » » extensive trails because it wants men with hairloss to suffer. So
» for
» » » their sake, lets just shut down all research on hairloss so they wont
» » be
» » » disappointed.
» »
» » How about this:
» »
» » We have a researcher, Dr. Cotsarellis. He was been a researcher in the
» » field of hair regeneration for many years.
» » Now he thinks he has found a potential cure. Results on mice are
» » promising.
» » But we must be cautious. So many times before, results on mice have not
» » translated to humans. Now he has funding for human trials and
» development.
» » Lets cross our fingers. But even if everything goes well, this could
» take
» » at least 4 years to reach the market. So don’t be too anxious about it.
» »
» » YEAH, BUT THIS JOURNALIST WOULD BE TOO GRAY, NOT A BEST SELLER ON PRIME
» » TIME, SO THIS JOURNALIST WOULD PROBABLY NEVER GET A JOB ON TV. INSTEAD,
» » THAT STUPID BITCH GETS THE JOB, AND TALKS HAPPILY ABOUT “STEM CELLS AND
» » LIFE-SAVING STUFF”.
»
» All the evidence so far shows they plan to get FDA approval, even though
» they may be hoping for quicker then usual trials. All in all, if you
» consider that cancer trial usually takes a decade (and in case of cancer
» pretty much everyone involved hopes for a quick trial), 5 years for a
» hairgrowth trial is probably pretty optimistic scenario where all the FDA
» shortcuts are taken in account. A scenario thats pretty unlikely to happen
» in real life.
»
» Add another evidence we have and that is that everyone on this board and
» regrowth dot com, trying to replicate the procedure has nothing but failed
» growing any useful hair. And you should now understand that it may also
» never hit the market.
»
» ==================
»
»
» Anyway I can transcribe the whole stuff to you if you like, though they
» talk quicker then I can type so it would be pretty annoying job to do for
» me, pausing it every few sentences. Too tired to do it today anyway.

Well, I am not following those who are trying to reverse-engineer the Follica patents. I don’t have time.

Re. time for approval, yes, authorities look like they are not in a hurry to approve cures for hairloss. Because it is just a cosmetic thing.
But maybe they are wrong. Maybe baldness its a matter of life and death after all. Because millions are taking Finasteride, which could cause aggresive prostate cancer.

Re. the transcription, I was just asking to transcript the part that I transcribed. Just correct the transcription I did, and fill in the small parts that are missing. Not the whole video of course.


#12

» Weird stuff, probably taken from some older news report about another
» possible hair loss cure.
»
» AZT is HIV drug, and hypertrychosis is one of the sideeffects.

well, another hairloss “cure” that they find by chance?
like minox and Finas…
it seems that it is easier to find cures for baldness when you don’t intend to find them.