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

Potential for Histogens product on donor


#1

If Histogen’s Hair Stimulating Complex works on the donor region and produces new hair follicles or actual full regrowth in the donor is it safe to say we have a winner?


#2

» If Histogen’s Hair Stimulating Complex works on the donor region and
» produces new hair follicles or actual full regrowth in the donor is it safe
» to say we have a winner?

why do you speak about the donor? why not the rest of the head?


#3

Maybe I’m wrong but I thought they were going to test HSC on hair transplants patients scars to see if it would induce hair growth… I think they’re planning to test that while doing the tests for the injectable in Asia.

» why do you speak about the donor? why not the rest of the head?


#4

then why you say “we have a winner?” you’re talking about the possibility to full (and refull again) with hair the donor area just to have MORE hair to transplant in the front (and other regions) ? or simply for the scar which IMHO you can hide with a FUE right now ?

this would be obviously good but didn’t need if the procedure works upon the rest of the head :wink:

however if histogen produce even new hair follicle (both with rejuvenation) the repeatable of the procedure means exactly that we have a winner in every case !


#5

I guess I meant if it could regrow the hair in the donor region after removed in a procedure then you could potentially have unlimited donor (DHT resistant) hair to take from. That’s all I meant, I’m hoping for the best here.

» then why you say “we have a winner?” you’re talking about the possibility
» to full (and refull again) with hair the donor area just to have MORE hair
» to transplant in the front (and other regions) ? or simply for the scar
» which IMHO you can hide with a FUE right now ?
»
» this would be obviously good but didn’t need if the procedure works upon
» the rest of the head :wink:
»
» however if histogen produce even new hair follicle (both with
» rejuvenation) the repeatable of the procedure means exactly that we have a
» winner in every case !


#6

Biston, forget it bu Go Giant is right cause he actually thinks way more further then we.

Because lets say Histogen keeps your Donor Regrow even after a HT you are more then just FORCED to say we have a winner.

Cause this means infinite hairs for you, infinite for the rest of your life.

Combine Infinite Donor with a FUE specialist and you get yourself the best thing you can imagine.

Only downside PRICE Tag.» I guess I meant if it could regrow the hair in the donor region after
» removed in a procedure then you could potentially have unlimited donor (DHT
» resistant) hair to take from. That’s all I meant, I’m hoping for the best
» here.
»
» » then why you say “we have a winner?” you’re talking about the
» possibility
» » to full (and refull again) with hair the donor area just to have MORE
» hair
» » to transplant in the front (and other regions) ? or simply for the scar
» » which IMHO you can hide with a FUE right now ?
» »
» » this would be obviously good but didn’t need if the procedure works
» upon
» » the rest of the head :wink:
» »
» » however if histogen produce even new hair follicle (both with
» » rejuvenation) the repeatable of the procedure means exactly that we have
» a
» » winner in every case !


#7

This idea assumes that Histogen’s deal would create new follicles and not act by fixing existing ones. I don’t think that question is settled. It may be some of both actions it is probably either one process or the other doing most of the work.

If the procedure does not create new follicles then there is no gain from Histogen-ing the donor area. It might slightly thicken up the hairs but that’s it. If you pull 20% of the orignal follicles out of the area for FUE work then you still have 20% less than you were born with.

Either way I think FUE-ing anything is not the preferable scenario. HTs generally can’t get things quite as good as naturally occurring hair even with no donor limitations. I might consider FUE-ing the hairline if a Histogen procedure could not create or maintain it very well, but HT work is not gonna be the preferable way to cover the whole head if there is a HM option.


#8

» This idea assumes that Histogen’s deal would create new follicles and not
» act by fixing existing ones. I don’t think that question is settled. It
» may be some of both actions it is probably either one process or the other
» doing most of the work.

agreed

» If the procedure does not create new follicles then there is no gain from
» Histogen-ing the donor area. It might slightly thicken up the hairs but
» that’s it. If you pull 20% of the orignal follicles out of the area for
» FUE work then you still have 20% less than you were born with.

agreed

» Either way I think FUE-ing anything is not the preferable scenario. HTs
» generally can’t get things quite as good as naturally occurring hair even
» with no donor limitations. I might consider FUE-ing the hairline if a
» Histogen procedure could not create or maintain it very well, but HT work
» is not gonna be the preferable way to cover the whole head if there is a HM
» option.

Agreed. look at the photos provided by Histogen. Look at the after photos. There is perfect uniformity. Perfect directions, perfect everything. This cannot be matched by a hair transplant.
Hitogen has so many good things… I wonder why investors are so reluctant to invest. They sure have some reason, but what is it?


#9

»
» Agreed. look at the photos provided by Histogen. Look at the after photos.
» There is perfect uniformity. Perfect directions, perfect everything. This
» cannot be matched by a hair transplant.
» Hitogen has so many good things… I wonder why investors are so reluctant
» to invest. They sure have some reason, but what is it?

I read not long ago that the U.S. pharmaceutical industry spends almost twice as much on promotion as it does on research and development. Maybe the reason why companies like Histogen struggle is related to that.


#10

» Biston, forget it bu Go Giant is right cause he actually thinks way more
» further then we.
»
» Because lets say Histogen keeps your Donor Regrow even after a HT you are
» more then just FORCED to say we have a winner.

yes for sure but my point is: if histogen works as we know in the whole head, why to focus your attention on the donor area? you just don’t need ! IF histogen works ONLY in the donor area in the way he said, well we have a winner too obviously, there are just 2 ways to fix the problem a) gain infinite hair to transplant as you said b) simply refull the top of the head with the procedure, both cases are ok for us


#11

»
» I read not long ago that the U.S. pharmaceutical industry spends almost
» twice as much on promotion as it does on research and development. Maybe
» the reason why companies like Histogen struggle is related to that.

Link to that claim please. Its time to start demanding proof when people on this board make ridiculous claims.

He’s a link to a CBO document that shows US pharma alone was spending 40 billion annually in 2004, so that number is now likely much higher.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/76xx/doc7615/10-02-DrugR-D.pdf

The total spent by ALL pharma (that includes the significant non-US pharma companies) on advertisement is around 30 billion. So you claim is complete bullsht, and you’ve made no effort to verify it one way or another.

But you’re not interested in truth, just the bullsht your state-owned media spoon-feeds you simpletons.

“But…but…the BBC said so! Deutsche Welle said so! It must be true!”


#12

» »
» » I read not long ago that the U.S. pharmaceutical industry spends almost
» » twice as much on promotion as it does on research and development.
» Maybe
» » the reason why companies like Histogen struggle is related to that.
»
» Link to that claim please. Its time to start demanding proof when people
» on this board make ridiculous claims.
»
» He’s a link to a CBO document that shows US pharma alone was spending 40
» billion annually in 2004, so that number is now likely much higher.
»
» http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/76xx/doc7615/10-02-DrugR-D.pdf
»
» The total spent by ALL pharma (that includes the significant non-US pharma
» companies) on advertisement is around 30 billion. So you claim is complete
» bullsht, and you’ve made no effort to verify it one way or another.
»
» But you’re not interested in truth, just the bullsht your state-owned
» media spoon-feeds you simpletons.
»
» “But…but…the BBC said so! Deutsche Welle said so! It must be true!”

http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050001


#13

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmaceutical_marketing

Pharmaceutical company spending on marketing far exceeds that spent on research.[2][3] In Canada, $1.7 billion was spent in 2004 to market drugs to physicians; in the United States, $21 billion was spent in 2002.[4] In 2005 money spent on pharmaceutical marketing in the US was estimated at $29.9 billion with one estimate as high as $57 billion.[3] When the US number are broken down 56% was free samples, 25% was detailing of physicians, 12.5% was direct to consumer advertising, 4% on hospital detailing, and 2% on journal ads.[4]

I can confirm this as well, I have a friend who is a doctor. He used to tell me about pharma reps who would take docs out for expensives lunches and stuff, and get them to push their drugs over their competitors.


#14

I think you owe dogstar an apology.

» I read not long ago that the U.S. pharmaceutical industry spends almost
» twice as much on promotion as it does on research and development.
» Maybe the reason why companies like Histogen struggle is related to that.

» Link to that claim please. Its time to start demanding proof when people
» on this board make ridiculous claims.

» He’s a link to a CBO document that shows US pharma alone was spending 40
» billion annually in 2004, so that number is now likely much higher.

» http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/76xx/doc7615/10-02-DrugR-D.pdf
»
» The total spent by ALL pharma (that includes the significant non-US pharma
» companies) on advertisement is around 30 billion. So you claim is complete
» bullsht, and you’ve made no effort to verify it one way or another.
»
» But you’re not interested in truth, just the bullsht your state-owned
» media spoon-feeds you simpletons.
»
» “But…but…the BBC said so! Deutsche Welle said so! It must be true!”


#15

» http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmaceutical_marketing
»
» Pharmaceutical company spending on marketing far exceeds that
» spent on research.[2][3] In Canada, $1.7 billion was spent in 2004 to
» market drugs to physicians; in the United States, $21 billion was spent in
» 2002.[4] In 2005 money spent on pharmaceutical marketing in the US was
» estimated at $29.9 billion with one estimate as high as $57 billion.[3]
» When the US number are broken down 56% was free samples, 25% was detailing
» of physicians, 12.5% was direct to consumer advertising, 4% on hospital
» detailing, and 2% on journal ads.[4]
»
» I can confirm this as well, I have a friend who is a doctor. He used to
» tell me about pharma reps who would take docs out for expensives lunches
» and stuff, and get them to push their drugs over their competitors.

Right, 30 billion total spent by ALL pharmas in the US, not just US pharmas, while my link stated that 40 billion was spent on R&D in the US ALONE. So really, the amount spent on ads by US pharmas is some fraction of that 30 billion, meaning the ration between R&D and advertising is even greater. So your wikilink proves my point, thanks.


#16

» I think you owe dogstar an apology.

For what? He’s wrong. My link proved it. My link was from the CBO, his is from something called “Plos medicine”, whatever that is (its an open source publication, which means its hardly credible). A subsequent link provided by another poster proved my point as well. Further, if you look at how his study defined “advertising”, they included samples (which they valued at retail, which would be many times more than the actual cost to the pharma) and information sessions, which actually accounted for the majority of that metric. Actual advertising was less the 15 billion.

So Revtard, who once again comes running like a trained mutt when he sees me post, what do I owe him an apology for? I wouldn’t mind an apology for having to read and disprove yet another nonsensical conspiracy theory/American-pharma-is-to-blame complaint.


#17

I’m wrong about what exactly? have I made any claims?, I said I’d recently read that they spend almost twice as much on promotion as they do on research and development, you went hysterical and asked for a source and I gave you one. In that source it clearly says contrary to the industry’s claim, If you disagree with the source of the information why don’t you get in touch with them and tell them.


#18

Back to Toppic cause this is an interesting Thread actually.