Replicel\'s presentation at the Waldorf Astoria (Phase II)

Greetings my butt-ugly balding brothers.

A (bald) heads-up on Replicel for tonight. I still have faith in this company which is why I continue to track it.

Its a 30 min audio recording of Replicel’s presentation at the “Rodman & Renshaw Annual Global Investment Conference” at the Waldorf Astoria hotel in New York. The presentation was given by Replicel’s CEO David Hall.

While you’re listening to the recording, there are slides to the right you can click through. Click ‘Next’ to follow along.

The first half of the recording is what we all already know about Replicel’s methods. The second part goes into depth regarding their Phase II trials.

Go here, fill in some (BS) information (first name, last name, email…etc) and you will be taken to the presentation :

http://www.wsw.com/webcast/rrshq22/register.aspx?conf=rrshq22&page=repcf&url=http%3A//www.wsw.com/webcast/rrshq22/repcf/


Some notes I jotted down :

Phase II - Efficacy
- Diff doses, diff freq

108 patients
84 treated
24 placebo

3 different doses - 250K to 1 million cells
vs 5 & 10 million cells in Phase I

Treatment group in Phase II
A - Day 1 with 3 different doses
B - Day 1 and at 3 months
Placebo - Single & Double injection of Placebo

252 treated sites with 108 patients - will be conducted at Sherita (sp?) University in Berlin, Germany

Cost of this trial = 5 million dollars

2 value development pathways
Existing injector device - injects and lays cells on the way out
New upcoming injector device - pen like gadget

For automation
19 cell markers, 4 in testing

Direct your ass bald heads to this PDF for some info on their Phase II.

Its 50 to 100 million cells not 5 to 10 million as stated in the audio presentation.

Their results from Phase I when seen on a graph are actually not too bad. Its clear they have something that works but they really need to refine it. Perhaps their use of genetic markers to pre-select the cells they use for replication might improve yields.

I like the design of their new injector device.

Phase II :
http://www.replicel.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/RepliCel-AGM-Presentation-June-11-12-ori.pdf

General info :
http://www.replicel.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/Phase-I-IIa-Interim-Results.pdf

Great, looks like they’re going at this thing with guns blazing… But can anyone explain why they think results in Phase II will be any better than the DISMAL results in Phase I?

Let’s face it, the results in Phase I were so bad, there was no statistically significant difference in the double-blind study between the people receiving the real injections and those who got the placebo.

» Their results from Phase I when seen on a graph are actually not too bad.

Their results in Phase I were HEINOUS.

Perhaps they need to better isolate the correct cells in the dermal sheath cup region prior to replication. Or to screen out non trichogenic cells with each day of replication. Or something…

What I don’t understand is why they are dosing down rather than up. If they are only just seeing efficacy at 50 to 100 million cells, why drop that number down significantly? Looks like a guarantee of failure at lower cell numbers.

Another thing I can’t understand is why they did not test on human skin grafted onto SCID mice with human DSC cells injected during their 9 years of experimentation. Is there any scientific reason why that would not give a clear cut indication of efficacy in humans?

I know they used SCID mice but did they inject them with mouse DSC cells or human? If they injected with mouse cells, what then was the purpose of using SCID mice?

I am unfazed regardless. I consider this to be one of the few right tracks towards a potential MPB cure. I don’t have much faith in folks chasing down obscure chemical pathways - not as far as regrowing new hair anyways.

I have more confidence in these folks than anything cots has to offer. At least they are upfront good or bad.

» I have more confidence in these folks than anything cots has to offer. At
» least they are upfront good or bad.

They paid a couple hundred thousand bucks to have their stock professionally hyped, just before they released their last round of pitiful results. That’s how upfront they are.

» They paid a couple hundred thousand bucks to have their stock
» professionally hyped, just before they released their last round of pitiful
» results. That’s how upfront they are.

They disclosed that they hired a firm to market their company in their financial reports… which i’m sure you read.

»
» They disclosed that they hired a firm to market their company in their
» financial reports… which i’m sure you read.

They did exactly what I described. Rephrasing it to sound better doesn’t change anything.

» They did exactly what I described. Rephrasing it to sound better doesn’t
» change anything.

Did exactly what? Quit posting BS. They don’t have Cotserellis type publicity to generate interest in their company.

Have you looked at the distribution of shares in the company? The founders can only profit if their technology does well.

Perhaps it was a mistake to get pump n dump type promotion company involved in the promotion efforts. But they are not a bullsh@t sc@m company.

They are making an honest effort to crack this and reporting their results which apparently few others dare do.

» Perhaps it was a mistake to get pump n dump type promotion company involved
» in the promotion efforts. But they are not a bullsh@t sc@m company.

True, if they were a bullsh@t sc@m company they would have faked their results. Releasing such devastatingly horrific results was painfully honest of them. I wish they had had success but it seems smearing feces on your head would have proved more promising than the protocol they are using.

A successful company would not have to hire people to hype their product.

» » Perhaps it was a mistake to get pump n dump type promotion company
» involved
» » in the promotion efforts. But they are not a bullsh@t sc@m company.
»
» True, if they were a bullsh@t sc@m company they would have faked their
» results. Releasing such devastatingly horrific results was painfully honest
» of them. I wish they had had success but it seems smearing feces on your
» head would have proved more promising than the protocol they are using.
»
» A successful company would not have to hire people to hype their product.

I get the feeling that Replicel was never really planning to bring anything to market i.e. they didn’t have a real interest in curing hairloss. Honestly, it seems that they were anticipating that their I/II results were gonna be good enough to attract big money who’d come in and buy them out. That’s where their business plan starts and stops. Which is why they paid some talking head to spout off with the ridiculous hyperbole that we saw. They could’ve instructed the TV personality to keep his comments reasonable - but they didn’t. They knew him and the type of hype he makes a living off of…but still let him shoot from the hip without a word to the contrary until they saw their sad results. I believe they thought the phase I/II results were gonna be decent and they wanted as many eyes on the company as possible when they released them. Doing this with one purpose in mind - to sell the company. They cash out with a fat bank account and the problem of getting through all the trials is somebody elses pet.

Certainly a legit business approach - but it’s probably not going to get a treatment to market.

» True, if they were a bullsh@t sc@m company they would have faked their
» results. Releasing such devastatingly horrific results was painfully honest
» of them. I wish they had had success but it seems smearing feces on your
» head would have proved more promising than the protocol they are using.

As I said, I am unfazed by all this criticism.

Minoxidil does not produce results beyond 10 to 15% and hardly anyone can stay on the mess for more than 6 months. Yet it is a successful product.

This is a single injection and their first in human trial. They have produced +6.1% improvement. It may have been less than what they expected. But if they can improve on it and if results are compoundable, it can succeed. A good number of participants got near the +10% improvement mark.

They don’t need to worry about competition because there is no competition.

Nobody dares enter Phase I, put themselves on the line and publish results - except perhaps Histogen.

RepliCel’s Chief Medical Officer to Present at 21st European Academy of Dermatology & Venereology Congress

VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA, Sep 26, 2012 (Menafn - Marketwire via COMTEX) --RepliCel Life Sciences Inc. (the “Company” or “RepliCel” REPC.F today announces that Dr. Rolf Hoffmann, RepliCel’s Chief Medical Officer, will be presenting at the 21st European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology Congress in Prague, Czech Republic on Thursday, September 27th from 3:00 PM to 6:00 PM local time. During this focused session on hair and scalp diseases, Dr. Hoffmann will explain the background of the invention and will be discussing results from the Company’s first-in-man Phase I clinical trials using the RepliCel(R) treatment as a potential solution for androgenetic alopecia. For more information please visit http://www.eadvprague2012.org/.

RepliCel’s Common Shares Listed on CNSX
September 27, 2012

October 1, 2012 – Vancouver, British Columbia – RepliCel Life Sciences Inc. (the “Company” or “RepliCel”) (OTCBB:REPCF) today announces that its common shares have been approved for listing on the Canadian National Stock Exchange (“CNSX”) under the symbol “RP” effective today.

anyone know how to make money through short selling?

this is the stock to short sell.

Not that its directly related but here’s an example of a guy with muscular dystrophy who got a stem cell injection.

Though our balding scalps have enough stem cells they do not convert into progenitor cells for some reason.

Its analogous to not having enough stem cells to begin with - a kind of muscular dystrophy of the hair.

He says he did feel a great benefit from it, but its effect did not last for the long term. The cells perhaps eventually migrated away. I wonder if the same might be true of DSC cell injections into our heads. If it did work in growing hair, we might have to keep taking booster shots. The mouse experiments however showed they kept their new found DSC hair for the duration of their lives.

Watch it and be thankful you’re not this guy. Also note the parallels between him waiting for a cure and us waiting for a cure and having monkeys with nothing to offer heckling away at anyone attempting to create a treatment/cure :

» » » Perhaps it was a mistake to get pump n dump type promotion company
» » involved
» » » in the promotion efforts. But they are not a bullsh@t sc@m company.
» »
» » True, if they were a bullsh@t sc@m company they would have faked their
» » results. Releasing such devastatingly horrific results was painfully
» honest
» » of them. I wish they had had success but it seems smearing feces on your
» » head would have proved more promising than the protocol they are using.
» »
» » A successful company would not have to hire people to hype their
» product.
»
» I get the feeling that Replicel was never really planning to bring anything
» to market i.e. they didn’t have a real interest in curing hairloss.
» Honestly, it seems that they were anticipating that their I/II results were
» gonna be good enough to attract big money who’d come in and buy them out.
» That’s where their business plan starts and stops. Which is why they paid
» some talking head to spout off with the ridiculous hyperbole that we saw.
» They could’ve instructed the TV personality to keep his comments reasonable
» - but they didn’t. They knew him and the type of hype he makes a living
» off of…but still let him shoot from the hip without a word to the
» contrary until they saw their sad results. I believe they thought the
» phase I/II results were gonna be decent and they wanted as many eyes on the
» company as possible when they released them. Doing this with one purpose
» in mind - to sell the company. They cash out with a fat bank account and
» the problem of getting through all the trials is somebody elses pet.
»
» Certainly a legit business approach - but it’s probably not going to get a
» treatment to market.

If you read the CEO’s interviews, they clearly mentioned getting “big pharma interested” after a hopefully successful trial. I think they were seriously aiming at being bought out at a nice premium.

»
» If you read the CEO’s interviews, they clearly mentioned getting “big
» pharma interested” after a hopefully successful trial. I think they were
» seriously aiming at being bought out at a nice premium.

Yup. And the thing that sucks about that is it means they’re not going to be pushing the science to a conclusion themselves. That want just enough result to hook a buyer. And that most likely wouldn’t be enough result for a highly effective and marketable treatment. So the buyer has to take over the research aspect and develop the efficacy. IP and knowledge transfers take time, not to mention whatever hurdles they’ll need to overcome scientifically - can only adds years to the release date.

All this stuff about their motivation is irrelevant to us. The bottom line is their core idea failed to work.