Thomas Whitfield

Stem cell; cell based hair therapy
21

» point is valid dude, i just have one question - is there a workaround to
» the FDA system ? like if intellectual property is bought, and if the
» original company had trials going/done, does it hold good for the new
» owners ?

Is there a “workaround to the FDA system”? Of course not - why would there be? The FDA is in place to keep the public safe.

22

Rhetoric :
b. Language that is elaborate, pretentious, insincere, or intellectually vacuous

funny, i dint see u winning any argument. i only saw ‘who the fck are u’ in the first line of ur post. and other innocuous insults before you finished.

you rock dude, all men pale in comparison to your pristine linguistic capabilities.

heres the irony - u actually had a real point to make, as elaborated by debris. and this whole altercation makes no sense. the way you choose to put it forth only draws ire from readers.

» » I was wrong, you had no intentions of any discussion. ur just immature,
» » vain, and stupid.
» »
» » anybody curing hairloss hits the US first. if not, they lose out on a
» very
» » big market. and chances are, he doesnt need the FDA. OR. has already
» » started trials of some form.
» »
» » I keep an open mind, i dont take a stand on an issue until all the
» facts
» » are on the table. unlike you.
» »
» » I engage in a discussion, not abuses, stupid rhetoric, and other
» bullsht.
» » unlike you.
» »
» » and im younger than you too. and i have a lot of my hair left. i dont
» want
» » to look bald in 7 years time. hence my efforts towards finding a
» solution.
» »
» » so, i may be wrong abt this guy, but i dont consider myself any diff
» from
» » any of the ‘suckers’ on this forum. you have no respect for the other
» ppl
» » here, let alone their problems. Ur lack of self esteem is apparent from
» ur
» » most obvious defense mechanism - aggression.
» »
» » end of topic, here, now. ive wasted my time typing my responses to you.
» »
» » » Who the fck are you? The Hairsite Discussion Police? I don’t have
» to
» » » follow your rules as to how to initiate a discussion.
» » »
» » » As for this, yet another obscure article that will now begin a new
» » » hysteria, I’ll say this:
» » »
» » » 1. This guy is British. Who knows if he’s considered the FDA
» process?
» »
» » »
» » » 2. How many people touting a cure to hairloss claim it will be
» » available
» » » in 2 years? Its almost as common as the “5 year till a cure”
» » proclamation.
» » » Follica, the most reputable start-up doing hairloss research, had
» » people
» » » claiming it would be available within the new year. It obviously
» won’t
» » be.
» » » These people say these things to generate hype (and in turn, VC
» » money),
» » » and you suckers buy into every time.
» » »
» » » So I actually DO have a “basis” for position: its called “history”.
» » Its
» » » your position that is baseless.
» » »
» » » And unless you’re under 30, I’m not older than you. And thanks to
» » » Propecia, Rogain and Nizoral, I still have my hair. That’s why I
» don’t
» » get
» » » suckered like the rest of you; I can afford the wait. Apparently,
» you
» » » can’t.
»
» “I was wrong, you had no intentions of any discussion. ur just immature,
» vain, and stupid.” You call that a rebuttal? And you bashed me for my
» discussion technique? “Whaaaa! You’re winning the argument! So now I’m
» just going to call you names!”
»
» “Stupid rhetoric”? Do you even know what “rhetoric” means? Because your
» employment of the word makes no sense. I wish you people would stick to
» using words you understand.
»
» “Chances are he doesn’t need the FDA”? How do you know? Assuming he does
» is logical - hairloss is a medical problem, and any treatment of it (not
» cosmetic conealment) would “need the FDA”. Otherwise, its just another
» toupee product.
»
» Its the height of irony that you started flaming me by accusing me of not
» employing rational discussion, only to end your posts by doing nothing but
» calling names.

23

» Rhetoric :
» b. Language that is elaborate, pretentious, insincere, or intellectually
» vacuous
»
» funny, i dint see u winning any argument. i only saw ‘who the fck are u’
» in the first line of ur post. and other innocuous insults before you
» finished.
»
» you rock dude, all men pale in comparison to your pristine linguistic
» capabilities.
»
» heres the irony - u actually had a real point to make, as elaborated by
» debris. and this whole altercation makes no sense. the way you choose to
» put it forth only draws ire from readers.
»
»

I don’t know what whacked-out dictionary you use (probably the one they give out at the community college you’re attending), but here’s the real definition:

What you posted is what you THINK the definition of rhetoric is, but it is not its actual meaning. Dude.

Just give up, yeah? You’ve lost the argument on all fronts. That has been made painfully clear by your use of name-calling (a classic sign that an argument has collapsed). You’ve even admitted that this Whitfield guy and his “cure” sound questionable.

24

Just thought I’d point out that we don’t have the FDA in the U.K, we have the MHRA. Don’t know if there would be a difference in trial lengths compared to the FDA though.

I have to admit when I first saw the article I thought it was some sort of practical joke, it seems odd to me for some reason, I can’t tell if it’s the way its written or that weird picture they used.
Is this endorsed by Oxford university in any way? or did he just get his biochemistry PhD there?
My first thought was some sort of cosmetic thing like a wig with maintenance service, the article mentions “product and service”.
But what if he is putting his degree to use? He said its not any kind of “gene therepy” according to that article, so could be some sort of medication (if it is I doubt its anything new, or we haven’t heard of)? or a combo of both?

I like the way he is quoted as saying “The two for second – your second generation of hair” lol.

25

» » … I have no doubt he has a bright future ahead of him …"
»

If he doesn’t cure our malicious malady within the year I’m going to kill him.

26

From the link you posted:

rhet·o·ric Listen to the pronunciation of rhetoric

Pronunciation:
\ˈre-tə-rik\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English rethorik, from Anglo-French rethorique, from Latin rhetorica, from Greek rhētorikē, literally, art of oratory, from feminine of rhētorikos of an orator, from rhētōr orator, rhetorician, from eirein to say, speak — more at word
Date:
14th century

1: the art of speaking or writing effectively: as a: the study of principles and rules of composition formulated by critics of ancient times b: the study of writing or speaking as a means of communication or persuasion 2 a: skill in the effective use of speech b: a type or mode of language or speech ; also : insincere or grandiloquent language3: verbal communication : discourse

go back and read ur responses. then tell me where the name calling began.

dont underestimate ppl based on their educational background. thats another level of discrimination which doesnt take into account a person’s skills and abilities.

» » Rhetoric :
» » b. Language that is elaborate, pretentious, insincere, or
» intellectually
» » vacuous
» »
» » funny, i dint see u winning any argument. i only saw ‘who the fck are
» u’
» » in the first line of ur post. and other innocuous insults before you
» » finished.
» »
» » you rock dude, all men pale in comparison to your pristine linguistic
» » capabilities.
» »
» » heres the irony - u actually had a real point to make, as elaborated by
» » debris. and this whole altercation makes no sense. the way you choose
» to
» » put it forth only draws ire from readers.
» »
» »
»
» I don’t know what whacked-out dictionary you use (probably the one they
» give out at the community college you’re attending), but here’s the real
» definition:
»
» Rhetoric Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
»
» What you posted is what you THINK the definition of rhetoric is, but it is
» not its actual meaning. Dude.
»
» Just give up, yeah? You’ve lost the argument on all fronts. That has
» been made painfully clear by your use of name-calling (a classic sign that
» an argument has collapsed). You’ve even admitted that this Whitfield guy
» and his “cure” sounds questionable.
27

i tried to find his papers online and it seems he is primarily focused on antiviral work/vaccine. So if his invention is based on his phd work maybe its about preventing future loss…not regrowth. maybe he found a way to trick the immune system into not seeing the follicle as an enemy. otoh, the name of his company includes a reference to a second generation of hair. this is a wild guess so take it with a grain of salt.

28

» i tried to find his papers online and it seems he is primarily focused on
» antiviral work/vaccine. So if his invention is based on his phd work maybe
» its about preventing future loss…not regrowth. maybe he found a way to
» trick the immune system into not seeing the follicle as an enemy. otoh, the
» name of his company includes a reference to a second generation of hair.
» this is a wild guess so take it with a grain of salt.

Here is the first line of that article:

“An Oxford PhD is developing a new technology that he believes will offer effective hair loss prevention to the masses.”

29

» i tried to find his papers online and it seems he is primarily focused on
» antiviral work/vaccine. So if his invention is based on his phd work maybe
» its about preventing future loss…not regrowth. maybe he found a way to
» trick the immune system into not seeing the follicle as an enemy. otoh, the
» name of his company includes a reference to a second generation of hair.
» this is a wild guess so take it with a grain of salt.

Wow that would be an interesting approach, I never considered anything like that before.

I’m going to stay on the fence about this untill I see some more info.

30

» well lets use soma rational thinking
»
» if trial takes 10 years, then he cant have a medical product on the market
»
»
» - medical product trial takes 10 years
» - the journalist says 1 year to have product on the market
» - journalists lie, and make up stuff and dont understand stuff and
» misinterpret on daily basis
» - it could be something else the medical product (a toupee?)
» - it could be scam, http://trx2.com/ points to some mailing list register
» page. Looks like a cheap “gimme your mail address and ill spam you forever”
» trick.
» - the guy exists, seems to have made one project already, this points to
» not a complete scam

the guy looks legit, at least
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/3/bb3/1b4

i hope he finds something and ridiculize intercytex and the rest of those slapheads altogether :smiley: Go thommy gho.

31

» i hope he finds something and ridiculize intercytex and the rest of those
» slapheads altogether :smiley: Go thommy gho.

I don’t know why, but my gut feeling is that it’s gonna be some cosmetic solution e.g. topik etc. Just look at the facts, some never heard of guy with NO background in hair/skin disorders, and on top of that a cure within 12 months. There is no way this is a legitimate hair regrowth treatment.

32

I guess calling rev, revtard, does not qualify

you call guys more names than anyone on the board, douchebag

33

He’s a biochemist so it’s not likely going to be a toupee, And as someone said about tricking the immune system not to attack the follicle, Well if that was possible wouldn’t our resting follicles start functioning normally again.

Whatever it is that the guy is working on and none of us know, Is there a reason why the first thing people do is start babbling on about timelines, It’s boring hearing about the FDA before we even know what it is he’s developing, Maybe he’s a genius and maybe he’s not but stanger things have happened.

34

It never ceases to amaze me how people are so capable of getting ANGRY at each other over info that neither one of them knows a damn thing about.

One comment: The term that the article used is “prevent.”

35

trial is not about getting intelectual properties, its primarily about safety and efficiency.

atm there is no evidence of a known treatment that would be in trials now that would promise to reach market in 1 years time. Such treatment is not listed in the government clinical trials database. it most probably does not exist atm. closest is 5 years away, theoreticaly, if all goes superb.

36

» It never ceases to amaze me how people are so capable of getting ANGRY at
» each other over info that neither one of them knows a damn thing about.
»
»
»
»
» One comment: The term that the article used is “prevent.”

Case closed. topical finasteride or something similar.

Prevention is possible now even with the stuff that already exists.

37

» trial is not about getting intelectual properties, its primarily about
» safety and efficiency.
»
» atm there is no evidence of a known treatment that would be in trials now
» that would promise to reach market in 1 years time. Such treatment is not
» listed in the government clinical trials database. it most probably does
» not exist atm. closest is 5 years away, theoreticaly, if all goes superb.
»
»
» » point is valid dude, i just have one question - is there a workaround
» to
» » the FDA system ? like if intellectual property is bought, and if the
» » original company had trials going/done, does it hold good for the new
» » owners ?
» »
» » i think thats the only way he brings it to market, if he does.
» »
» » ur right, and i hadnt seen that link before. it looks shady.
» »
» »
» » » well lets use soma rational thinking
» » »
» » » if trial takes 10 years, then he cant have a medical product on the
» » market
» » »
» » »
» » » - medical product trial takes 10 years
» » » - the journalist says 1 year to have product on the market
» » » - journalists lie, and make up stuff and dont understand stuff and
» » » misinterpret on daily basis
» » » - it could be something else the medical product (a toupee?)
» » » - it could be scam, http://trx2.com/ points to some mailing list
» » register
» » » page. Looks like a cheap “gimme your mail address and ill spam you
» » forever”
» » » trick.
» » » - the guy exists, seems to have made one project already, this points
» » to
» » » not a complete scam
» » »
» » »
» » » id say simplest explanation is that the guy hopes to find some drug
» » » candidates in one year from now on. and the journalist just
» » misinterpreted
» » » that as 1 year to market. this explanation is simplest, and most
» » probable.
» » » I give it 65%
» » »
» » » scam is 30% (it wouldnt be the first scam some ppl here were willing
» to
» » » put all their money on would it?)
» » »
» » » non medical product is 4.9% (the guy is smart, maybe he just invented
» a
» » » new toupee).
» » »
» » » a miraculous cure that does not need approvals is 0.1% (and thats
» » probably
» » » 0.1% more then I should assign here. this world has rules, and rule
» no1
» » is
» » » safety first, and trials needed for any medical products).

We are not regulated by the FDA in the U.K. We have the MHRA who do things a little differently to the FDA, ICX original proposal to the MHRA was to do phase I,II and III in about 3 years.
We all know how that ended up however, but who knows if the efficiacy was better maybe it could have been completed with in that time line.
Point being, you can’t really use the 5-10 years rule of thumb out side the USA, other contries are regulated in different ways.

38

» » It never ceases to amaze me how people are so capable of getting ANGRY
» at
» » each other over info that neither one of them knows a damn thing about.
»
» »
» »
» »
» »
» » One comment: The term that the article used is “prevent.”
»
» Case closed. topical finasteride or something similar.
»
» Prevention is possible now even with the stuff that already exists.

Sounds likely but the article makes a point in saying current treatments are not very good.

“The slippery descent into lotions and pills, toupés and skin grafts fills most with horror.”
“Current treatments don’t work properly or they are inconvenient or they are simply very, very expensive. We have come up with a solution that’s quite easy and much cheaper.”

39

I also think that they wouldn’t tout an existing treatment as an all out cure, even if it was in a new delivery system.

I know he has a biochemisty degree, but none of his other projects seem to make use of it, I’m leaning more to a cosmetic thing, but I’m unsure.

“your second generation of hair”, “hair loss a thing of the past” are apparantly quotes from Whitfield.
The article also says its “A new technology”.

I wouldn’t use prevent as the key word here because its written in the articles subtitle, prevention can mean to stop any further, stop in the first place or just slow down.
So it could mean it prevents hair loss from happening in the first place, it could mean it prevents any further loss from happening or just slows it down a lot.

I would like to know what he means by “product and service”?

Maybe its just a hoax.

40

Some one on another site posted this. It was published on December 27. Coincidence maybe? It mentions a product that will be unveiled this year that will prevent further loss and not give regrowth.

"Stem cells and hair

Every hair on our head grows from a follicle and every follicle originates from a stem cell in our scalp. Scientists will next year unveil a new product that protects these stem cells against damage and degradation, acting as an insurance policy against future hair loss. Unfortunately, it won’t treat existing hair loss."