» Hi All,
» The only way this would make sens. Is if HM works, it may not work well
» enough near the hairline. (this was briefly mentioned during Intercytex
» Hype, when they referred the use of HT for hairline).
»
» With this technique, Follica can sculpt/trace/define hair line after any
» type of hair re-growth created by either Aderans/Trichoscience/Follica, by
» removing runaway hairs.
»
» My theory is that, only if HM works, the next question will be how to
» assure natural hairline with out the use of hair transplant or surgeon.
»
» My 2 cents
If Follica works, it should work anywhere. Or, if it does follow the blue-print of hair-growth as dictated by sections of your skin (the reason you don’t have patches of hair on your forehead).
This is arguably more in line with my thoughts on rejuvenation, which - if all goes well - is really a non-issue with Follica, as the hair gained (new or awoken) won’t be inherently DHT-immune. It’s a non-issue in terms of differentiating between the two I mean (in most cases, provided you can rejuvenated most, or all your hair).
Removing hair will, as others have said, probably not be used at the hairline. Creating a good hairline should take very little actual hair, and large doses of artistry. Creating a great fade-line in a drawing requires very little ink/paint/graphite, but a great deal of attention to detail.
Hair-removal, as it seems to work in this case would most likely eliminate all hair, and make for a sharp line, when what you’re really looking for is careful imperfections.
Anyone can draw a sharp line, which is why a lot of hairlines end up looking cartoonish. People with great adult hairlines usually have anything but completely straight lines.
This is basically a complete reverse of the technique laid out by Follica for hair-growth, and was also present in their original document 2-3 years ago, so it’s not surprising at all - to me - that they’re moving in on it. Removing is indeed easier than creating, and since the procedure in itself is fairly straight-forward, they’re well off with doing this concurrently.
If I remember correctly, it works by suppressing WnT at the “window-of-opportunity” while encouraging skin-formation, as opposed to boosting WnT and discouraging skin-formation. It could be that you only need to suppress WnT, which makes the procedure even easier to do.
Don’t forget that this hair-business is very close to growing organs, so making things “not work” is obviously easier.
Going through FDA and whatnot still takes shy off ten years, and if the growth doesn’t fall through, they’re most likely hoping the removal-procedure can be worthwhile. People on this forum are immensely interested in one, but not the other, but the reversal could be found on other parts of the net, so I think there’s cause for perspective.
I really don’t think anyone should read too much into this; especially not regarding their growth-trials which - as should be stressed - we know almost nothing about. That’s also very important to keep in mind.
“Failure” to provide proof of efficiency is not proof of lack of efficiency. Nobody owes anyone here anything, and keeping silent has all kinds of financial benefits, and can - in some way - actually be a sign that things are working alright.
Remember that Intercytex went up in flames shortly after being unsually vocal.
When any of the three-four companies we check up on here start talking too much, I get nervous. Not when they keep to themselves.
