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

WTF happened to Aderans?


#1

I know they lost their funding from their parent company but I thought they were going to get financing from some other source and re-emerge Is their effort kaput?

Whassssssssuuuuuuppppppp Aderans???


#2

finding investors for a multi-million dollar financing, for a treatment which leaves roughly 50% of the patients without any results whatsoever and the other 50% with very moderate results, is probably not the easiest thing to do.

I think it will be quite a while before they will find an investor - if ever.


#3

If Follica’s procedure is producting hair, as an investor, why would I invest money in a company who who has producted minimal hair. And with all the patents Follica has submitted, it appears they have concerned the market on their procedure. Since Follica’s last report, maybe they really have something and Adderans team of researches know this.


#4

Follica was making these same claims back when ARI was in phase#1 trials. The specifics have changed but not the big picture.

ARI has no more funding because they cannot grow hair very well. That is by far the simplest and most likely answer.


#5

If Ari can’t grow hair then how is it that Dr. Nigam using a similar technique and growing some hair? Is Doctor Nigam’s treatment dramatically different from Ari’s treatment?

I think one difference is that Dr. Nigam uses follow-up treatments rather than just a single treatment date. I think this is why Aderans called their results “encourging” because that would be the exact word to use if their one multiple treatment study yielded better results than their single treatment studies did.


#6

Or maybe Dr. Nigam’s work will just have the same unfixable inconsistency problems that ARI did.

It’s a disappointing thought. But what we want does not affect how the science works.


#7

[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by cal[/postedby]

ARI has no more funding because they cannot grow hair very well. That is by far the simplest and most likely answer.[/quote]

If their protocol is promising, ARI can always sell their patents or whatever intellectual properties they now own to a company with deep pockets.


#8

It’s possible. But if there was a decent reason to think Ji Gami had potential for improvement then I doubt Aderans would have bailed on them.

New management or not, Aderans had already invested a ton of money getting the project 2/3rds of the way through FDA trials when they bailed. The raw data must not have looked very good at all.

Maybe somebody else will pick it up and run with it. But I doubt they are gonna make a lot more progress than ARI did.

IMHO its time to call that entire avenue of treatment (multiplying DP cells, etc) a failure. It won’t regrow lost hair and it probably fails to do anything at all for a big portion of the patients. It might give us some benefit but nobody would have pursued this method of treating MPB in the first place if they knew how limited the gains would turn out to be for all that investment.

How much farther along might HM be today, if all that money & effort that went into cell multiplying during the last 10 years had been sunk into Follica’s line of thinking instead? We might already be out of this mess by now.

If Follica comes to fruition then they should be able to cover long-balded skin with thick dense terminal hairs. Nobody else in the history of HM - EVER - has shown any real progress in that direction. Follica was farther than anyone else right out of the gate years ago, just by focusing on a method of HM that is capable of regenerating follicles in the first place.


#9

So cal you think that the near future won’t bring us any interesting “cure”/medicine? You think we will use finasteride and minox for other 10 years?


#10

All we’ve seen are well timed media announcements from follica so far.

It looks suspiciously like vapor-ware.

I certainly hope not.

Its insane how we go from year to year and NOBODY on this planet is able to cure this issue.


#11

I have never seen much to be gained from Follica’s well-timed media announcements. There is no stock price to inflate.

The docs involved might like to push their own public image periodically . . for what? Their new designer clothing line coming this fall?

I don’t know if Follica is very close to the market or a decade away. But I do know that nothing else appears to even be a viable contender.

ARI was doing the DP cell thing as well as anyone was going to do it. Their investors bailed after it didn’t even live up to Finasteride results consistently. Dr. Nigam might discover something unexpectedly usable but it’s a pretty long shot.

What interests me most now is Follica. Somebody needs to put a gun to Cotsarelis’s head and get some real answers about how close to the market they are, whether that turns out to be good news or bad.


#12

[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by jarjarbinx[/postedby]
I know they lost their funding from their parent company but I thought they were going to get financing from some other source and re-emerge Is their effort kaput?

Whassssssssuuuuuuppppppp Aderans???[/quote]

I would guess it’s because funding isn’t going to be as easy to get as they thought.

Think about it this way. The fact that their parent company totally dropped them probably DOES NOT speak well about their results. Otherwise the parent company wouldn’t have dropped them, right?

Now, if they couldn’t even get their own parent company to continue funding them, and they have to disclose the reasons for that in any financial deal with new investors, how are they going to convince reputable new investors that their product/process will be successful?


#13

[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by jarjarbinx[/postedby]
If Ari can’t grow hair then how is it that Dr. Nigam using a similar technique and growing some hair? Is Doctor Nigam’s treatment dramatically different from Ari’s treatment?

I think one difference is that Dr. Nigam uses follow-up treatments rather than just a single treatment date. I think this is why Aderans called their results “encourging” because that would be the exact word to use if their one multiple treatment study yielded better results than their single treatment studies did.[/quote]

If Dr. Nigam is growing more hair than ARI did (and this is possibly true, from what we’ve seen), it’s because he’s permitted to do things with stem cells and progenitor cells (like culture them beyond a couple of passes) that ARI was prohibited from doing… or at least, prohibited in the sense that to change any of their protocols, culture different cells, or culture them in a certain way, they had to ask the FDA for authorization every step of the way and this became incredibly expensive and time-consuming. Dr. Nigam doesn’t have to go through similar bureaucratic hoops in India. He just gets an idea, and he does it.

I don’t think Dr. Nigam said that the most cutting-edge portions of his research are exactly what ARI is/was doing. He’s mentioned ARI’s work a lot of times in describing his own work, he’s compared them and highlighted the similarities from what he knows (having spoken with Dr. Washenik on a number of occasions), but he’s never made a statement that he’s doing exactly what ARI was doing, exacly as they were doing it, and no more.


#14

Someone really does need to find out when Follica plans to release their treatment.


#15

Yeah, I really wish there was some way that Cots could tell us through a “back channel” without having to air another public opinion that floods him with emails & attention.

But I don’t know what that back channel would be. It’s always the problem, convincing just your intended listeners that you are the real thing without convincing the rest of the world at large.


#16

I don’t know if he will or won’t share info under any circumstances, even in a back channel. He is way coy. And the thing is that some of the things he says indicate that he could release a treatment in a year or two but then he says and does other things that makes it seem like it would be considerably longer than that. For example, his efforts to get drug companies with GPR44 blockers in the pipeline to cut a deal with him suggests that whatever other treatment he has is further from approval (for hair loss) than the GPR44 blockers are from approval for hair loss. GPR44 blockers for the treatment of hair loss have not even started phase 1 yet so GPR44 blockers for hair loss are at least 5 years out. Jeez! This suggest that whatever other treatment he’s working on is at least 5 years out. But then Follica talks about how the other treatment he’s working on has sailed through clinical trials so that makes it seem like it’s gotten through at least phase 1 and phase 2 because the interviews always say that it’s gotten through clinical trialS with an “S” so that means more than one trial.

I’m flippin’ confused. I need my decoder ring to figure out what these people are saying.

I emailed Garza a week ago but he has not responded. I wish georgex6 would hurry up and email him since Garza seems to be willing to talk with georgex6. I would like to know if Follica will be releasing a better moustrap anytime soon.

[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by cal[/postedby]
Yeah, I really wish there was some way that Cots could tell us through a “back channel” without having to air another public opinion that floods him with emails & attention.

But I don’t know what that back channel would be. It’s always the problem, convincing just your intended listeners that you are the real thing without convincing the rest of the world at large.[/quote]


#17

I never get why you guys are so confused about Cotsarelis’ work. They are looking into various things, so yes, they are doing clinical trials - but that doesn’t mean they are trialing a final contender for a cure.

They are:

  1. Continously doing more research into pathways/signaling involved in hair follicle cycling.
  2. Using those findings in animal and human models to validate their research
  3. Possibly combine various findings/breakthroughs using available drugs into a viable treatment.

(3) is what we have no idea about. But there is no doubt that they are doing research and trials. There are just too many people who haven’t actually read Follica’s and Cotsarelis’ actual statements and just getting hyped up on what the authors of online articles say - which often is their own opinion.

An example of that is the first “trial” that Follica did back in 2008 at Harvard (I believe). I actually called to enlist in the trial and was told specifically by an “informed” person that there will be “NO drugs” involved and that it will just be wounding (small area would be scraped) using some medical tool. I decided since no drugs are being involved, it’s not really worth my time and hassle. I also posted in several threads that the “trial” isn’t a trial in typical sense of the word in which companies test their product. Still for years, I have seen people senselessly discuss how nothing fruitful came out of Follica’s trials. :no:

That’s why I’ve stopped hanging out in these forums so much, as it seems every year, a new group of desperate balding young guys take over and the whole process is repeated which basically includes few guys who are in denial, few guys who are here to tell everyone how their life is ruined and few guys who are just collecting random info from the web in hope of doing something.


#18

After reading your half-page rant, I still do not know what exactly you are criticizing. Should people generally stop discussing follica and Cots? What exactly is your point?

[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by goata007[/postedby]
I never get why you guys are so confused about Cotsarelis’ work. They are looking into various things, so yes, they are doing clinical trials - but that doesn’t mean they are trialing a final contender for a cure.

They are:

  1. Continously doing more research into pathways/signaling involved in hair follicle cycling.
  2. Using those findings in animal and human models to validate their research
  3. Possibly combine various findings/breakthroughs using available drugs into a viable treatment.

(3) is what we have no idea about. But there is no doubt that they are doing research and trials. There are just too many people who haven’t actually read Follica’s and Cotsarelis’ actual statements and just getting hyped up on what the authors of online articles say - which often is their own opinion.

An example of that is the first “trial” that Follica did back in 2008 at Harvard (I believe). I actually called to enlist in the trial and was told specifically by an “informed” person that there will be “NO drugs” involved and that it will just be wounding (small area would be scraped) using some medical tool. I decided since no drugs are being involved, it’s not really worth my time and hassle. I also posted in several threads that the “trial” isn’t a trial in typical sense of the word in which companies test their product. Still for years, I have seen people senselessly discuss how nothing fruitful came out of Follica’s trials. :no:

That’s why I’ve stopped hanging out in these forums so much, as it seems every year, a new group of desperate balding young guys take over and the whole process is repeated which basically includes few guys who are in denial, few guys who are here to tell everyone how their life is ruined and few guys who are just collecting random info from the web in hope of doing something.[/quote]


#19

Trialing on live humans is expensive and risky. Follica would still be killing mice if they could get things done that way.

The question is what has driven the move to humans? There is the issue of mice not serving as an adequate model for human hair/skin in some ways. The other incentive to go to humans is if they are genuinely close to something.

So which is it? We don’t know. Follica makes statements & actions that suggest both ways.


#20

well, Roger there is the important similarity between Dr. Nigam’s treatment and ARI’s treatment that they are both culturing cells and injecting those cultured cells back into the balding areas of the scalp.

Can you please list some specific reasons why Dr. Nigam’s cellular cultivation/re-implantation would produce dramatically improved results where as ARI’s treatment won’t? One thing you’ve already said is that Dr. Nigam’s allowed to “cultivate stem cells and progenitor cells beyond a couple passes.” what exactly does that mean? Also, please elaborate on any other reasons why Dr. Nigam’s hair cell cultivation/re-implantation is different from ARI’s.

Also, I wish Dr. Nigam would comment on how his hair cell cultivation/re-implantation is different from ARI’s. Everyone here has seen the before and after photos of ARI’s test patients and Dr. Nigam is getting much better results and I would like some help figuring out why.

[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by jarjarbinx[/postedby]
If Ari can’t grow hair then how is it that Dr. Nigam using a similar technique and growing some hair? Is Doctor Nigam’s treatment dramatically different from Ari’s treatment?

I think one difference is that Dr. Nigam uses follow-up treatments rather than just a single treatment date. I think this is why Aderans called their results “encourging” because that would be the exact word to use if their one multiple treatment study yielded better results than their single treatment studies did.

[postedby]Originally Posted by roger_that[/postedby]

If Dr. Nigam is growing more hair than ARI did (and this is possibly true, from what we’ve seen), it’s because he’s permitted to do things with stem cells and progenitor cells (like culture them beyond a couple of passes) that ARI was prohibited from doing… or at least, prohibited in the sense that to change any of their protocols, culture different cells, or culture them in a certain way, they had to ask the FDA for authorization every step of the way and this became incredibly expensive and time-consuming. Dr. Nigam doesn’t have to go through similar bureaucratic hoops in India. He just gets an idea, and he does it.

I don’t think Dr. Nigam said that the most cutting-edge portions of his research are exactly what ARI is/was doing. He’s mentioned ARI’s work a lot of times in describing his own work, he’s compared them and highlighted the similarities from what he knows (having spoken with Dr. Washenik on a number of occasions), but he’s never made a statement that he’s doing exactly what ARI was doing, exacly as they were doing it, and no more.[/quote]