Yes it seems so from the pdf.
Follica (first Time Ever Picture) - Exciting
- Thread starter Xaser94
- Start date
Yes it seems so from the pdf.
Not sure I am reading this correctly, but p. 22 of the longer pdf seems to suggest that there were 2 sessions for FOL-003: Day 1 - “a non-scarring perturbation” and Day 17-35 - “a more profound perturbation.” Entirely possible I’m misreading this.
- Reaction score
- 2,565
Yeah because there are basically unlimited sessions with Tsuji, there's a plateau with Follicia. And tbqh that kind of result would be a bit underwhelming for hair cloning.
On page 4 in this thread you can download a clinical summary in pdf. It dosent include the exact procedure but it tells alot about it.
Lithium was cleared by the FDA in 1970. I doubt they would be gambling on lithium to grow hair. And minoxidil is an old drug discovery. Follicabio.com front page says *new drug. Taken at face value, they mean *new drug.
But doesnt take years to get a new drug approved? And why isnt this new drug written in any of the slides that they presented with their results of fol 01 thru fol 03?
Nothing. What else would it be based on?
Good question. Idk. We do know that Samumed of California got started in 2008 and currently has the only known drug worldwide entering a phase 3 study for AA, a trial compound for drugging the Wnt pathway known as SM04554.
In 2017, Cotsarelis and UPenn were also interested in a compound for drugging the Wnt pathway. It's referred to as just CWL080061. Meanwhile, JW Pharma has been researching compounds that affect the Wnt signaling pathway since the early 2000's. And they hold original technology on tens of thousands of compounds and,
"...an innovative screening system that can distinguish the activity and inhibition of the Wnt signaling pathway."
That is impressive.
Last edited:
- Reaction score
- 33
I was wondering why people are debating whether or not follica has some new drug they've invented when their website states that their approach is Device + Existing Drugs, but I just checked and they've updated it to just say Device + Drug, which must have been a fairly recent change? Weird..
- Reaction score
- 342
Do they specify what needle length and thickness gives a non-scarring perturbation and what gives "a more profound perturbation"?
- Reaction score
- 2,565
It's just microneedling with minoxidil ffs...oh sorry super-microneedling with super-minoxidil...the mechanism is the same as what we already know and there is no unlimited regrowth with microneedling.
- Reaction score
- 342
Are these all the PDFs that have been posted or is there more?
https://www.hairlosstalk.com/interact/attachments/follica-clinical-summary_compressed-pdf.132602/
https://www.puretechhealth.com/images/PureTech-Corporate-Presentation_FINAL-111919-Web.pdf
https://www.hairlosstalk.com/interact/attachments/follica-clinical-summary_compressed-pdf.132602/
https://www.puretechhealth.com/images/PureTech-Corporate-Presentation_FINAL-111919-Web.pdf
Maybe try deleting your browser cache because Follica's front page says this:
"CAUTION: Investigational device and new drug. Limited by United States law to investigational use."
Last edited:
hanginginthewire
Senior Member
- Reaction score
- 1,429
Book reports.
No, book reports tend to examine facts.
Rain is minoxidil with fancy packaging, a fancy application device, and fancy clinical wounding doctor visits. It seems to me that it's a gimmicky way to get people to pay a lot of money for minoxidil.
There are different angles and different hairstyles in the pics but there is some improvement to be certain. However, keep in mind that these are probably their 2 best respondents and plain old minoxidil without Follica's gimmicky crap would give 2 out of a hundred (or more) patients equally good results. In other words, these results could be achieved by plain old minoxidil in a couple of patients out of a hundred and I'm sure there are more than 100 patients in this Follica study so this treatment looks about the same as plain old minoxidil.
Good regrowth with minoxidil is more common than you think it is. It grows good hair in 16% of patients, which is 16 out of 100 patients. When you're at this site it just seems like it works less often (than 16% of patients) because the people who come here are the people it didn't work on. So when you come to this site you're coming to a place where the minoxidil nonresponders hang out. After all, if it had worked on us then we wouldn't be coming here. Check this out:
https://www.healthline.com/health/does-rogaine-work#research
And here is the key quote:
"study that led to the drug’s approval in 1987, 40 percent of men had moderate to dense hair growth on the crown of their head. In a one-year observational study, 62 percent of the 984 men using 5 percent minoxidil reported a reduction in hair loss. As for hair regrowth, the drug was rated as “very effective” in 16 percent of participants, “effective” in 48 percent, “moderately effective” in 21 percent, and “ineffective” in 16 percent. The side effects were minimal."
And so Follica's front web page doesn't jive with a report in which the timelines to trial data and FDA filings appear to be a few years old by the looks of that 56-page pdf. I have no idea. Was that report produced to attract IPO financing? I don't think so? Follica has held their cards close their chests for some time.
Last edited: