Follica (first Time Ever Picture) - Exciting
- Thread starter Xaser94
- Start date
Based on the released pdf, can it be as simple as this?
1. 42 pin microneedle or nanoneedles and treat your whole scalp one time.
2. Apply minoxidil two times a day after a week of recovery from the treatment.
3. After 6 month you will have 25-30% more terminal hairs.
Thoughts
step 1,if its a 42 pin microneedle, what depth is needed?
If it is nanoneedles, the depth is low by default, so why use a clinic for this? They could just sell the instrument directly to the clients. Nanoneedles seem harmless compared to microneedling.
step 2, i assume Follica cant recommend minoxidil right after microneedling since the minoxidil will probably absorb too much. They need to think of side effects (unlike this forum) concidering they want to commercialise this.
In the graph on page 40 it looks like you need to wait a before the drug treatment start, but that might just be a visual thing.
Step 3, i based the percentage from the graph at page 40.
Presentations like this is often inaccurate since they are mostly used to explain the concept, not the details. Its impossible to tell how accurate it really is.
Could the key to this treatment be the density of the needles? Or is it a drug or both?
Feel free to correct me if i misunderstood anything. Im not used to read medical papers.
1. 42 pin microneedle or nanoneedles and treat your whole scalp one time.
2. Apply minoxidil two times a day after a week of recovery from the treatment.
3. After 6 month you will have 25-30% more terminal hairs.
Thoughts
step 1,if its a 42 pin microneedle, what depth is needed?
If it is nanoneedles, the depth is low by default, so why use a clinic for this? They could just sell the instrument directly to the clients. Nanoneedles seem harmless compared to microneedling.
step 2, i assume Follica cant recommend minoxidil right after microneedling since the minoxidil will probably absorb too much. They need to think of side effects (unlike this forum) concidering they want to commercialise this.
In the graph on page 40 it looks like you need to wait a before the drug treatment start, but that might just be a visual thing.
Step 3, i based the percentage from the graph at page 40.
Presentations like this is often inaccurate since they are mostly used to explain the concept, not the details. Its impossible to tell how accurate it really is.
Could the key to this treatment be the density of the needles? Or is it a drug or both?
Feel free to correct me if i misunderstood anything. Im not used to read medical papers.
- Reaction score
- 154
16% rated very effective....
16/100 is not working. 16/100 is getting lucky. Could you imagine if you got an ear infection and the antibiotic you took only had a 16% chance of clearing the infection? We need something that actually WORKS, even if the results are only maintenance.
And as for the rest of the minoxidil responders who rated "effective" and "moderately effective", I seen the pics from these studies, and yeah I suppose a guy who's been bald for 15 years growing some insignificant bum fluff would be amused, but let's get real, only the good results matter. NW4 and NW7 are both bald.
You say that now, but if you hit NW7 you'll kill to be a NW4. At one time I felt like anything less than NW0 might as well be NW7. Now I will take every Norwood I can get.
Lost hair does not grow back by "LUCK". I really can't believe I'm at a hair loss website and someone here believes that some people regrow lost hair by LUCK. What a joke.
16% getting excellent regrowth means it does work well for some people. And the other people who rated hair regrowth "effective" and"moderately effective" further demonstrates that plain old minoxidil does grow some hair. And it may grow similar amounts of hair as Follica's fancy version of minoxidil.
What he said is that is if something only works very well in 16/100 people, and you have no way of knowing if you're going to be one of those sixteen, then it comes down to being lucky on your part.
Of course, you couldn't know that, because you are a retard.
i agree, the evidence is thin but its something at least. Personally i been waiting for something like this from Follica since i been a bit wary off stabbing my head on a daily/weekly basis.
Too bad there is still some information missing about about denisty, depth and frequency. Not to mention what this drug will consist off.
What i do like is that when the details are revealed we most likely can mimick it before its released.
Which is why they wont let the important details out.
Luck has nothing to do with it you dumbass. It's individual biology and individual genetics.
I can't regrow hair with both 5% minoxidil AND oral dutasteride. But my Uncle was completely bald on top (NW5) and he filled all of his hair back in using 2% minoxidil. And it wasn't luck that got him his hair back. He can regrow lots of hair with 2% minoxidil and I can't regrow any hair with 5% minoxidil AND dutasteride because our individual biologies are a little different.
We are all the same species but there is variation among our species. We're all slightly different so something that works well on you might not work on me because of variation among the species. It's all based on each specific treatment and each individual human being who uses it. We don't respond to treatment as a group. We respond to treatments on the basis of each of our individual biologics, you f'n retard. Luck does not enter into the equation.
And this entire conversation has drifted far far away from my original point anyway, you dumbass.
My original point was not about whether minoxidil worked on the basis of luck or individual biology. My original point was that Follica only showed two before-and-after pics and while those 2 patients got significant regrowth they didn't regrow full heads of hair. Let's say that there were 100 patients in Follica's study and these are (likely) their best results. Well, plain old minoxidil can grow that much hair in 2 out of 100 patients as well.
Follica's pics don't prove that Follica's treatment works any better than plain old minoxidil.
As a matter of fact, I have seen before and after pics of patients who used 5% minoxidil AND dutasteride who recovered full heads of hair but the before and after pics by Follica don't show patients recovering full heads of hair. If these are the best results Follica has produced then Follica is certainly no better than 5% minoxidil AND dutasteride.
You need to understand that 5% minoxidil and dutasteride work well on some people. We at this site just happen to be the people 5% minoxidil AND dutasteride don't work well on. That's why we keep coming here. The people who got good results from 5% minoxidil AND dutasteride don't come here. They're out in the world living their lives.
Last edited:
- Reaction score
- 154
Ok I mean consistency then, however you want to word it. We already have products that are capable of good results, but I'm tired of these meds that regrow/maintain on x% of people, and not on others, for reasons unknown. I know how biology works, but hair loss medications seem to be some of the more inconsistent medications, which is why the medical community does not take them seriously and the general population regards them as snake oils.
So if something has modest results, it might be worth the hype if it actually consistently works.
I agree. And their photos did show a good amount of regrowth but let's keep in mind that the pics do not show full regrowth. Let's also agree that the pics show "good" hair regrowth but not "great" regrowth.
Yes, if all test subjects got that much hair regrowth then I would call the treatment a breakthrough treatment but if all subjects did get that much regrowth don't you think they (Follica) would have mentioned that when they released the pics?
What I'm saying is that just because Follica showed a few before-and-after pics that displayed "good" regrowth doesn't means all of their test subjects got that much regrowth. There are a few patients in minoxidil trials who got the same amount of regrowth just using minoxidil and we all know that doesn't happen for everyone who uses minoxidil.
Did you see any proof that Follica is getting those same results consistently among all patients? I didn't.
Last edited:
- Reaction score
- 4,609
Yeah bro we are all tired but what can you do ? Just keep using all that sh*t on ur hair and hope something comes soon. If you quit youll be 10 times worse off
- Reaction score
- 1,242
Shave it
- Reaction score
- 342
This clashes with what's been said on this topic and I've seen results in studies using 1.5 mm (although, granted, that was in combo with minoxidil).
- Reaction score
- 101
Hair follicles, when they are formed in utero, begin in the very top layer of the skin, and through epidermal/dermal signalling, form downward into the dermis. Follica is essentially trying to mimic this process.
- Reaction score
- 101
What I'm getting at is, you don't need deep wounding to induce hair follicles neogenesis. Not sure why people are needling at crazy depths.
This is why its taken Follica more than a decade to perfect its protocol. Timing, depth, spacing, etc - anyone doing this at home is simply guessing, while Follica now knows.
- Reaction score
- 101
Science makes no sense? Gotcha, pal.
You haven't a clue how a hair follicle is created.
HF's don't die unless by burns or scarring alopecias. Androgenetic Alopecia is non-scarring.
Cotsarelis et al discovered long ago that HF bulge stem cells regenerate hair follicles during cycling and also contribute to epidermal regeneration in response to wounding. We don't need to dermaroll or dermapen to the depth of HF or anywhere close to the bulge. That would be like blowing up Willy's chocolate factory. Apparently we merely want to get the attention of the "Oopa Loompas" or stem cells to send in the recruits to repair skin damage. At that point the Oompa Loompas can be negotiated with to either make skin or chocolate(hair).
Can pulling out hairs kill the follicles? i used to have a nasty habit of pulling hair out my crown when i was anxious for some bizarre reason and it's my crown area that is worst hit. Don't know if i have caused permanent damage to some of them or something from a long time of doing that.