I'm confused, Replicel's procedure doesn't seem like it is actually in the "hair cloning/multiplication" field at all. It seem similar to what HairClone is doing in the UK, where DP cells are cultivated with stem cells and injected back into the scalp to supplement existing follicles DP cell base and reverse miniaturization of existing hair.It sounds like it since they compare it to a hair transplant and say that this procedure will take half as long. If they are just culturing DP cells and injecting them like Replicel then it shouldn't take even that long to do the procedure. However, all they mention is DP cells which wouldn't form new hairs by themselves. Stemson is also using keratinocytes and including the different cell types in a scaffold to approximate the layers of the hair matrix over the DP. The size of the hair shaft is determined by the size of the DP, but the Matrix is what produces the hair shaft. If all you do is implant DP cells then where is the hair shaft going to come from? All Replicel's DP injections do migrate to an existing DP to enlarge it so that the keratinocytes begin producing thicker and longer hair shafts again. The efficacy of that seems to be limited, and it certainly doesn't produce new hairs like Stemson does. Considering the cost of Stemson's procedure and the fact that they only mentioned DP cells, I'm leaning towards their procedure being more like Replicel's than Stemson's.
This procedure is promising new hair through surgical means, is it not?