How close are we to FUE using hair cloning?
- Thread starter DJC
- Start date
Good chance it's within 5 years. Like Roeysdomi said, we need one clinical trial to know, and we should get that next year. If that goes well then depending on the company and what regulations they are going under then it could be available as early as 2023/2024 best case scenario. Worst case scenario none of the companies preparing to enter clinical trials have a successful trial and then it's 5-10 or more years away
Yeah. We probably should have a good idea if this is the final 5 year stretch within the next 18 months or so. Whether it be Stemson, Tsuji, Tissuse or some other company, all it will take is an initial human trial with 1 sqcm of perfect hair with no large red safety flags to know if its going to be a viable procedure within the decade.
- Reaction score
- 647
After watching replicel fail so horribly, I have my doubts these companies will be able to succeed. You have 3 ways this can fail.
1. Cancerous tumors as a side effect. No way the fda approves it.
2. Body rejects the cloned hair and it just falls out.
3. The cloned hair follicles don't grow for multiple cycles.
Lots of research has to be done. Even if phase 1 comes out with excellent results, a lot of tests have to be done before it becomes available to the public (those who can afford it). Stemson is doing trials on pigs now, not humans, the company could run out of money before they hit human trials. I'd give it 10 years assuming successful phase 1. If not successful, I'd say 20 years at least.
1. Cancerous tumors as a side effect. No way the fda approves it.
2. Body rejects the cloned hair and it just falls out.
3. The cloned hair follicles don't grow for multiple cycles.
Lots of research has to be done. Even if phase 1 comes out with excellent results, a lot of tests have to be done before it becomes available to the public (those who can afford it). Stemson is doing trials on pigs now, not humans, the company could run out of money before they hit human trials. I'd give it 10 years assuming successful phase 1. If not successful, I'd say 20 years at least.
1.Unlikely
2.Impossible
3.They've already been demonstrated to grow for multiple cycles
20 years is crazy. By that time Tsuji will be cloning livers
Stemson has Allergan asking to buy their company (or at minimum allow them to partner for commercialization) and will be getting another round of funding from them this year. They won't be running out of money prior to trials. If the product fails it will be because the science fails in humans early next year.
I don't really get why people bring up failed companies from 5-20 years ago. I still see people brining up Intercex or whatever as a reason why these companies will fail. Who cares if some shitty companies failed.
Last edited:
- Reaction score
- 647
I think there are a lot of people on this forum that say "JusT cLonE iT brO" thinking it's that easy. It's not. I've read articles in 1999 that talked about hair cloning and stem cells and how the cure is "five years away."
Multiple cycles but for how many cycles? How long? 3 growth cycles could last you 5-15 years depending on the follicle but then you would be bald again eventually. Not saying I wouldn't pay for 5 years of hair if I had none.
All the same optimism has been there in the past.
No, not just among the stupider and less-informed people. Many of the smartest & most well-read ones in the hair loss community have believed we were close before. More than once. Today is not the first time we've had highly-educated guys with medical backgrounds breathlessly picking apart every new press release, patent filing, etc. <-- NONE OF THIS is new.
I'm cautiously optimistic about the present. But I'm not dumb enough to think there isn't room for this stuff to fail.
The failures are often unpredictable. That's the whole reason why those past companies were able to raise enough funding to fail. The investors & researchers of 20 years ago were not saying "Well, this stuff is nowhere near a commercial product. But it's our duty to lose money & effort on this for a decade before we cut our losses. The investors & researchers of the future can benefit from it." That's not how it works. 20 years ago the smartest people in the room believed they were within sight of a commercial product, just like today.
We've never had true hair multiplication before, we had intercytex and aderans which are more like replicel. These are companies that were promising for maintenence and may have succeeded if not for the great recession, but they were not comparable to Tsuji and Stemson. Also, none of the pharmacological treatments that have been on the horizon were thought to have much chance of being close to a cure except for Curis back in 2005 that didn't make it through toxicology tests. That was the only real disappointment to educated people. The rest have all been expected failures.
I still don't really understand how this is relevant at all. These companies have new approaches that have already shown that they work, it's not research anymore, it's completed pre-clinical (or about to be completed in the case of Stemson) programs.
- Reaction score
- 647
I should also add. It is possible that it DOES work but has very poor hair quality. I mean technically you can fue leg and chest hair but it is not cosmetically aesthetic. If I did end up bald I would hope the fue procedures get very efficient and minimize scarring. If they could completely hide scarring I'd probably just move every hair on top.
I would say this would classify as a failure, as no one is paying for pubic hair on their head's.
Since I've been on the forums I've seen people get excited about a lot of things. I've never been optimistic about any new company until recently. The only thing I really had any hope for was bimatoprost but I never expected it to be a cure, and it actually turned out to work as well as minoxidil. Now I'm optimistic about a lot of things in the pipeline, particularly Tsuji, Tissuse, and Stemson. As far as the things that came around before me, I read the threads and the smart posters were never fooled by them
In other words, you weren't following the hair loss world at the time. You read about ICX, Aderans, etc, only after the fact.
I can explain why many older attempts at mechanical inventions couldn't work. But that doesn't prove I am smarter than those inventors who tried & failed. I have subsequent knowledge. In many cases I have THEIR OWN subsequent knowledge.
The fact that you can easily understand something in hindsight does not prove it was easily foreseeable. History is littered with very smart people making big mistakes that are obvious looking back.
That's the thing about unexpected problems - you never expect them.
Again, I'm not declaring that the current companies will fail. I'm actually pretty bullish on them. But I'm saying this is not the first (or the second) time that something was EXPECTED to work.
The fact that I had the foresight to understand everything that failed would fail since I came on the forums means much more. Also the fact that the smart people that were on the forum at the time didn't expect Aderans to reverse NW7 to NW1 means something. You clearly still do not understand in hindsight because Aderans did work. It did exactly what it was supposed to do, regrew some hair and provided maintenance. The science succeeded it just didn't make it to market because the market wants cures not maintenance.
- Reaction score
- 164
I am not aware of the technicalities of the Aderans-project, but I myself would pay a good amount of money to have guaranteed maintenance without sides. Even with no regrowth at all.
Of course, we on this forum are the people who are most concerned about hair loss, but look at how many famous people have hair transplant's, hairpieces and other "solutions". If the Aderans-solution would stop the hair loss, you could tackle it early, maybe have a hair transplant for the hair already lost and move on.
Exactly what did I believe about Aderans, and when? Could you please remind me?
In my last several comments I have been making generalizations about the hair loss world as a whole. I wasn't necessarily relating my own opinions.
If you wanna talk about Aderans . . . they started off way back in the early 2000s hoping to functionally cure baldness. They figured out during the trials process that their DP cell work didn't have the potential for it and the researchers "reduced their expectations".
They didn't succeed. The project failed, and then it proceeded for another trial before the funding was cut.
Last edited:
I'm not talking about what you believed in the past. I'm saying you don't understand now that Aderans was never supposed to cure baldness. That kind of talk was for investors, but the technology was always for maintenance. Actually they are still going at Hairclone, it's the same people and same tech. The company went bankrupt but the tech didn't fail. It's also the reason no one talks about Hairclone as a cure.
Look at this picture and tell me Aderans' tech failed. The company went bankrupt, but their technology worked as well as could be expected.