Replicel Is On Fire Lately — Data In Feb.
- Thread starter That Guy
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 8,249
I know my Mothers biopsy came back technically as 'scarring alopecia' but she had Androgenetic Alopecia just very advanced so like 30 to 50 years of hair loss process.
I dont know if that helps you.
In the paragraph you refer to there is no mention of the 6-month non-responders so we can't be sure that the 6-month non-responders are included under the umbrella of "All'.
br1
Senior Member
- Reaction score
- 2,161
But, they say "all patients in the trial"...
- Reaction score
- 8,249
He gave his personal opinion about the transgender-woman that was unnecessary.
I didn't see him say anything derogatory. Of you're referring to him calling it a man instead of a woman then nameless injected his Personal opinion first by calling it a woman. They can both call it whatever they want, it's not offensive or unnecessary
- Reaction score
- 8,249
I dont know dude..now your calling a person who shared there photos and their information with us to help us an 'it'.
So whatever.
What if the non-responders were no longer in the trial at that point? They could have dropped out after they lost hair. It's common for test subjects to drop out of clinical trials.
That aside, I think you're probably right. That's why I'm feeling some optimism. I think there's probably a logical explanation but we need them to specifically state that since they told us there were non-responders in the first place. They need to clear the issue up.
Last edited:
That's fine for you. I still want the 6-month nonresponders issue cleared up before I'm satisfied. I'm a stickler for detail. If you want to assume the best case scenario regarding the non-responders issue you can, but I'm not assuming anything. The stakes are high.
Last edited:
Not if he says it didn't work on 1% of test subjects, but keep in mind that at 6-months 30% of the test subjects were non-responders.
Last edited:
It is 30%. I need this clarified before I can act on it.
I think the likely explanation is that 30% were in the middle of a shed at the time of treatment, sms didn't recover intil after the 6 month mark. The hair that had already entered catagen would not be helped, and woul the six month results look bad, but going forward they wouldn't lose any more.
If they didn't recover enough hair to go back to baseline that means that they should show up as test subjects who lost hair, and if that's the case then ALL patients did not arrest hair loss. We need to clear up what happened to them.
Last edited:
I really need to look at their study to know, but it wouldn't necessarily mean that. It could be that they all had less hair loss. Arresting hair loss at the 6 month mark would still be a success.
He refused to call her a woman and he questioned her integrity. And I have to tell you that calling her an "it" is as bad as what occulus said. She is a she, period. We don't like it when people are prejudice against bald people so we bald people should be learning not to be prejudice against others. But some of us have not learnt that.
Last edited:
Some did, some didn't. 30% didn't.
If I define myself as a fish does that mean I can breathe under water? I'm not prejudiced against anyone, but I'm not going to enable their delusions. These people are struggling with identity issues. They need mental help, not enablers.
I meant from the 6 month mark. Apparently all did. Yes, we do need further classification on that. It's not going to change my plans though.
The mental health professionals, not you, decides who does and doesn't need mental help. The mental health professionals say that if people would stop picking on transgender people then transgender people would be better adjusted. That means what they need most is for people like you and occulus to cease being monsters towards them.
Last edited: