Replicel Is On Fire Lately — Data In Feb.

[supersaiyannorwood6+]

Stopping hair loss isn't good enough to bring it to market; there is already a very effective protocol that stops hair loss in four out of five men, and it costs .15$/pill. And no, being "side effect-free" (and it WILL have side effects, because everything has side effects) won't differentiate Replicel - as it is, a significant portion of the marketplace doesn't care enough about hair loss to treat it, and of those that do, only a small percentage don't because of side-effect fears, and of those that don't because of side-effect fears, only a small percentage will pay / can pay 1000x the cost of a script for finasteride just to avoid the 2% chance of experiencing side effects. So you're talking about a sliver of a sliver of a market.

It will have to achieve 10%< regrowth to come to market, and substantially more than that. That is the operative metric, because equal to / less has been in the marketplace for the last fifteen years. I suspect that is why Replicel is conducting this study - they know that if they can't deliver consistent regrowth, they're dead in the water. Sorry, but this isn't positive news, and I don't know how anyone would characterize it as such.

As a side note, by the time hair loss is noticeable to the eye, you've already lost 50% of your hair, so even if something could completely halt any further loss, you're still down 50-75k hairs. So unless something can ALSO grow hair, it's not a "cure."

fake news

 

[hairblues]

Stopping hair loss isn't good enough to bring it to market; there is already a very effective protocol that stops hair loss in four out of five men, and it costs .15$/pill. And no, being "side effect-free" (and it WILL have side effects, because everything has side effects) won't differentiate Replicel - as it is, a significant portion of the marketplace doesn't care enough about hair loss to treat it, and of those that do, only a small percentage don't because of side-effect fears, and of those that don't because of side-effect fears, only a small percentage will pay / can pay 1000x the cost of a script for finasteride just to avoid the 2% chance of experiencing side effects. So you're talking about a sliver of a sliver of a market.

It will have to achieve 10%< regrowth to come to market, and substantially more than that. That is the operative metric, because equal to / less has been in the marketplace for the last fifteen years. I suspect that is why Replicel is conducting this study - they know that if they can't deliver consistent regrowth, they're dead in the water. Sorry, but this isn't positive news, and I don't know how anyone would characterize it as such.

As a side note, by the time hair loss is noticeable to the eye, you've already lost 50% of your hair, so even if something could completely halt any further loss, you're still down 50-75k hairs. So unless something can ALSO grow hair, it's not a "cure."

I disagree with this for several reasons.

Example is birth control pills vs the shot or implants.

People forget to take pills or just don't like it so to do this is good for those people.

Sexual lowered libido is not a 'small' side effect for young men in prime of life. Neither is the risk of gynomastia etc.

then also women--the female market for hair loss is HUGE but we don't have great options as finasteride and spironolactone cause a lot of side effects for us.

It could be for most people a preferable option.

Many items for example on cosmetic area are repetitive and multiples items to treat skin issues. there is so much competition now with various treatments for skin in past 5 to 10 years--why would that not be the case for hair loss treatments?

I think if treating hair loss was more convenient and risk free-- more people would do it.

 

[hairblues]

Which part? The part where Replicel decided the results were so poor they needed to commission a parallel study to figure out why?


Again, the data is out there - most men don't care enough about hair loss to do anything about it. Not because of side effects. Not because current protocols are too "inconvenient" - they just don't care enough to do anything, because there's nothing currently available that regrows a significant amount of hair. And as for your birth control comparison, if an IUD cost $10,000, do you think they'd be a competitive option with the Pill? Because for the percentage of men who DO care about hair loss and aren't worried about nearly non-existent side effects, that's the choice they'll be faced with - a .15$ pill or a $10,000+ series of injections. And as for female hair loss, sorry, but from a Pharma perspective, no one cares - there just isn't that big of a market to treat it. There's a reason every single one of the current and recruiting trials use men exclusively.

I'm not saying Replicel is finished - far from it. But they are obviously seeing something they don't like; when is it ever a good sign when a company commissions a secondary study an ongoing trial?

Regardless, Follica works, and it's definitely getting to market many, many years before Replicel does (if Replicel ever does).

Who priced the series of injections at 10 thousand?

 

[hairblues]

It's an assumption based on:

1. Comparative cost of a hair transplant
2. Cost of procedure (taking sample, culturing, injecting)

This will be treated as a cosmetic procedure administered by a derm / derm asst. in a derm office setting. The overhead alone will be a couple thousand, then there will be the markup. Even if it's half that (possible), it's still a tough sell when you can get a $5 script for finasteride .

I doubt it would be 10 grand.
An eye job is less than 5 grand.
A neck life is like 5 grand.
These are procedures with an anathesiologist and surgical nurses and you have to cut and pull up muscle as well as skin.

 

[supersaiyannorwood6+]

Whatever you say - it's certainly worthwhile arguing about the unknown. Much to be gained from it. Not for nothing, but where I live, multiply your numbers x3. Then again, I live where most people in the world want to be.

Regardless, it's not a good sign that they think there is something going on that they don't understand and that they need to figure it in order to proceed. That's my opinion, that's the market's opinion (down 8% on the news, probably headed lower tomorrow), that's any logical person's opinion.

Your gonna go super bald, I'm talking slick bald, people are gonna start calling you dick head..oh wait,follica is gonna come out, so you will go from slick bald to having pubes on your head...happy

 

[hairblues]

Whatever you say - it's certainly worthwhile arguing about the unknown. Much to be gained from it. Not for nothing, but where I live, multiply your numbers x3. Then again, I live where most people in the world want to be.

Regardless, it's not a good sign that they think there is something going on that they don't understand and that they need to figure it in order to proceed. That's my opinion, that's the market's opinion (down 8% on the news, probably headed lower tomorrow), that's any logical person's opinion.

Oh you live in NYC too? I am giving you Manhattan numbers on surgical procedures.
I can give you more if you are interested. We can talk actual surgeons by name if you like. Some guys will ONLY do a whole face but these are just the top tier guys.
We can talk derms too. Want to talk price of various lasers? Fillers? Botox?

No one is arguing, you tossed out a number I asked you where you got the number from.

 

[supersaiyannorwood6+]

jk...we're all gonna make it brah's

 

[hairblues]

Oh could you? Because I have every reason to believe that whatever data you'll give me is both cogent and accurate. Not for nothing, but if you're getting your eyes done for $5k in Manhattan, the Doctor probably got his degree from the Caribbean and is practicing out of the back of a McDonald's. I know someone who is shopping for a blepharotomy at the moment, and she's getting quotes of $10k just for the procedure, exclusive of after care. Of course, that's for Park Ave. docs.

Anyway, in a market where docs charge $1000+ for scam procedures, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that a protocol that:

1. Works (assuming);
2. Is under license (to include, probably, the required purchase of the injector) to the Doctor (unlike PRP and hair transplants);
3. Requires several visits (seat time with a Doctor);
4. Requires proprietary culturing (lab time); and
5. Is (for the time being) limited in supply and will have massive demand

will cost $5-10k.

But, again, no point in arguing this - I'm not going to get pulled into another time suck on this site by one of the resident weirdos. You're absolutely right - it's going to be amazing, the fact that they are seeing something that they are so "curious" about that they commissioned a study is nothing to be concerned about, and I'm sure when it comes to market (6 months from now, tops), it probably won't cost more than $500. You'll probably be able to get it done at the Duane Reade minute clinic.

LOL your ego is so fragile you must work on Wall Street.
We can go name for name with Docs if you really want to..the real top docs don't do JUST eye jobs and wont touch your face for less than $40 grand.

Point is no dermatologist is going to charge $10 grand for taking a scalp sample and giving injections. it's more like few hundred each round of injections..its going to probably be TOPS 5 grand for whole series.
it's not plastic surgery that is my point.
Also OUR price points are not going to be the majority of people in the country or the world.

 

[champpy]

Oh you two... so much sexual tension

 

[hairblues]

Oh you two... so much sexual tension

He is doing a line, he will be right back to rip me a new one.

 

[hanginginthewire]

I think you've both made good points.

I do agree with occulus that even completely halting hairloss leaves problems for people who've already lost so much density.

However I disagree that a cessation from hair loss with replicel is the same as finasteride. finasteride does not work for loads of people and even when it does it only sloooooows hair loss. And the effects lessen over time apparently.

I'm not keen on a hair transplant to fix what I've lost until I stop the bleeding.

 

[H]

Not for nothing, but if you're getting your eyes done for $5k in Manhattan, the Doctor probably got his degree from the Caribbean and is practicing out of the back of a McDonald's.

I will reread this in times of sorrow.

 

[Trichosan]

Who priced the series of injections at 10 thousand?

Meh. Or, as they used to say in the market, dinner and a movie.

 

[That Guy]

Stopping hair loss isn't good enough to bring it to market; there is already a very effective protocol that stops hair loss in four out of five men, and it costs .15$/pill. And no, being "side effect-free" (and it WILL have side effects, because everything has side effects) won't differentiate Replicel - as it is, a significant portion of the marketplace doesn't care enough about hair loss to treat it, and of those that do, only a small percentage don't because of side-effect fears, and of those that don't because of side-effect fears, only a small percentage will pay / can pay 1000x the cost of a script for finasteride just to avoid the 2% chance of experiencing side effects. So you're talking about a sliver of a sliver of a market.

It will have to achieve 10%< regrowth to come to market, and substantially more than that. That is the operative metric, because equal to / less has been in the marketplace for the last fifteen years. I suspect that is why Replicel is conducting this study - they know that if they can't deliver consistent regrowth, they're dead in the water. Sorry, but this isn't positive news, and I don't know how anyone would characterize it as such.

As a side note, by the time hair loss is noticeable to the eye, you've already lost 50% of your hair, so even if something could completely halt any further loss, you're still down 50-75k hairs. So unless something can ALSO grow hair, it's not a "cure."

The side effects of this therapy are guaranteed to be far less severe than what can happen in unfortunate cases of finasteride.

In his most recent interview, Lee Buckler himself talked about the disadvantage of finasteride being the side effects, so to say that a side-effect free treatment is irrelevant in it coming to market when finasteride is recently discovered as potentially causing fibrosis of the c***, and the company themselves being aware of side effects as a deterrent for treatment, is a moronic claim at best.

Which part? The part where Replicel decided the results were so poor they needed to commission a parallel study to figure out why?


Again, the data is out there - most men don't care enough about hair loss to do anything about it. Not because of side effects. Not because current protocols are too "inconvenient" - they just don't care enough to do anything, because there's nothing currently available that regrows a significant amount of hair. And as for your birth control comparison, if an IUD cost $10,000, do you think they'd be a competitive option with the Pill? Because for the percentage of men who DO care about hair loss and aren't worried about nearly non-existent side effects, that's the choice they'll be faced with - a .15$ pill or a $10,000+ series of injections. And as for female hair loss, sorry, but from a Pharma perspective, no one cares - there just isn't that big of a market to treat it. There's a reason every single one of the current and recruiting trials use men exclusively.

I'm not saying Replicel is finished - far from it. But they are obviously seeing something they don't like; when is it ever a good sign when a company commissions a secondary study of an ongoing trial?

Regardless, Follica works, and it's definitely getting to market many, many years before Replicel does (if Replicel ever does).

There is not a person alive who, if the option of getting a one-time injection to permanently stop hairloss, would not take it. You know this too, since all your "fears" a few months back that other treatments might not be developed if a "vaccine" for hairloss exists? Now that you're worried about losing that precious $, the only reason you follow this stuff at all, you've changed your opinion...again.

You are actually complaining about a company investigating how to best optimize results. Also, you may want to check that study again because most patients DID see results comparable or better to conventional treatment; there was only one with exceptionally good results, however.

Shiseido still seems fully intent on bringing it to market and RepliCel still plans to go on with Phase II regardless. So your gloom and doom is unwarranted.

A company tries to figure out why some people had better regrowth than others with the aim of giving every patient high regrowth and they're "poor results", but Follica totally works like a charm because dermarolling can work and you know their procedure is great based on that alone, despite no data on it being available to the public yet.

Your own logical inconsistencies and backtracking whenever you're worried your money is in danger are truly hilarious.

The only real question here is — how much money do you have invested in PureTech?

 

[paleocapa89]

I do fear if this is successful then we might be the last generation of bald men roaming the earth since balding will become a narrowing market.

However I also see the huge opportunity in this if it works. They can basically market it to ANYONE. With or without hairloss, men or women. They only need to emphasize the importance of early intervention and the possible side effects of finasteride. People with zero hairloss will want to do the procedure as well. And while they are swimming in cash, they can study and perfect the procedure to improve regrowth rates.

 

[H]

Was thinking the same, after I read the last interview with Lee Buckler.. He said Androgenetic Alopecia patients lack some cells (which are affected by DHT and die).. And, then when they injected the new cells (taken from the back of the head, and so, immune to DHT) they migrated to re-populate/replace the missing ones. And then making the follicles also immune.

That sounds like a cure to me.

Woah woah woah. where does it say it also makes the follicles immune?

 

[br1]

Woah woah woah. where does it say it also makes the follicles immune?

woah, woah.. the above is from Lee Buckler.. He DID NOT say the follicles will be immune. But that was my line of thought.
In essence: you have follicles which have missing cells (died because are sensitive to hairloss). Then you re-populate the follicle, with a lot of immune cells.

I said, it could make the follicles immune. Not him - though one could get this idea from the last phrase above (??)

(though I am not 100% now, if I have not heard him saying the same thing, in a podcast released a few days back. Could not find the poscast)

 

[Pavi]

I disagree with this for several reasons.

Example is birth control pills vs the shot or implants.

People forget to take pills or just don't like it so to do this is good for those people.

Sexual lowered libido is not a 'small' side effect for young men in prime of life. Neither is the risk of gynomastia etc.

then also women--the female market for hair loss is HUGE but we don't have great options as finasteride and spironolactone cause a lot of side effects for us.

It could be for most people a preferable option.

Many items for example on cosmetic area are repetitive and multiples items to treat skin issues. there is so much competition now with various treatments for skin in past 5 to 10 years--why would that not be the case for hair loss treatments?

I think if treating hair loss was more convenient and risk free-- more people would do it.

I agree. I'm not trying to have my d stop working lol I would honestly rather go bald and have sex with less attractive women than have hair and be impotent

 

[Pavi]

The side effects of this therapy are guaranteed to be far less severe than what can happen in unfortunate cases of finasteride.

In his most recent interview, Lee Buckler himself talked about the disadvantage of finasteride being the side effects, so to say that a side-effect free treatment is irrelevant in it coming to market when finasteride is recently discovered as potentially causing fibrosis of the c***, and the company themselves being aware of side effects as a deterrent for treatment, is a moronic claim at best.



There is not a person alive who, if the option of getting a one-time injection to permanently stop hairloss, would not take it. You know this too, since all your "fears" a few months back that other treatments might not be developed if a "vaccine" for hairloss exists? Now that you're worried about losing that precious $, the only reason you follow this stuff at all, you've changed your opinion...again.

You are actually complaining about a company investigating how to best optimize results. Also, you may want to check that study again because most patients DID see results comparable or better to conventional treatment; there was only one with exceptionally good results, however.

Shiseido still seems fully intent on bringing it to market and RepliCel still plans to go on with Phase II regardless. So your gloom and doom is unwarranted.

A company tries to figure out why some people had better regrowth than others with the aim of giving every patient high regrowth and they're "poor results", but Follica totally works like a charm because dermarolling can work and you know their procedure is great based on that alone, despite no data on it being available to the public yet.

Your own logical inconsistencies and backtracking whenever you're worried your money is in danger are truly hilarious.

The only real question here is — how much money do you have invested in PureTech?

SAY IT LOUDER FOR THE PEOPLE IN THE BACK

 

[hairblues]

I agree. I'm not trying to have my d stop working lol I would honestly rather go bald and have sex with less attractive women than have hair and be impotent

it's part of why I have not done oral spironolactone yet its got to be high dose WITH birth control pills..and I like my sex drive, I like sex so I am not in rush to kiss that goodbye. These pills kill womens sex drive.