Deprecated: The each() function is deprecated. This message will be suppressed on further calls in /home/hairsite/public_html/hair-loss/functions.php on line 155
Hair Loss Forum - Video from Japan on Shiseido AND Riken/Kyocera

March 2017 - Trending Topics in our new forum

 Stem cell hair restoration results - Dr. Cole vs Histogen vs RepliCel.
 Dr. Paul Kemp, CEO of HairClone answers questions about follicle banking.
 RepliCel year 2017 forecast for RCH-01 cell based hair regeneration.
 Dr. Cole to start stem cell hair restoration trial in the US.
 Dr. Umar's 6500 grafts life saving repair procedure for transplant victim.
 FUE donor harvesting, what you must know when choosing a clinic.
 Dr. Koray Erdogan raises the standard in FUE artistry skills.
 Dr. Arvind on how to formulate your own toxic free shampoo.
 Conference & FREE hair restoration consultations; cities worldwide.

This is a READ ONLY forum.
Access our brand new platform at HairSite New Forum to continue the discussion on these topics that you are interested in. All contents and discussions have been transferred to our new forum at
  HairSite New Forum

Log in | User | Register

roger_that

MARYLAND,
25.07.2016, 22:11
(edited by roger_that, 25.07.2016, 22:29)
 

Video from Japan on Shiseido AND Riken/Kyocera (Hair Multiplication & Stem Cells Treatment)

This science news video is one of the most complete rundowns of the Japanese research I've seen. It gives a long report about both the Shiseido/Replicel research, which involves inducing miniaturized follicles to regrow, and the Riken/Organ Tech/Kyocera work (based on Dr. Tsuji's research), which is about creating new follicles...

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/vod/scienceview/20160720.html

Unfortunately, it says Dr. Tsuji's work won't be ready for "about 10 years" -- but his work combining epithelial stem cells and mesenchymal (DP) cells is being utilized now by Riken/Kyocera, for commercial release in 2018 or so. I don't understand the discrepancy there.

Note this video, which was produced by the Japanese government broadcaster NHK, doesn't mention any of the names of private companies... just "a major cosmetics company" (obviously Shiseido), etc. I think they have some kind of policy that a state broadcasting agency can't appear to run commercial advertising.

There's also a report on culturing induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) to generate "immature" cells (similar to mesenchymal cells) to generate new hair follicles within the skin. And they report on the latest cutting-edge work at Yokohama National University.




roger_that is located in MARYLAND and he is available to meet: YES
email hairsite@aol.com to arrange a meeting.


Post reply
bugler

26.07.2016, 05:52

@ roger_that

Video from Japan on Shiseido AND Riken/Kyocera

THe good news is that they won't say the mantra 5-years-away anymore.
Not they way 10 years away.

In another 10 years they will say that a cure is 20 years away.

And so on.

Giving fake hope it's wrong.




bugler is located in [NA] and he is available to meet: NO

---
Who did 911: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YC8j-uvZUI0


Post reply
News

27.07.2016, 19:54

@ roger_that

Video from Japan on Shiseido AND Riken/Kyocera

At least it looks like this treatment won't break the bank.
At less than $1,000 it's quite affordable:

http://replicel.com/recent_coverage/shiseido-trial-baldness-cure-planned-commercial-launch-2018/




News is located in [NA] and he is available to meet: NO


Post reply
roger_that

MARYLAND,
29.07.2016, 01:26

@ roger_that

Looks like the video has been taken down now...

I understand it was only supposed to be up temporarily.

Great video, I will try to find it elsewhere, but one big question sticks out in my mind:

--The segment about Dr. Tsuji, who is working on the research that Riken/Organ Technologies/Kyocera is basing its procedure on, says that the DP cell component is problematic because the ability to grow new hairs will be limited. When DP cells are cultured, they lose their inductivity after multiple passages. But the other portions of the video reported on research with iPSCs, and ways to create many inductive DP like cells. But these ideas are apparently not part of Dr. Tsuji's research.

My question is, why isn't Dr. Tsuji cooperating with the other researchers, so the DP cell component in his "follicle primordiums" will consist of multiplied, transformed iPSCs, instead of DP cells taken directly from follicles?

This would massively increase the effectiveness of this procedure. It's not clear whether Riken is doing this, but they should. If they don't cooperate with the other researchers and pool their work, yes, it will take at least 10 years to be able to effectively multiply hairs using the follicle primordium procedure.




roger_that is located in MARYLAND and he is available to meet: YES
email hairsite@aol.com to arrange a meeting.


Post reply
roger_that

MARYLAND,
29.07.2016, 20:15

@ roger_that

Will "increase the number of hairs"

This one says it will be available by 2020 --

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/07/13/business/partnership-tackle-vexing-problem-treating-hair-loss/#.V5u34-srLIU




roger_that is located in MARYLAND and he is available to meet: YES
email hairsite@aol.com to arrange a meeting.


Post reply
jarjarbinx

31.07.2016, 19:10

@ roger_that

Replicel

I don't understand why we have any hope at all for Replicel. They already did one study and the efficacy results were dismal. Did they improve on the core technology?




jarjarbinx is located in [NA] and he is available to meet: NO


Post reply
roger_that

MARYLAND,
31.07.2016, 21:34

@ jarjarbinx

Replicel

You're right, the results of the Phase I trials were terrible. The CEO seems very smart, I don't think he'd be stupid enough to proceed with this just based on the Phase I results. I have to guess they've tweaked their technology a bit behind the scenes.




roger_that is located in MARYLAND and he is available to meet: YES
email hairsite@aol.com to arrange a meeting.


Post reply
James Bond

01.08.2016, 06:59

@ roger_that

Replicel

Some patients responded with > 19% increase in density in the initial trial (if I recall only 14% were new terminal hairs). Let's say higher dosing brings it to 25% density increase for 25% of patients (single procedure), and four subsequent procedures bring it to 50% in 35% of patients. If so, there would be a stampede of people lining up to get the procedure. In fact, if ten $1,000 procedures would restore 25% density in 25% of people, there would still be a lot of people lining up to get the procedure.

Also, according to McElwee's fluorescent die studies, the DHT-resistant cells will also migrate into non-balding but DHT-sensitive follicles helping to protect them from future balding.

In short, I don't expect the Replicel procedure will be a cure-all when first implemented, but I do expect it to be marketable to people who have no recourse other than Rogaine/Propecia.




James Bond is located in [NA] and he is available to meet: NO


Post reply
cal

01.08.2016, 09:43

@ James Bond

Replicel

Fair enough. If the best results of the original trials could become predictable norms then they do have something.

As for the potential market - any new treatment that regrows anything at all will appeal to everyone who has lost anything at all.




cal is located in [NA] and he is available to meet: NO


Post reply
roger_that

MARYLAND,
01.08.2016, 11:01

@ James Bond

Replicel

The trial originally consisted of 30 subjects, of which several were not injected and 3 were disqualified, bringing it down to 25 patients. Of the 25, only 2 experienced more than a 19% increase in growth, all the others experienced 17% or less growth.

The average for those receiving the 10% concentration was 14.2% increased growth. The average for those receiving the 5% was 11.8%.

Considering the small sample size, the fact that only a small circle of skin was injected, and the fact that even the best respondents showed barely discernible increases in hair counts when the skin was examined visually, all add up to the first trial being really disappointing, both subjectively and objectively. Here's the report:

http://www.replicel.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Poster-WCHR-2013-AGA-treatment.pdf

Take a look at that photo to see what their version of "19%" really looks like up close.

I'm not saying this is nothing, but it's much worse than one would expect considering Replicel's level of enthusiasm, which leads me to suspect (like jarjar does) that they've improved something in the protocol since the first trial.




roger_that is located in MARYLAND and he is available to meet: YES
email hairsite@aol.com to arrange a meeting.


Post reply
jarjarbinx

01.08.2016, 16:23

@ roger_that

That's the point Roger - their level of enthusiasm.

Their level of enthusiasm is my issue with them. If they were saying they have
a minoxidil + propecia level of treatment that might be permanent, whereas minoxidil
has to be used forever, I would say maybe they're right. And that they have a somewhat
better mousetrap if it's permanent. But they're talking about a cure for hair
loss and I don't see them having a cure for hair loss based on the results of
their first study.

And Shiseido paid $4 million for Replicel's technology. If you had a cure for
hair loss couldn't you get more than $4 million for it? If you had an even
somewhat better treatment than what's available
couldn't you get more
than $4 million for it?

And did any of the test subjects lose hair?




jarjarbinx is located in [NA] and he is available to meet: NO


Post reply
ESP2

E-mail

01.08.2016, 19:20

@ roger_that

Replicel

Didn't Replicel tout dermal sheath cup cells (as opposed to dermal papilla cells) as the distinguishable and necessary breakthrough that would set them apart (before their results were released)?

Is possible they found out something new about DSCs, or did that approach die an early death?




ESP2 is located in [NA] and he is available to meet: NO


Post reply
cal

02.08.2016, 07:03

@ ESP2

Replicel

Even a small visual gain is better than what is currently available. Most "successful" Finasteride patients don't even stay above baseline more than 5-6 years after they start treatment. In the long term sense the current treatments are paying off in the negative range.

IMO there are lots of unanswered questions. How compoundable are the results? Do they plateau after a few treatments? Etc. (I don't want to hear about theories, I want to hear about human testing.)

And let's not forget Replicel's past track record of professionally hyping up their stock price on the eve of releasing crappy results. I don't trust them any more than I trust Cotsarelis. The only reason I am lending Replicel any consideration here is because they convinced an outside party to buy their work & continue developing it. (Although, $4 mil? That seems like a pittance for this kind of thing.)




cal is located in [NA] and he is available to meet: NO


Post reply
jarjarbinx

02.08.2016, 17:18

@ cal

Replicel

Their hyping of their treatment prior to releasing bad results is a crappy
thing to do isn't it? It kind of makes them seem sc@mmy doesn't it?




jarjarbinx is located in [NA] and he is available to meet: NO


Post reply
jarjarbinx

02.08.2016, 18:12

@ roger_that

Replicel

Roger you said, "The average for those receiving the 10% concentration was
14.2% increased growth. The average for those receiving the 5% was 11.8%."

Huh? I thought there was only one active treatment dose? Please post a link
that shows there were two active treatment doses.




jarjarbinx is located in [NA] and he is available to meet: NO


Post reply
roger_that

MARYLAND,
02.08.2016, 20:31

@ jarjarbinx

Replicel

It was the link I posted in this thread to the PDF file. In one part on there, I think it mentions the two doses, unless I'm misreading it.




roger_that is located in MARYLAND and he is available to meet: YES
email hairsite@aol.com to arrange a meeting.


Post reply
jarjarbinx

03.08.2016, 18:18

@ roger_that

I only saw 1 dose.

I think maybe you misread something.




jarjarbinx is located in [NA] and he is available to meet: NO


Post reply
roger_that

MARYLAND,
03.08.2016, 22:13

@ jarjarbinx

I only saw 1 dose.

How do you read this, at the bottom left of the page?

- Average = 14.2% for the 7 of 10 subjects 10%
- Average = 11.8% for the 10 of 10 subjects 5%




roger_that is located in MARYLAND and he is available to meet: YES
email hairsite@aol.com to arrange a meeting.


Post reply
jarjarbinx

04.08.2016, 18:14

@ roger_that

I only saw 1 dose.

Originally Posted by roger_that

How do you read this, at the bottom left of the page?

- Average = 14.2% for the 7 of 10 subjects 10%
- Average = 11.8% for the 10 of 10 subjects 5%


I think it means that if you include 7 of the 10 subjects the average regrowth
was 10% but if you include 10 of 10 subjects the average regrowth is 5%.




jarjarbinx is located in [NA] and he is available to meet: NO


Post reply
roger_that

MARYLAND,
04.08.2016, 23:54

@ jarjarbinx

I only saw 1 dose.

I think it means that if you include 7 of the 10 subjects the average regrowth was 10% but if you include 10 of 10 subjects the average regrowth is 5%.


What do the 14.2% and 11.8% mean, then?




roger_that is located in MARYLAND and he is available to meet: YES
email hairsite@aol.com to arrange a meeting.


Post reply
James Bond

06.08.2016, 17:40

@ ESP2

Replicel

DSC's also exhibit changes in culture. As far as I can tell, Replicel has only experimented with off-the-shelf culture mediums. Perhaps, they have found one that works slightly better.

In prior human testing, DSC's were shown to be superior to DP cells.




James Bond is located in [NA] and he is available to meet: NO


Post reply
James Bond

06.08.2016, 17:52
(edited by James Bond, 06.08.2016, 18:11)

@ roger_that

I only saw 1 dose.

I think it means that if you include 7 of the 10 subjects the average regrowth was 10% but if you include 10 of 10 subjects the average regrowth is 5%.

Originally Posted by roger_that


What do the 14.2% and 11.8% mean, then?


7 in 10 subjects had an average 14.2% increase in density and a minimum of 10% increase in density. 10 of 10 subjects had an average increase in density of 11.8% and a minimum increase of density of 5%. Keep in mind, the 10 subjects only represent 63% of all subjects.

Also, as far as the 14.5% increase in terminal hairs (in the patient shown) not being a good result. I will easily pay $1000 per procedure for a 14.5% increase in terminal hairs. Especially considering future treatments will target follicles that were dormant in the prior treatments. In fact, it's possible the second treatment actually works better, because the first treatment caused some vellus hair to increase their anagen phase. So the subsequent treatment targets the typical short cycle vellus follicles and the additional 5 to 10 percent that were slightly affected by the prior treatment. IOW, until we see futher studies, it remains possible a good responder could get a 30% increase in terminal hairs from only two treatments.

It would be important to be on hair growth drugs prior to treatment in order to maximize the growth phase of as many follicles as possible in order for them to uptake cells, which would immunize them from future baldness. After all follicles were immunized (via multiple treatments), theoretically speaking, one could stop taking the hair growth drugs for life.




James Bond is located in [NA] and he is available to meet: NO


Post reply
jarjarbinx

06.08.2016, 18:00

@ James Bond

I only saw 1 dose.

That's how I interpret the data too. And there was just one dose.

14.5% increase in density is good especially if it's long term. Are you
certain you will be the guy who gets 14.5%? Do you trust the company's
data?

Keep in mind that some patients lost hair.




jarjarbinx is located in [NA] and he is available to meet: NO


Post reply
James Bond

06.08.2016, 18:17

@ jarjarbinx

I only saw 1 dose.

Being the guy that gets the 14.5% is a lottery draw. But doing all you can to ensure your existing follicles stay healthy seems to be a good strategy for now.

That said, the fact that somebody turns out to be the person that gets the 14.5% increases the chances of this procedure coming to market. Also with enough treatments, those just starting to lose their hair might not ever lose it.




James Bond is located in [NA] and he is available to meet: NO


Post reply
roger_that

MARYLAND,
06.08.2016, 19:44

@ James Bond

I only saw 1 dose.

One thing that's curious and a bit disturbing is that 37% of patients in the CONTROL group (who were not given the proper cell injections, but presumably some kind of placebo or vehicle instead), experienced hair growth.

Also, I think the very small study size here, and their use of percentages kind of masks some statistical problems.

Like, when we talk about 63% of 16 trialists, we're really talking about 10 of 16.

10 of 16 results positive for hair growth sounds good, but when you factor in the fact that 37% of control patients got hair growth (that would be about 6 out of 16), it doesn't sound so impressive. (I'm using the number 16 for the control group because they may have trimmed the control group back when people were disqualified from the "verum" group -- if not, it's still a percentage so the two results are comparable.)

So we have something like this --

10 of 16 got hair growth in the trial group

6 of 16 got hair growth in the control group


I see what James is saying about the possibility for compoundable results, etc. but the above doesn't sound too good.




roger_that is located in MARYLAND and he is available to meet: YES
email hairsite@aol.com to arrange a meeting.


Post reply
jarjarbinx

06.08.2016, 19:52

@ roger_that

I only saw 1 dose.

And don't forget the part that 3 of the test patients in the active treatment group lost hair.




jarjarbinx is located in [NA] and he is available to meet: NO


Post reply
roger_that

MARYLAND,
06.08.2016, 20:16

@ jarjarbinx

I only saw 1 dose.

Originally Posted by jarjarbinx

And don't forget the part that 3 of the test patients in the active treatment group lost hair.


Right... and were the people who lost hair figured into the final percentages? If not, it sounds like cheating. That would mean the "63%" hair growth figure should in fact be lower, maybe much lower. And the average percentages of regrowth should be lower.




roger_that is located in MARYLAND and he is available to meet: YES
email hairsite@aol.com to arrange a meeting.


Post reply
jarjarbinx

06.08.2016, 23:19

@ roger_that

I only saw 1 dose.

It looks to me like they compiled their data in a way that would allow them to exclude the test subjects who lost hair from the data, and I agree with you that, that amounts to cheating.

I've read that for the test subjects who lost hair Replicel termed those
lossed "Shock Loss". I think they didn't count those test subjects who lost hair in their regrowth stats because they reject the idea that it is real loss. They say it's shock loss.

It sounds sc@mmy. I've never seen a hair loss research group say their losses aren't real aga losses before.

They are starting out with the assumption that it is IMPOSSIBLE for aga to continue once they treat a subject. They are saying that if a treated patient loses hair then that patient's stats do not count.

How is this not a sc@m?

Why do people have faith in this?




jarjarbinx is located in [NA] and he is available to meet: NO


Post reply
cal

07.08.2016, 00:51

@ jarjarbinx

I only saw 1 dose.

If 16 guys on this forum tried some kind of protocol and turned back this set of results, we wouldn't even give it the time of day. (I mean in terms of real statistical value.) The growth cases would be encouraging but only in the personal opinion sense. The trial sample size isn't even worth talking about. We would point to the wild differences in results as evidence that we can't conclude anything either way.


As for the control group - Did they do rounds of multiple injections on them, even with nothing of value in the needles? That is effectively a needling/dermarolling session each time, which is known to produce slight results.

As for the people who lost hair (the implication being that they lost hair from the treatment) - not getting treated has a 100% chance of causing lost hair in the long run.




cal is located in [NA] and he is available to meet: NO


Post reply
jarjarbinx

07.08.2016, 17:53

@ cal

I only saw 1 dose.

Cal: "As for the people who lost hair (the implication being that they lost hair from the treatment) - not getting treated has a 100% chance of causing lost hair in the long run."

Yes, and getting treatments that don't work also fail AND they cause you to lose money.




jarjarbinx is located in [NA] and he is available to meet: NO


Post reply
cal

07.08.2016, 21:26

@ jarjarbinx

I only saw 1 dose.

No S*@#t.

I'm just pointing out that our baseline condition is only static in the short term. Getting long term loss stabilization alone from a new treatment would be huge. The bean-counters probably won't see it that way which could be unfortunate for us IMO.


But I am also saying Replicel hasn't shown anything too interesting here. If Shisheido paid them several million dollars based on these results alone then they are idiots (or gamblers).




cal is located in [NA] and he is available to meet: NO


Post reply
roger_that

MARYLAND,
07.08.2016, 23:31

@ jarjarbinx

I only saw 1 dose.

You could actually walk away from this with less hair AND less money.




roger_that is located in MARYLAND and he is available to meet: YES
email hairsite@aol.com to arrange a meeting.


Post reply
cal

08.08.2016, 02:51

@ roger_that

I only saw 1 dose.

Originally Posted by roger_that

You could actually walk away from this with less hair AND less money.



Q.- What do you call a guy who goes on the existing treatments for 5-6 years, and winds up a couple thousand dollars poorer, with a bit less hair than he started?


A.- A good responder.




cal is located in [NA] and he is available to meet: NO


Post reply

120100 Postings in 12546 Threads, 6044 registered users
Hair Loss Forum | Admin contact

 
This is a READ ONLY forum.
Access our brand new platform at HairSite New Forum to continue the discussion on these topics. All contents and discussions have been transferred to
HairSite New Forum

Disclosure: This is an advertising site for our paid sponsors & advertisers. The contents, videos & photos on HairSite are provided by paid sponsors and are not endorsed by HairSite in any way. The recommendations, results, and representations made by our sponsors/advertisers do not reflect the opinions of HairSite. This site is to showcase successful hair restoration results only. It is not the mandate of this site to engage in the discussion of failed, unsuccessful procedures, lawsuits, litigations or complaint cases; comments of such nature, including external links, may be removed from the forum. Notify hairsite@aol.com any false, defamatory, misleading or inappropriate user generated contents for immediate removal from the forum. Also read Terms of Use & Privacy Statement |  HairSite advertisers: ASMED | Dr. Bhatti | Dr. Bisanga | Dr. Cole | Dr. Hakan Doganay | Dr.Epstein | Dr. Jones | Dr. Halder | Hasson & Wong | Dr. Klein | Dr. Madhu | Dr. Mwamba | Dr. Donald Ng| Dr. Poswal | Dr. Rahal | Dr. Razack | Dr. Reddy | Dr. Umar | Dr. Woods | DHI Global | HDC Clinic | |Lasercomb | Reviva Clinic | Ziering Medical|