Follica's pivotal study and FDA filing in 2020

Discuss the latest news about cutting edge hair loss research: Tsuji, RepliCel, Follicum, etc.
User avatar
blackg
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2321
Joined: 2 years ago
Reputation: 4250

Follica's pivotal study and FDA filing in 2020

#21326

Post by blackg » 7 months ago

That Guy wrote: 7 months ago Sure thing, bro — it's done.
You dissapoint me sometimes.
Straight outta Del Boca Vista!

User avatar
That Guy
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1454
Joined: 2 years ago
Reputation: 2478
Norwood: NW2.5

Follica's pivotal study and FDA filing in 2020

#21357

Post by That Guy » 7 months ago

blackg wrote: 7 months ago You dissapoint me sometimes.
Not as much as you disappoint me.

Anyway, some of the most-relevant details from Follica's studies so far.

• The first studies were just on wounding, no drugs applied. Still worked.
• The theory that the results are not sustainable without at least some hair-growth-promoting agent is now confirmed. You'll have to keep using whatever compounds or presumably at least finasteride to keep the results. The theory has been around for a long time that the results may not be sustainable without drugs because the hair's neo-genesis takes place from the same skin (cells) as the originals.
• Each study so far has only done one pass of the treatment. So for most people, a couple or three visits should be able to fill in bald areas.
• They also tried a lithium-gel and later minoxidil.
• The device only goes about as deep as the first layer of skin. It has to do with this "quorum-sensing" thing. As long thought, there does appear to be an ideal depth and area that must be covered for optimal results. Too deep, too narrow, etc. makes the difference between hair growth and nothing. The approach they seem to be taking is "lots of needles, shallow depth". This could speak favorably to a future development involving nano-needling.

All in all I'm very stoked about this and will definitely be getting it done when its out in the next couple years. Much better option than a transplant.

Hanginginthewire
Hair Loss Novice
Hair Loss Novice
Posts: 95
Joined: 2 years ago
Reputation: 123
Norwood: NW5
Regimen: Propecia

Follica's pivotal study and FDA filing in 2020

#21381

Post by Hanginginthewire » 7 months ago

That Guy, fresh from binge-watching Red Ice Tv. Can you take your own advice and find a hobby besides spamming hair loss forums with off topic political bullshit?

User avatar
That Guy
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1454
Joined: 2 years ago
Reputation: 2478
Norwood: NW2.5

Follica's pivotal study and FDA filing in 2020

#21382

Post by That Guy » 7 months ago

Hanginginthewire wrote: 7 months ago That Guy, fresh from binge-watching Red Ice Tv. Can you take your own advice and find a hobby besides spamming hair loss forums with off topic political bullshit?
You haven't noticed, because you're too obsessed with trying to one-up me to notice, but I'm presently the only one in this thread posting on-topic.

User avatar
rclark
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1483
Joined: 2 years ago
Reputation: 2180
Norwood: NW4
Regimen: Finasteride 1mg topical, Progesterone 2% (22mg daily), Minoxidil 15% hair growth only).
Using 1.5 mm needle on all bald/balding areas weekly.

Follica's pivotal study and FDA filing in 2020

#21391

Post by rclark » 7 months ago

Did Follica ever test their tool on men past forty?

User avatar
That Guy
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1454
Joined: 2 years ago
Reputation: 2478
Norwood: NW2.5

Follica's pivotal study and FDA filing in 2020

#21397

Post by That Guy » 7 months ago

rclark wrote: 7 months ago Did Follica ever test their tool on men past forty?
Yes, it was tested on men age 35 - 45

User avatar
blackg
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2321
Joined: 2 years ago
Reputation: 4250

Follica's pivotal study and FDA filing in 2020

#21433

Post by blackg » 6 months ago

That Guy wrote: 7 months ago Yes, it was tested on men age 35 - 45
Change or self destruct.
Straight outta Del Boca Vista!

Guest-3
Hair Loss Expert
Hair Loss Expert
Posts: 792
Joined: 2 years ago
Reputation: 2465

Follica's pivotal study and FDA filing in 2020

#21435

Post by Guest-3 » 6 months ago

blackg wrote: 6 months ago Change or self destruct.
You are funny blackg :lol: :lol:
Trump 2020

User avatar
DerPapillus
Hair Loss Novice
Hair Loss Novice
Posts: 51
Joined: 2 years ago
Reputation: 165

Follica's pivotal study and FDA filing in 2020

#21477

Post by DerPapillus » 6 months ago

That Guy wrote: 7 months ago Not as much as you disappoint me.

Anyway, some of the most-relevant details from Follica's studies so far.

• The first studies were just on wounding, no drugs applied. Still worked.
• The theory that the results are not sustainable without at least some hair-growth-promoting agent is now confirmed. You'll have to keep using whatever compounds or presumably at least finasteride to keep the results. The theory has been around for a long time that the results may not be sustainable without drugs because the hair's neo-genesis takes place from the same skin (cells) as the originals.
• Each study so far has only done one pass of the treatment. So for most people, a couple or three visits should be able to fill in bald areas.
• They also tried a lithium-gel and later minoxidil.
• The device only goes about as deep as the first layer of skin. It has to do with this "quorum-sensing" thing. As long thought, there does appear to be an ideal depth and area that must be covered for optimal results. Too deep, too narrow, etc. makes the difference between hair growth and nothing. The approach they seem to be taking is "lots of needles, shallow depth". This could speak favorably to a future development involving nano-needling.

All in all I'm very stoked about this and will definitely be getting it done when its out in the next couple years. Much better option than a transplant.
Hi,

You mention that the results are not sustainable because the hair's neo-genesis takes place from the same skin cells as the former miniaturized hairs, something that I kind of suspected myself and anticipated even as early as after the famous BaldTruthTalk interview with one of the leading research figures in the field (thanks to the famous Desmond84) when said person kind of alluded to this. But:
What are your thought on the possibility of promoting neo-genesis of follicles in the safe-zones (donor of transplants) after transplant surgery, and then opt for another transplant...in practice a drastic increase in donor hairs?
In fact, a couple of years back even Follica themselves alluded to this possibility through some PP-slides which I believe another legendary user great in researching relevant and new cutting edge news made public on hairlosstalk (forgive on not remembering his name)...
Just curious...how do you view this (realistic) and your stance on it in general (would you use it)....

Cheers
''I have hope for life man'' - buckthorn, 2018

User avatar
That Guy
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1454
Joined: 2 years ago
Reputation: 2478
Norwood: NW2.5

Follica's pivotal study and FDA filing in 2020

#21478

Post by That Guy » 6 months ago

DerPapillus wrote: 6 months ago Hi,

You mention that the results are not sustainable because the hair's neo-genesis takes place from the same skin cells as the former miniaturized hairs, something that I kind of suspected myself and anticipated even as early as after the famous BaldTruthTalk interview with one of the leading research figures in the field (thanks to the famous Desmond84) when said person kind of alluded to this. But:
What are your thought on the possibility of promoting neo-genesis of follicles in the safe-zones (donor of transplants) after transplant surgery, and then opt for another transplant...in practice a drastic increase in donor hairs?
In fact, a couple of years back even Follica themselves alluded to this possibility through some PP-slides which I believe another legendary user great in researching relevant and new cutting edge news made public on hairlosstalk (forgive on not remembering his name)...
Just curious...how do you view this (realistic) and your stance on it in general (would you use it)....

Cheers
I think it's a pretty-lofty stretch goal, to be honest. That may not even be possible. There's a lot of potential variables involving scar tissue, the healing of said scar tissue with Follica, long-term effects of repeatedly cutting chunks out of you, and all kinds of other things that I'm unaware of being seriously studied (yet) that are reasonable to assume could pose obstacles to its feasibility.

If it is possible to do that, it could very well be something you might not want to do more than once.

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post