What Could Cause Histogen to Fail?
Hi Doc,
i’m sure you heard and saw Histogen’s Pilot Study and the general comment i saw in all the forums were that is really promising. i hope you can answer my question..
what do you see that MAY be a downfall in Histogen HSC plan? and do you think its results are more promising than hair cloning? i know that we have been hearing the quote “3 to 5 years time” BUT i dont think science had ever had such results than now so things are moving i guess..
I suppose the downfall could be the same for any new company in this space — financial backing. If the trials don’t go as well as expected, it may be harder to secure additional funds to keep making progress. I’m just speaking in generalities though.
I do not follow Histogen’s business or science plans close enough to scrutinize its progress, so I do not really have an opinion on its technology. The last I read about the HSC pilot program, it looked promising but only had a couple dozen participants… and it wasn’t known if the results would last for any significant amount of time.
It may be the hope to most (if not all) readers out there for a cure to balding, and I could only share the same hopes as any other.
Fingers crossed on this one.
My understanding is that 5-10 years ago there was no Histogen and there was no Aderans and there wasn’t even an Intercytex. So back then I think the main difference was that nobody had a clue. Whereas today there seems to be more hard science.
Histogen recently gained $10million in funding and plan to go to phase 2 trials in spring ’11. Thats the answer to the first part.
Secondly, Apparently according to histogen’s website and press releases there were significant results in animal tests before and in this recent test on a select group of 24 as mentioned, with evidence for prolonged effectiveness.
As with any trial the process is long and often comes un stuck at phase 2 or 3, so we should err on the side of caution.
However, The answer to the poster is a little disdainful. Phase 1 trials are often low in numbers simply to minimise risk to participants. Why test on 3000 and find out it kills or has adverse effects on 1200. The phase 2 trials will scale up.