Thanks, depressedbyhairloss. I appreciate that. I know we seem to agree on a lot of things.
gmonasco, ever heard the word "LOBBYISTS" before ? Like INSURANCE companies lobbyists -who have more power than the government itself. Yeah, pharma and doctors have that too like many other special interest groups. If you don't know that or you don't believe it then you need to open up your eyes or....you can live in the dark if you choose. Don't think these groups have your interest before theirs, and NEITHER does the government. WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE. It's a fact that there are groups that are always working in the shadows, whether you know about them or not that doesn't change the fact. Like I said, what you don't know is much much bigger than what you know -or think you know.
okay.... but if one those companies comes up with a "cure", that company will be worth A LOT OF MONEY.
Originally Posted by VictimOfDHT
The question is: WHO has that much money to buy that company and not make any money from it in order to preserve their own monopoly on their own "hair loss products"?
I highly doubt that doctors in the hair transplant industry have enough power to stop a new drug or therapy that will be superior to what's available now.
Originally Posted by VictimOfDHT
If a better cure becomes available it will still have to be administered by a doctor familiar with hair restoration. We can assume that any cure
(Histogen, Aderen's, Replicel) will cost at least 3k to 5k and probably take less time to perform. Do the math, four patients per day at 3k a shot. Plus no need for as many technicians. It's a no-brainer.
Here's a clue for you: Everybody who wants to pay for them gets to have lobbyists; they aren't restricted to select, privileged groups.
Originally Posted by VictimOfDHT
The notion that HT doctors have such a powerful "lobby" that they can stifle scientific research is just laughable to anyone who knows how government actually works.
And once again, such thinking erroneously assumes that any new hair loss treatment would necessarily be mutually exclusive with hair transplants, rather than a complementary form of treatment.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that there were far more people whose acne was permanently cured. But even if this was true, this is only one example as opposed to an infinite amount of examples as to where the pharmaceutical industry rakes in obscene amounts of money by making people pay for continuous treatments rather than a one-shot cure. Continuous treatments will make these companies far more money than one-shot cures and make no mistake about it, these companies are far more concerned with making money for themselves than the good of the people. The obscene amounts of money that they rake in serve as a testament to this. And with regards to acne, another poster on here recently brought up that if you go to acne sufferer message boards on the internet, you'll see things about "acne vaccines" which were brought up and then mysteriously disappeared just as soon as they were brought up. Why would that be? Because these vaccines would be a one shot deal, and would not generate nearly as much money as continual treatments. And although I'm not an expert on acne medications, if other medications are currently being developed to effectively treat acne, then that suggests to me that accutane is not a one-time cure for acne at all.
Originally Posted by gmonasco
And the notion that hair transplant doctors can have powerful lobby to further their needs and interests is very plausible. These HT doctors also make loads of money; as a matter of fact they make more money per procedure than any other type of cosmetic surgeon out there. Spencer even brought up this fact on his radio show a few times. So with the money that they generate, it is very possible if not probable that they could have a powerful lobby to further their interests and agenda. And even if a new treatment could work complementary with a hair transplant, these HT doctors would still lose a ton of money and business. And if something similar to Replicel came about, it would probably render hair transplantation obsolete.
And here's an example. About 3 years ago, a doctor named Marwa Fawzi extracted stem cells from children suffering from alopecia areata, cultured them in order to multiply them, and then re-injected these stem cells into the bald parts of the children's heads. One of the children nearly regrew a full head of hair!! True, these children suffered from alopecia areata and not male pattern baldness, but the premise is such that this treatment would likely work in people with male pattern baldness. Stem cells were extracted and injected into the balding areas of the children's heads. These stem cells then functioned as fully functioning hair follicles and regrew great amounts of hair for these children. And this method must've been reasonably safe; after all, they tried it on young children. Yet all I heard was one mention in 2009 about this and then all of a sudden it vanished from the public's radar. For a such a potentially-effective and proven treatment to suddenly vanish from the public radar is awfully suspicious to me.
So, a doctor who's probably taking home $10,000 a day (clean) or more is just gonna sit down and see his money printing machine come to a sudden stop ! He's not gonna do anything about it. Right. I don't think so.
I don't know why you people think if a cure or a treatment comes out it's gonna have to be administered by HT doctors, which means they'll still be making their money. I don't think that will be the case. Something as simple as an injection does NOT have to be done by a doctor. Also, some keep saying any future treatment will have to be done in conjunction with HTs. What if they don't. What if those treatments are effective on their own and also on the hairline too? It will only mean HT as an industry will most likely SEIZE to exist. We'll probably see small labs offering the treatment springing up every where.
Malo, you're talking as if the $3000-5000 will be the doctor's to keep. Its not like the doctors are going to make these formulas in their bathrooms and then sell them to us and keep all the money they make out of it. Are they ?
Anyway, I'm not god and I don't know the unknown and I never said for a fact that HT doctors have some lobbyists working on their behalf but that doesn't mean that can't be the case. But it is naive to think that big pharma and also doctors of all kinds are only there for the sake of helping people. It's actually beyond naive. It's not a secret that Pharma is about PROFIT, and profit ONLY, and doctors are their salesmen (in a way). I can't remember the name of the program but I think it was a canadian program (something like W5) and they were talking about how doctors LIE to people, in this case to women about birth control pills and their dangers. Basically they were hiding the facts and flat out lying. One female doctors basically said they were being coached by the crooks of big pharma and actually told what to tell patients. Yup, just like salesmen. That's why I think theres a law suit going on by a bunch of women (and families of women who have died because of BC pills use) against the crooks of pharma. Search it.
My own friend is a doctor, well, was a doctor. A young girl who decided to suddenly quit 2 years into her career. She was disgusted by what goes on behind the scenes. Her own words, doctors aren't doctors because they want to help people or because they care about them.
Depressedbyhairloss, I have no doubt some good treatments for some of the worst illnesses we have are being blocked under the pretext "not safe" when the only reason why they're blocked is because they're a one time shot, which means the pharma mafia won't be making billions out of them like they do with the rest of drugs.
****ing hate when I see old people with better hairlines than I have. ****ing hate it. Sorry, rather off topic there.
Originally Posted by 2020
Once again, medical and surgical hair loss treatments are not necessarily mutually exclusive. In fact, it's quite possible that a partial medical solution would be a boon to the HT industry, as it could help ameliorate the issue of limited donor supply.
Originally Posted by VictimOfDHT
Let us know when you have some arguments that are actually grounded in reality.
Anyway, I'm not god and I don't know the unknown and I never said for a fact that HT doctors have some lobbyists working on their behalf but that doesn't mean that can't be the case.
I said the majority of Accutane users experienced acne that "cured or permanently lessened." Here is the citation:
Originally Posted by DepressedByHairLoss
"Nearly all patients achieve initial clearing of acne during high-dose isotretinoin therapy. Furthermore, about 40% observe complete and long-term remission of the disease following one course of isotretinoin, while another 40% eventually develop less severe recurrent acne, which is treatable with less invasive medications. The remaining 20% relapse significantly enough to warrant an additional course of isotretinoin. Each additional course, however, has a higher probability of cure."
For the math-impaired, that's 80% of users experiencing complete remission or less severe symptoms.
And yet you can't cite a single one of those "infinite" [sic] examples.
But even if this was true, this is only one example as opposed to an infinite amount of examples as to where the pharmaceutical industry rakes in obscene amounts of money by making people pay for continuous treatments rather than a one-shot cure.
Because they were chimeras -- nobody has yet developed an effective vaccine for acne. And contrary to such ridiculous conspiracy theories, researchers are still working on one:
if you go to acne sufferer message boards on the internet, you'll see things about "acne vaccines" which were brought up and then mysteriously disappeared just as soon as they were brought up. Why would that be?
No, it isn't. They're way too small a constituency to have any effect on elections, nor do they have anywhere close to enough financial clout to pressure federal agencies and politicians into suppressing medical research. There are literally thousands of lobbies out who have more political influence and funding than a putative HT surgeon's lobby would, yet they still couldn't pull off what you're claiming.
And the notion that hair transplant doctors can have powerful lobby to further their needs and interests is very plausible.
For good reason: The results weren't replicable under controlled conditions.
And here's an example. About 3 years ago, a doctor named Marwa Fawzi extracted stem cells from children suffering from alopecia areata, cultured them in order to multiply them, and then re-injected these stem cells into the bald parts of the children's heads. One of the children nearly regrew a full head of hair!! Yet all I heard was one mention in 2009 about this and then all of a sudden it vanished from the public's radar.
Of course, I'm sure that believing the absurd premise that the U.S. "hair transplant lobby" somehow forced an Egyptian doctor to suppress and abandon her research much better fits what you want to believe.
By gmonasco in forum Cutting Edge / Future Treatments
Last Post: 04-14-2012, 04:24 AM
By DonCarlos in forum Men's Hair Loss: Start Your Own Topic
Last Post: 03-13-2011, 10:02 AM
By bubbalock in forum Introduce Yourself & Share Your Story
Last Post: 07-01-2009, 01:44 PM
» The Bald Truth