Drug companies are deliberately shelving cure research

[jman91]

I am by no means a 'conspiracy theorist' but I would be lying if I said that I am completely comfortable that the drug intend to find an outright cure that could reverse baldness for anyone.

Firstly it was roughly 2009 when Intercytex was at the verge of perfecting their hair cloning research when Pfizer bought them out, swiftly putting the patent on the shelf.

does anyone know that real progress (not only in the science) but of treatments actually hitting the market or is there only ever promises of this will "be ready in 5 years" ets that time and time again seems to be all these people say.

sorry to be pessimistic but I buy that with expensive daily use products like rogaine, propecia, alpecin shampoo, nirozal, laser combs etc ....why would they just cure it

[DepressedByHairLoss]

I agree with you and I've been saying this all along. People on here argued with me so vociferously, it was like I was bashing a family relative or something. It's simple really, the pharmaceutical companies of today care about making money first and foremost. It's ridiculously obvious. They make all of the money in the world yet they can't or won't even cure a damn thing. Sure, they'll make viable treatments, but that's because a lifetime of treatments makes the pharmas a hell of a lot more money than a one time cure. It comes down to simple dollars and cents. I mean, I understand that some diseases are very hard to cure (like cancer or Parkinson's), but if the pharmaceutical companies can't even cure something like athlete's foot or excessive acne, then it makes it pretty obvious to me that they're not looking to cure diseases or conditions, but merely treat them. The money is in the lifetime of treatments, not the cure. And the so-called treatments for hair loss are utterly pathetic. Hell, to call Rogaine a hair growth stimulant is an utter joke because I haven't see that drug stimulate much of anything. I mean, take a look at this article: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=a6OdEa5VFNV8. Some of these kids nearly regrew a full head of hair and it doesn't even matter that they had alopecia areata and not traditional baldness. The principle has nothing to do with the disease diagnosis. Stem cells were extracted from the hair-bearing area, multiplied in culture, and then re-injected into the bald areas of the scalp. This should've been ground-breaking news except I haven't heard anything about it for several years. This is because it would relegate shit like minoxidil and finasteride to the scrap heap, and put the hair transplant industry literally out of business. Major players would lose millions of dollars.

[gmonasco]

Originally Posted by DepressedByHairLoss

if the pharmaceutical companies can't even cure something like athlete's foot or excessive acne, then it makes it pretty obvious to me that they're not looking to cure diseases or conditions, but merely treat them.

I took Accutane thirty years ago, and it permanently cured my acne. I guess Roche must not have understood what they were selling.

[VictimOfDHT]

I'm a believer in conspiracies -they're not theories but facts- but I'm not sure the fact that we still don't have a cure for the baldness curse has much to do with a conspiracy because the the pharmaceutical mafia have a lot to benefit from a cure or a treatment. The only thing is sometimes I feel that HT doctors might be pressuring "someone" to put hurdles in the path of those who are trying to make a cure for baldness. They're the ones who have the most to lose and a cure will most likely put them out of business. I don't know but I do know that what we don't know is much more than what we know (or lead to believe).

I also think there's a huge lack of interest (by researchers) in finding a cure for baldness and that's why in 2012 we're still nowhere close to finding an effective treatment/cure for what I believe is not so complicated a problem to solve.

[DepressedByHairLoss]

Gmonasco, accutane may have worked for you but there are plenty of people who have not been cured at all from accutane and have either had to continue taking it for years or have altogether stopped taking it due to the drug's potent side effects. But the fact remains that these pharmaceutical companies have billions and billions of dollars at their disposal, yet they relatively haven't cured a damn thing, yet rake in billions and billions of dollars off of continual lifetime treatments that people pay big bucks for.
VictimOfDHT, you seem like an intelligent dude and you make a lot of sense in your posts. You also seem very similar to me in what a disastrious effect hair loss has had on your life. On the outside, it may seem like there may not be a conspiracy against trying to cure baldness, but it just doesn't add up to me when you think about how much profit a pharmaceutical company would generate if they developed a cure or more effective treatment for baldness, yet so few companies/people are even attempting to cure it at all. That glaring dichotomy leads me to believe that there is at least some type of conspiracy. I mean, the options we have to treat hair loss right now are downright laughable in my opinion. You're right about the HT doctors; if there was a cure or more effective treatment for hair loss, they would be put out of business. It's no coincidence that they make millions and millions of dollars off of hair transplantation yet don't offer anything new or other than hair transplantation or some surgical derivative of hair transplantation. PRP is the only exception I can think of to this rule but most doctors don't even offer that anymore.

[gmonasco]

Originally Posted by DepressedByHairLoss

accutane may have worked for you but there are plenty of people who have not been cured at all from accutane and have had to continue taking it for years

But nonetheless, there were far more people whose acne was cured or permanently lessened by Accutane, thereby putting the lie to the notion that pharmaceutical companies won't market curatives.

[DepressedByHairLoss]

Originally Posted by gmonasco

But nonetheless, there were far more people whose acne was cured or permanently lessened by Accutane, thereby putting the lie to the notion that pharmaceutical companies won't market curatives.

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.
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.

[gmonasco]

Originally Posted by VictimOfDHT

I feel that HT doctors might be pressuring "someone" to put hurdles in the path of those who are trying to make a cure for baldness.

What leverage do HT doctors possess that enables them to "pressure" others into blocking scientific research? And what "hurdles" can this mysterious "someone" working on behalf of HT doctors place in the path of scientific research?

I also think there's a huge lack of interest (by researchers) in finding a cure for baldness

Do you suppose all those researchers actually working on hair loss find satisfaction in toiling in a field that doesn't interest them and accomplishing little or nothing?

[VictimOfDHT]

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.

[2020]

Originally Posted by VictimOfDHT

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.
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"?