Is this the cure?

[Stanth]

I hope this is a cure of some sort, but I remember when I worked for a biotech company about 10 years ago (not hairloss) and the Daily Mail reported that the lead drug that was being developed was a miracle cure that would be available soon.

They failed to mention that even if it worked really well, it would have been at least 5 years before it would be available (it failed to meet primary endpoints in phase III in the end), so they do have a habit of raising people's hopes by saying that treatments are better/will be available faster than in reality. As a small aside it was in the same building as Intercytex.

Having said that, I would love to be proved wrong!!

[gmonasco]

There are many examples and I wouldnt doubt for a second that Merck with their finasteride garbage wouldnt or isnt lobbying already against a proper cure for hairloss.

This notion has already been debunked so many times that it's just ridiculous.

Propecia sales are barely a blip on Merck's radar screen, accounting for only 1% of that company's total pharmaceutical sales. (By comparison, Merck makes twelve times as much from Singulair alone as they do from Propecia.) Moreover, the patent for finasteride expires next year, so Merck's profit potential from Propecia will soon be much lower than its already relatively insignificant position.

Given that the patent on the only other hair loss treatment currently on the market (minoxidil) expired years ago, there simply isn't a pharmaceutical company out there with a financial motivation to "lobby against a proper cure for hairloss."

[ulanude]

This notion has already been debunked so many times that it's just ridiculous.

Propecia sales are barely a blip on Merck's radar screen, accounting for only 1% of that company's total pharmaceutical sales. (By comparison, Merck makes twelve times as much from Singulair alone as they do from Propecia.) Moreover, the patent for finasteride expires next year, so Merck's profit potential from Propecia will soon be much lower than its already relatively insignificant position.

Given that the patent on the only other hair loss treatment currently on the market (minoxidil) expired years ago, there simply isn't a pharmaceutical company out there with a financial motivation to "lobby against a proper cure for hairloss."

agreed. too much money in baldness - no pharmaceutical company ever would invest serious resources in "eliminating the problem" - they rather come up with new promises and products - see lloreal's neogenic...
I took finasteride for years before finally having had the guts of stopping it (risks + sides). Never looked back on it. Using trx2 now instead, which worked best so far - produced by a comparatively small company with ties to oxford university - not everybody shares the same opinion/experience on this though (see trx2 thread)

[new bubble]

agreed. too much money in baldness - no pharmaceutical company ever would invest serious resources in "eliminating the problem" - they rather come up with new promises and products - see lloreal's neogenic...
I took finasteride for years before finally having had the guts of stopping it (risks + sides). Never looked back on it. Using trx2 now instead, which worked best so far - produced by a comparatively small company with ties to oxford university - not everybody shares the same opinion/experience on this though (see trx2 thread)

Some truth in that statement about "pharmacueticals not wanting to invest" but now that must have changed because if you read what the media is reporting "scientists have had a breathrough in discussions with drugs companies" implies to me that there ready to spend and develop afterall who the hell wants to play catch up. With others who have outlined this NEVER IN HISTORY has there been a determined effort with so many companies looking for a viable solution to this problem of hair loss. Its not just for balding men/women but those who want to stop it before it starts so now we have just multiplied the consumer x5. market is huge!

[gmonasco]

too much money in baldness - no pharmaceutical company ever would invest serious resources in "eliminating the problem" - they rather come up with new promises and products - see lloreal's neogenic

But of course, L’Oréal isn't a pharmaceutical company.

Cosmetics/beauty companies, hairpiece suppliers, hair loss device manufacturers (e.g., laser combs) and surgical hair restoration outfits all profit from hair loss. Pharmaceutical companies, on the other hand, have only put two hair loss treatments on the market in the last twenty years.

[UK_]

Hmmmmm!!:

http://www.belgraviacentre.com/blog/is-a-new-pgd2-hair-loss-cure-imminent/

[WillhasWill]

Hmmmmm!!:

http://www.belgraviacentre.com/blog/...cure-imminent/

Take everything the belgraviacentre says with a pinch of salt. Every current affairs article they write is part of their marketing strategy to get new customers.

The belgraviacentre writes an article optimised for hot keywords to get traffic from search engines, E.g. PDG2 hair loss cure, and skews readers into getting in touch with them for a consultation and dashing our hopes of the "cure" in question we want to read about.