CB-03-01 Investor update

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • LMS
    replied
    Originally posted by sdsurfin
    yup. hair trials take much longer. And the market for acne actually is bigger whether you can believe it or not. Pretty much everyone gets acne. Has nothing to do with what the other dude above said at all. The lady from Hygeia laid it out pretty succinctly earlier. It's just crazy that all of this hasn't already happened, these topical anti androgens have been known forever. Propecia is the worst thing to have ever happened to hairloss research.
    Careful with taking the words of a competing company for absolute truth brotha

    Leave a comment:


  • sdsurfin
    replied
    Originally posted by FearTheLoss
    This is completely inaccurate. The reason is because it costs 10x as much to run trials for AGA.
    yup. hair trials take much longer. And the market for acne actually is bigger whether you can believe it or not. Pretty much everyone gets acne. Has nothing to do with what the other dude above said at all. The lady from Hygeia laid it out pretty succinctly earlier. It's just crazy that all of this hasn't already happened, these topical anti androgens have been known forever. Propecia is the worst thing to have ever happened to hairloss research.

    Leave a comment:


  • FearTheLoss
    replied
    Originally posted by balding1983
    The reason they don't test anti-androgens first for AA and instead for things like acne is because of potential markets.
    Would a teenager be willing to use a new treatment for acne if they know it is being used to make bald men hairy?

    But if a drug corners the acne market first and then the company can bring out that same drug for AA without reducing their potential market.
    This is completely inaccurate. The reason is because it costs 10x as much to run trials for AGA.

    Leave a comment:


  • hellouser
    replied
    Originally posted by It's2014ComeOnAlready
    Propecia needs to just die as the leading hair loss treatment. It's absurd that in 2015, the best we can do is Propecia.

    Careful! Some guys might find this type of criticism offensive and will tell you we've made great progress with hair loss in the last 20 years...

    LOL

    Leave a comment:


  • balding1983
    replied
    The reason they don't test anti-androgens first for AA and instead for things like acne is because of potential markets.
    Would a teenager be willing to use a new treatment for acne if they know it is being used to make bald men hairy?

    But if a drug corners the acne market first and then the company can bring out that same drug for AA without reducing their potential market.

    Leave a comment:


  • sdsurfin
    replied
    it's actually not an anti androgen first and foremost. It's a compound with anti androgen properties, but there are other much better anti androgens currently being tested for acne. the problem is theres no guarantee they will ever be tested for AA and if they are it will be a long time from now. it really sucks. CB is very hyped, and according to people at companies i've talked to is not that powerful. Might still be useful but wouldn't count on too much.

    Leave a comment:


  • It's2014ComeOnAlready
    replied
    Originally posted by burtandernie
    Its an AA first and foremost but it has anti inflammatory properties too so it might work better than propecia. Its all guessing until we see this phase 2 which will tell the real story. How big is the anti inflammatory part of it? No one knows so just wait and see. Guessing at how well it works is kind of silly. The preliminary study said 2 times as strong as propecia.
    Propecia needs to just die as the leading hair loss treatment. It's absurd that in 2015, the best we can do is Propecia.

    Leave a comment:


  • burtandernie
    replied
    Its an AA first and foremost but it has anti inflammatory properties too so it might work better than propecia. Its all guessing until we see this phase 2 which will tell the real story. How big is the anti inflammatory part of it? No one knows so just wait and see. Guessing at how well it works is kind of silly. The preliminary study said 2 times as strong as propecia.

    Leave a comment:


  • huawei
    replied
    Looks pretty reasonable really though I don't see the comparisons to current stuff like propecia. IIRC looking at this the other day this aims to treat the effects of inflammation rather than the underlying cause of inflammation where as propecia actively reduces the inflammation through reduction in dht and all of that yeah? Still if this comes to the market it'll be a welcome addition.

    Leave a comment:


  • FearTheLoss
    replied
    Originally posted by Swooping
    Expect it to work just as good as the current 5ar2 inhibitors and anti-androgens we have now, nothing more really.
    I agree. However, if it doesn't have the unwanted side effects that is what would be huge.

    Leave a comment:


  • Swooping
    replied
    Originally posted by charlie76761
    Does anyone else find it odd that the report only talks about CB effect of increasing hair diameter and nothing around new growth (previously they were talking up massive new hairs)?
    Expect it to work just as good as the current 5ar2 inhibitors and anti-androgens we have now, nothing more really.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sogeking
    replied
    Originally posted by burtandernie
    yeah other than the long wait I think the worry is a partner for the money to finish this. A lot of MPB things in the past never were seen through to the end like RU which arguably seemed to work
    Not sure about that. Treatments like RU 58841 failed because they couldn't get FDA approval in early stages, no one knows why it didn't get approved. Others like Aderans and Intercytex failed because of the effectivity problems. There weren't that many potential hair loss treatments that we know off. Also there haven't been a lot of possible treatments that got to enter Phase 3 and search for a partner for distribution.

    I don't think they will have much problems to find a partner if effectivity and safety are proven through first two phases.

    I just wish Histogen could find a partner for additional funding.

    Leave a comment:


  • charlie76761
    replied
    Does anyone else find it odd that the report only talks about CB effect of increasing hair diameter and nothing around new growth (previously they were talking up massive new hairs)?

    Leave a comment:


  • Swooping
    replied
    Originally posted by burtandernie
    yeah other than the long wait I think the worry is a partner for the money to finish this. A lot of MPB things in the past never were seen through to the end like RU which arguably seemed to work
    True. To be honest I don't see CB-03-01 launching off for AGA. But we'll see.

    Leave a comment:


  • burtandernie
    replied
    yeah other than the long wait I think the worry is a partner for the money to finish this. A lot of MPB things in the past never were seen through to the end like RU which arguably seemed to work

    Leave a comment:

Working...