Progress of upcoming treatments

[DepressedByHairLoss]

I'm 20 years old and this is my first post so I'm sure you'll use that against me but I had to register to respond to this.

I've been lurking here for about a year now when I started receding and I'm now a norwood 3. The fact that Replicel WANTS to include big pharma in their treatment should be the first sign that we don't want anything to do with replicel. You've already said pharma wants to treat not cure, which is absolutely true. Why pay 20,000 dollars and cure somebody when you can milk them for 100,000 over a lifetime. That's the motivation right? These companies are racing for the treatment because there's a huge goldmine at the end, not because they actually want to help people.

Another thing is, do you really think replicel and other companies care about what Spencer has to say about them? People spend millions on rogaine/propecia/otherbullshit without even looking anything up. These companies know that people will buy no matter what and they're looking to milk it as much as they can, the only factor of who wins the race is who's treatment works the best. In the end, that's all it is, a TREATMENT. These companies know they can tell Spencer one thing and go the other direction, and they don't have to join the IAHRS because they'll make money regardless.
As a young business owner this is my opinion, that's all it is.


I respect Spencer and all he does for this community, but get used to being bald fellas.

I disagree with a lot of this. I consider a cure for my hair loss as having a full head of hair again like I used to. Hell, I'd even be happy with full enough head of hair where I can post current photos of myself and barely anyone would notice any hair loss. Replicel's goal is for its patients to achieve a full head of hair once again, or as they say on their website, to develop a permanent solution to hair loss. So if their method restores me with a full head of hair or anything close to it, then I would consider that a cure. I really think that they're not looking to outsource their technology to some large pharmaceutical giant, they're just looking for investors so that they can gain more capital to fund such things as further clinical trials. And I'm glad that their company's mission totally deviates from the aims of these large pharmaceutical companies, as I said before.
I think Replicel absolutely cares what Spencer thinks and has to say about them. Otherwise, they wouldn't even conduct interviews with him in the first place. Spencer is one of the world's foremost hair loss advocates and is recognized as such by major television stations, magazines, and newspapers. His opinion really does hold major weight with regards to which company has the best method to restoring a full head of hair to people suffering from hair loss. He's already conducted a couple of interviews with a representative from Histogen and I'd bet he'll be setting up an interview with an Aderans representative very soon.
I do agree with you though when it comes to these big pharmaceutical companies. Their ulterior motives are totally disgusting and they're totally screwing around with our health when they aim to develop semi-effective (and oftentimes very ineffective) methods to "treat" diseases as opposed to curing them. They are all about making money for themselves rather than the health of the general public; they literally make me sick to my stomach.

[youngsufferer]

Before I go any further let me just say I hope you guys are right, and one day I'll be able to have a social life and enjoy my youth before it slips away. Also Spencer is great and he's a big reason why I haven't given up on life yet.

Anyway, companies like replicel know that's all you want, and you'll do ANYTHING for it back. Replicel, Aderans, and Histogen all state they want to bring a full head of hair back to their customers on their website. The disturbing thing is, looking at Bosley's website and seeing the same thing. I'm not sold on any of these companies because of how hesitant they are to show results and the lack of pictures. I get proof of concept, but how am I supposed to have faith when I haven't seen anything to change my mind? I don't know about you, but if I found a cure for cancer I'd have billboards, popups, commercials , AND people going door to door promoting my product.

Spencer's word holds weight with the people that are intelligent enough to seek help and research hairloss, most people are not. The majority of the population think rogaine works, I know this because all my family and friends tell me to use it. Point is, these companies know the average population will buy into anything that offers false hope and if they don't have a sure-fire cure, they're planning on exploiting this to get as much money as they can 100%. As far as I can see, they don't have a sure-fire anything.

Don't get me wrong, If I saw pictures of baldness reversed within months, I would need a new wardrobe after the amounts of pants I'd shit in. It hasn't happened yet, and we're only 2 years away from Aderans' time to shine.


Again, I would LOVE to change my mind about this I'm just waiting for something to happen.

I disagree with a lot of this. I consider a cure for my hair loss as having a full head of hair again like I used to. Hell, I'd even be happy with full enough head of hair where I can post current photos of myself and barely anyone would notice any hair loss. Replicel's goal is for its patients to achieve a full head of hair once again, or as they say on their website, to develop a permanent solution to hair loss. So if their method restores me with a full head of hair or anything close to it, then I would consider that a cure. I really think that they're not looking to outsource their technology to some large pharmaceutical giant, they're just looking for investors so that they can gain more capital to fund such things as further clinical trials. And I'm glad that their company's mission totally deviates from the aims of these large pharmaceutical companies, as I said before.
I think Replicel absolutely cares what Spencer thinks and has to say about them. Otherwise, they wouldn't even conduct interviews with him in the first place. Spencer is one of the world's foremost hair loss advocates and is recognized as such by major television stations, magazines, and newspapers. His opinion really does hold major weight with regards to which company has the best method to restoring a full head of hair to people suffering from hair loss. He's already conducted a couple of interviews with a representative from Histogen and I'd bet he'll be setting up an interview with an Aderans representative very soon.
I do agree with you though when it comes to these big pharmaceutical companies. Their ulterior motives are totally disgusting and they're totally screwing around with our health when they aim to develop semi-effective (and oftentimes very ineffective) methods to "treat" diseases as opposed to curing them. They are all about making money for themselves rather than the health of the general public; they literally make me sick to my stomach.

[DepressedByHairLoss]

You bring up some good points and I totally feel for you, man, being only 20 years old and suffering from hair loss. You're right about the majority of the population being clueless with regards to hair loss. There are so many examples. My old hairdresser told me to use Rogaine, thinking it is some sort of wonder treatment for hair loss. Hell, my dermatologist even tried to tell me what an ethical company Bosley is, despite their absolutely horrendous reputation. You're right, a lot of people really are naive and not well-informed at all when it comes to hair loss. I can't stand when I see those Bosley ads in the middle of football games, promising to restore a full head of hair to people suffering from hair loss. You and I know how full of shit they are, but unfortunately most of the population doesn't, and I'd bet lots of people will jump at the chance to make an appointment with Bosley based on those absolutely asinine commercials.
You're right about the lack of photographic evidence with regards to human hair growth when it comes to companies like Histogen, Replicel, and Aderans. I'm skeptical of Aderans (mainly because they're run by the extremely unethical Bosley corporation), but I do believe in the technology of Histogen and Replicel, mainly because the scientists and researchers that they employ have great reputations and the technology behind their proposed methods for hair regrowth are very well-researched and show great promise. For example, many scientists have determined that such things as WNT proteins, Nestin, and dermal fibroblasts can lead to increased hair growth in humans. These are some of the chemicals that Histogen is using to attempt to regrow hair. So at least the science behind their methods is solid. With regards to Bosley, they are just falsely advertising methods to supposedly achieve a full head of hair (like hair transplants or all-natural shampoos containing shit like plant extracts or natural supplements) which have no legitimate science behind them and are just utterly false. And the worst are some these advertisements that you see on the internet that advertise that some all-natural shampoo or cream will restore a full head of hair. Those are just so blatantly false that they don't even attempt to advertise that there is any scientific backing behind their claims anyway.
Also, I will admit that a small part of my optimism comes from the fact that I just cannot accept to live a life with baldness/hair loss. These supposed hair loss cures like Histogen or Replicel really do give me a reason to go on, knowing that I may not have to deal with this hair loss much longer.
And BTW, that comment about how you'd need a new wardrobe for all the pants you'd shit in was witty as hell and just downright classic!

[youngsufferer]

You bring up some good points and I totally feel for you, man, being only 20 years old and suffering from hair loss. You're right about the majority of the population being clueless with regards to hair loss. There are so many examples. My old hairdresser told me to use Rogaine, thinking it is some sort of wonder treatment for hair loss. Hell, my dermatologist even tried to tell me what an ethical company Bosley is, despite their absolutely horrendous reputation. You're right, a lot of people really are naive and not well-informed at all when it comes to hair loss. I can't stand when I see those Bosley ads in the middle of football games, promising to restore a full head of hair to people suffering from hair loss. You and I know how full of shit they are, but unfortunately most of the population doesn't, and I'd bet lots of people will jump at the chance to make an appointment with Bosley based on those absolutely asinine commercials.
You're right about the lack of photographic evidence with regards to human hair growth when it comes to companies like Histogen, Replicel, and Aderans. I'm skeptical of Aderans (mainly because they're run by the extremely unethical Bosley corporation), but I do believe in the technology of Histogen and Replicel, mainly because the scientists and researchers that they employ have great reputations and the technology behind their proposed methods for hair regrowth are very well-researched and show great promise. For example, many scientists have determined that such things as WNT proteins, Nestin, and dermal fibroblasts can lead to increased hair growth in humans. These are some of the chemicals that Histogen is using to attempt to regrow hair. So at least the science behind their methods is solid. With regards to Bosley, they are just falsely advertising methods to supposedly achieve a full head of hair (like hair transplants or all-natural shampoos containing shit like plant extracts or natural supplements) which have no legitimate science behind them and are just utterly false. And the worst are some these advertisements that you see on the internet that advertise that some all-natural shampoo or cream will restore a full head of hair. Those are just so blatantly false that they don't even attempt to advertise that there is any scientific backing behind their claims anyway.
Also, I will admit that a small part of my optimism comes from the fact that I just cannot accept to live a life with baldness/hair loss. These supposed hair loss cures like Histogen or Replicel really do give me a reason to go on, knowing that I may not have to deal with this hair loss much longer.
And BTW, that comment about how you'd need a new wardrobe for all the pants you'd shit in was witty as hell and just downright classic!

I completely agree about not being able to accept it. There is positivity in this whole thing to where I can focus on making money and furthering myself rather than getting hammered and being non-productive. Gotta find the positives in things.

Anyway I hope my negativity doesn't stir up arguments because I didn't mean to offend anyone. You can imagine my hostility towards life going from an active life and dropping out of college and completely changing my lifestyle because of this curse. Trying to get through it day by day but living in limbo is no fun!

[Penny Stock]

I'm 20 years old and this is my first post so I'm sure you'll use that against me but I had to register to respond to this.

I've been lurking here for about a year now when I started receding and I'm now a norwood 3. The fact that Replicel WANTS to include big pharma in their treatment should be the first sign that we don't want anything to do with replicel. You've already said pharma wants to treat not cure, which is absolutely true. Why pay 20,000 dollars and cure somebody when you can milk them for 100,000 over a lifetime. That's the motivation right? These companies are racing for the treatment because there's a huge goldmine at the end, not because they actually want to help people.

Another thing is, do you really think replicel and other companies care about what Spencer has to say about them? People spend millions on rogaine/propecia/otherbullshit without even looking anything up. These companies know that people will buy no matter what and they're looking to milk it as much as they can, the only factor of who wins the race is who's treatment works the best. In the end, that's all it is, a TREATMENT. These companies know they can tell Spencer one thing and go the other direction, and they don't have to join the IAHRS because they'll make money regardless.
As a young business owner this is my opinion, that's all it is.


I respect Spencer and all he does for this community, but get used to being bald fellas.

Hey Man,

I'm sorry to single you out, but you're the only one who used figures as an argument against "Big Pharma" being a negative thing for this whole process.

Time and time again I see this agreement, but yet little thought goes into it, and figures are pulled from the sky.

Are "Big Pharma" out to make the most money possible?
Yes.

But let's look at it objectively, Johnson and Johnson are Big Phama, they turn over 24 billion a year or there about right?

But what do they make from the average Rogain user $240 per year, let’s assume the average user uses the product for 20 years that’s $4,800.00.

Currently only 10 percent of balding men seek treatment.

Now let's assume you’re Big Pharma, I come to you with a product and say, how about instead of $4,800.00 over 20 years for your existing clients, I give you $20,000 for each of them today, and not only that, I will expand your client base by 300 percent.

Just something to think about.

[Kiwi]

Hey Man,

I'm sorry to single you out, but you're the only one who used figures as an argument against "Big Pharma" being a negative thing for this whole process.

Time and time again I see this agreement, but yet little thought goes into it, and figures are pulled from the sky.

Are "Big Pharma" out to make the most money possible?
Yes.

But let's look at it objectively, Johnson and Johnson are Big Phama, they turn over 24 billion a year or there about right?

But what do they make from the average Rogain user $240 per year, let’s assume the average user uses the product for 20 years that’s $4,800.00.

Currently only 10 percent of balding men seek treatment.

Now let's assume you’re Big Pharma, I come to you with a product and say, how about instead of $4,800.00 over 20 years for your existing clients, I give you $20,000 for each of them today, and not only that, I will expand your client base by 300 percent.

Just something to think about.

Finally some sense!! Thanks for your comment

[bigentries]

Hey Man,

I'm sorry to single you out, but you're the only one who used figures as an argument against "Big Pharma" being a negative thing for this whole process.

Time and time again I see this agreement, but yet little thought goes into it, and figures are pulled from the sky.

Are "Big Pharma" out to make the most money possible?
Yes.

But let's look at it objectively, Johnson and Johnson are Big Phama, they turn over 24 billion a year or there about right?

But what do they make from the average Rogain user $240 per year, let’s assume the average user uses the product for 20 years that’s $4,800.00.

Currently only 10 percent of balding men seek treatment.

Now let's assume you’re Big Pharma, I come to you with a product and say, how about instead of $4,800.00 over 20 years for your existing clients, I give you $20,000 for each of them today, and not only that, I will expand your client base by 300 percent.

Just something to think about.

Bingo!
This analysis should be compulsory read for anyone that believe a cure is being hidden

Are Big Pharma evil? yes. But people make it seem they are some sort of templarians conspiracy theory

[RichardDawkins]

Thats the point, also there is one market rule. Money today is much more valuable then tomorrow.

And dont forget not everyone will use Minox or Fin for the rest of his life and those companies know that.

Believe me a cure would be the holy grail for them, cause air loss is not life threatening and can therefor easily be used etc.

Just for one second assume you are this big company and you offer one sesion for lets say 3000 dollars, now assume this patient got his hair back and has bald friends and he tells them about it.

You got advertismenet WITHOUT paying a single dollar, no on the other hand YOU GET PAID

And you have an infinite amount of baldies every year until mankind dies, Do you really think any company would jeoparidze this money printing device for just water it down, while there are also competition on the market?

If so they should file for bancrupcy today.

And yes those companies are greedy but not stupid, they know hair loss willbe presenet forever cause its genetics but somethinglike AIDS is a desease which if once eradicated cannot generate money anymore.

Assume you would haveone single HIV posiitve person on anisland of 10 people. Now this HIV person vanishes, then you dont have HIV on this island anymore

But now assume baldies transfer their genes to the after generation, you will still have hair loss endofstory

[bigentries]

An HIV vaccine is also a cash cow

Considering the size of the epidemic right now, a vaccine is worthless without a global vaccination campaign.
We are talking about billions of people

Add the fact that many governments see HIV as a just punishment for homosexual behavior or adultery, it would take decades to completely eradicate it

[sausage]

its true, this minoxidil ball-crap is ripping so many people off, they must be laughing all the way to the bank.

In the past year or two in the UK they have advertised it on tv, people are being mugged. I wonder how many people have thought 'WOW a cure for my baldness' when they have seen this advert and rush out to buy it for it just to make their head sticky, eyes itch and even kill their cat (yes minoxidil can kill your pet cat).

We all need something solid that actually works, and not all this crap in a bottle.

I am seeing what look to be 'successful' hair transplants and they interest me but I am still totally skeptical about it, I don't have a clue what the real truth behind HT's is. I need to visit Rooney and see if I can pull his hair out.

[youngsufferer]

Thats the point, also there is one market rule. Money today is much more valuable then tomorrow.

And dont forget not everyone will use Minox or Fin for the rest of his life and those companies know that.

Believe me a cure would be the holy grail for them, cause air loss is not life threatening and can therefor easily be used etc.

Just for one second assume you are this big company and you offer one sesion for lets say 3000 dollars, now assume this patient got his hair back and has bald friends and he tells them about it.

You got advertismenet WITHOUT paying a single dollar, no on the other hand YOU GET PAID

And you have an infinite amount of baldies every year until mankind dies, Do you really think any company would jeoparidze this money printing device for just water it down, while there are also competition on the market?

If so they should file for bancrupcy today.

And yes those companies are greedy but not stupid, they know hair loss willbe presenet forever cause its genetics but somethinglike AIDS is a desease which if once eradicated cannot generate money anymore.

Assume you would haveone single HIV posiitve person on anisland of 10 people. Now this HIV person vanishes, then you dont have HIV on this island anymore

But now assume baldies transfer their genes to the after generation, you will still have hair loss endofstory

Very good points. My only concern is that Aderans(big pharm/bosley/thedevil) will be the first out the gate with an acceptable product, pulling funding away from replicel and histogen and eventually putting them out of business just because they were first. It sounds silly but when the general population hears "Cure for baldness" that's all they will care about, no future treatments just the now, like you said.

Either way you've definitely given me some hope so thank you for that.

[bigentries]

Very good points. My only concern is that Aderans(big pharm/bosley/thedevil) will be the first out the gate with an acceptable product, pulling funding away from replicel and histogen and eventually putting them out of business just because they were first. It sounds silly but when the general population hears "Cure for baldness" that's all they will care about, no future treatments just the now, like you said.

Either way you've definitely given me some hope so thank you for that.

That would only worry me if replicel and histogen were not being tested already. Considering all treatments are almost on par, I think there is nothing to worry about

If Aderans is indeed released first, the other treatments would be in the final phases of testing. A successful launching of the Aderans product only means good things for Histogen and Replicel, they wouldn't have problems commercializing their products if success is guaranteed

If we are able to see some sort of "War of baldness cures" we should consider ourselves a lucky generation of baldies

[Sogeking]

Well it is always good to be positive. But do you know what is interesting about "Big Pharma"?
I always like to put up acne as an example. If you frequent acne sufferers boards you will see that things like acne vaccines (against overproduction of sebum) and other new potential treatments have mysteriously vanished only few years after appearing. Why? Well even if they price those treatments for a considerable amount of money, it would be a one time thing.

Now just ask yourselves how much cosmetics women buy, there are like 5 or 6 different creams for different uses. The same thing and goal is for acne, too. Giving you 23 or 4 topical creams for you to fight your acne until you are an adult, and for some even later. Thats how Big Pharma works. Money, money, money.
A sad thing is that as a species we are trying to eradicate rasicm, misogyny, misandry, homophobia and all slew of other types of discrimination. Even those against hair loss sufferers. But we still discriminate according to money. And having a lot of money through immoral, but not illegal ways, is still applauded. Those with money have better service, resources and availability when it comes to basic human needs.


All that said in case of hair loss the case is different than in the case of acne sufferes. Reason is simple: Minoxidil and Finasteride don't give expectable results in long term for most, and for some even in short term. That is why this new treatments are coming through the pipeline.

Sure if some of them work they will make us pay a lot for it. But screw it all I won't get a new car but new hair. A sacrifice I am gladly willing to make.

[DepressedByHairLoss]

Sogeking, you really bring up a bunch of good points here. Your analogy with regards to acne treatments is absolutely correct and really illustrates that these big pharmaceutical companies are out to "treat", and not "cure", diseases and conditions because a lifetime treatment will make them a hell of a lot more money than a one-time cure. I haven't seen any pharmaceutical company cure a damn thing (even something simple like athlete's foot, for God's sake), but they ALWAYS offer treatments instead that always require that a person keeps taking them or else their effect will wear off. That's what really pisses me off (and why I make such a big deal about it), because they're supposed to be developing solutions to cure diseases, but they're a hell of a lot more concerned with their own profits instead. That's the absolute reverse of the way it should be. So I enjoyed reading your post Sogeking, you really seem like a sensible guy.
Penny Stock, I see your point of view, but Rogaine is really the exception to the rule, because in most cases a lifetime treatment will make a company a hell of a lot more money than a one-time cure. One reason that Rogaine is an exception to the rule is because it is such a crappy product that surprisingly generates a lot of money. I have yet to see some one truly achieve meaningful hair regrowth while on Rogaine by itself. Yet despite its inefficiency or the fact that less than 10% of people even use it, it still made Johnson & Johnson 42 million dollars a year in profits in 2007, which is truly mind-boggling, especially considering that Rogaine is such a shit treatment. It's true that if Johnson & Johnson (or any other pharmaceutical company) offered a one-time cure that cost around $20,000, they would make a lot of money and many more people would opt for this than Rogaine. The problem is that I haven't seen them (or any other big pharmaceutical company) even try to develop anything superior to Rogaine or Propecia. In fact, I only see 4 companies in all the world even trying to develop something superior to the crappy options that are available to us today. Only 4 companies! That to me is just glaringly suspicious.

[Kiwi]

Sogeking, you really bring up a bunch of good points here. Your analogy with regards to acne treatments is absolutely correct and really illustrates that these big pharmaceutical companies are out to "treat", and not "cure", diseases and conditions because a lifetime treatment will make them a hell of a lot more money than a one-time cure. I haven't seen any pharmaceutical company cure a damn thing (even something simple like athlete's foot, for God's sake), but they ALWAYS offer treatments instead that always require that a person keeps taking them or else their effect will wear off. That's what really pisses me off (and why I make such a big deal about it), because they're supposed to be developing solutions to cure diseases, but they're a hell of a lot more concerned with their own profits instead. That's the absolute reverse of the way it should be. So I enjoyed reading your post Sogeking, you really seem like a sensible guy.
Penny Stock, I see your point of view, but Rogaine is really the exception to the rule, because in most cases a lifetime treatment will make a company a hell of a lot more money than a one-time cure. One reason that Rogaine is an exception to the rule is because it is such a crappy product that surprisingly generates a lot of money. I have yet to see some one truly achieve meaningful hair regrowth while on Rogaine by itself. Yet despite its inefficiency or the fact that less than 10% of people even use it, it still made Johnson & Johnson 42 million dollars a year in profits in 2007, which is truly mind-boggling, especially considering that Rogaine is such a shit treatment. It's true that if Johnson & Johnson (or any other pharmaceutical company) offered a one-time cure that cost around $20,000, they would make a lot of money and many more people would opt for this than Rogaine. The problem is that I haven't seen them (or any other big pharmaceutical company) even try to develop anything superior to Rogaine or Propecia. In fact, I only see 4 companies in all the world even trying to develop something superior to the crappy options that are available to us today. Only 4 companies! That to me is just glaringly suspicious.

But you are forgetting that both the market and the science and the tech is all changing. A lot of the pharma companies have held patents that stop other companies from creating cures *gee thanks american patent laws - LAME* but this is changing with new technologies. For instance a lot of the pharam companies can't stop stem cell research because they didnt see it coming.

And now we're seeing companies like Histogen (who just won a court case), Aderans, and Replicel that are all doing things differently enough that they can actually create new products and take them to market without the stepping on any of the pharma companies toes. Even though it probably pisses them off. This is happening all the time now that scientists are having breakthroughs with nano tech and stem cell research.

Also if a pharma company holds the rights and the patent to a "treatment" that leaves the market only to companies that want to make a "cure" which might be what we're seeing now.

Also there are probably more then just 4 companies. I know there are other companies europe working on this stuff and god knows what else is happening in china or japan or any number of countries that want to make some money.