Progress of upcoming treatments

[Kiwi]

A Patent lawsuit is far from what I would consider a conspiracy. Companies sue each other all the time. And I've never read about Histogen considering it anything other than ordinary legal stuff.

Its no conspiracy that law suits are slowing down solutions for us. Its just a fact.

Fact - US patent laws suck my ring hole

[bigentries]

Histogen for one. Just won a court case...

A Patent lawsuit is far from what I would consider a conspiracy. Companies sue each other all the time. And I've never read about Histogen considering it anything other than ordinary legal stuff.

[Kiwi]

I'm also interested, because people always bring up this sort of conspiracy theories and never really back them up

I've read many times about how "big pharma" has stopped other hair loss solutions in the past, but they never specify which, and if they do, it is always debatable as the people involved have never said a word about it.

Some even believe there was some sort of complot regarding Intercytex

Histogen for one. Just won a court case...

[bigentries]

Do your own research douche bag... You think that pharma companies dont sue the little guys?

I'm also interested, because people always bring up this sort of conspiracy theories and never really back them up

I've read many times about how "big pharma" has stopped other hair loss solutions in the past, but they never specify which, and if they do, it is always debatable as the people involved have never said a word about it.

Some even believe there was some sort of complot regarding Intercytex

[Kiwi]

name one...

Do your own research douche bag... You think that pharma companies dont sue the little guys?

[Pate]

name one...

'Cures' is the wrong word but if you take it that Kiwi meant "treatments significantly superior to Propecia and Rogaine" then he's right, several companies have been sitting on patents for a decade or longer, not even trying to develop them despite as DBH said, the current treatments are crap.

RU and NEOSH-101 are two examples. An RU-NEOSH combination could be significantly better than the Propecia-Rogaine combination (although RU did have stability problems in solution I think).

NEOSH was an especially unlucky victim, since the company that was developing it also had a cancer drug development program, and they got bought out by a bigger cancer drug company. So the new owners were only interested in the cancer drugs, and now NEOSH is sitting quietly awaiting patent expiry (after which I guess nobody will bother trying to develop it since they can't recoup costs?). RU has been pulled from Prostrakan's website development pipeline too, so that's probably dead as well.

Our best hope now for open-market drugs seems to be a CB-03-01 and Latisse combo, and even if CB is developed it won't be til 2016 at the earliest (I just looked up their development pipeline in the latest presentation on the Cosmo website).

Which will be 20 years since Propecia, even though initial work on RU was done in the mid-90s if I recall correctly.

It's all rather frustrating, and the fact minox is still used by the gallon (including by me) even though its effects are marginal shows that the market is there for even a minor improvement in regrowth.

One final point, it's not US patent law that affected RU and NEOSH since both patents were held by European companies.

[2020]

A lot of the pharma companies have held patents that stop other companies from creating cures *gee thanks american patent laws - LAME*

name one...

[Kiwi]

Hey man, you do bring up some good points. With regards to the patents you mentioned in the first paragraph, I do agree with you. I brought up the example of thymosin B4 a few months ago. This was chemical that was initially developed by Regenerx that actually had solid potential for hair regrowth. Regenerx filed a patent to use thymosin B4 to regrow hair in 2002, but they haven't done a damn thing to conduct clinical trials or anything to bring this to human application. It's just languishing on the vine. However, in 2010, Actistem (from South Korea, I think) actually developed a product that contained thymosin B4 to regrow hair yet they stopped selling it only after a few months. Why? Because Regenerx threatened to sue the pants off of them. So that's an example of what you said about companies holding patents that prevent others from creating cures, and a perfect example of these pharmaceutical companies caring much more about profit than anyone else's well-being.
Kiwi, you're right that things are changing and thankfully so. I just wish things would've changed a lot sooner, then we might actually have some kind of cure or viable treatment for hair loss now. I really applaud what Replicel, Histogen, and Aderans are doing, but I still think that the big pharmaceutical companies will still try to get in their way, simply because if they're hair regrowth methods do actually work like they say they will, then they will not only cut into their profit margins, but make their shit products like Rogaine and Propecia obsolete. Also, it would make hair transplants obsolete, which is why I hear all of these HT doctors either denigrating these new methods or saying that they won't be released for like 15 years.
With regards to other companies trying to cure hair loss, I'd really love to know of some. I think I've heard about one other European (Italian?) company looking to develop some kind of topical anti-androgen; I think it was called something like CB 03 01. In terms of Asian efforts to cure hair loss, I've seen some sporadic articles about individuals looking to develop something, but I haven't seen any concerted efforts to cure or develop a treatment for hair loss.

Happy new year man.

I wonder if once they launch Propecia and Minox will up their game. If they have inside knowledge that these products are indeed about to launch that would be the time to disrupt the market.

That said people like me will always hate Propecia for its side effects so as soon as Histogen / Aderans and Replicel hit the streets I'm buying

[Pate]

Unfortunately CB-03-01 might struggle to be developed because of Replicel etc. It costs many millions of dollars to develop a drug through to marketing and pharmaceutical companies might be reluctant to invest in one if they think Replicel is going to come along and obliterate the market in five years.

Which is a real shame because CB sounds fantastic, with none of the sides of internal anti-androgens and apparently good results. Plus the POC study only used application once or twice a week.

It would be a great option to confine Propecia to the scrap heap. And as I see it the only way there will be no market for anti-androgens is if Replicel is 100% effective not only at regrowth but preventing further loss. And while I fervently hope that turns out to be the case I accept it might not work quite that well.

But hopefully the fact CB is useful for acne will carry it forward to the next phase trials.

[DepressedByHairLoss]

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.

Hey man, you do bring up some good points. With regards to the patents you mentioned in the first paragraph, I do agree with you. I brought up the example of thymosin B4 a few months ago. This was chemical that was initially developed by Regenerx that actually had solid potential for hair regrowth. Regenerx filed a patent to use thymosin B4 to regrow hair in 2002, but they haven't done a damn thing to conduct clinical trials or anything to bring this to human application. It's just languishing on the vine. However, in 2010, Actistem (from South Korea, I think) actually developed a product that contained thymosin B4 to regrow hair yet they stopped selling it only after a few months. Why? Because Regenerx threatened to sue the pants off of them. So that's an example of what you said about companies holding patents that prevent others from creating cures, and a perfect example of these pharmaceutical companies caring much more about profit than anyone else's well-being.
Kiwi, you're right that things are changing and thankfully so. I just wish things would've changed a lot sooner, then we might actually have some kind of cure or viable treatment for hair loss now. I really applaud what Replicel, Histogen, and Aderans are doing, but I still think that the big pharmaceutical companies will still try to get in their way, simply because if they're hair regrowth methods do actually work like they say they will, then they will not only cut into their profit margins, but make their shit products like Rogaine and Propecia obsolete. Also, it would make hair transplants obsolete, which is why I hear all of these HT doctors either denigrating these new methods or saying that they won't be released for like 15 years.
With regards to other companies trying to cure hair loss, I'd really love to know of some. I think I've heard about one other European (Italian?) company looking to develop some kind of topical anti-androgen; I think it was called something like CB 03 01. In terms of Asian efforts to cure hair loss, I've seen some sporadic articles about individuals looking to develop something, but I haven't seen any concerted efforts to cure or develop a treatment for hair loss.

[RichardDawkins]

Fair enough, i just wanted to give a lets say very very easy to understand example :-)

Because every company knows, a cure forbaldnessis cheap and can generate profit and they could easily say "He baldies just incase get your head injected every five years"

Baldies would do it, even if it wouldnt be neccesaire

Thats the good thing about hair loss, you can pretty much manipulate it and turn it around

And i dont think that the current problem is to stop and reverse hair loss, i think the problem right now is to get those cultured cells to migrate in those "empty follicles"

Btw those injections also DONT vanish when injected on a NW7 person,they will only slower start to migrate.Also even if those follicles are not there anymore, the cells will form what they have to dobut you have to injectmultiple times

[Kiwi]

And yes those companies are greedy but not stupid, they know hair loss will be presenet forever cause its genetics but something like 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

Your heart is in the right place but you're wrong - I have friends researching vacines for HIV right now. The only thing that is stopping this from happening is computing power - trust me if they had Quantum machines that could figure this out tomorrow then they would have an HIV vacine on the market

[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.

[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.

[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.