Progress of upcoming treatments

[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

[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.

[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.

[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

[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]

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

[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

[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.

[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!

[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]

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]

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.

[re22]

One step at a time. It's good to question these things, but you're getting into conspiracy theory territory right now.

[youngsufferer]

I too would absolutely dread it if they were to attract Big Pharma. As most of us know, big pharmaceutical companies just want constantly "treat" diseases instead of curing them, and they sure as hell don't give a damn about the good of the people. But I'm not sure that that's what Replicel is trying to do. After all, they say on their website that they're attempting to develop a permanent solution to hair loss, which I think means that they're shooting for a cure and not a treatment, since a treatment would not be permanent and would require multiple, periodic doses to retain and regrow hair. I hope Replicel is similar to Anthony Atala's lab in North Carolina, where they explicitly state that they're looking to "cure" diseases, not simply "treat" them. I think what Replicel is hoping to do is to get great Phase I results and then use these results to attract investors, which will help fund things like further clinical trials. I don't think they are looking to outsource their technology to some big pharmaceutical company, since that would take away millions from their forseeable profit margin. If their hair loss treatment is a permanent cure for hair loss (meaning that it regrows hair and prevents hair loss), then it would literally be a billion dollar treatment, even if it would cost a ton of money. Hell, hair transplants, Rogaine, and Propecia are multi-million dollar industries and I think less than 10% of hair loss sufferers even opt for these treatments, so one can only imagine how extremely profitable a permanent cure for hair loss would be.

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.

[DepressedByHairLoss]

Hey Thinning. I hate to be a negative chap. But CEO David Hall said that if phase I trials are good they would like to attract Big Pharma. I am honestly dreading the thought.

But let us not speculate, one thing at a time. First: phase I trials results. Ee can then discuss other stuff later....

I too would absolutely dread it if they were to attract Big Pharma. As most of us know, big pharmaceutical companies just want constantly "treat" diseases instead of curing them, and they sure as hell don't give a damn about the good of the people. But I'm not sure that that's what Replicel is trying to do. After all, they say on their website that they're attempting to develop a permanent solution to hair loss, which I think means that they're shooting for a cure and not a treatment, since a treatment would not be permanent and would require multiple, periodic doses to retain and regrow hair. I hope Replicel is similar to Anthony Atala's lab in North Carolina, where they explicitly state that they're looking to "cure" diseases, not simply "treat" them. I think what Replicel is hoping to do is to get great Phase I results and then use these results to attract investors, which will help fund things like further clinical trials. I don't think they are looking to outsource their technology to some big pharmaceutical company, since that would take away millions from their forseeable profit margin. If their hair loss treatment is a permanent cure for hair loss (meaning that it regrows hair and prevents hair loss), then it would literally be a billion dollar treatment, even if it would cost a ton of money. Hell, hair transplants, Rogaine, and Propecia are multi-million dollar industries and I think less than 10% of hair loss sufferers even opt for these treatments, so one can only imagine how extremely profitable a permanent cure for hair loss would be.