Drug companies will stop a cure hitting the market

[gmonasco]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0

Translation: I have no coherent argument to make, so I will resort to acting like a spoiled child who can't have his way.

[2020]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0

reported as a troll.

[gmonasco]

According to Merck's latest 10-K filing, in 2011 their Propecia sales brought in $447 million. By way of comparison, Singulair alone brings in over 12 times as much revenue to Merck as Propecia does.

Replicel's stated initial price point is $15,000. That means that if only 29,800 people availed themselves of a Replicel "cure" in the first year, it would bring in as much money as Merck's annual worldwide sales of Propecia. And Merck's Propecia sales figures will certainly plummet once their patent on finasteride as a MPB treatment expires next year.

Which do you think has the greater financial potential?

[jman91]

But since, according to you, they haven't actually developed any of those treatments, how could they possibly know whether they're one-off or continuous use treatments?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0

[gmonasco]

I would agree they want to improve treatments, but only new products that require constant use and purchasing, not one off cure treatments.

But since, according to you, they haven't actually developed any of those treatments, how could they possibly know whether they're one-off or continuous use treatments?

i see what you did there, very mature quoting half of a sentence, who are you fox news?

Once the drivel is eliminated, there's not much left to quote.

i dont need to prove there is anything better out there to be correct in saying that everytime they say such an such is potentially a few years from market..that nothing happens, can you dispute that

Yes, it's eminently disputable. The overwhelming majority of medical treatments fail to pan out early in the development process, well before the clinical trial stage. Those failures don't mean "nothing happened"; you just assume nothing happened because you didn't hear about it.

my reaction to your confidence in the transparency of a big corporation

Thereby once again demonstrating your ignorance of what the term "public record" means.

[2020]

They company that bought the patent would probably have wanted it in their control so their existing products are still top products raking in the most cash.

Who is that company? Who has that much money to blow and then make it back with their own "hair loss products"?

Propecia from the very beginning had "disapointing" sale numbers and that number keeps shrinking every year. Propecia's patent is about to expire anyways. There is no reason for Merck to keep preserving their "monopoly". People aren't buying Propecia as it is....

Who else Rogaine? Do you know how many BILLIONS johnson & johnson bring it from their other products? Rogaine sales amounts to pennies compared to that. They wouldn't even bother with it...

[jman91]

If powerful, nefarious forces are somehow preventing "promising research" from being developed into marketable products, then why is the "promising research" even being conducted in the first place?

I would agree they want to improve treatments, but only new products that require constant use and purchasing, not one off cure treatments.

"Hmm, hold on" isn't a credible argument. If you want to maintain that some better hair loss treatment than what is currently available exists, then it's up to you to prove its existence.

i see what you did there, very mature quoting half of a sentence, who are you fox news? i dont need to prove there is anything better out there to be correct in saying that everytime they say such an such is potentially a few years from market..that nothing happens, can you dispute that..probably not.

That no effective hair loss treatment yet exists is a matter of fact, not belief.

you believe there is nothing better than what we already have and I agree and believe it or not that's what i'm saying. I wouldn't fault them, but they keep promising stuff then never showing the end product.

No. "Public" and "public record" are not the same thing. The latter encompasses specific information that entities are required to disclose, not just any old information they choose to make known.

my reaction to your confidence in the transparency of a big corporation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_ikRXBkkQc

[gmonasco]

i had just kept it simple and said something like " can anyone tell me a time when they have delivered something after 'promising' research"

If powerful, nefarious forces are somehow preventing "promising research" from being developed into marketable products, then why is the "promising research" even being conducted in the first place?

Ok, so you're saying that you believe that nothing yet exists better and I am saying...hmm hold on

"Hmm, hold on" isn't a credible argument. If you want to maintain that some better hair loss treatment than what is currently available exists, then it's up to you to prove its existence.

no one can tell me I single time when they've delivered anything so if we think about it what i am saying is fact and what you are saying is, well, just a belief

That no effective hair loss treatment yet exists is a matter of fact, not belief.

yes it's a public record but they make public what they want the general public to know, of course they will only state a valid reason for not continuing with trials.

No. "Public" and "public record" are not the same thing. The latter encompasses specific information that entities are required to disclose, not just any old information they choose to make known.

[25 going on 65]

It's simple: a cure would make far more money for any given company, in less than one year, than would a "maintenance treatment" on the market for a quarter century.
Compared to the size of the target market, finasteride and minoxidil are commercial flops. People want a real solution.
The first company to release a "cure" or at least a highly effective hair loss reversal treatment will not have to worry about money for a long, long time. If you can make a trickle of cash over a few decades or a crap load of money this year, it's obvious which you're going to choose, regardless of how evil and scheming of a CEO you are.

I have plenty of issues with big pharma but the conspiracy theory about suppressing a hair loss treatment/cure that would make overnight millionaires (if not billionaires) is not that good of a theory.

No disrespect to anyone in this thread. This is just how markets and greed work.

[jman91]

ok.... so let's say Replicel comes up with a cure - 50% hair growth 100% of the time.
What could ANYONE do to stop them from bringing such treatment into the market? It's impossible

replicel would sell either sell the patent to another company (it would make a shit tonne there and then and not have to carry on developing it further.

They company that bought the patent would probably have wanted it in their control so their existing products are still top products raking in the most cash.

[jman91]

No, that isn't how it works. You are the one making the claim; it is up to you to provide evidence supporting your claim. The only piece of evidence you've proffered (i.e., that "Intercytex was at the verge of perfecting their hair cloning research when Pfizer bought them out") is erroneous. Therefore you have provided zero evidence supporting your position

ok for gods sake forget I even mentioned the intercytex example! really, i didnt need to bring it up and wish i had just kept it simple and said something like " can anyone tell me a time when they have delivered something after 'promising' research" at least then you couldn't detract from my question.

And that's supposed to demonstrate what? Nobody can deliver what doesn't yet exist.

Ok, so you're saying that you believe that nothing yet exists better and I am saying...hmm hold on, no one can tell me I single time when they've delivered anything so if we think about it what i am saying is fact and what you are saying is, well, just a belief (which i personally think is naive).

Yes, I see the banal point that nobody can deliver what doesn't yet exist.

naive to assume that

Because it's a matter of public record.

yes it's a public record but they make public what they want the general public to know, of course they will only state a valid reason for not continuing with trials.

[Artista]

Oh my

That makes as much sense as saying that cancer hasn't been cured because it would hurt the pharmaceutical/medical dept. pockets. As if the medical community at large doesn't have family members that could possibly or have died from cancer.
I wouldn't classify you as a conspiracy theorist. Just a wee bit pessimistic.
Now on the other hand, if you begin to talk about 911....

[gmonasco]

To prove me wrong you have to actually give me some evidence of your own!

No, that isn't how it works. You are the one making the claim; it is up to you to provide evidence supporting your claim. The only piece of evidence you've proffered (i.e., that "Intercytex was at the verge of perfecting their hair cloning research when Pfizer bought them out") is erroneous. Therefore you have provided zero evidence supporting your position

I CANNOT FIND ANY EVIDENCE OF A PROMISE BEING DELIVERED IN TERMS OF NEW TREATMENTS.

And that's supposed to demonstrate what? Nobody can deliver what doesn't yet exist.

Again, the real point am getting at is all of these future treatments that people keep on referencing from this company and that company seem to only exist in the future and seem to all have the 'just 5 years away' tagline with them. DO YOU SEE???

Yes, I see the banal point that nobody can deliver what doesn't yet exist.

and by the way how do you know why they stopped their research?

Because it's a matter of public record.

[2020]

ok.... so let's say Replicel comes up with a cure - 50% hair growth 100% of the time.
What could ANYONE do to stop them from bringing such treatment into the market? It's impossible

[jman91]

Yes, when the arguments you muster in support of a point are proved to be incorrect, that results in a condition known as "You're wrong."

No, there is a difference between picking apart details of an argument and responding to the point I'm making. You've just avoided coming up with an actual answer to the bigger question .The example I gave of Intercytex being forced by Pfizer to ditch their research may not be totally true as even though I have read it several times I accept my source is only other hairloss forums.

You're the one making the claim; it's up to you to provide the evidence to support it.

To prove me wrong you have to actually give me some evidence of your own! and before you start waffling on about me not having any real evidence I will clarify that I CANNOT FIND ANY EVIDENCE OF A PROMISE BEING DELIVERED IN TERMS OF NEW TREATMENTS. Again, the real point am getting at is all of these future treatments that people keep on referencing from this company and that company seem to only exist in the future and seem to all have the 'just 5 years away' tagline with them. DO YOU SEE???

(and by the way how do you know why they stopped their research? they would not exactly come out and say "sorry the big bosses of pharmaceuticals have deemed our research potentially harmful to their financial ambitions.")