Drug companies will stop a cure hitting the market

[jman91]

I am by no means a 'conspiracy theorist' but I would be lying if I said that I am completely comfortable that the drug companies intend to find an outright cure that could reverse baldness for anyone.

Firstly it was roughly 2009 when Intercytex was at the verge of perfecting their hair cloning research when Pfizer bought them out, swiftly putting the patent on the shelf.

does anyone know that real progress (not only in the science) but of treatments actually hitting the market or is there only ever promises of this will "be ready in 5 years" ets that time and time again seems to be all these people say.

sorry to be pessimistic but I just don't really buy that with expensive daily use products like rogaine, propecia, alpecin shampoo, nirozal, laser combs etc ....why would they just cure it

[gmonasco]

Firstly it was roughly 2009 when Intercytex was at the verge of perfecting their hair cloning research when Pfizer bought them out, swiftly putting the patent on the shelf.

Err, no. Intercytex's Phase II trials failed to pan out, and that trial (ICX-TRC) was sold to Aderans. Intercytex's Axordia stem cell therapy subsidiary was what was sold to Pfizer.

sorry to be pessimistic but I just don't really buy that with expensive daily use products like rogaine, propecia, alpecin shampoo, nirozal, laser combs etc ....why would they just cure it

Minoxidil is off-patent, finasteride's patent expires next year, laser combs are a niche product that don't have to be continually rebought, etc. The potential for one company to profit from a baldness cure is far superior to their sharing a slice of the current hair loss pie.

[ravegrover]

sad truth - no one has come out with cure for hairloss because no one has found one, yet.

[jman91]

gmonasco you are just saying i'm wrong by pointing out facts which you think are incorrect, but you haven't actually put forward anything to suggest there is real evidence that better treatments will actually come to market

[gmonasco]

gmonasco you are just saying i'm wrong by pointing out facts which you think are incorrect

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."

but you haven't actually put forward anything to suggest there is real evidence that better treatments will actually come to market

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

[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.")

[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

[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.

[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....

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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...