Sept 2012 patent: Natriuretic Peptides shows terminal hair growth in weeks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knockin on NW4

Get peoples hopes up? you do realize this is the cutting edge future treatments section of a hairloss forum dont you? Everyone on here has hopes of a cure or even a partial cure.

This patent calls for the use of potential combinations of A type B type and C type Natriuretic peptides in combination with betamethasome and or minoxidil. Of course they are gonna list every possible beneficial response to each combo. And patents are filed to protect inventions, so of course they are going to cover all possible effects to prevent others from using Natriuretic peptides in hair products.

And nowhere does it claim to give your follicles immunization to DHT.... just that the new growth lasted at least 6 months after cessation of the first treatment cycle. You made that "fact" up. Free your mind from these same old arguments.

I just wanted to show you guys that most of you are behind the curve on new info and science relating to hairloss. And No this particular method has yet to acheive full regrowth but the improvements are obvious.... the test subjects grew terminal, not vellous hairs.

Haters gonna hate

---

My problem is the way you presented this, it's like "hey guys, **** this forum and the other experimental treatment threads. Me and Lilpauly know the real deal. PM us if you really wanna be "in." If not, you can waste your time on the other bullshit treatments that don't work."

As someone who invested a lot of time researching experimental treatments and trying to get that info to this forum for the benefit of helping the community, it just seems disrespectful. Aren't we all on the same team? Is there a reason why we can't talk about this here in the open, why we have to PM lilpauly and come to you guys for the inside scoop?

Then you list what apparently are shot-in-the-dark claims for the sake of IP protection and expect the average reader to know that they're shot-in-the-dark claims within the narrow context of patent-writing. I was a Lit major. I haven't taken a science class since high school. How is it obvious that none of these claims I'm reading are to be taken for what they state? And why would you even list them? Why wouldn't you just say that there's a new treatment and it grows back terminal hair, here's a photo and a link? I don't get it.

Explain to me why you would list all of these benefits if there is no empirical evidence to show they occurred. Grey hair reversal, dandruff cure, etc.

So can someone explain this stuff in plain english and why it seems legit?

what exactly is this stuff? is it in trial?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ulysses_98

All I can say is, you are criticizing something you apparently have no experience with.

---

correct, nor should i be expected to. thus the OP has a duty to clarify that these claims are based on mere potentiality for the sake of protecting intellectual property, lest the majority of people here (whom I will assume do not have firsthand experience with the intricacies of patent-construction format) take the statements at face value

anyways, now that i understand none of these other benefits really apply, it makes me a lot less skeptical, which is a good thing

Why is this a patent and not a trial? Can the results be trusted?

Is this a joke? Sounds too good to be real.

one thing that's for sure is this is blowing up on the forums, lots of people have brought it up today on various sites. where the hell did this come from? why are we just now hearing about it?

I just wanna hold this moment forever without the disappointment that usually comes, eventually.
Those little moments when you say "This is it, I'm done with the wind-fear."

@ the OP,

why do you think this stuff works? I mean where excactly does it fit in the puzzle. als you know its collerated with heart dysfunction right? the body secret this stuff against to induce IL-10, pge2 and reduce total blood volume. this is no magic at al, various other products do this, so there must be something elsebehind this if the patents are correct.

I'm not convinced yet, but trying to find proof why it works, by spitting evry study on pubmed http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/

Maybe you could try to explain (if you have any info about it) why this stuff works.

Yes, im promoting a peaceful organized hairloss community. Everytime something is posted on forums like these, people just get angry, they bash, and troll. The threads fill up with pointless, repetitive arguments making everyone else read through hundreds of thread pages of crap.


You cant even have a civilized Q & A on here without getting way off topic or having to read through 100 paragraphs of a few emotionally distraught hairloss sufferers bickering. At PHG We review your post history and determine if you can help the community.

Im not claiming to be better than anyone on here, my hairloss is severe for my age. Many posters on here are alsp on PHG and can confirm how f'ed up my hair is. The reason i say PM lilpauly is because Mark is our hairloss forums ambassador!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conpecia

...Then you list what apparently are shot-in-the-dark claims for the sake of IP protection and expect the average reader to know that they're shot-in-the-dark claims within the narrow context of patent-writing. I was a Lit major. I haven't taken a science class since high school. How is it obvious that none of these claims I'm reading are to be taken for what they state? And why would you even list them? Why wouldn't you just say that there's a new treatment and it grows back terminal hair, here's a photo and a link? I don't get it.

Explain to me why you would list all of these benefits if there is no empirical evidence to show they occurred. Grey hair reversal, dandruff cure, etc.

---

I'm not trying to attack you, but...who are you addressing? It seems like you're mad at the guy who started the thread, the lawyers who wrote the patent, the people they represent and me for pointing out that patent language and tactics are not obvious to the uninitiated.

With regards to, "why you would list all of the benefits if there is no empirical evidence"...have you read the entire patent included reduction to practice supporting data? Have you read all the cited prior art references, and any of their referenced literature? Also, based on scientific literature, there may be indications that what these affect interact with a pathway that has been shown to affect these other things. It is indirect support, and running experiments to test it could take months/years. You're not going to hold up a patent to get that experiment run (because someone else may file, and you're not going to be able to get VC funding without decent IP protection) and you're not going to leave out a potentially lucrative claim.

Minoxidil can and does work pretty well for some people. Minoxidil is a potassium channel opener. Natriuretic peptides function as gated ion channel openers. It stands to superficial reasoning that they may then function in a similar, albeit enhanced manner to minoxidil.

Keep in mind...every process in the cell is typically a rather complex set of interactions. In many cases, an end result can be accomplished via multiple paths. This isn't a great analogy, but think of a river system shape. Pour a bucket of styrofoam beads into some random stream leading into a particular creek leading to a tributary leading to the main river and it will eventually make it's way to the ocean. You could potentially dam any of the branch points all the way up to the stream and prevent that from happening. Alternatively, if you wanted styrofoam beads in the ocean and something was blocking the stream you poured them in...you could go to any number of other positions between the blockage and the ocean and dump more in. Again, that analogy is not great, and represents an n to 1 network (n being the streams and 1 being the ocean[or "downstream effect"]) where in reality, cell biology and inter-cell signalling is probably composed of many n to m networks, with multiple streams("n") converging at different points and leading to multiple effects("m").

The problem is we don't have a complete map of the "river systems" when it comes to most molecular pathways, or even what pathways directly influence hair growth. Most discoveries are serendipitous observations (minoxidil was a blood pressure med that was observed to affect hair growth, finasteride was a prostate med, they both increase hair growth via mechanisms). Assuming something is snake oil because it claims to address multiple aspects of hair growth/health assumes you have all the maps, because you are basically stating that all those downstream effects are unrelated.

I have not read the full patent, but I took a quick look and it seems like a lot of effort for "marketing support" of a snake oil.

It's possible (I'm not saying likely or unlikely) that some particular receptor activated pathway is getting turned off or on and is a key to a number of hair growth conditions.

Sorry for the novella post, but I usually just ignore the ranting negativity here but this time it sparked a nerve. Try betting your livelihood on a breakthrough concept that could take years before it succeeds OR FAILS and then listening to half the...I won't use the term I want.... on these forums that think you should do it for free (i.e., no patent) or you should not patent anything until you have absolute proof it works...which is so idiotic, it would take another few paragraphs to explain.

Yes, there are scumbag snake oil salesmen out there that take advantage of our situation, but attacking prospects without reasonable cause is asinine, particularly when the attacks use "supporting" arguments that display utter ignorance of reality.