US government owned patent on hair follicle neogensis

[dutchguyhanging]

Probably. Why would he bother with hair loss when he's got a full head of hair? He should be out enjoying a fullhead life.

this is exactly why u should not go to the hairloss summit. U may be the oldest user in this forum and may know current treatments but ur approach is totally juvenile. if someone finds the cure 1-he/she will be the richest person alive, we are talking billions of eur stuck in this market 2- fame will come along as you will be solving the equation which hasnt been solved over 2016years. money, fame, prestige... one of them will attract you. But you talk like 15 years old kid... unbelievable...

[DepressedByHairLoss]

Don't you think a team that was responsible for essentially curing something as serious as hair loss would be employed for awhile? You're talking about a multi-billion dollar industry, and the company that discovered it could likely survive on that treatment alone.

I think it's less conspiracy and more that administrative costs are so high, so only a relatively small % of funding actually gets to researchers. There are companies that misuse funds, but it's catching up with more and more of them.

You have some points with regards to hair loss. But the main thing that I believe it is in the financial self-interest of the vast majority of the hair restoration industry to maintain the status quo. This is evidenced by their extreme lack of effort to pursue any new and more mainstream treatment.

But I believe that my point in my previous point does in fact hold true for other areas of the medical and pharmaceutical industry. Since that industry is profit-driven, they can make so much more money creating continual treatments rather than cures. I mean, I think of how many once-a-day pills that big pharma has produced (they saturate TV with their ads) and how few (if any) cures they have produced, and their motives become very clear to me.

[TJT]

this is exactly why u should not go to the hairloss summit. U may be the oldest user in this forum and may know current treatments but ur approach is totally juvenile. if someone finds the cure 1-he/she will be the richest person alive, we are talking billions of eur stuck in this market 2- fame will come along as you will be solving the equation which hasnt been solved over 2016years. money, fame, prestige... one of them will attract you. But you talk like 15 years old kid... unbelievable...

Couldn't have said it better. The "nobody cares about male hair loss" thing is inane. It's tantamount to saying "nobody cares about making billions". Yeah, right....

[TJT]

You have some points with regards to hair loss. But the main thing that I believe it is in the financial self-interest of the vast majority of the hair restoration industry to maintain the status quo. This is evidenced by their extreme lack of effort to pursue any new and more mainstream treatment.

But I believe that my point in my previous point does in fact hold true for other areas of the medical and pharmaceutical industry. Since that industry is profit-driven, they can make so much more money creating continual treatments rather than cures. I mean, I think of how many once-a-day pills that big pharma has produced (they saturate TV with their ads) and how few (if any) cures they have produced, and their motives become very clear to me.

Conspiracy theory mumbo-jumbo. Whoever discovers the cell-based treatment for hair loss can licence it to hundreds of treatment centers around the world. Each treatment center then performs thousands of procedures, each priced at let's say $10k - $30k. There will be NO shortage of customers in the foreseeable future (as long as gene therapy isn't widely employed), since the hair loss gene is rampant in the population. The treatment centres make a huge amount of money, and the licence holder makes much more. The money-making potential is absolutely huge!

[hellouser]

this is exactly why u should not go to the hairloss summit. U may be the oldest user in this forum and may know current treatments but ur approach is totally juvenile. if someone finds the cure 1-he/she will be the richest person alive, we are talking billions of eur stuck in this market 2- fame will come along as you will be solving the equation which hasnt been solved over 2016years. money, fame, prestige... one of them will attract you. But you talk like 15 years old kid... unbelievable...

?????

That makes no sense. So Gardner leaves Jahoda's team (confirmed) and I say he should be happy enjoying his hair, and you think this suggests I said he didn't care to cure hair loss? That's insulting.

[Hairmore]

But I believe that my point in my previous point does in fact hold true for other areas of the medical and pharmaceutical industry. Since that industry is profit-driven, they can make so much more money creating continual treatments rather than cures. I mean, I think of how many once-a-day pills that big pharma has produced (they saturate TV with their ads) and how few (if any) cures they have produced, and their motives become very clear to me.

Well, the question is if there are really cures. Just think about male pattern hair loss for a second - it is genetic. Curing means to get to the very root of the problem and changing the genes themselves. I believe some time in the future the genes of newborns will be enhanced but there is little chance to chance to change existing genes.

Diseases that have no genetic causes like some bacterial infections are rather curable and pharma-companies and governments around the world invest big bugs to find cures for diseases that are really curable. Hair loss is genetic and in addition to that not high-priority. Even if there was a cure: At least 50% of hair loss sufferers would not care about it much because they can live with hair loss quite good and a treatment would probably cost a lot.

[hellouser]

Diseases that have no genetic causes like some bacterial infections are rather curable and pharma-companies and governments around the world invest big bugs to find cures for diseases that are really curable. Hair loss is genetic and in addition to that not high-priority. Even if there was a cure: At least 50% of hair loss sufferers would not care about it much because they can live with hair loss quite good and a treatment would probably cost a lot.

That's not true because of today's poor treatments. If people had treatments that worked WELL, they would definitely care.

[Herbaliser]

Well, the question is if there are really cures. Just think about male pattern hair loss for a second - it is genetic. Curing means to get to the very root of the problem and changing the genes themselves. I believe some time in the future the genes of newborns will be enhanced but there is little chance to chance to change existing genes.

Diseases that have no genetic causes like some bacterial infections are rather curable and pharma-companies and governments around the world invest big bugs to find cures for diseases that are really curable. Hair loss is genetic and in addition to that not high-priority. Even if there was a cure: At least 50% of hair loss sufferers would not care about it much because they can live with hair loss quite good and a treatment would probably cost a lot.

There is still treatments for it even if carry on our genetics.
We lost track of the biggest cure issues that matters, and hair loss should not be a high priority, but at the same time companies understands the high value of it.

[Trouse5858]

Well, the question is if there are really cures. Just think about male pattern hair loss for a second - it is genetic. Curing means to get to the very root of the problem and changing the genes themselves. I believe some time in the future the genes of newborns will be enhanced but there is little chance to chance to change existing genes.

Diseases that have no genetic causes like some bacterial infections are rather curable and pharma-companies and governments around the world invest big bugs to find cures for diseases that are really curable. Hair loss is genetic and in addition to that not high-priority. Even if there was a cure: At least 50% of hair loss sufferers would not care about it much because they can live with hair loss quite good and a treatment would probably cost a lot.

Fifty percent seems like an extremely high number of people that would lack any motivation to fix their hairloss problem. I think whatever data you may be using to make such a statement is heavily skewed by the lack of men and women currently seeking some type of treatment. To me, that is a far bigger indictment on the current lack of viable options than it is on the psychological complacency or economic restraint of a consumer. I've said it before and I'll reiterate again on this thread; anything remotely approaching a 'cure' would likely be worth, at minimum, a few dozen billion dollars with the chance for massive growth once the treatment becomes available worldwide and affordable to the middle class. Granted, since this would be deemed a cosmetic 'cure' for a non-debilitating disease, the patent holders and/ or pharma companies would be justified in charging outrageous amounts for it.

[Hairmore]

Well, I based the 50% on what I hear people tell about their friends and family when we talk about hair loss. Most tell about some friend or family member does not care and is just getting balder. When I talk to others who suffer from hair loss, I always see that they are interested in treatments, but that there are a lot of them that still do not pursue any treatment because they do not trust any remedies out there. So, it is very subjective. Perhaps everyone would make use of a hair loss if it was available under 40 bucks a month.