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

[bigentries]

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

Yup, although the few isolated cases that showed "miraculous" results with cancer treatments are very similar to what it is described here. Not only did hair that wasn't there for years, suddenly and rapidly appeared, but it came back in its original color and texture

People need to take this with skepticism. As far as I know, a patent is not a trial, and they could be faking their figures

[ulysses_98]

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

Honestly, that's basically the same as asking, "Why is this an egg and not a chicken?" because you're hungry for a cutlet.

If I invent a new small molecule drug, then file all the public paperwork needed to start a trial, then try to patent my drug...guess what? I can't because the drug and it's intended treatment are already disclosed and part of the public domain.

[LongWayHome]

Wait wait wait...So when this thing is going to come out?
It has to go on trials, doesn't it? correct me if I'm wrong.

[Knockin on NW4]

@ 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.

It works through bone promoting pathways similar to Neosils Neosh101/PSI/PS1. We are specifically looking at BNP-32 and CNP-22 with betamethasome (SABA) as a potential treatment.

[bigentries]

Honestly, that's basically the same as asking, "Why is this an egg and not a chicken?" because you're hungry for a cutlet.

If I invent a new small molecule drug, then file all the public paperwork needed to start a trial, then try to patent my drug...guess what? I can't because the drug and it's intended treatment are already disclosed and part of the public domain.

I don't really know how patents for drugs work, and this one is actually harder to understand since I the molecules seem to be well known. Care to explain?

I'm just taking this with skepticism. You can also find very detailed patents for laser combs

I'm not saying this is snake oil, no one is selling anything. It's just that it's weird this came out of nowhere, and can't find any relationship to the usual theories (DHT, PGE2, PGD, WNT etc).

It works through bone promoting pathways similar to Neosils Neosh101/PSI/PS1. We are specifically looking at BNP-32 and CNP-22 with betamethasome (SABA) as a potential treatment.

We? Are you part of the research group?

[Conpecia]

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!

i just don't get it man, sorry. if you're promoting a peaceful hairloss community, don't make underhanded comments to existing threads like trx2, and don't label people who express skepticism to your post negative trolls. if you're promoting an organized hairloss community, don't toss out random patent excerpts that claim to cure so many different things, knowing that 1) they're just over-zealous claims for the sake of potential IP protection, and 2) people who aren't versed in patent law might not get point 1 and might think the product is actually claiming efficacy with regard to all those cures.

anyways, i do agree that arguing over this is becoming pointless. thanks for posting this info, i honestly hope it leads to something good. best of luck with your forum.

[Knockin on NW4]

and jeez guys, im just sharing some new info, maybe its a big peice of the puzzle or maybe its a small one. No cure is gonna come from one drug, you have to approach hairloss from several angles. this is a potential angle, An angle worth discussing.

[bigentries]

and jeez guys, im just sharing some new info, maybe its a big peice of the puzzle or maybe its a small one. No cure is gonna come from one drug, you have to approach hairloss from several angles. this is a potential angle, An angle worth discussing.

True, but it didn't help you started to antagonize so early

You know perfectly well about snake oils and fake promises on hairloss forums, it's necessary to have a fairly dose of skepticism

How did you found this? it was published in September, I'm surprised it took so long to become known. Any idea about the people behind the patent? are they known in hairloss research?


Edit: Holy crap, I will have troubles sleeping tonight, I want to read what other more knowledgeable posters here and in other forums think about this

http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20120238498

If this stuff is legit, some people get results that rival with hair transplants

[Boldy]

It works through bone promoting pathways similar to Neosils Neosh101/PSI/PS1. We are specifically looking at BNP-32 and CNP-22 with betamethasome (SABA) as a potential treatment.

I'm glad you found that, are you sure about that, any linkout to a study?

Bcause neos101 is a proteasome inhibitor its end goals = induce some types of BMP proteins, and could even posibly inhinit P53 action that is folowed by reduced caspase caused apoptosis.


which of the 2 can this NMP protein do, source please, Im trying to find it, but no luck yet.

[Knockin on NW4]

and its not MY forum, i was invited because i made relevent concise post on other forums and discussions, We have a real time Shoutbox for quick questions, emotional blabberings, and most importantly off topic nonsense that clouds these threads.

[Conpecia]

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.

My issues are

- that the OP would rather have this discussion take place at another forum where members are screened for productivity before being allowed to contribute, thus inhibiting the free flow of information; and that I am implicated as an example of one of the "negative trolls" from whom OP wishes to escape by means of his forum, simply because I (vociferously, it is admitted) raised doubts regarding the numerous benefits listed, which I mistakenly but not unreasonably believed were actual claims for the product in the advertising sense, having no working knowledge of the patent process.

- that the OP's initial post had no clarification (from the OP) with regard to the function of the statements therein, ie that the statements were not to be taken as literal, proved claims, but as potential claims for the purposes of satisfying possible patent law conflicts.


To reiterate, I believe that this product is *not* a snake oil; my initial skepticism was directed at the lengthy list of benefits claimed in the patent, which I took to be actual claims. A simple line from the OP stating that these are speculative claims made for the purpose of avoiding litigation would have cleared any confusion.

I believe you are responding to the idea that I am criticizing the patent process itself and not the OP's failure to either clarify that those benefits were in a particular context not to be taken at face value or else omit them entirely and focus on the documented terminal regrowth. My inquiry as to "why would you list all of the benefits if there is no empirical evidence" was directed toward OP's including them in his post to begin with, not to the patent authors, who are only following protocol as you have pointed out.

It's tantamount to this:

Person A: "According to a sports article, Lebron James is going back to the Cleveland Cavaliers."

Person B: "No way, that makes no sense. That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard."

Person C: "I'm a sports writer and have written similar pieces. The article was a hypothetical, envisioning what would happen if Lebron James went back to Cleveland to finish his career, since he once mentioned that he would not mind returning to Cleveland one day."

Person B: "Oh, I didn't read the article, and thought A was saying that Lebron James had been traded to the Cleveland Cavaliers."

[ulysses_98]

I don't really know how patents for drugs work, and this one is actually harder to understand since I the molecules seem to be well known. Care to explain?

I'm just taking this with skepticism. You can also find very detailed patents for laser combs

Okay...first, generally speaking, in biology there is a tendency to discover a protein and identify it doing 'x'. A LOT of biologist (though this is changing somewhat) have a tendency to assume all it ever does is 'x' or that 'x' is the most important thing it does. Often, the protein will then be named something that includes 'x'. This may be partly due to a lack of imagination, or maybe a need to feel important...I don't know. Scientific research tends to build incrementally, and its unusual for another researcher to say, "screw 'x', let's see what else this does"...more likely, they'll say, "'x' is related to 'y', which I study, so let me look into that slightly different aspect".

Opioid receptors in neurons can be activated to relieve pain and induce euphoria.
Opioid receptors on immune cells are used for signalling that can have multiple effects including suppression of immune function.
Not obviously related functions.

Biology is complex and biologists are only human. Saying something is well studied is not the same as saying it has been exhaustively studied. "Systems biology" tries to keep this in mind.

Second, in regards to the "detail" of hair laser patents...I haven't seen them and I don't really feel like researching them now, but I'll say that there is a hell of a big difference between counting hair, shining light on a scalp, and then counting again later...versus compounding multiple new peptide based drugs and doing case studies comparing them with other treatment modalities.

[bigentries]

Okay...first, generally speaking, in biology there is a tendency to discover a protein and identify it doing 'x'. A LOT of biologist (though this is changing somewhat) have a tendency to assume all it ever does is 'x' or that 'x' is the most important thing it does. Often, the protein will then be named something that includes 'x'. This may be partly due to a lack of imagination, or maybe a need to feel important...I don't know. Scientific research tends to build incrementally, and its unusual for another researcher to say, "screw 'x', let's see what else this does"...more likely, they'll say, "'x' is related to 'y', which I study, so let me look into that slightly different aspect".

Opioid receptors in neurons can be activated to relieve pain and induce euphoria.
Opioid receptors on immune cells are used for signalling that can have multiple effects including suppression of immune function.
Not obviously related functions.

Biology is complex and biologists are only human. Saying something is well studied is not the same as saying it has been exhaustively studied. "Systems biology" tries to keep this in mind.

Second, in regards to the "detail" of hair laser patents...I haven't seen them and I don't really feel like researching them now, but I'll say that there is a hell of a big difference between counting hair, shining light on a scalp, and then counting again later...versus compounding multiple new peptide based drugs and doing case studies comparing them with other treatment modalities.

That's the issue I'm trying to understand, in hairloss communities, we usually deal with trials, most of the time published in respected journals.

My concern is that, this being just a patent, is not reliable, like laser combs.

You talked about patenting first, but I've never seen this being the case, and I don't understand why this is different, you can't patent the peptides because they are well known.
Aderans and Histogens are doing public trials, I haven't seen their products published in a patent

[Dan26]

and its not MY forum, i was invited because i made relevent concise post on other forums and discussions, We have a real time Shoutbox for quick questions, emotional blabberings, and most importantly off topic nonsense that clouds these threads.

Don't forget about all the homo-erotic bro-sessions!

[krewel]

Guys, check this out. Some more info:

http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20120238498