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

[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

[clandestine]

Guys, check this out. Some more info:
http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20120238498

Those pictures look like results to me.

[UK Boy]

Scrolling through this patent the effects of this treatment sound amazing, also some of the photos also look very promising....I just don't really 'get' it. I mean reading though what it says in the patent (and seeing pictures) it sounds as if they have already tested this, and on people - Not just mice! They talk about benefits of the treatment having been 'confirmed' and 'observed' so it sounds as if this isn't all just about hypothesised outcomes but rather verified results of treatments.

So what does this all mean? If human testing has been done does that mean that a proof of concept trial has been carried out?

I just picked out one random extract that does refer to testing on humans:
[0174] However, the present inventors actually carried out testing on patients with alopecia, in particular patients with androgenetic alopecia and alopecia areata, and surprisingly it has been found that the treatment agent of the present invention containing CNP or BNP as an active ingredient clearly shows higher therapeutic effects than when ANP is an active ingredient, and among them the therapeutic effect was even higher when CNP was an active ingredient. On the other hand, the treatment agent of the present invention containing BNP as an active ingredient is characterized in that black terminal hair often grows.

Can anyone shed light on this? Why haven't we heard about this? Something that can be used for basically all types of alopecia and turn white hair black again!? As others have said, it sounds too good to be true but why would they bother getting a patent on a snake oil treatment? if it's just snake oil I doubt anyone is gonna be interested in stealing it. Plus if this is all to try and sell the snake oil then why have we never heard of it? Surely if it was all a scam they would have used this patent in conjunction with a marketing scheme, but instead the patent was filled in Sept 2012 and we've only just found out about it.

What happens from here? Are these Natriuretic Peptides something we can get hold of? Can anyone find out who these people are who have patented it? There's so many questions and yet there seems to be a relative lack of interest in this thread. This topic has popped on on other forums too and it's the same thing there - people just seem to be breezing over it and not commenting.

I know it's pointless asking but I always feel the need to ask: "Could Spencer try and look into this and find out more through his contacts?" I always thought it was kinda his job to try and find out about stuff as 'Consumer Advocate for hairloss sufferers everywhere'.

[UK Boy]

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

Histogen did patent their "Novel Cell Growth Process". It was announced on their site in Sept last year. I know they didn't specifically patent HSC but it just shows that they do obviously patent their products.

[ulysses_98]

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

Okay, first...data from peer reviewed publications are the only thing anyone should put confidence in if they are contemplating a treatment, so yes...I agree that is the highest standard of evidence.

Second, by just being a patent, of course it's not reliable evidence of efficacy. There are some idiotic patents that have been granted. The point of a patent is to protect rights to license or use the proposed invention, if it works. The people at the patent office aren't necessarily the brightest...Einstein was an anomaly not the standard... some are really smart, but many are just typical civil servants. So what makes it through is a bit of a crap shoot. That said, showing reduction to practice goes a long way to actually getting the patent awarded if you have someone who knows there stuff working on your app.

There is a difference between applying for the patent, being granted a provisional patent and actually being awarded the patent and some/all of associated claims. By the way "Claim" is a claim to usage for the described purpose...not "I claim this works". Patent applications stay private for a waiting period...I can't remember how long but its over a year. Here is the important part...as an academic, you could publish a paper showing that a certain mechanism exists...the patent could then propose to use that mechanism to do 'X'...depending on a number of factors, the patent office might deem that as an "obvious use" and not award the patent, or award the patent, then down the road another company might use the technology, you try to sue them because you have "a patent" and their lawyers get the patent invalidated because of the public domain "prior art" in the published paper. Do academics sometimes stumble on things, publish them and then start a company down the road and get a patent...yes. Will the patent hold up...maybe?

The company I'm associated with filed the original provisional patent on a novel molecular mechanism more than a few years ago. We have not published yet, for strategic reasons. Some of the commies on these boards would be offended at this notion, to which I say, "go #$%^ yourselves". I took a huge pay cut to work long hours on this, you're not paying my electric bills or providing for my retirement if things don't work out...you want to change the world...then do something useful, don't tell the people who are doing useful things that their ideas belong to you because you want them. Okay, sorry for the tangent, but I honestly get infuriated by some of the entitlement mentality I see here.

And by the way, as I haven't posted much and nobody really knows me...I was butchered 20 years ago by NuHart when I was still basically a kid, have had multiple "repairs", spent crazy amounts of money I couldn't really afford to try to look "normal" if not "good". Healthy skepticism would have kept me from naively trusting a doctor just because he had M.D. after his name and getting into the situation I found myself. It was prior to the Web and I didn't know about the horror stories, I was raised to believe Doctor's were special people that "really cared about patients", I was 22 and losing hair since 16 and had heard a girl I was totally infatuated with saying something about some other guys hair and it just pushed me into making a bad decision. So in terms of believing anything enough to risk my health again, I'm a skeptic. Skepticism doesn't mean deriding anything that doesn't yet have the evidence you require as being obviously false, it means keeping an open mind, pointing out where evidence is lacking, etc.

Too many desperate folks on these boards either immediately buy wholehearted into anything reported or pathologically negative psychos immediately label it snake oil. If you get a guy that has been busted for fraud multiple times, opening a clinic in Mexico promising a special Mayan herb that will reverse baldness...that deserves slightly harsher critique than a patent application for a hair loss treatment.

How about, "hmm, that's interesting, would be nice if it works out...let's wait for real proof before making a determination one way or the other". The rush to judgment is also hard to swallow when the person judging (not talking about anyone specifically in this thread, just some responders I've seen in others) obviously barely made it through high school science, let alone any sort of molecular bio training. Doesn't make them dumb, or bad people, but when they make assertions that require some degree of understanding that they obviously lack...that makes them f#$%ing arrogant and dumb.

Sorry dude, this was meant to be a reply to your question and I went on a tirade. It's not directed at you.

[UK Boy]

That appears to be the company but I can't seem to find a website for them. They also have a patent for "COMPOSITION FOR EXTERNAL PREPARATION FOR SKIN" filed so dermatology seems to be their area of concentration. Can anyone find a website?