Possible Treatments

[Hair Bear]

As much as people rip on him, he at least remains dedicated to his research in the field and does not peddle any products and make completely false claims which affects our pockets.
There are shady operators out there that take this man's research and market it without any idea what they are doing.

I am not saying this guy is brilliant and also agree that the research aspect can be frustrating but we gotta hang in there.
Truth is you guys are probably much better of hair wise (and most likely financially) and socially than I am so there is still chance for you, also geographically you are probably well within range of decent active research and when and if the FDA finally approves something you will be the first to sample it out where as some other people may have to wait upon successful trial by their respective countries governing body of medical authority such as the TGA for example which will most likely aim to run their own trials worse yet if it is a service rendered as their will be additional time needed for doctors to understand and master the technique.

Simply put Cotsarelis gives us hope even though nothing seems to eventuate from it and ultimately disappoints us, other shady pharma companies give us false claims, false hope, disappointment whilst also taking our hard earned money.

Anyway back on topic, this pgd2 theory has been around for a long time and as everyone knows pgd2 can be obtained on the black market however it has not yielded any encouraging results thus far that would warrant it being the solution at this stage.

[walrus]

Cotsarelis is an attentionwhore. I wouldn't be surprised if he made another '2-5' claim at the Hair Congress next month. This guy has been all talk and ZERO results for the past 10+ years.

There are 'results' in his publications. Go read them.

Commercialisation of a product is not usually the responsibility of a researcher.

[baldozer]

Cotsarelis is an attentionwhore. I wouldn't be surprised if he made another '2-5' claim at the Hair Congress next month. This guy has been all talk and ZERO results for the past 10+ years.

Most of the medical research is like that. Too much talk but no results. Haven't you seen the cancer research funded by charity companies, promising to deliver a cure since the last 4 or 5 decades, with ZERO output! A cure is always around the corner, but never happens, just like the mirage on the road in a hot day!

[greatjob!]

Most of the medical research is like that. Too much talk but no results. Haven't you seen the cancer research funded by charity companies, promising to deliver a cure since the last 4 or 5 decades, with ZERO output! A cure is always around the corner, but never happens, just like the mirage on the road in a hot day!

Yeah because curing cancer is so simple, thinking before speaking is recommended.

[moore]

Definitely man. The dude sits there with a full head of hair getting us baldies hopes up. 2012 it was the pdg2. Last year it was wounding and Fgf9. I will believe that guy when he has products and results to go with them.

Actually Cotsarelis apparently admitted to suffer from a vertex loss:
http://whyy.org/cms/radiotimes/2012/...nd-who-we-are/
at minute -29:47

On a side notes:
-The other interviewee, Albert Mannes, is so in denial. I already wrote that, but everytime I listen to this interview I wish I was there to yell in his ears that he is being part of the problem, and not of the solution. Such a sad man.

-Cotsarelis himself is expressing quite some typical cognitive dissonance ideas, saying that:
- he is quite tall so he does not shave his head just because of this, or
- a woman with fewer hair would not make any difference to someone who sees them for the first time (what about someone who has been seeing them for a lifetime then???)
And okay, maybe he does not bother as much as most of us about his hairloss.


PS guys, I think there is plenty of evidence there as well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hair_cloning

And reading this very page, I can not help wondering whether the big pharma is actually hampering hair cloning research.

[brocktherock]

Cotsaralis doesn't strike me as an attention whore at all. When they interview him about his research, he is proud of the progress but never gave timelines without being asked. When he did give timelines he just said "if everything works out perfectly, it COULD be in blah blah". Follica isn't a publicly traded company and they don't get money for making false claims. The last time they went public for funding was years ago and since then they've done clinical trials (which must cost a fortune). If you read the bios of all the chairman and researchers on the website, youll notice they are prestigious Harvard professors or people that have been in the field for years. They obviously aren't sleeze bags looking for a buck. Cotsaralis has been on this road of skin perturbation for years now and is still moving forward. I find hope in the fact that he's been secretive because it means that he more than likely has something solid. If I could I would invest into follica. If they were exposed as liars it would no doubt discredit all of their careers.

[hellouser]

Actually Cotsarelis apparently admitted to suffer from a vertex loss:
http://whyy.org/cms/radiotimes/2012/...nd-who-we-are/
at minute -29:47

On a side notes:
-The other interviewee, Albert Mannes, is so in denial. I already wrote that, but everytime I listen to this interview I wish I was there to yell in his ears that he is being part of the problem, and not of the solution. Such a sad man.

Both him and Marty Moss-Coane sound extremely ignorant. Every time someone had some input on hair loss, their response was 'hmm, thats interesting.' Really? That's all that goes through their thick skull?

It's really saddening that there's an untold truth, that balding men are basically social rejects... no one will say it, but a LOT of people (especially young women) view bald men this way.

And reading this very page, I can not help wondering whether the big pharma is actually hampering hair cloning research.

Well that's the thing too, I sometimes think about if there's some secret society or conspiracy that big pharma doesn't want a hair loss cure. But WHICH pharmaceutical doesn't want a hair loss cure? NONE of them have a treatment that's making them millions of dollars. Finasteride is on the decline and the patent is almost over... minoxidil's patent is over as well... which leaves us with nothing else on the market. The only pharmaceutical I can see getting its pantys caught up in a bunch and sending mongrel lobbyist scumbags is Cosmo... and thats years down the line since they were too ****ing stupid to realize that the hair loss industry has a LOT more for them to be rewarded with since the current options for treatments are SHIT. Had they been competent to put CB on a priority over acne they would have had a product on the market that would completely DOMINATE for a very long time.

My god, so many failures in this industry make all of these researchers look very very incompetent.

[gainspotter]

And all the while we're still losing our hair.........

[moore]

But WHICH pharmaceutical doesn't want a hair loss cure? NONE of them have a treatment that's making them millions of dollars. Finasteride is on the decline and the patent is almost over... minoxidil's patent is over as well... which leaves us with nothing else on the market. The only pharmaceutical I can see getting its pantys caught up in a bunch and sending mongrel lobbyist scumbags is Cosmo... and thats years down the line since they were too ****ing stupid to realize that the hair loss industry has a LOT more for them to be rewarded with since the current options for treatments are SHIT. Had they been competent to put CB on a priority over acne they would have had a product on the market that would completely DOMINATE for a very long time.

Maybe a pharmaceutical which does not want to sell a one-and-done procedure. Getting you hooked on a lifetime pill looks more profitable if you see the whole issue from the other side of the fence.

I hate it too, but that's business, so I'm just sticking to reality here.

If finasteride was giving you back your full head of hair, and even more hair than what you started with, even with worst sides, could you imagine how many more consumers it would have?

And even more, you have to consider how much money Merck (or whoever) spent to discover it:
they were not even looking for a cure for baldness. They found it by accident, so I can only GUESS you just saved a lot of money. All you have to do is to brand it and sell it.

On the other hand, put yourself in the research for a moment. You are getting funds to develop a procedure you have no idea whether it will work.
Aside from the potential consumers (us) who claim to be willing to spend figures comparables to a modern hair transplant, your investors are probably either ignoring you, or getting nervous for their return on investment.

And yes, in the meantime we are getting our follicles smaller and smaller.

[walrus]

Maybe a pharmaceutical which does not want to sell a one-and-done procedure. Getting you hooked on a lifetime pill looks more profitable if you see the whole issue from the other side of the fence.

In most cases, this is not an issue of what pharmaceuticals 'want to sell', it is a biological one. Until human genetic manipulation is feasible, drugs will be targeting the expressed products of genes. The fact that there is one hit cure drug is not part of a wider conspiracy, it reflects the reality of how our bodies work.