Allergan Corproate Takeover Bad for Bimatoprost

[beetee]

I am posting this as I'm under the impression that at least a few of you (in addition to myself) have a continuing interest in following Allergan's clinical trials in Bimatoprost for hair.

Allergan has been fighting a hostile corporate takeover for some time now that, if successful, would possibly or even probably be bad for their ongoing research into Bimatoprost.

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/05/...ts-merger-bid/

From what I understand, the main reason Valeant wants to take over Allergan is because they think they can make it more profitable, primarily by cutting money from research and development.

[Thinning87]

Come on Joe

[rdawg]

BIM is well into it's phase IIb trials, I dont think much time is left on that either.

It may be worth the research money to develop bim, they only have one more phase to go and it definitely works at least to some extent.(probably not much more than 20-25% hair growth at most, but it still works).

[bigentries]

BIM is well into it's phase IIb trials, I dont think much time is left on that either.

It may be worth the research money to develop bim, they only have one more phase to go and it definitely works at least to some extent.(probably not much more than 20-25% hair growth at most, but it still works).

But it's too expensive

[burtandernie]

The price might come down over time. How another treatment is a bad thing regardless of cost I dont know. I mean if you add up all the money guys waste on shampoos and snake oils I dont think a treatment is be too expensive can it? At least it works and its another option. At this point be thankful for anything sooner than another 10 years

[CAlex]

The price might come down over time. How another treatment is a bad thing regardless of cost I dont know.

Originally Posted by burtandernie

Well said.
If some new treatment came out that was only affordable by the wealthy it would still be good for us. It would bring more investors into the game to back smaller companies working on this. It would also be able to be duplicated down the line for a more affordable price.

any step in the right direction is welcome regardless of price or even just marginal improvement on today's options.

[beetee]

When it comes to hoping for and following potential treatments, I think you kind of have to throw price considerations out the window.

As many on here no doubt know, the prices drug companies set are not based on the underlying cost of the product (or even really on the exact amount of money spent on that product in research and development, as the drug companies and their representatives would have you believe). It's based on their determination of what price the market would stand - in other words, at what point does the cost stop people who could theoretically afford it from buying it?

What percentage of individual wealth would those on here refuse to pay to regain (theoretically) a full head of hair? If you made X amount of money a year, what sacrifices would you make to dedicate whatever was required to afford that medication? (I personally think people would be surprised at how socially disruptive a cure would be - I think you'd have tons of men selling their homes, leaving their wives, etc.). Also, publicly traded companies have an actual legal duty to maximize profit for their shareholders. In other words, they could be sued if they could have made more money on a product and didn't.

If anyone wants to see the direction drug prices are going in, check out what's going on with Sovaldi: http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...51c_story.html. Add to the fact that any hair loss treatment is totally voluntary (as it would be considered cosmetic in most people's eyes - those of us who suffer greatly because of it probably have a more complicated attitude towards it), and the great majority of society will not feel any sympathy for anyone's inability to afford it.

Truth be told (and perhaps somewhat tragically), it's possible that even if something is developed the great majority of people on here won't be able to afford it for a long time. BUT, there's no reason not to keep hoping that something significant will come out. That's really the hardest part by far. If something comes into existence, then we'll worry about how to pay for it.

[Pate]

Valeant is the same company that took over Medicis, who hold the licensing rights to CB. So they will own the rights to the only two hair loss drugs actually in active development.

They seem to be still committed to CB. Hopefully they are for bim too, if they get Allergan.

[beetee]

Valeant is the same company that took over Medicis, who hold the licensing rights to CB. So they will own the rights to the only two hair loss drugs actually in active development.

They seem to be still committed to CB. Hopefully they are for bim too, if they get Allergan.

Pate, is CB just thought to stop or slow hair loss as opposed to regrow hair?

[rdawg]

Pate, is CB just thought to stop or slow hair loss as opposed to regrow hair?

At this point it's seen as a more powerful version of fin without the side effects.

We don't know the extent of it's capabilities, in my eyes if you are an agressive sufferer like me you need a local anti-androgen like CB as well as Fin to counter the hairloss as my hairloss has only just slowed alot, not stopped with fin.

I think CB+Fin could be a powerful combo that yes can cause growth for some.