Hellouser's findings thread

[mikes23]

@hellouser I clearly do since last year I tried to get people on hairlosshelp to crowdfund lauster but everyone, including you, said there is no point to crowdfund wait until someone starts a trial, then crowdfund the sh*t out of it. You said that on here when someone brought it up. But anyways, I'm not trying to argue over this, we got the same goal and I'm just trying to find any way to help get this solved. I'm 21 year old man with two jobs, goes to school, and plays college ball.... I don't have time to do sh*t but if I can help get everyone to crowdfund and tell all the bald people I know to donate, then I did my part in actually trying something productive.

With that being said, have you created that crowdfund website you were talking about on ************? Also, did you get in contact with lauster? Alot of people here do not have accounts on ***. It would be good to keep everyone updated since we need everyone's help.

Like I said, I want to do my part in helping and I hope everyone else does to. Its only going to benefit us crowdfunding dr lauster.

[Hairismylife]

Things we should do now is to contact Lauster and tell them to create an account.
We must take one step forward to enable donation.
Otherwise it'll only be an endless discussion.

[mikes23]

Yeah I agree.

[mikes23]

Found this when I was reading an interview with Dr Christiano

" Christiano:*My biggest hope is that pharmaceutical interest will be generated to shift their interest from these downstream things to where I think a real treatment could make a difference. If it’s really good science then it will piss people off for a short time and then they’ll really start to think about it in a different way and it will benefit everyone if they will put some of their money and people behind it."
http://www.regrowth.com/hair-loss-ar...la-christiano/

so even dr christinao seems to be suggesting pharmaceuticals do not want to invest in a cure that is a one or two time thing. They want something like serp or CB. Whether you believe her statement or not, we should help these researchers with funding. Dr lauster told Desmond at the hair congress, he should solve this in the next few years. So let's give him some funding and see if he can get it done.

[hellouser]

Found this when I was reading an interview with Dr Christiano

" Christiano:*My biggest hope is that pharmaceutical interest will be generated to shift their interest from these downstream things to where I think a real treatment could make a difference. If it’s really good science then it will piss people off for a short time and then they’ll really start to think about it in a different way and it will benefit everyone if they will put some of their money and people behind it."
http://www.regrowth.com/hair-loss-ar...la-christiano/

so even dr christinao seems to be suggesting pharmaceuticals do not want to invest in a cure that is a one or two time thing. They want something like serp or CB. Whether you believe her statement or not, we should help these researchers with funding. Dr lauster told Desmond at the hair congress, he should solve this in the next few years. So let's give him some funding and see if he can get it done.

No he didn't. They never met. Lauster was never at the congress. Desmond met with Beren Atac and Gerd Lindner.

[liba]

No he didn't. They never met. Lauster was never at the congress. Desmond met with Beren Atac and Gerd Lindner.

Whatever, let's help them out

[mikes23]

My bad I meant to put associates afterwards. I remember reading Desmond saying they can solve it soon but thinks it wwould not be available for another 8-10 years...I'm assuming cause of the trials. I'm hoping that we can crowdfund it and have it go through japan.

@liba I feel the same way, I'm just trying to help in anyway so we can end this misery.

[liba]

My bad I meant to put associates afterwards. I remember reading Desmond saying they can solve it soon but thinks it wwould not be available for another 8-10 years...I'm assuming cause of the trials. I'm hoping that we can crowdfund it and have it go through japan.

@liba I feel the same way, I'm just trying to help in anyway so we can end this misery.

Yeah I guess. We‘ve been chitchating in the forums like forever. I really hope we can actually do something to speed the course of history up, to help ourselves.

[Trouse5858]

Found this when I was reading an interview with Dr Christiano

"so even dr christinao seems to be suggesting pharmaceuticals do not want to invest in a cure that is a one or two time thing. They want something like serp or CB. Whether you believe her statement or not, we should help these researchers with funding. Dr lauster told Desmond at the hair congress, he should solve this in the next few years. So let's give him some funding and see if he can get it done.

This is something I've never come close to understanding. I don't know if I'm missing a vital aspect to what you guys mean when you say this, but it seems like a case of groupthink to me.

How would a "1 or 2 time cure" not be profitable for a company to invest in?

Let me just do some very average arithmetic here using statistics I've located online that are as recent as 2014. Please correct me if my math seems off.

Okay. Assuming you are in fact talking about a "cure" I'm going to include the millions of women who suffer from hair loss. The combined number of men and women in the U.S. with hair loss would be (roughly) 55 million. According to this website (statisticbrain.com), less than 1 million people worldwide seek "professional treatment" for their condition. This is obviously a direct result of the fact that hair loss medication is a grossly under-served market, as we know, with finasteride and minoxidil as still the 2 leading non-surgical FDA approved treatment options.

This is where a lot of assumptions must me made, but stick with me. Say you have a "cure" that you can offer in two tiers: 1 tier would be able to bring a Norwood 5/6 all the way back to a NW 1. This would cost $10,000. Since many people would not be able to afford this, there is a tier 2 option as well. This will certainly work, but not to the degree of tier 1. It will cost $5,000. Now assume that since this treatment is so great, the majority of middle/ upper-class working Americans will be willing to pay for it. Say, conservatively, that 70% of all people would be willing to pay for either of these "cures." So an average of $7,500 per treatment x .7(55M) = $288,750,000,000. Almost $300 billion for a very, very reasonably priced one-time treatment option. And that's in the United States alone.

Seriously guys..what am I missing?

[liba]

This is something I've never come close to understanding. I don't know if I'm missing a vital aspect to what you guys mean when you say this, but it seems like a case of groupthink to me.

How would a "1 or 2 time cure" not be profitable for a company to invest in?

Let me just do some very average arithmetic here using statistics I've located online that are as recent as 2014. Please correct me if my math seems off.

Okay. Assuming you are in fact talking about a "cure" I'm going to include the millions of women who suffer from hair loss. The combined number of men and women in the U.S. with hair loss would be (roughly) 55 million. According to this website (statisticbrain.com), less than 1 million people worldwide seek "professional treatment" for their condition. This is obviously a direct result of the fact that hair loss medication is a grossly under-served market, as we know, with finasteride and minoxidil as still the 2 leading non-surgical FDA approved treatment options.

This is where a lot of assumptions must me made, but stick with me. Say you have a "cure" that you can offer in two tiers: 1 tier would be able to bring a Norwood 5/6 all the way back to a NW 1. This would cost $10,000. Since many people would not be able to afford this, there is a tier 2 option as well. This will certainly work, but not to the degree of tier 1. It will cost $5,000. Now assume that since this treatment is so great, the majority of middle/ upper-class working Americans will be willing to pay for it. Say, conservatively, that 70% of all people would be willing to pay for either of these "cures." So an average of $7,500 per treatment x .7(55M) = $288,750,000,000. Almost $300 billion for a very, very reasonably priced one-time treatment option. And that's in the United States alone.

Seriously guys..what am I missing?

I have to admit this is the most mysterious thing in the hair loss treatment industry. It is not just a difficulty faced by one-time treatment. As we know there have been probably a hundred or more different kinds of treatment that supposed to join the game, ever since the 90s. (I can instantly name 10 of them.) But despite the fear of side effects, the failure of respondence, the eagerness for more choices of the hair loss population, what we got is still just fin, min, dut. This is ridiculous considering that even acne has more available treatments than hair loss, despite that the latter can be a more significant cosmetic problem in many cases.