-
Senior Member
Originally Posted by 2020
ok.... so let's say Replicel comes up with a cure - 50% hair growth 100% of the time.
What could ANYONE do to stop them from bringing such treatment into the market? It's impossible
replicel would sell either sell the patent to another company (it would make a shit tonne there and then and not have to carry on developing it further.
They company that bought the patent would probably have wanted it in their control so their existing products are still top products raking in the most cash.
-
It's simple: a cure would make far more money for any given company, in less than one year, than would a "maintenance treatment" on the market for a quarter century.
Compared to the size of the target market, finasteride and minoxidil are commercial flops. People want a real solution.
The first company to release a "cure" or at least a highly effective hair loss reversal treatment will not have to worry about money for a long, long time. If you can make a trickle of cash over a few decades or a crap load of money this year, it's obvious which you're going to choose, regardless of how evil and scheming of a CEO you are.
I have plenty of issues with big pharma but the conspiracy theory about suppressing a hair loss treatment/cure that would make overnight millionaires (if not billionaires) is not that good of a theory.
No disrespect to anyone in this thread. This is just how markets and greed work.
-
Originally Posted by jman91
i had just kept it simple and said something like " can anyone tell me a time when they have delivered something after 'promising' research"
If powerful, nefarious forces are somehow preventing "promising research" from being developed into marketable products, then why is the "promising research" even being conducted in the first place?
Ok, so you're saying that you believe that nothing yet exists better and I am saying...hmm hold on
"Hmm, hold on" isn't a credible argument. If you want to maintain that some better hair loss treatment than what is currently available exists, then it's up to you to prove its existence.
no one can tell me I single time when they've delivered anything so if we think about it what i am saying is fact and what you are saying is, well, just a belief
That no effective hair loss treatment yet exists is a matter of fact, not belief.
yes it's a public record but they make public what they want the general public to know, of course they will only state a valid reason for not continuing with trials.
No. "Public" and "public record" are not the same thing. The latter encompasses specific information that entities are required to disclose, not just any old information they choose to make known.
-
Senior Member
Originally Posted by gmonasco
If powerful, nefarious forces are somehow preventing "promising research" from being developed into marketable products, then why is the "promising research" even being conducted in the first place?
I would agree they want to improve treatments, but only new products that require constant use and purchasing, not one off cure treatments.
Originally Posted by gmonasco
"Hmm, hold on" isn't a credible argument. If you want to maintain that some better hair loss treatment than what is currently available exists, then it's up to you to prove its existence.
i see what you did there, very mature quoting half of a sentence, who are you fox news? i dont need to prove there is anything better out there to be correct in saying that everytime they say such an such is potentially a few years from market..that nothing happens, can you dispute that..probably not.
Originally Posted by gmonasco
That no effective hair loss treatment yet exists is a matter of fact, not belief.
you believe there is nothing better than what we already have and I agree and believe it or not that's what i'm saying. I wouldn't fault them, but they keep promising stuff then never showing the end product.
Originally Posted by gmonasco
No. "Public" and "public record" are not the same thing. The latter encompasses specific information that entities are required to disclose, not just any old information they choose to make known.
my reaction to your confidence in the transparency of a big corporation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_ikRXBkkQc
-
Senior Member
Originally Posted by jman91
They company that bought the patent would probably have wanted it in their control so their existing products are still top products raking in the most cash.
Who is that company? Who has that much money to blow and then make it back with their own "hair loss products"?
Propecia from the very beginning had "disapointing" sale numbers and that number keeps shrinking every year. Propecia's patent is about to expire anyways. There is no reason for Merck to keep preserving their "monopoly". People aren't buying Propecia as it is....
Who else Rogaine? Do you know how many BILLIONS johnson & johnson bring it from their other products? Rogaine sales amounts to pennies compared to that. They wouldn't even bother with it...
-
Originally Posted by jman91
I would agree they want to improve treatments, but only new products that require constant use and purchasing, not one off cure treatments.
But since, according to you, they haven't actually developed any of those treatments, how could they possibly know whether they're one-off or continuous use treatments?
i see what you did there, very mature quoting half of a sentence, who are you fox news?
Once the drivel is eliminated, there's not much left to quote.
i dont need to prove there is anything better out there to be correct in saying that everytime they say such an such is potentially a few years from market..that nothing happens, can you dispute that
Yes, it's eminently disputable. The overwhelming majority of medical treatments fail to pan out early in the development process, well before the clinical trial stage. Those failures don't mean "nothing happened"; you just assume nothing happened because you didn't hear about it.
my reaction to your confidence in the transparency of a big corporation
Thereby once again demonstrating your ignorance of what the term "public record" means.
-
Senior Member
Originally Posted by gmonasco
But since, according to you, they haven't actually developed any of those treatments, how could they possibly know whether they're one-off or continuous use treatments?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0
-
According to Merck's latest 10-K filing, in 2011 their Propecia sales brought in $447 million. By way of comparison, Singulair alone brings in over 12 times as much revenue to Merck as Propecia does.
Replicel's stated initial price point is $15,000. That means that if only 29,800 people availed themselves of a Replicel "cure" in the first year, it would bring in as much money as Merck's annual worldwide sales of Propecia. And Merck's Propecia sales figures will certainly plummet once their patent on finasteride as a MPB treatment expires next year.
Which do you think has the greater financial potential?
-
Senior Member
Originally Posted by jman91
reported as a troll.
-
Originally Posted by jman91
Translation: I have no coherent argument to make, so I will resort to acting like a spoiled child who can't have his way.
Similar Threads
-
By Mojo Risin in forum Cutting Edge / Future Treatments
Replies: 9
Last Post: 08-11-2013, 10:12 PM
-
By jman91 in forum Coping with Hair Loss in Everyday Life
Replies: 27
Last Post: 04-17-2012, 06:40 PM
-
By gmonasco in forum Cutting Edge / Future Treatments
Replies: 26
Last Post: 04-14-2012, 03:24 AM
-
By delcolorado in forum Men's Hair Loss: Start Your Own Topic
Replies: 3
Last Post: 04-04-2010, 05:35 PM
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
Forum Rules
|
» IAHRS
» The Bald Truth
» americanhairloss.org
|
Bookmarks