Bottom line: do you believe a cure for hair loss is on the horizon?
- Thread starter peridot
- Start date
You can cheer up a little because that math is simply not correct.
Propecia has never been the kind of big moneymaker for the company that it was expected to be, and neither have minoxidil or any of the others. The yearly profit from something like Propecia is way into the millions, but certainly not billions. ("Hmm . . . overpriced baldness pills that don't actually regrow the lost hair but do kill your sex drive? Where do I sign up, Doctor?")
A real/practical treatment for male pattern baldness that restores a full head of hair for anywhere near a middle class price would make more money than all the current hair loss drugs combined. It doesn't just take the money away from the current male pattern baldness treatments, it would also reel in a HUGE market of new men once word get around that something for male pattern baldness actually works well. Probably several times the size of the existing market worldwide.
Propecia has never been the kind of big moneymaker for the company that it was expected to be, and neither have minoxidil or any of the others. The yearly profit from something like Propecia is way into the millions, but certainly not billions. ("Hmm . . . overpriced baldness pills that don't actually regrow the lost hair but do kill your sex drive? Where do I sign up, Doctor?")
A real/practical treatment for male pattern baldness that restores a full head of hair for anywhere near a middle class price would make more money than all the current hair loss drugs combined. It doesn't just take the money away from the current male pattern baldness treatments, it would also reel in a HUGE market of new men once word get around that something for male pattern baldness actually works well. Probably several times the size of the existing market worldwide.
Cassin, I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Are you saying that those of us already diagnosed with Androgenetic Alopecia will only ever be able to treat the symptoms rather than be free of the disorder? That may be true--and you are, after all, answering my original Q as I worded it.
However, in all honesty, if HM proves viable, that'll be good enough for me. That's *effectively* if not technically a cure, at least for the only symptom I know of and care about.
However, in all honesty, if HM proves viable, that'll be good enough for me. That's *effectively* if not technically a cure, at least for the only symptom I know of and care about.
I agree that science will probably decide to learn to prevent this problem rather than trying to genetically "cure" it.
It's already known that hair follicles that don't get hit with androgens during puberty will not go bald even if androgens hit them later on -- something is happening to "prime" the hairs to male pattern baldness at that point in life.
But what does it matter, really? Traditional hair transplants + a few thousand more grafts from first generation HM + better long-term prevention drugs = restored whole head.
Restorations won't be "flawless," but that's nitpicking. In most cases the difference will probably end up being small enough not to matter. If you get back full head coverage at maybe 70% of your original density, you're basically gonna have hair like a no-male pattern baldness guy in his 30's.
Going from buzzed heads & daily minoxidil/Finasteride regimens to having Tom Cruise/Brad Pitt hair? I'm satisfied with that.
It's already known that hair follicles that don't get hit with androgens during puberty will not go bald even if androgens hit them later on -- something is happening to "prime" the hairs to male pattern baldness at that point in life.
But what does it matter, really? Traditional hair transplants + a few thousand more grafts from first generation HM + better long-term prevention drugs = restored whole head.
Restorations won't be "flawless," but that's nitpicking. In most cases the difference will probably end up being small enough not to matter. If you get back full head coverage at maybe 70% of your original density, you're basically gonna have hair like a no-male pattern baldness guy in his 30's.
Going from buzzed heads & daily minoxidil/Finasteride regimens to having Tom Cruise/Brad Pitt hair? I'm satisfied with that.
you're all psychos - there will be a cure - if not, something certainly better than propecia .. a little FYI, it's not just hairloss - do you see anything else coming out - cure for aids, cancer, diabetes, ms, etc etc etc... no - something in the system is just broken - there are breakthroughs in mice and then agonizingly slow safety trials before human testing... that's the reality we're living in right now - stop being a bunch of effing downers and think about where people were before propecia... it'll get there - sooner than everyone thinks
Eureka
Established Member
- Reaction score
- 9
Haha...I'm sure the female community over 40 would laugh at that one, Just as many women lose hair as men But usually it starts about 20 years later then your avg male, That's not counting pregnancy and other factors that can cause female pattern hairloss. Women spend more time covering it up, Like it has been said already it is quite common to see a balding man in the mall or at your local supermarket, most of us may be insecure about it but we aren't friggen freakshows. But women? It's way way different, The whole world flipped it's lid when Britney spears shaved her head, do you see anyone freaking out when a male celeb shaves his head? In my opinion most women still look quite attractive with a shaved head, Natalie portman being my prime example(V for vendetta) Sadly society disagrees tenfold which is why all women go to great lengths to cover their balding scalps up.
There was this story in my local paper about a woman who had some form of cancer and lost her hair due to therapy, Now obviously diff from male pattern baldness but same effect just a different cause, anyway this woman wore a wig to cover up her hairloss and one day someone stole it..Now apparently wigs are expensive at least good ones made from real hair and she couldn't afford another one and because of this would not even leave her house...Now to me that seems extreme but To women..The ones I asked totally agreed they would be doing the same if they had no way to cover it up, So I would say it not only effects as many women but effects them emotionally worse on avg.
Eureka,
I don't think the feelings here about lesser demand for female hair loss treatments are related to the emotional impact. I think most of us would agree that females losing hair is at least as impacting as it is on the worst male situations if not more so.
But we've been feeling like a real Androgenetic Alopecia cure has been on the slow boat from China for so long because the whole MALE market didn't even justify spending enough money. Compared to that, the female market has much smaller numbers in total even if each case is every bit as emotionally painful.
I don't think the feelings here about lesser demand for female hair loss treatments are related to the emotional impact. I think most of us would agree that females losing hair is at least as impacting as it is on the worst male situations if not more so.
But we've been feeling like a real Androgenetic Alopecia cure has been on the slow boat from China for so long because the whole MALE market didn't even justify spending enough money. Compared to that, the female market has much smaller numbers in total even if each case is every bit as emotionally painful.
Just a thing I thought about;
When I am watching movies today or generally when I see people I check out their hair (I dont like doing it but I do). When I watch older movies there are generally fewer bald (receeding) people on than contemporary ones. Same when I look at old photos, people just didnt seem to loose their hair like we do today. Specially women, I am used to seeing women with thinning hair these days but I cant remember seeing a black & white picture of a balding woman, from family photos or whatever.
Anyone else thought the same?
People loosing it today are in a very good position, get on finasteride and wait for HM or some other treatment.
finasteride will work for 5-10 years and within that range a cure or superior treatment (to minoxidil/finasteride) will be out, no doubt.
When I am watching movies today or generally when I see people I check out their hair (I dont like doing it but I do). When I watch older movies there are generally fewer bald (receeding) people on than contemporary ones. Same when I look at old photos, people just didnt seem to loose their hair like we do today. Specially women, I am used to seeing women with thinning hair these days but I cant remember seeing a black & white picture of a balding woman, from family photos or whatever.
Anyone else thought the same?
People loosing it today are in a very good position, get on finasteride and wait for HM or some other treatment.
finasteride will work for 5-10 years and within that range a cure or superior treatment (to minoxidil/finasteride) will be out, no doubt.
There's a widespread feeling that men (people?) are losing it more/earlier than they used to. It's not agreed upon and backed up with any research though. Just a "feeling in the air."
(Right about now is when a few posters usually start chiming in that it must be related to modern diets, and that there must really be a way to reverse our male pattern baldness with better/natural diets, etc. But those changes still don't work. They never have. Maybe those factors really did play some role in starting the situation, but stopping/reversing it is clearly not that simple at all.)
I personally believe it. I swear there's a difference in the teenagers/20s males just within the last 10-15 years alone.
My own theory is that this might be related to the fact that puberty is known to be hitting girls earlier & earlier in modern times. (The scientific community doesn't currently have any consensus on exactly how & why, they just agree that it IS really happening.) Maybe androgenic hair loss is the flip-side of the same thing. Maybe this is how the issue is manifesting itself more obviously in males. Both changes are examples of gender-based hormonal changes showing themselves earlier & more powerfully than in the past.
Just my theory.
(Right about now is when a few posters usually start chiming in that it must be related to modern diets, and that there must really be a way to reverse our male pattern baldness with better/natural diets, etc. But those changes still don't work. They never have. Maybe those factors really did play some role in starting the situation, but stopping/reversing it is clearly not that simple at all.)
I personally believe it. I swear there's a difference in the teenagers/20s males just within the last 10-15 years alone.
My own theory is that this might be related to the fact that puberty is known to be hitting girls earlier & earlier in modern times. (The scientific community doesn't currently have any consensus on exactly how & why, they just agree that it IS really happening.) Maybe androgenic hair loss is the flip-side of the same thing. Maybe this is how the issue is manifesting itself more obviously in males. Both changes are examples of gender-based hormonal changes showing themselves earlier & more powerfully than in the past.
Just my theory.