Follica - Good News!

[Moomin]

I’ve had a good look at the patent today (the first time I have read it from top to bottom). I have to say everything actually fits into place very well now and I recommend that anyone who hasn’t read it yet do so right away.

Moving on to what I noticed. The patent itself doesn’t mention all known EGFR inhibitors either naturally occurring or those synthetically produced. It seems every now and again people get side tracked by the idea that:

“maybe Follica didn’t place naturally occurring EGF-R’s in the patent because they wouldn’t be able to patent them, so in order to protect themselves they only mentioned synthetic inhibitors.â€

The first thing to point out is that the inventors (named on the first page of the patent) are not patenting a substance or a physical thing, they are patenting a process, a methodology; a particular way of using materials for a specific purpose in such a way that has never been done before (a method/process that does not exist in the prior art).

Now, because they are patenting a process they have carte-blanche to use whatsoever material they wish (because they are not seeking to protect the production and commercial use of the material as it was originally intended but for the new purpose that they intend it to be used).

An example would be if I found that my own sperm could open a trans-dimensional worm hole into Hugh Heffners Playboy Mansion, so long as it underwent a novel process I could patent that process even though my spunk is naturally occurring.

A case in point is the inclusion of both an already patented and trademark registered product Humax that appears in the “Follica†patent. Now if the inventors of the “Follica†patent were simply not placing items in the patent because they couldn’t protect the item itself then why would they place an already patented and trademarked product in their patent (because the product is being used in a new way, namely EDIHN)

Now turn this question on its head. If the inventors of the “Follica†patent can place any single or multiple EGFR in their patent and still successfully protect their investment (because they are patenting the method/process) and they believed any EGFR would do natural or synthetic then why did they list only specific EGFR inhibitors, and why were all of those EGFR inhibitors synthetic. Probably because the only ones that work, in the way we and Follica want them to, are those listed in the patent. After all I don’t see Quercetin anywhere in the patent.

For the reasons stated above I do not think any success would be had from a naturally occurring EGFR and possibly not even from any other EGFR not specifically mentioned in the patent.

There was a chap in this forum who called everyone stupid for not following the patent to the letter, I don't agree with his delivery at all but I think he a bit of a point. Whilst i'm not saying that the patent does not allow some room for manoeuvre, I do not think that room exists in choice of EGFR inhibitors beyond those specified in the patent.

I’d be interested to hear your thoughts.

 

[first]

Now turn this question on its head. If the inventors of the “Follicaâ€￾ patent can place any single or multiple EGFR in their patent and still successfully protect their investment (because they are patenting the method/process) and they believed any EGFR would do natural or synthetic then why did they list only specific EGFR inhibitors, and why were all of those EGFR inhibitors synthetic. Probably because the only ones that work, in the way we and Follica want them to, are those listed in the patent. After all I don’t see Quercetin anywhere in the patent.

For the reasons stated above I do not think any success would be had from a naturally occurring EGFR and possibly not even from any other EGFR not specifically mentioned in the patent.

I am not sure what you mean as they mention several natural EGFR inhibitors in the patent. Such as the carboxypeptidase inhibitor from potato or sprouty protein.

I am also quite confident in that other EGFR inhibitors than those mentioned in the patent will work. For as long as EGFR is inhibited, then the effect is achieved. Some may not work very well due to having inproper side effects, but that is another story.

 

[Moomin]

I am only suggesting in my previous post that only those products listed in the patent will succeed for the job we itend them for, and the fact that there are naturally occuring EGFR's listed doesn't really change the premise of my post. I didn't pick up on potato or sprouty, so i assumed they were all synthetic. It really doesn't change my belief that anything not included in the patent is a complete unknown so why not first try what is.

Anyway thanks for highlighting carboxypeptidase, its pleasing to know that there is an EGFR out there that we can readily get hold of (i should thing). I remembered someone saying something about injecting potato in their head but i didn't take much notice of it. The important thing for me though is that its in the patent.

 

[first]

As it seems to be a common misconception about there being only synthetic inhibitors in the patent, I'll relay the natural inhibitors mentioned;

Carboxypeptidase inhibitor from potato (PCI) protein,
lefty protein,
sprouty protein,
Argos protein.

 

[Orin]

Think you (or someone else) could cross-check those natural EGFR-inhibitors with milk thistle extract or something else than can be easily purchased (I don't think you can get that potato-skin protein), and see if those listed in the patent also inhibit WnT?

If they do, then it's possible they were mentioned as a way to corner the method, and have since been left out for Follica (though they most likely will go with a synthetic drug anyway).

If not, then that could be a couple of other components to try, should milk-thistle be found to inhibit WnT.

 

[first]

Well, getting the carboxypeptidase inhibitor from potato is very simply, all you need to do is buy a potato. The problem is that you will get such minimal amounts of the compound and such massive amounts of other stuff then. If you only buy potato protein, you get it a bit more concentrated but the question is if that is enough.

I do not think any of those mentioned natural inhibitors also inhibit wnt, so it could very well be that follica took that into consideration.

 

[harold]

I am only suggesting in my previous post that only those products listed in the patent will succeed for the job we itend them for, and the fact that there are naturally occuring EGFR's listed doesn't really change the premise of my post. I didn't pick up on potato or sprouty, so i assumed they were all synthetic. It really doesn't change my belief that anything not included in the patent is a complete unknown so why not first try what is.

Anyway thanks for highlighting carboxypeptidase, its pleasing to know that there is an EGFR out there that we can readily get hold of (i should thing). I remembered someone saying something about injecting potato in their head but i didn't take much notice of it. The important thing for me though is that its in the patent.

I think people make way too much out of the "non-natural" bit. Its a sentence in a 120 page document. Correct me if it occurs more than once. Yes generally one would use a synthetic substance that has been designed to perform a certain task rather than a naturally occuring one that just happened to do the task - drugs are generally much more stable and effective in lower doses than plant extracts that might perform the same task and we know that they are active in vivo whereas many tests on plant extracts are only done in vitro with the expectation that they might be able to base a drug off that basic compound much like curcumin and ASC-J9.
Having said that it doesnt mean that if a naturally occuring substance does inhibit EGFR sufficiently (ignoring wnt for the moment) that it wont be just as effective as a synthetic EGFR inhibitor. It will. Follica hasn't tested every substance out there that has been reported to inhibit EGFR. Why would they? Its not their job and they dont want to waste time worrying about that sh*t. They have enough to figure out with figuring out the timing of adding different substances, the minimal ammount of wounding necessary to get decent results - all that stuff apart from whether or not it actually works. For us on the other hand the ready availability of some of these substances in large quantities offsets the extreme expense and impracticality of grabbing some gefitinib or whatever. So just because follica said non-natural doesnt mean that it wont work and it doesnt mean Follica have tried their method with quercetin etc and it didnt work. They havent. They tried it with a chem they got from sigma-aldrich or whoever (I forget the name but it was actually about as effective as EGCG in inhibiting EGFR for what its worrth) and it worked. They are a proper commercial entity doing research and they dont have to wring their hands about acquiring gefitinib without a prescription or anyhing else so that is what they will work with.
hh

 

[Moomin]

I'm glad that theres a been a knowledgable reply to my post, albeit negative, however theres been a lot of valuable information garnered from the posts after it.

I would like to point out that my original post isn't so much about natural versus synthetic, its about EGFRs that appear in the patent and those that do not. The point about about synthetics and naturals that appeared in my original post appeared in error, but as i've said the reasoning behind the post isn't altered.

I was making the point that if all inhibitors were created equal, then why doesn't the patent just say "an EGFR inhibitor", they would have all their bases covered. There would be no need to mention specific EGFR inhibitors. So considering they mention such a large number of ihibitors why not try the ones they mention first, as I would assume that these are the most effective for their and our purposes, and perhaps those ones that occur naturally would be easier to get of hold in amounts and concetrations that would be useful to us (I doubt rubbing potatoes on our heads would prove useful. Remember the purpose of a patent is not only to protect but to give detailed explanation of how to recreate the novel invention.

Finally, another point of my original post on this subject was to set aside this idea that natural inhibitors were not included in the patent because they could not protect them which I have seen on this forum and others, which I think I did, although this was clearly the case as the patent actually includes natural inhibitors anyway as pointed out by First.

Nevertheless I still maintain that it makes sense that the inhibitors mentioned in the patent should be used before trying alternatives. I'm not telling anyone what to do, follow your own mind, I am only offering my opinion and reasoning behind it. Agreeing with my position or shooting it down in flames is just as useful to me so long as your opinion is based on logic as it means I can either cross it off my list or do fruther study into it. I'm happy to say the vast majority of opinion in this forum has been based on sound reasoning which is the reason I joined in the first place.

Sweet

 

[FollicaLover]

Sorry, Orin, Michael Barry, people who are already testing... more or less, about when do you expect to be able to communicate "final" results? And, Orin, Michael, etc. what do you think about the possible side effects due to the mix of products applied in the scalp? I'll probably try this myself also, but I'd like yo know your answer in my questions. Only 2 persons answered to me (thank to this people), and I'd like to know what do people who is now testing think about it.

Thanks.

 

[joemadrid]

I got a question about the cancer patient that regrows using genifitb.... is possible that he receive one or several solar burns in his scalp that could contribute to the process? Where does he live? It was summer or winter during treatment?

The only method I have tested and do not give me a crust is solar or UVA abrasion. Is pretty difficult to master the abrasion art and give an uniform abrasion in, for example, in the whole hairline. But that could be pretty easy using a solar burn, just controling time.

the problem I got with acids now is that is pretty difficult for me to do the same abrasion damage in all sites I apply acid.

The best results now are for the dremel tool using a sponge material, but you need to do very very slow and it is also difficult to control de damage.

 

[masculineyourheart]

I was making the point that if all inhibitors were created equal, then why doesn't the patent just say "an EGFR inhibitor", they would have all their bases covered. There would be no need to mention specific EGFR inhibitors. So considering they mention such a large number of ihibitors why not try the ones they mention first, as I would assume that these are the most effective for their and our purposes, and perhaps those ones that occur naturally would be easier to get of hold in amounts and concetrations that would be useful to us (I doubt rubbing potatoes on our heads would prove useful. Remember the purpose of a patent is not only to protect but to give detailed explanation of how to recreate the novel invention.

Like harold mentioned, natural EGFR inhibitors can have other side effects - like inhibiting wnt pathways for example. Because of this it's not worth them going through and testing every natural EGFR inhibitor when they have access to synthetics that will. It also shows why they can't make the blanket assumption that all EGFR inhibitors will work.

The reason we're looking for natural alternatives is because they're cheaper and more easily obtained. If you want to buy us all a round of Gefitinib, I'm sure we'd all be more than happy to use that instead.

Good to see more posters encouraging debate.

 

[first]

I was making the point that if all inhibitors were created equal, then why doesn't the patent just say "an EGFR inhibitor", they would have all their bases covered.

They do say just that;

In another embodiment, the inhibitor is any other inhibitor of an EGF or an EGF receptor known in the art [..] In another embodiment, the compound or factor that promotes a differentiation of an uncommitted epidermal cell into a HF cell is an inhibitor of a tyrosine kinase activity of an EGF receptor [..] In another embodiment, the EGF or EGFR antagonist is any other antagonist of EGF or EGFR known in the art. Each possibility represents a separate embodiment of the present invention.

So why do they also mention specific EGFR or EGF inhibitors when they got everything covered with those sentences? As a law student it makes perfect sense, as the more specific you are in a patent, the easier it is to uphold in court. As an example, if you tried to make a patent which said "you mix any compound in the world with any other compound in the world", you'd basically have a patent for everything that is ever created. However, as it won't hold as it is too general. Making a list of specific examples however, gives you something to point at if it does go to court.

Saying that only those inhibitors specifically mentioned in the patent will work, is in my opinion, not an educated guess. Why wouldn't for example AG 1517 work if AG 1478 works? They are almost identical but only the later is mentioned in the patent. Or AG 18 / AG 494 / AG 527 / AG 555 / AG 556 / AG 835 / AG 1295 for that matter? Compound 56, BPIQ-II, PD 174, 265? Listing every single EGF(r) inhibitor is simply not a viable alternative, as there are so many and a great deal of them are likely still unknown. If you look more closely at the list they made it seems to me like they just mentioned a couple of the most common EGF(r) inhibitors to have something to refer to if it does come to legal struggle.

 

[Moomin]

Good stuff, thanks for the post, very informative. So we can lay to rest the natural inhibitors versus synthetic inhibitors (it simply doesn't matter) and that the patent does not provide an exhastive list of EGFR inhibitors.

By the way a little later i'm going to open the whole Wnts debate again. There are a few things i just don't get which you guys might be able to clear up.

 

[Orin]

While it's encouraging to see the very *possibility* that natural EGFR-inhibitors are viable, the problem of finding one that does not also inhibit WnT (and can be easily obtained) remains.

I agree with Harold's assessment that the patent should be read more as a legal document, and less like an exhaustive manual. What we have, and that Follica does not, however, is an almost endless amount of time debating and researching. Hopefully that will outweigh the disadvantage of not having the master key to the pharmacy.


Oh and for those who wanted to know when the results of all this will be final - you're basically having the opportunity (I suppose) to observe some rudimentary testing and researching as it occurs, and not as is often the case, when the "product" is complete.

Someone might try something extremly efficient tomorrow, in which case results should present themself in 3 weeks. While that's certainly what everyone is hoping for, this could take over a year. Or it may never "finish".

But since it seems to be the only thing that shows great promise, and because every step of the procedure add to the sum total of both method and knowledge (like how just abrading the scalp can give you regrowth, and that plucking before abrading enhances the effect), it might be worth sticking around and see what you can take away from it.

It sure beats sitting around with a nihilistic approach to life.

 

[FollicaLover]

Thanks Orin!

well, I know that what you're testing at home is "rudimentary" and it's not exactly the same (but an approach) to what Follica is doing in their laboratories. But as you and others are doing almost the same as Follica, I'd like to know when do your tests finish, the whole process.
And a part from this, I'd like to know your opinion, do you think there could be some kind of side-effect with the mix of products you will applt to the scalp?

Thanks again for your answer.

 

[Moomin]

Ok I read through the patent AGAIN and I can see how Wnt is important to our efforts (for those who would like to know why check out example 13 in the patent). As I understand it, correct me if I am wrong Wnt upregulates production of beta catenin. High concentration of B-Catenin, when other proteins are present, attaches itself to activated stem cells (in our case those in the wounded area of our scalp) and signals the stem cell to become a hair follicle and all the associated structures. Simple right, however looking at Fuch’s experiments B-Catenin and Noggin (protein) were apparently necessary to create HF. Now, I know I’m going to stray a little from the beaten path but I have to ask the question, does anyone know if the normal concentrations of Noggin in the body will suffice to pair with B-Catenin to form HF without the need for upregulating?

Another, possibly, silly question is this, if we can’t find natural EGFR inhibitors that don’t also suppress Wnt expression, then why don’t we just find a different way to upregulate B-Catenin. I’m assuming someone is going to tell me this cannot be done within out means. Just a thought

 

[Orin]

I already answered your question. This is an ongoing effort. Any talk of "final trials" or such, as if it were a done deal when we're still very much trying to figure out the kinks, is premature to say the least.

There's a lot of things left to discuss, and thus things to experiment with. The whole experiment in itself takes 3 weeks minimum (not including down-time for healing and social reasons) for every modification of the formula, which isn't set in stone either, as we're all tinkering with variations.

if you're just looking for *any* regrowth, then I guess "it" is done. Pluck hairs 2-3 days beforehand, abrade the area, and then apply lithium solution for ten days. Most likely it will grow some hair. I don't know what else to tell you, and I doubt anyone else can either, unless you ask people on forums who have already decided beforehand that this is all impossible.

 

[first]

And a part from this, I'd like to know your opinion, do you think there could be some kind of side-effect with the mix of products you will applt to the scalp?

Thanks again for your answer.

Though this question isn't directed to me I've seen you ask it quite a few times so I'll give my thoughts regarding it.

There certainly can be side effects but in a worst case scenario, the side effects will likely be as bad as if you'd lightly scrape your knee and get some dirt in it. Some unexpected things could come out of it, as we simply have not tried it enough. But for something really bad to happen, that is very unlikely.

 

[harold]

Ok I read through the patent AGAIN and I can see how Wnt is important to our efforts (for those who would like to know why check out example 13 in the patent). As I understand it, correct me if I am wrong Wnt upregulates production of beta catenin.

yes.

High concentration of B-Catenin, when other proteins are present, attaches itself to activated stem cells (in our case those in the wounded area of our scalp) and signals the stem cell to become a hair follicle and all the associated structures.

Beta-catenin is within the cell not floating around outside like DHT or TGF-Beta.

Simple right, however looking at Fuch’s experiments B-Catenin and Noggin (protein) were apparently necessary to create HF. Now, I know I’m going to stray a little from the beaten path but I have to ask the question, does anyone know if the normal concentrations of Noggin in the body will suffice to pair with B-Catenin to form HF without the need for upregulating?

Noggin inhibits the signalling of BMP. BMP and wnt pathways are often antagonistic towards each other but sometimes its not that clear and sometimes both are needed at the same time for hair growth. I wouldnt worry about this.

Another, possibly, silly question is this, if we can’t find natural EGFR inhibitors that don’t also suppress Wnt expression, then why don’t we just find a different way to upregulate B-Catenin. I’m assuming someone is going to tell me this cannot be done within out means. Just a thought

Lithium.
Also I haven't seen anything that says quercetin inhibits wnt yet. Then again I haven't seen anything that says it inhibits EGFR particularly well yet either. Havent looked.
hh

 

[FollicaLover]

Thanks Orin and First!!