How long have they been saying "only 5 years away"?

[I.D WALKER]

I have found that "breaking medical news" is generally hopped up word phraseology that our media and PR groups have been perfecting for generations. News editors and journalists used to appropriately called it sensationalism. It's a clever hook that still occasionally catches me off guard even today. Omit an operative word here, inject another there, insert a ****load of acronyms and a couple of ambiguous quotes from some leading expert "so and so", and as predicted the fever buzz of the morning begins to sweep across the surface realm. Paid and pressed by research institutions( one among others) these news moguls and their lackey talking heads are solely concerned with breaking record sales. Their permanent smiles are affirmation why they will rarely be held accountable for breaking their reader's hearts. After all their infamous defense commences daily and once more their not guilty verdict paradoxically resonates with truth; and the truth is they are merely the messengers. These news outlets have been cleaning up on the average deficit rate of society's long-term memory deficits (5-10 year ) and the inexperience of our next in line, wide eyed generation, and 5-10 yrs. later the next generation and the next 5-10 yrs., and on and on.

It seems to me (and everyone else here) that the cure for baldness is always 5 years away. Why do they (researchers) say that the cure is 5 years away, but when those 5 years pass we are no closer to a cure? Now I'm reading that hair multiplication will most likely be available in 10-20 years (I.FREAKING.KNOW:doh, but what if those decades pass and they are still no closer to curing this beast? Something crossed my mind, what if the cure will ALWAYS be 5 years away? Since Finasteride became approved for hair loss there's been little to no progress, and how long ago was that? 20 years? It absolutely amazes me how hard it seems to cure such a "simple" thing as hair loss. Is it because hair loss is awfully complicated and poorly understood, or that there is not enough money put into research? What if this is one big conspiracy to keep us buying hair loss products until we overdose on finasteride, in a bath tub of minoxidil? What if the cure has already been discovered but they are keeping it from us to keep us buying ****ty products that might not work, or might not work enough? I'm going crazy thinking about it... :shakehead:

 

[EvilLocks]

Who is "they" that you are speaking about in this thread? You are aware that there is not one consistent "they"?

Yes, that "they" do not want to provide better treatment would be true for Upjohn (Rogaine/Regaine) or Merck (Propecia). But obviously, there are dozens of other parties that would profit heavily from providing a better treatment than finasteride or minoxidil based stuff. The cake for hair loss treament revenues is large, and obviously companies would like their share - if they a way had to. But they don't. There is no conspiracy to deny us treatment, except for the companies that produce propecia and regaine/rogaine there is simply no incentive.

Also, you guys do realize that the "cure is 5 years away" statements are not made by independent researchers, but by media who want to generate clicks? Read the articles claiming "cure might be 5 years away": none of the last ones when the AA cure was published contained a statement by researchers working on treatments for Androgenetic Alopecia claiming that Androgenetic Alopecia will be cured in 5 years. In each of these articles, it was interpretation by the "journalist".

"they" applies to whoever it might apply to, simply.

 

[swingline747]

When looking at the big phrama companies for "cures" youre SOL. And being that these companies can buy out, sue to bankruptcy or threaten most any other research firms at the first sign of a threat to their model I would say we're screwed.
Hey Ive stated in other threads that I believe there is a big enough group to start our own independent company. Grab the bull by the horns or get gored.

 

[bald29]

You could have googled yourself, but here goes:
Hair loss treatment, US alone: 569 million USD, source http://www.ibisworld.com/industry/default.aspx?indid=1720 , secondary source http://www.prweb.com/releases/2014/01/prweb11461480.htm . You can imagine yourself what this means for a global market, with the EU alone being a market of equal size to the US, PLUS all the other countries.
Global market for hair restoration: 1.8 bln USD, source http://www.bernsteinmedical.com/hair-transplant/more-info/hair-transplant-statistics/

And no, I am not assuming only one path. I gave one example. You were the one who assumed the "30$ one time treatment and done" path. There are many ways to make a cure into a profit. Economics 101: You can demand as much money for something as somebody else is willing to pay. If the cure was really simple and cheap to perform, but they would charge me 30k USD for it, I'd buy it instantly.


a) is this by no means a proof, and b) does this not touch on any party which does not have a share in the hair loss treatment cake. Currently, this cake is almost exclusively owned by Merck and Upjohn, so explain to me: Why would Bayer, Pfizer, and so on not want a share of that?

I assume many paths, but the best one for them is the expensive, patented drug, and it's one of the reasons why this is slow. There are many examples of this on other medical researches.

If the cure was simple and cheap to perform, you wouldn't pay 30K usd, because someone else would sell you the exact same thing but cheaper. That's also part of economics 101 and the competition/monopoly game. Researchers are not looking for a cure, but for a drug they can monopolize. Bayer, Pfizer, same thing, they need to have a drug patented, they won't research further if a mundane drug proves useful. That's what I'm trying to say.

 

[EvilLocks]

I assume many paths, but the best one for them is the expensive, patented drug, and it's one of the reasons why this is slow. There are many examples of this on other medical researches.

If the cure was simple and cheap to perform, you wouldn't pay 30K usd, because someone else would sell you the exact same thing but cheaper. That's also part of economics 101 and the competition/monopoly game. Researchers are not looking for a cure, but for a drug they can monopolize. Bayer, Pfizer, same thing, they need to have a drug patented, they won't research further if a mundane drug proves useful. That's what I'm trying to say.

I get what you are trying to say. If it was so easy there would be a cure already, maybe even one of us figured it out. Hair loss is more complicated than any of us know. But still it seems to simple, it's just a strand of hair right? Why on earth should it be so difficult to make the follicle produce healthy hair?

 

[2bald2young]

On the bald truth show I heard that in 1998 they thought that the cure would be there in 5 years. We are in 2014 now. We always think that we are close while in reality we aren't.

 

[bald29]

I get what you are trying to say. If it was so easy there would be a cure already, maybe even one of us figured it out. Hair loss is more complicated than any of us know. But still it seems to simple, it's just a strand of hair right? Why on earth should it be so difficult to make the follicle produce healthy hair?

Who knows... Maybe the cure is in our kitchens

 

[I.D WALKER]

I've never been one to thumb my nose at the "spice cabinet cure" notion. However I've no idea who out there has the know how or willpower to resuscitate a dead horse, particularly one that's been beaten so much. :uglylol:

 

[EvilLocks]

On the bald truth show I heard that in 1998 they thought that the cure would be there in 5 years. We are in 2014 now.

That is so depressing...

 

[Dench57]

2017 and still waiting...

Why you just going round the whole forum necroing threads?

 

[Eren]

It seems to me (and everyone else here) that the cure for baldness is always 5 years away. Why do they (researchers) say that the cure is 5 years away, but when those 5 years pass we are no closer to a cure? Now I'm reading that hair multiplication will most likely be available in 10-20 years (I.FREAKING.KNOW:doh, but what if those decades pass and they are still no closer to curing this beast? Something crossed my mind, what if the cure will ALWAYS be 5 years away? Since Finasteride became approved for hair loss there's been little to no progress, and how long ago was that? 20 years? It absolutely amazes me how hard it seems to cure such a "simple" thing as hair loss. Is it because hair loss is awfully complicated and poorly understood, or that there is not enough money put into research? What if this is one big conspiracy to keep us buying hair loss products until we overdose on finasteride, in a bath tub of minoxidil? What if the cure has already been discovered but they are keeping it from us to keep us buying ****ty products that might not work, or might not work enough? I'm going crazy thinking about it... :shakehead:

Both to be honest. It's not fully understood how male pattern baldness destroys hair other than "DHT does it." FPHL is even more complicated than male pattern baldness from what I read. With more money/funding, we could get a better understanding of this disease.

I don't believe in these conspiracies tbh. If I had the cure and was working at Merck f.e. I would just open my own clinic and get filthy rich by treating baldies. Second, so much more shampoo, gels/styling products would be sold after the cure. Barbers will get way more work as well. Economically speaking, it would come with a lot of benefits as well.

"it absolutely amazes me how hard it seems to cure such a "simple" thing as hair loss." Well, you're not the only one

What amazes me even more, is that I have been dealing with this disease for more than six years. It started in the beginning of 2011 and I am still as devastated as ever. It's 2017 now, so time does not heal.

EDIT: I didn't see that this thread and the message was started in 2014 XD

 

[Guzam]

What if this is one big conspiracy to keep us buying hair loss products until we overdose on finasteride, in a bath tub of minoxidil?

Genuinely kek'd. Thanks Evil.

You could have googled yourself, but here goes:
Hair loss treatment, US alone: 569 million USD, source http://www.ibisworld.com/industry/default.aspx?indid=1720 , secondary source http://www.prweb.com/releases/2014/01/prweb11461480.htm . You can imagine yourself what this means for a global market, with the EU alone being a market of equal size to the US, PLUS all the other countries.
Global market for hair restoration: 1.8 bln USD, source http://www.bernsteinmedical.com/hair-transplant/more-info/hair-transplant-statistics/

And no, I am not assuming only one path. I gave one example. You were the one who assumed the "30$ one time treatment and done" path. There are many ways to make a cure into a profit. Economics 101: You can demand as much money for something as somebody else is willing to pay. If the cure was really simple and cheap to perform, but they would charge me 30k USD for it, I'd buy it instantly.


a) is this by no means a proof, and b) does this not touch on any party which does not have a share in the hair loss treatment cake. Currently, this cake is almost exclusively owned by Merck and Upjohn, so explain to me: Why would Bayer, Pfizer, and so on not want a share of that?

You're right: the potential customer base is huge and us baldies' demand is almost inelastic so that we buy hair loss treatments at any price because we're desperate fucks to milk.

This also means that there's no incentive to make true scientific research. Why do proper research if the customer pays to get metaphysical fuckery like oils, supplements, creams and ineffective contractions at similar if not higher prices than a potential cure?

There's has never been incentive because we're completely inelastic and no business wants to sell gold if they can sell sh*t and get the same revenue. Both minoxidil and finasteride are not hair loss drugs. One is for blood circulation and the other for old mens' prostate. Pure luck made them weakly effective treatments for hair loss. If baldies stopped purchasing bullshit and sticking only to the big three and transplants, maybe some firm would feel the incentive to put serious money into a bald man R&D division somewhere in the world.

 

[Cowboys fan]

It seems to me (and everyone else here) that the cure for baldness is always 5 years away. Why do they (researchers) say that the cure is 5 years away, but when those 5 years pass we are no closer to a cure? Now I'm reading that hair multiplication will most likely be available in 10-20 years (I.FREAKING.KNOW:doh, but what if those decades pass and they are still no closer to curing this beast? Something crossed my mind, what if the cure will ALWAYS be 5 years away? Since Finasteride became approved for hair loss there's been little to no progress, and how long ago was that? 20 years? It absolutely amazes me how hard it seems to cure such a "simple" thing as hair loss. Is it because hair loss is awfully complicated and poorly understood, or that there is not enough money put into research? What if this is one big conspiracy to keep us buying hair loss products until we overdose on finasteride, in a bath tub of minoxidil? What if the cure has already been discovered but they are keeping it from us to keep us buying ****ty products that might not work, or might not work enough? I'm going crazy thinking about it... :shakehead:

Welcome.to corporate America follow the money. A hair loss cure would have to be very expensive . To make up for all.the other lost revenue s from todays meds , trsnsplants and scams . I've been balding for over 30 years and the safe cure has always been five years away . This time I really believe they are close.though Our first clue will.be when rich celebrities . Like Elton John .get their real.hair back. Save your money

 

[blackg]

 

[swingline747]

It seems to me (and everyone else here) that the cure for baldness is always 5 years away. Why do they (researchers) say that the cure is 5 years away, but when those 5 years pass we are no closer to a cure? Now I'm reading that hair multiplication will most likely be available in 10-20 years (I.FREAKING.KNOW:doh, but what if those decades pass and they are still no closer to curing this beast? Something crossed my mind, what if the cure will ALWAYS be 5 years away? Since Finasteride became approved for hair loss there's been little to no progress, and how long ago was that? 20 years? It absolutely amazes me how hard it seems to cure such a "simple" thing as hair loss. Is it because hair loss is awfully complicated and poorly understood, or that there is not enough money put into research? What if this is one big conspiracy to keep us buying hair loss products until we overdose on finasteride, in a bath tub of minoxidil? What if the cure has already been discovered but they are keeping it from us to keep us buying ****ty products that might not work, or might not work enough? I'm going crazy thinking about it... :shakehead:

the next big thing will be when its accidentally discovered. Remember the only two real treatments, minoxidil/finasteride were both actually supposed to be for different issues entirely. Heart and prostate medicine.

The only true cure for full on baldness would be cadaver transplants with no risk of rejection. We can grow an ear on a mouse and a penis on a pig but god forbit we give that pig an afro, transplant it then bacon celebrate in his honor after!

 

[BetaBoy]

Remember the only two real treatments, minoxidil/finasteride were both actually supposed to be for different issues entirely.

Not true, it was always hypothesised from before finasteride was even synthesised that a 5ARI would most likely be effective against ΑGΑ.

 

[swingline747]

Not true, it was always hypothesised from before finasteride was even synthesised that a 5ARI would most likely be effective against ΑGΑ.

It was meant to be a prostate medication but the trial runs men noticed it was regrowing the ir hair

 

[BetaBoy]

It was meant to be a prostate medication but the trial runs men noticed it was regrowing the ir hair

Before any of the trials it was observed that the pseuo-hermaphrodites that lack 5AR did not develop prostate cancer and also did not lose their hair.

 

[swingline747]

Before any of the trials it was observed that the pseuo-hermaphrodites that lack 5AR did not develop prostate cancer and also did not lose their hair.

interesting

 

[WheeljackG1]

There will never be a cure. How the medical system works just isn't set up well for finding solutions to these kinds of problems. Since I've gotten several persistent medical conditions I've really seen how little these people can do. They can only really do a several things well. I think maybe when a problem is sestemic they get lost. If there were ever going to be a cure it would exist already. I think if anyone does find a cure it will be someone in the east.