I Told You So

[cthulhu2.0]

I told you all it was a waste of time and money to send Desmond to Korea for the hair conference as there would be nothing new on the horizon with no cures in sight. I was right. I told you so.

We split the atom in the 1940s, went to the moon in the 1960s, and here we are in 2014 and we can't even make vellus hairs go terminal or keep hair from turning gray, much less grow hair on a bald scalp.

Of course, we should have listened to almighty Deadman1, world renown expert on hairloss and not just some random guy on the hairloss forums. There is no cure out which is obvious but researchers are doing everything in their power to bring us closer to that endpoint. What have you contributed besides your negativity?

 

[2bald2young]

What have you contributed besides your negativity?

A misspelled username lol

 

[dreamermerlin]

The only reason why there is still no "one-time-treatment" for balding, cancer, AIDS etc. is because the pharmaceutical industries make billions through this diseases,
curing them would mean to lose a lot of money. So, as far there is anything near to a cure, they go and eliminate him and you can't change that yet, esspecialy not in the USA.

Oh please stop with this conspiration stories we've heard 100 times before. It is strongly unlikely.

First of all, it's ridiculous to put balding on a list of diseases with cancer and AIDS. Those are very bad diseases that most likely kill you, baldness is only a "condition".
Then, they are difficult to treat and that's all.
"They go and eliminate him"? How do they do that?
For a big pharmaceutical company, wouldn't it be wiser to simply BUY another company who is close to a cure, investing some money to finish it, and then make billions selling the cure itself?

- - - Updated - - -

The only reason why there is still no "one-time-treatment" for balding, cancer, AIDS etc. is because the pharmaceutical industries make billions through this diseases,
curing them would mean to lose a lot of money. So, as far there is anything near to a cure, they go and eliminate him and you can't change that yet, esspecialy not in the USA.

Oh please stop with this conspiration stories we've heard 100 times before. It is strongly unlikely.

First of all, it's ridiculous to put balding on a list of diseases with cancer and AIDS. Those are very bad diseases, baldness is only a "condition".
Then, they are difficult to treat and that's all.
"They go and eliminate him"? How do they do that?
For a big pharmaceutical company, wouldn't it be wiser to simply BUY another company who is close to a cure, investing some money to finish it, and then make billions of billions selling the cure itself?

 

[I.D WALKER]

I understand (to a varying degree) how the pervasive tone of desperation emitted from these forums and by hair loss members such as myself can some times be translated as a bit delusional. The intense and hyper yearning for a promising cure to be realized in our life time is admittedly fantastic and does naturally and quite expectedly bend my own rational mind at an uncomfortable frequency. Yes on an almost daily basis I have my own personal challenges trying to keep my preponderance of irrational thinking in check. Acknowledging this self awareness does not make me feel any more special, but rather enables me to conserve my greater energy and practical thinking for more constructive purposes like education and taking better care of myself. Overall I sincerely believe that this is the primary goal and desire of every member here. In a way our behavior may be normal side effect/response of the voluminous data regularly being processed, analyzed, and published from the scientific research community. It's okay and even healthy to question our own faculties of reason once in awhile but before we start diagnosing ourselves or others as hapless/hopeless mental incompetents I suggest we ought to first look at and question what is the powerful impetus that feverishly drives these hair loss research groups in the first place. Is the crux of their sole function and diligent efforts to achieve a more superior hair loss treatment or cure? Do these clinically competent and critical "great minds" of science, objectively and collectively believe they are onto something real and wonderful or are they simply operating with a license to legally practice the same mad science we mere balding laymen are not entitled to do?

A misspelled username lol

 

[bushbush]

It's not about how bad the diseases are, it's about how much money they bring. When cancer etc. would get cured, they would make big losses.
Don't you think they won't try everything to prevent it?

Where is the evidence?

Do you honestly think that every researcher in the world is secretly conspiring to hide their 'cures' from humanity?

 

[Python]

Where is the evidence?

Do you honestly think that every researcher in the world is secretly conspiring to hide their 'cures' from humanity?

Not the researchers, but big companies. Don't be delusional, please, it is a known fact that big companies do every single thing possible to stop anything that will impose their profits. This happens in EVERY single industry, when better batteries are made in Japan that can replace and change everything, what happened, they got **** down by Samsung and others. When farmers wanted to grow their own crops, Monsanto and their patents would not let them and they eventually won, they also prevented the use if a label for genetically engineered foods. We have cars that can run on air or water and the big oil companies have always prevented innovation from that technology. There is countless examples, in the tech, medical, agricultural and automotive.
Big companies have huge teams specifically devoted to preventing losses by takin down any company that opposes them.

Do you really think that they're just going to allow a cure come in without them trying to do something about it? I mean, would you allow something like that if it was your own bunnies? Of course not, so don't act delusional.

 

[karankaran]

Here is an alternate explanation to all the conspiracy theory stuff:
Scientists still are trying to understand our biology.
Also, delivery of drugs to targeted tissues/organs has always been a challenge.
While splitting of atoms and other stuff in physics is based on precise mathematical models, in biology - not everything has such a precise mathematical background.
Genetic diseases like male pattern baldness are always challenging - also, the theoretical discoveries suggest several pieces to the puzzle.
A lot of time and money are spent in drug research because we do not have precise computational models to test a drug.

and i can go and on. But i guess what i want to say - if you read science news or papers, you will understand that there is no conspiracy.

 

[bushbush]

Not the researchers, but big companies.

So are you saying that there are existing cures for male pattern baldness, cancer, and AIDS that researchers have diligently worked on and discovered but they being kept under wraps by 'big companies'?

What about research institutions without industry links? Who is silencing them? The government?

Don't be delusional, please

There is some irony to this statement

it is a known fact that big companies do every single thing possible to stop anything that will impose their profits.

This supposes that a cure for any of the above would not be profitable. It doesn't take an economist to realise that they would be very lucrative.

This happens in EVERY single industry, when better batteries are made in Japan that can replace and change everything, what happened, they got **** down by Samsung and others.

Again, why would said batteries (source please) not be profitable? The technology could give their devices an edge over competitors.

When farmers wanted to grow their own crops, Monsanto and their patents would not let them and they eventually won, they also prevented the use if a label for genetically engineered foods.

This has nothing to do with withholding medical treatments.

We have cars that can run on air or water and the big oil companies have always prevented innovation from that technology.

The technology for cars to run on 'air' or 'water' is simply not here (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water-fuelled_car ).

Big companies have huge teams specifically devoted to preventing losses by takin down any company that opposes them. Do you really think that they're just going to allow a cure come in without them trying to do something about it? I mean, would you allow something like that if it was your own bunnies? Of course not, so don't act delusional.

A tech, medical, agricultural or automotive company would not sit on a proven marketable technology, technique or product that would give them a competitive advantage. They would use it for their own financial gain, not hide it.

 

[hellouser]

There is only ONE pharmaceutical that could throw a fit about a commercial baldness cure; Merck. They wouldn't want to see their sales drop. However, their patent on finasteride expired last year anyway so they have fvck all to say about it. Furthermore, a baldness cure might actually increase awareness about other treatments. The other issue is that even if a patient was able to have 5,000+ lab grown follicles to cover a NW2 area or something, Finasteride could still be used to hold on to existing follicles without having to go in for another expensive stem cell treatment.

Too many people believe in the premise that in order for a baldness cure to exist, all other treatments must fail. <-- This is WRONG.

Outside of Merck, NOTHING is holding back a cure.... perhaps a combination of laziness, procrastination and incompetence from the guys running the biotechs, failing to hit claimed deadlines, but thats not saying they're holding back.

 

[bushbush]

What type of videos you want? Facebook videos? The last one is a documentary.

Also check that out, he gives some interesting facts and proofs...

You can find people on the internet who believe anything if you google hard enough. The question is whether or not there is evidence. Youtube videos don't count for much.

 

[bushbush]

Nah, check out at least what he as to say in the AIDS videos. It's not that long video.

Ok, I watched your youtube video.

Now please, read this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3234451/

 

[bushbush]

Actual science and not bogus sensational Youtube videos bushbush? You know he won't like that.

I know this conspiracy theories trend is appealing, once you start, you never stop. From "AIDS is not real" to the illumiinati...

Yeah the problem with these kind of conspiracy theories is that often they offer simpler explanations than reality---and simple explanations are appealing to people, so they persist.

As if we could actually engineer and create a virus.

Just as a side note, the best we can currently do is replicate viral genomes (which can still be infectious if they make it inside a cell). But this is a much lower bar than creating an entirely novel virus from scratch.

 

[cthulhu2.0]

A misspelled username lol

I guess you have never heard of the original piece "The Call of Cthulhu" or you must be confusing it with the Metallica song "Call of Ktulhu".

 

[Python]

Here is an alternate explanation to all the conspiracy theory stuff:
Scientists still are trying to understand our biology.
Also, delivery of drugs to targeted tissues/organs has always been a challenge.
While splitting of atoms and other stuff in physics is based on precise mathematical models, in biology - not everything has such a precise mathematical background.
Genetic diseases like male pattern baldness are always challenging - also, the theoretical discoveries suggest several pieces to the puzzle.
A lot of time and money are spent in drug research because we do not have precise computational models to test a drug.

and i can go and on. But i guess what i want to say - if you read science news or papers, you will understand that there is no conspiracy.

This is all correct you're saying, but what I wanted to point out is that we can see how companies are so corrupt an unscrupulous all the time. So there is two sides to this, science and researchers are not to blame for a lot of innovation. In fact, as far as I have seen, most researchers take pride in their work and have passion and that I what drives to find cures and breakthroughs. But let's not kid ourselves, at the end of the day, it is the exercutives that say what is approved or not, and also big companies get to attack innovation from any competitor they feel is a threat. This is all I am saying, it's a very real thing out there.