Italian Hair Loss Lotion To Hit The Market In 2016

[Afro_Vacancy]

If this product is approximately as good as Brotzu said, or even half as good, this thread has a good shot to break 1,000 pages.

The hype and participation will grow if we get actual good news, for example study showing results showing the lotion is half as good as Brotzu claimed.

We can then have vigorous debates as to how much it will cost, will there be shortages, combination therapy, and which people will be better candidates.

 

[whoken]

f*** FIDIA. It's time to build a lotion lab, Walter White style.

 

[FCKW36]

You should never let your hair style from Kelly Nelson.

 

[mghrs]

quote from the patent:
"On day 90: in group 1 all the patients report total disappearance of hair reduction areas that have been replaced by robust and shiny hair." group one being the ones that liposomal dgla was applied on. so if according to this patent results are shown at day 90 (which is expected for any hair loss product that works to do so at 90 days) fidia would have known already that it works. the statement from the patent is clear; all the patients report total disappearance of hair reduction areas. there is no need for statistical analysis if visual results are enough. think finasteride, they observed visually and then tested it to get fda approval but they knew it works. this lotion is a cosmetic no need for fda approval. testing is done to confirm the patent statements and if they were true fidia would have known by now. what more testing do they need if they have been testing for 6 months and the patent says full recovery results observed at 90 days.

 

[Grasshüpfer]

However, I've also stressed that you can't let yourself get too attached to something and pass up trying current treatments if you haven't tried already, because you very well may regret it.

This.


Btw. While we are at it, we can ask the lab in Poland for the Histogen lotion and some Tsuji primordiums. @Swoop plz organise

 

[Aliens]

Guys I know it doesnt change a lot of things but in the english release they are stating "by 2018" and not "in 2018".

http://www.fidiapharma.com/en/news/prof-brotzu-s-hair-loss-remedy,3,115

"For this reason, neither exact launch plans nor time-to-market priorities have been defined for the product yet, although we envisage the development of the potential product candidate being completed by 2018."

 

[DrizzyD]

@beps63 if you aren't a troll you should really speak up at a time like this with your thoughts and opinion.

 

[growssj3]

I also think the news isnt 100% negative, it just shows that in the hairloss industry everything takes decades and this pisses me off. Even more because this sh*t is available, brotzu is able to produce it since years.

And yes of course we need to wait. But 2016 was my worst hair year, one more like this and I am more or less bald. And thats why the people are pissed off, if I would be a solid nw1-2, ofc I can wait until 2018-2020

 

[Xenithrising]

Good news sounds like bad news when the news isn't as good as you had hoped.

Real sh*t right here.

 

[whoken]

I see a lot of you are trying to cool down the statement and mistakenly think the issue is the date. Let me clear this up the bigger issue here is not the date, it's the fact the original statement included alopecia areata and not androgenetic alopecia. It has been edited out since. Now a lot of you are trying to keep a positive mind by stating this is common for a company to make such a mistake. And that maybe the person in charge of FIDIA's communication is not knowledgeable on the topic of hairloss. It's possible and my emotional side really wants that to be true. But my rational mind kicks in...

The second statement is still not mentioning androgenetic alopecia, and surely this time the edited statement was made or directed by a knowledgeable person, has to be. Now as a big company such as Fidia wouldn't you want to reassure your future customers by stating clearly the solution will adress androgenetic alopecia as well? They definitely realized the first statement caused a shitstorm, so why the heck would they include vague terms such as 'hair loss' in the statement? Hair loss means anything and everything, I'm sorry but it's the kind of rethoric used for snake oils, the kind of formulation that would also protect you from false advertisement accusations.

Then you think about it and you realize we have no proof to back up the claim about the lotion as a potential remedy for male pattern baldness. Nothing, nada, rien. People claim they are treated with it successfully and yet they don't provide any evidences that it works. It's a lotion made by a reputable doctor and a huge company is now behind it, it has been a couple of years too, and we MPBs still have nothing. Yet at the same time the AA evidences are there, the statement for AA was there. Is that so much at this point to get a picture? Or a statement that clarify we are not left out?

I'm sorry but there is legit reasons for concerns. We are not over reacting here. Both statements when taken in the whole context are red flags for me.

 

[barfacan]

Good news sounds like bad news when the news isn't as good as you had hoped.

It really is this culture of instant gratification that's screwing our minds over. The fact that Fidia officially communicated that the lotion is still being worked on adds alot of credibility that we may eventually see a final working product(Alot of these other proposed products tend to fizzle out). If 1 more year of balding does irreparable damage to you, then chances are this treatment wouldn't have helped enough anyway. All of that said -- we're in need of a f*****g replacement for finasteride going on a decade now.

 

[That Guy]

I see a lot of you are trying to cool down the statement and mistakenly think the issue is the date. Let me clear this up the bigger issue here is not the date, it's the fact the original statement included alopecia areata and not androgenetic alopecia. It has been edited out since. Now a lot of you are trying to keep a positive mind by stating this is common for a company to make such a mistake. And that maybe the person in charge of FIDIA's communication is not knowledgeable on the topic of hairloss. It's possible and my emotional side really wants that to be true. But my rational mind kicks in...

The second statement is still not mentioning androgenetic alopecia, and surely this time the edited statement was made or directed by a knowledgeable person, has to be. Now as a big company such as Fidia wouldn't you want to reassure your future customers by stating clearly the solution will adress androgenetic alopecia as well? They definitely realized the first statement caused a shitstorm, so why the heck would they include vague terms such as 'hair loss' in the statement? Hair loss means anything and everything, I'm sorry but it's the kind of rethoric used for snake oils, the kind of formulation that would also protect you from false advertisement accusations.

Then you think about it and you realize we have no proof to back up the claim about the lotion as a potential remedy for male pattern baldness. Nothing, nada, rien. People claim they are treated with it successfully and yet they don't provide any evidences that it works. It's a lotion made by a reputable doctor and a huge company is now behind it, it has been a couple of years too, and we MPBs still have nothing. Yet at the same time the AA evidences are there, the statement for AA was there. Is that so much at this point to get a picture? Or a statement that clarify we are not left out?

I'm sorry but there is legit reasons for concerns. We are not over reacting here. Both statements when taken in the whole context are red flags for me.

A study of the lotion's affect on Androgenetic Alopecia in women was documented in an Italian dermatology journal almost two years ago

 

[barfacan]

I see a lot of you are trying to cool down the statement and mistakenly think the issue is the date. Let me clear this up the bigger issue here is not the date, it's the fact the original statement included alopecia areata and not androgenetic alopecia. It has been edited out since. Now a lot of you are trying to keep a positive mind by stating this is common for a company to make such a mistake. And that maybe the person in charge of FIDIA's communication is not knowledgeable on the topic of hairloss. It's possible and my emotional side really wants that to be true. But my rational mind kicks in...

The second statement is still not mentioning androgenetic alopecia, and surely this time the edited statement was made or directed by a knbowledeable person, has to be. Now as a big company such as Fidia wouldn't you want to reassure your patients by stating clearly the solution will adress androgenetic alopecia as well? They definitely realized the first statement caused a shitstorm, so why the heck would they include vague terms such as 'hair loss' in the statement? Hair loss means anything and everything, I'm sorry but it's the kind of rethoric used for snake oils, the kind of formulation that would also protect you from false advertisement accusations.

Then you think about it and you realize we have no proof to back up the claim about the lotion as a potential remedy for male pattern baldness. Nothing, nada, rien. People claim they are treated with it successfully and yet they don't provide any evidences that it works. It's a lotion made by a reputable doctor and a huge company is now behind it, it has been a couple of years too, and we MPBs still have nothing. Yet at the same time the AA evidences are there, the statement for AA was there. Is that so much at this point to get a picture? Or a statement that clarify we are not left out?

I'm sorry but there is legit reasons for concerns. We are not over reacting here. Both statements when taken in the whole context are red flags for me.

It could be multiple things IMO

1) the trials for Androgenetic Alopecia did not go as well expected, but the trials for AA did.

2) the trials for Androgenetic Alopecia are still ongoing (Possibly due to differences in AA/Androgenetic Alopecia treatment protocols)

I'm sure there could be other reasons too

The fact that they released an official statement leads me to believe it's #1 above. They could have waited if the Androgenetic Alopecia trials are in anyway incomplete or even need to be re-done or whatever. Although the mass emails being sent to the company could have added pressure on them to make a statement, but i doubt it. Is Fidia publically traded? this can all be regulation/legal related sh*t.

 

[whoken]

A study of the lotion's affect on Androgenetic Alopecia in women was documented in an Italian dermatology journal almost two years ago

I have read this and couldn't find that study, any link? If not do you remember the content of it?

Nevermind I found it. But it's in italian. Translation would be more than welcome.

 

[hairblues]

I think the reason this blew up so big for followers is because the DR Brotzu sold his patten and then continued to do his own studies as well as take interviews...so i understand people are assuming that Fidia 'let them down' or "led them on" but its factually untrue.

90% of what people have fed on has been from Dr Brotzu, the Italian woman and speculation.

All Fidia ever said is that they were doing Androgenetic Alopecia trial that had started in mid May...Never a time line on the studies never how well the studies were doing etc.

this has gotten attention WAY too soon due to Dr Brotzu and his AA studies and presentations as well as interviews.

If you think about it the Company started their trials last May---its now January..thats way less than a year---How are they really supposed to be at a point to sell product by March--that would be less than a year from start of study to collect data, come to a conclusion AND mass produce as well as package and distribute as well as marketing campaign?

Its a good timeline so far in my opinion.

 

[mghrs]

I think the reason this blew up so big for followers is because the DR Brotzu sold his patten and then continued to do his own studies as well as take interviews...so i understand people are assuming that Fidia 'let them down' or "led them on" but its factually untrue.

90% of what people have fed on has been from Dr Brotzu, the Italian woman and speculation.

All Fidia ever said is that they were doing Androgenetic Alopecia trial that had started in mid May...Never a time line on the studies never how well the studies were doing etc.

this has gotten attention WAY too soon due to Dr Brotzu and his AA studies and presentations as well as interviews.

If you think about it the Company started their trials last May---its now January..thats way less than a year---How are they really supposed to be at a point to sell product by March--that would be less than a year from start of study to collect data, come to a conclusion AND mass produce as well as package and distribute as well as marketing campaign?

Its a good timeline so far in my opinion.

in the patent it says 90 days and total coverage of shiny thick hairs on bald areas. fidia had more than 90 days, visual results if there should have been obtained and published if they were that exciting as stated in the patent.

 

[That Guy]

in the patent it says 90 days and total coverage of shiny thick hairs on bald areas. fidia had more than 90 days, visual results if there should have been obtained and published if they were that exciting as stated in the patent.

Replicel just released that from their phase 1 safety trials, the average patient saw the same results in six months that propecia and rogaine give after a year... this was released 5 years post trial.

So not necessarily, is what I'm saying

 

[hairblues]

in the patent it says 90 days and total coverage of shiny thick hairs on bald areas. fidia had more than 90 days, visual results if there should have been obtained and published if they were that exciting as stated in the patent.

Not necessarily too many variables to make that assumption


we know nothing.

But besides that my post is referring to the time-line

 

[whoken]

I think the reason this blew up so big for followers is because the DR Brotzu sold his patten and then continued to do his own studies as well as take interviews...so i understand people are assuming that Fidia 'let them down' or "led them on" but its factually untrue.

90% of what people have fed on has been from Dr Brotzu, the Italian woman and speculation.

All Fidia ever said is that they were doing Androgenetic Alopecia trial that had started in mid May...Never a time line on the studies never how well the studies were doing etc.

I don't think anyone sane in his mind is blaming Fidia. They claimed nothing and consequently the burden of results is not on them. We definitely can blame Brotzu and his patients if the lotion turn out to be unable to treat Androgenetic Alopecia. We also should blame ourselves first.

 

[hairblues]

I don't think anyone sane in his mind is blaming Fidia. They claimed nothing and consequently the burden of results is not on them. We definitely can blame Brotzu and his patients if the lotion turn out to be unable to treat Androgenetic Alopecia. We also should blame ourselves first.

This 'blaming' this is sort of silly in my opinion.