LOL
He makes a claim that doctors are in this field because there isn't much competition and this is how they'll find glory.
What doctor out there researching this sh*t has EVER said that? Find me even one example.
The point of my reply wasn't to suggest that OP was obviously right and that I side with him, so no, I am not going to find an example of anything. That's not my problem. Again, the part where you asked for a citation and then told OP he was wrong and that the opposite was right, while explicitly not providing a citation, was what I was pointing out.
Conversely, it is a stone-cold fact that when a business opportunity arises in which people believe they will have no competition in a market in which there is demand, they capitalize on it and this often leads to a saturated market. This is true in literally every industry; it's basic economics.
Yeah, people also seek and extinguish arbitrage - you don't have to convince me of that. But basic economics is not the whole story, especially when the original inquiry is about whether or not there are
researchers in a particular field - that's just misinformed. Academic research is primarily about elucidating phenomena; making a business out of your work is not a requirement. The entities who fund the research do not just become stakeholders and make the project about commercialization. Research is not basic economics. Citation: I'm a researcher at a university.
If anything, most doctors who research this stuff specifically are probably held in low esteem by their peers in other fields. As far as I'm aware, there are like...maybe a dozen doctors/teams putting serious effort into this.
It is ALSO true, that most of these researchers are only on hairloss because of some chance discovery they made. Cots has even gone on record saying he never expected to be "the baldness guy" but keeps on trucking because why the hell not? Look it up if you don't believe me.
Yeah so as you have correctly pointed out, perhaps being "the baldness guy" isn't exactly as charming as being "the cancer guy," showing that there are some non-negligible social forces that also factor into whether or not one
enters the field. One could easily argue that Cots is
staying in the field due to his initial success, which is what you are indeed saying. And why do
I have to look up anything you claim at all? Are you sure you know how the
burden of proof works? Just post it yourself, as you should have, if you want me to see it. I'll happily take a look.
So tl;dr a combination of financial, cultural and perhaps other forces would explain why researchers choose to engage in or avoid the hairloss field for their careers. Further studies are required to conclusively suggest why. Studies that one could cite to buttress one's online arguments, hopefully.
So no, the burden of proof here lies on the OP; there's no reason to believe his claim is correct.
Absolutely there is no reason to believe that OP's claim is correct - he didn't provide evidence, and the burden of proof is on him.
But here's the kicker - not only did you reject his claim, but you stated that the opposite is true, without providing evidence - the burden of proof for showing the opposite is on you and by the same token there is no reason to believe your claim is correct either. And you go on to try to explain your case by saying that the doctors are "are probably held in low esteem" and "basic economics" all the while not providing the level of evidence you demand.
If you're trying to tell me that he needs a citation to make a claim, but that you can claim that the opposite of OP's claim is true, because of how economics probably works this way and how there hair loss research is probably not held in high regard, then even if your stance on OP's inquiry is closer to the truth, you're certainly in the wrong now.
The problem here is that OP disagrees with you, so he needs a citation to "show" that he is right, but you agree with yourself, so, well...just stitch an observation or two together and you can feel that you are "probably" right. But that's not how it's going to work.
