Latest Patent from Dr. Cotsarelis

[nameless]

Can't support Clinton either after her remarks about the pharma industry.

http://money.cnn.com/2015/09/21/investing/hillary-clinton-biotech-price-gouging/

Clinton's right. Her plan is to allow US citizens to start importing medicines from overseas, where medicines are cheaper. It's an idea who's time has come.
The drug companies are going to bankrupt America if we don't do something like this. For example, I work at a hospital and I can tell you all that we have
been having a hard time getting Harvoni (treatment for hepatitis C) to patients with hepatitis C because of the ridiculously high price. The drug companie
are gouging and Americans need to put a stop to this nonsense by putting Clinton into the White House where she will work to make it legal for us to import
medicines from overseas. Right now it's illegal.

As far as I'm concerned this reason alone is sufficient for me to vote for Hillary Clinton. It's been all over the news how there are many hepatitis C patients
who can't get treatment for hepatitis C because the insurance companies can't afford the outrageously high price. Until recently, the cost has been so prohibitive
that even our nation's military veterans have been facing uphill battles getting this medicine because even the US government can't afford these obscene prices.
The medicine costs the drug company less than $1,000 to produce the ENTIRE required 90-day supply but the drug company has been charging $90,000 for that
90-day supply. These profits are obscene. People are dying because of this and any one of us could find ourselves in their shoes.

Anyone of us could get some deadly medical condition and the drug companies could put the cost of treatment out of reach and then you could actually die. And
you wouldn't die because there is no cure for your disease. No. You would die because some greedy drug company is charging too much for the cure so your insurance
company can't afford to pay the price it costs to get the medicine to you.

If we could make it legal to import drugs from other countries this would solve the problem. As far as I know, Clinton is the only candidate planning to
make it legal for US citizens to import drugs from other countries. I've seen many people suffering and dying because they can't afford medicine so I'm
voting for Clinton and nothing is going to change my mind. Like I said, this reason all by itself is reason enough for me to vote for Clinton.

If I get sick with some deadly disease and the medicine is too expensive in the USA then I want the legal right to import it from some country where it's
cheaper. Clinton is definitely getting my vote. By voting for Clinton today that may someday save my life down the road when I need some medicine that's
too expensive in America.

- - - Updated - - -

Another good reason not to support Trump. Haha!
This cultish blow bag will piss the Chinese off enough and consequently deny all U.S. Americans access to it.
I'm with you also in that I
predict they will be the at the forefront of a breakthrough hair loss solution,
but the truth is I personally don't give a damn who gets the credit
so long as we can ALL get our hands on it.

+1.

Trump is BAD news.

 

[distracted]

Clinton's right. Her plan is to allow US citizens to start importing medicines from overseas, where medicines are cheaper. It's an idea who's time has come.
The drug companies are going to bankrupt America if we don't do something like this. For example, I work at a hospital and I can tell you all that we have
been having a hard time getting Harvoni (treatment for hepatitis C) to patients with hepatitis C because of the ridiculously high price. The drug companie
are gouging and Americans need to put a stop to this nonsense by putting Clinton into the White House where she will work to make it legal for us to import
medicines from overseas. Right now it's illegal.

As far as I'm concerned this reason alone is sufficient for me to vote for Hillary Clinton. It's been all over the news how there are many hepatitis C patients
who can't get treatment for hepatitis C because the insurance companies can't afford the outrageously high price. Until recently, the cost has been so prohibitive
that even our nation's military veterans have been facing uphill battles getting this medicine because even the US government can't afford these obscene prices.
The medicine costs the drug company less than $1,000 to produce the ENTIRE required 90-day supply but the drug company has been charging $90,000 for that
90-day supply. These profits are obscene. People are dying because of this and any one of us could find ourselves in their shoes.

Anyone of us could get some deadly medical condition and the drug companies could put the cost of treatment out of reach and then you could actually die. And
you wouldn't die because there is no cure for your disease. No. You would die because some greedy drug company is charging too much for the cure so your insurance
company can't afford to pay the price it costs to get the medicine to you.

If we could make it legal to import drugs from other countries this would solve the problem. As far as I know, Clinton is the only candidate planning to
make it legal for US citizens to import drugs from other countries and I've seen many people suffering and dying because they can't afford medicine so I'm
voting for Clinton and nothing is going to change my mind. Like I said, this reason all by itself is reason enough for me to vote for Clinton.

If I get sick with some deadly disease and the medicine's costs in the USA is too prohibitive then I want the legal right to import it from some country where
it's cheaper. Clinton is definitely getting my vote. By voting for Clinton today that may someday save my life down the road when I need some medicine that
costs too much in America.

- - - Updated - - -



+1.

Trump is BAD news.

I typed up this entire thing explaining why Hillary would be terrible for us and hair loss research in general, but figured this isn't the place. But those who admonish pharmaceutical companies for abusing drug prices simply aren't familiar with how this industry works.

There's a reason why America leads in drug development and that is because it has policies that incentivizes benefit from hard-work. I truly think voting for Hillary would be bad ESPECIALLY for hair loss research.

 

[Pray The Bald Away]

I typed up this entire thing explaining why Hillary would be terrible for us and hair loss research in general, but figured this isn't the place. But those who admonish pharmaceutical companies for abusing drug prices simply aren't familiar with how this industry works.

There's a reason why America leads in drug development and that is because it has policies that incentivizes benefit from hard-work. I truly think voting for Hillary would be bad ESPECIALLY for hair loss research.

I absolutely agree. If Merck wasn't able to keep exclusive rights for finasteride for so many years, they may have never developed it in the first place. Her plans would be disastrous, especially for us.

 

[nameless]

I typed up this entire thing explaining why Hillary would be terrible for us and hair loss research in general, but figured this isn't the place. But those who admonish pharmaceutical companies for abusing drug prices simply aren't familiar with how this industry works.

There's a reason why America leads in drug development and that is because it has policies that incentivizes benefit from hard-work. I truly think voting for Hillary would be bad ESPECIALLY for hair loss research.

Forget it dude. Drug companies are charging too much for medicine and that could cost me my life someday. I'm voting for Clinton to try to protect myself against drug companies making medicine too
expensive for me to purchase when I need it. You're trying to get me to vote against my own best interests. Forget it! I'm not voting to line your pockets with more drug company stock profits at the expense
of my very existence. I'm not putting my life at risk so you can make more money off your drug company stock.

For years I have wanted our government to step up and make it legal for US citizens to import medicines from other countries and Clinton pledges to try to make this happen so she's getting my vote. You're
wasting time trying to get me to change my mind. I'm not stupid enough to vote to put my own life at risk so you can make money off your drug company stock.

People in some other countries can get the full 90-day course of that Hepatitis C drug I posted about for $1,000 and that's retail. All 90 pills for $1,000. But in America the drug company was charging $90,000 for a 90-day supply until very recently when a competitor dropped their price for a similar drug only because it was discovered that their drug might have a safety risk so they had to undercut the other drug company. But they both gouged America and Americans for years. They gouged so much that even the US government couldn't afford to pay for its' military veterans (even ones that caught the disease as part of being in the military) to get the treatment. The drug companies have been behaving recklessly and irresponsibly. I'm voting for Hillary Clinton. I'm voting for me to have the right to import medicines from other countries where medicines are cheaper because sooner or later I will need medicine. It's just a matter of time.

- - - Updated - - -

I absolutely agree. If Merck wasn't able to keep exclusive rights for finasteride for so many years, they may have never developed it in the first place. Her plans would be disastrous, especially for us.

Forget it dude! How much drug company stock do you have? I'm voting for Hillary Clinton because that's the way to make it legal to import medicines from other
countries where the medicines are cheaper. Anyone who listens to you is a fool because he's allowing himself to be at risk of suffering & dying so that your drug
company stock will rise. I'm not going to find myself suffering with some disease I can't afford to buy medicine to treat so your stock will rise. Give me a break!

 

[distracted]

Forget it dude. Drug companies are charging too much for medicine and that could cost me my life someday I'm voting for Clinton to try to protect myself against drug companies making medicine too
expensive for me to purchase when the day comes that I need to be able to get medicine at a reasonable price. You're trying to get me to vote against my own best interests. Forget it! I'm not voting to
line your pockets with more drug company stock profits at the expense of my very existence. I'm not putting my life at risk so you can make more money.

For years I have wanted our government to step up and make it legal for US citizens to import medicines from other countries and Clinton pledges to try to make this happen so she's getting my vote. You're
wasting time trying to get me to change my mind. I'm not stupid enough to vote to put my own life at risk so you can make more money.

People in some other countries can get the full 90-day course of that Hepatitis C drug I posted about for $1,000 and that's retail. All 90 pills for $1,000. But in America the drug company was charging $90,000 for a 90-day supply until very recently when a competitor dropped their price for a similar drug. But they both gouged for years. They gouged so much that even the US government couldn't afford to pay for its' military veterans (even ones that caught the disease as part of being in the military) to get the treatment. The drug companies have been behaving reckless and irresponsible. I'm voting for Hillary Clinton. I'm voting for me to have the right to import medicines from other countries where medicines are cheaper because sooner or later I will need medicine. It's just a matter of time.

You say some of the most absurd things sometimes - It's no wonder you're voting for Clinton. I'm not invested in nor do I work for a pharmaceutical company, so your vote is not making me money lol. I am just able to understand the simple concept that companies choose projects based on a return relative to risk. By minimizing return with no change in risk less projects will be pursued. Hair loss research will feel the burn from this. It's already underresearched, incredibly complex, and have to prove efficacy above the current available treatment. I'm not trying to convince your vote, but you should at least know that capping revenue will not be good for us.

 

[nameless]

You say some of the most absurd things sometimes - It's no wonder you're voting for Clinton. I'm not invested in nor do I work for a pharmaceutical company, so your vote is not making me money lol. I am just able to understand the simple concept that companies chose projects based on a return relative to risk. By minimizing return with no change in risk less projects will be pursued. Hair loss research will feel the burn from this. It's already underresearched, incredibly complex, and have to prove efficacy above the current outstanding treatment. I'm not trying to convince your vote, but you should at least know that capping revenue will not be good for us.

Forget it dude. You're trying to convince me that you're an unbiased person who wants the drug companies to gouge customers because you hope to someday pay higher prices
for medicine. Give me a break!

Why would someone with no financial interest in the drug companies want drug companies to continue gouging customers for medicines? Who do you think you're fooling dude?
Of course you have a horse in this race. The alternative to the theory that you're a drug company investor is that you just like the idea of paying a lot more for medicine sooner
or later.

Right!!!

And people don't need to worry about curing hair loss anymore. The cure is coming no matter what. The Chinese may have already cured it since they have found a way to
multi-pass culture human DP cells while retaining trichogenicity. So your nonsense that if Americans are allowed to import medicine from other countries that will somehow
damage prospects for a hair loss breakthrough are nothing but the bullsh!t of a drug-company investor.

You're trying to trick people into voting to put their own health and lives at risk so your drug-company stock will rise. What a dog. You deserve to be bald.

 

[Pray The Bald Away]

Forget it dude. You're trying to convince me that you're an unbiased person who wants the drug companies to gouge customers because you hope to someday pay higher prices
for medicine. Give me a break!

Why would someone with no financial interest in the drug companies want drug companies to continue gouging customers for medicines? Who do you think you're fooling dude?
Of course you have a horse in this race. The alternative to the theory that you are a drug company investor is that you just like the idea of paying a lot more for medicine. Right!!!
You're full of the smelly stuff dude and I'm looking forward to voting for Hillary Clinton.

And people don't need to worry about curing hair loss anymore. The cure is coming no matter what. The Chinese may have already cured it since they have found a way to
multi-pass culture human DP cells while retaining trichogenicity. So your nonsense that if Americans are allowed to import medicine from other countries that will somehow
damage prospects for a hair loss breakthrough are nothing but the bull**** of a drug-company investor.

Instead of addressing his arguement you've resorted to ad hominem remarks that question his integrity and personal interests. We have to be considerate of people with other conditions like alzheimer's or multiple sclerosis. We can't just be content with a cure to hair loss. The simple fact is that incentive breeds efficiency. I'm 17, legally I can't invest. That should be enough to erase any suspicion of me having ulterior motives in this situation.

 

[nameless]

You say some of the most absurd things sometimes - It's no wonder you're voting for Clinton. I'm not invested in nor do I work for a pharmaceutical company, so your vote is not making me money lol. I am just able to understand the simple concept that companies choose projects based on a return relative to risk. By minimizing return with no change in risk less projects will be pursued. Hair loss research will feel the burn from this. It's already underresearched, incredibly complex, and have to prove efficacy above the current available treatment. I'm not trying to convince your vote, but you should at least know that capping revenue will not be good for us.

I get it that you're a drug-company investor.

- - - Updated - - -

Instead of addressing his arguement you've resorted to ad hominem remarks that question his integrity and personal interests. We have to be considerate of people with other conditions like alzheimer's or multiple sclerosis. We can't just be content with a cure to hair loss. The simple fact is that incentive breeds efficiency. I'm 17, legally I can't invest. That should be enough to erase any suspicion of me having ulterior motives in this situation.

I'm not buying it dude. Either you're a drug-company investor or you're a short-sighted fool who doesn't have medical conditions (other than hair loss) and you aren't thinking ahead to the
day when you will have more serious health problems...when you will need medicine. Or maybe your dad's involved in drug-company stock and that's where your inheritance is coming from.
Or maybe you want to go to work for the drug companies when you complete schooling. I don't know. But I know that what you're selling is not in my best interests and the greater likelihood
is that somehow someway customers being gouged by drug companies is in your financial best interests. I want laws passed that allow Americans to import medications from other countries.

 

[Pray The Bald Away]

Go away dude. I get it that you're a drug-company investor.

- - - Updated - - -



I was investing when I was 17. Go away dude. My advice to you is to pull your stocks out of the drug companies because their profits will soon come down to a more reasonable range.
Find somewhere else to invest rather than trying to talk me into putting my own life/health at risk just to make your drug-company stock rise. I'm looking forward to voting for Hillary Clinton.
I'm looking forward to seeing laws passed that allow Americans to import medications from other countries.

You would have to use your parent's account at that age in America. You sound surprisingly immature. I was under the impression that you were one of the more knowledgeable people on this forum. I guess I was wrong.

 

[nameless]

You would have to use your parent's account at that age in America. You sound surprisingly immature. I was under the impression that you were one of the more knowledgeable people on this forum. I guess I was wrong.

It was quite some time ago. I don't recall how I did it but I know I did it. I invested in silver bars that Merril Lynch kept at their safe in New York. And like I said, there are many ways besides stock for a person to have a financial stake in a company or industry. For example, if his parent(s) work in that industry. Whatever!

The point is that even if you don't have any kind of financial stake in the drug companies, (and I would not accept your denials to that effect at face value) then you're just being short-sighted because your young and don't have the slightest clue when it comes to having to pay for very expensive medicine that you can't get someone else to pay for. I'm just saying it's suspicious when a person claims he has no financial stake in drug companies but he wants drug companies to continue gouging customers even though he himself might someday become one of those customers.

 

[Pray The Bald Away]

It was awhile ago. I don't recall how I did it but I know I did it. I invested in silver bars that Merril Lynch kept at their safe in New York. And like I said, there are many ways besides stock for a person to have a financial stake in a company or industry. For example, if his parent(s) work in that industry. Whatever!

The point is that even if you don't have any kind of financial stake in the drug companies, (and I would not accept your denials to that effect at face value) then you're just being short-sighted because your young and don't have the slightest clue when it comes to having to pay for very expensive medicine that you can't get someone else to pay for. In other words, if you don't have a financial stake in any manner, shape, or form in the drug companies then you're being an insensitive bastard while those people with Hepatitis C and other medical conditions are dying because their being gouged by the drug companies. You don't care if other people live or die and then you want sympathy for your baldness. Give me a break!

I'm gonna get back on topic now. I just want you to realize that you haven't addressed the core of me and distracted's argument.

 

[nameless]

I'm gonna get back on topic now. I just want you to realize that you haven't addressed the core of me and distracted's argument.

The drug companies have only relatively recently started their most outrageous level of gouging. The worse of it has been going on the past 5 years. Yes, they were charging high prices before 5 years ago but the worse of it started about 5 years ago. AND THEY WERE MAKING REASONABLY GOOD ENOUGH PROFITS TO PRODUCE NEW TREATMENTS BEFORE THEY STARTED THEIR HEAVY GOUGING 5 YEARS AGO so they don't need the outrageously high level of gouging that they're conducting now in order to produce new treatments.

And I have already said, the technology required to cure hair loss is either already on this planet or soon will be. It looks likely that the Chinese already have it. But even if the Chinese don't have it, any very promising breakthrough drug or very promising breakthrough procedure to treat hair loss is going to get funded due to the potential profits. When Sanford-Burnham appeared to turn stem cells into DP cells the list of groups and individuals who wanted to invest in that treatment idea reached up into the stratosphere so we don't need to keep blocking cheap medicinal imports from coming into the USA in order to get a cure for hair loss. And even if drug companies aren't allowed to gouge us anymore basic research into curing hair loss will continue at the institutional level. Basic research is grant-driven at universities. A cure for hair loss is coming no matter what.

 

[Pray The Bald Away]

Your core argument is fundamentally incorrect.

The drug companies have only relatively recently started their most outrageous level of gouging. The worse of it has been going on the past 5 years. Yes, they were charging high prices before 5 years ago but the worse of it started about 5 years ago. AND THEY WERE MAKING REASONABLY GOOD ENOUGH PROFITS TO PRODUCE NEW TREATMENTS BEFORE THEY STARTED THEIR HEAVY GOUGING 5 YEARS AGO so they don't need the outrageously high level of gouging that they're conducting now in order to produce new treatments.

And I have already said, the technology required to cure hair loss is either already on this planet or soon will be. It looks likely that the Chinese already have it. But even if the Chinese don't have it, any very promising breakthrough drug or very promising breakthrough procedure to treat hair loss is going to get funded due to the potential profits. When Sanford-Burnham appeared to turn stem cells into DP cells the list of groups and individuals who wanted to invest in that treatment idea reached up into the stratosphere. We don't need to keep blocking cheap medicinal imports from coming into the USA in order to get a cure for hair loss. And even if drug companies aren't allowed to gouge us anymore basic research into curing hair loss will continue at the institutional level. Basic research is grant-driven at universities. A cure for hair loss is coming no matter what.

These chinese scientists still haven't managed to make cosmetically viable hairs. What good is 256 dp cells if they don't grow good hair?

 

[nameless]

These chinese scientists still haven't managed to make cosmetically viable hairs. What good is 256 dp cells if they don't grow good hair?

I'm not sure what they've got. Like I said, this may not even work when implanted in human heads. But theoretically since the problem has always been the loss of trichogenicity in the cells themselves, rather than the skin the cells are implanted into, and since the Chinese may have solved the human hair trichogenicity problem, it might be effective. And that means that they'll get funded because like I said, if you come up with something that really might work to treat hair loss (better than what's available) funding won't be a problem. There's enough research into protecting human hair trichogenicity in multi-pass cell culture so even if the Chinese haven't solved the problem then someone else will soon. And once that's done funding won't be an issue. Funding is only a problem for hair loss research if your treatment doesn't look like a viable breakthrough. Histogen had an easy time getting funding for their first phase 2 but after they publicized their mediocre phase 2 results funding became harder to get. Aderans had an easy time getting funding until their failed phase 2 results came out. You don't need to deprive sick/dying Americans of medicine in order to fund a promising cure for hair loss. All you need is a viable marketable treatment that should actually work better than what's already available.

And if none of the researchers presently getting close to human trials for protecting human hair trichogenicity achieve that objective then after their failures they'll figure out why their projects didn't work and they'll go back to the drawing board (with that new information) and do some more basic research, which will likely be grant-funded.

The treatment is going to come. Nothing is going to stop that from happening because of the profit potential.

 

[Pray The Bald Away]

I'm not sure what they've got. Like I said, this may not even work when implanted in human heads. But theoretically since the problem has always been the loss of trichogenicity in the cells themselves, not the skin the cells are implanted into, and since the Chinese may have solved the human hair trichogenicity problem, it might be effective. And that means that they'll get funded because like I said, if you come up with something that really might work to treat hair loss (better than what's available) funding won't be a problem. There's enough research into protecting human hair trichogenicity in multi-pass cell culture so even if the Chinese haven't solved the problem then someone else will soon. And once that's done funding won't be an issue. Funding is only a problem for hair loss research if your treatment doesn't look like a viable breakthrough. Histogen had an easy time getting funding for their first phase 2 but after they publicized their mediocre phase 2 results funding became harder to get. Aderans had an easy time getting funding until their failed phase 2 results came out.

And if none of the researchers presently working on protecting human hair trichogenicity achieve that objective then after their failures they'll figure out why their projects didn't work and they'll go back to the drawing board (with that new information) and do some more basic research, which will likely be grant-funded.

The treatment is going to come. Nothing is going to stop that from happening because of the profit potential.

How far off do you think cosmetically viable cloned donor hairs are? Are we talking 20 years in the future or like 5?

 

[firstpost]

Big Pharma lobby to protect US market form foreign generics and pay american generic makers not to produce their drugs after patent expires. That's why million years old drugs are still so expensive.

 

[nameless]

How far off do you think cosmetically viable cloned donor hairs are? Are we talking 20 years in the future or like 5?

I think definitely within 5 years. I gotta run now.

 

[firstpost]

How far off do you think cosmetically viable cloned donor hairs are? Are we talking 20 years in the future or like 5?

Hairloss treatments are ALWAYS 5 years away.

 

[Pray The Bald Away]

Hairloss treatments are ALWAYS 5 years away.

Just because the hair loss industry has had a slow last decade doesn't mean we won't get a new treatment in the near future. I feel like the "just 5 years" phrase is becoming a meme on this foum.

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

Just because the hair loss industry has had a slow last decade doesn't mean we won't get a new treatment in the near future. I feel like the "just 5 years" phrase is becoming a meme on this foum.

It's not a very insightful one. It's just trafficking in lazy cynicism.

We actually have had progress in recent history. Hair transplants have improved, dutasteride is a lot more common, you can get RU58851 pretty easily, and there are a greater diversity of minoxidil formulations out there. Stemoxydine is a relatively new treatment for hair loss, works according to some people, I have not looked into it though.

In the next couple years, we might hear about polichem's topical finasteride, which is a legit effort as it's going through phase III trials. The italian company is trying that PGE1+equol formulation that could come out in 2017.

Within five or six years each of seti, bimatoprost, cb0301, sm04554 will be on the market if they pass their trials. That's where the "five years" comes from. Though note that we have had actual activity: we now know with good confidence that at least three of those compounds work, so it's worth getting into a group buy should they become available.

That's a decent level of activity. I doubt that the same could have been written in 2001.