THE MSYTERY OF FOLLICA!!!

[giggle]

Therefore, in order to keep milking their cash cows and put off the inevitable and eventual onset of the new technology for as long as possible (ie - 20 years down the road, until the patents expire) why would they NOT stop it from coming out? This would give them 20 more years of milking their cash cows + HUGE profits from the release of the new technology 20 years down the road. It is a "win-win" for doing it this way and a "win-lose" for releasing it right away.

The patent on minoxidil expired on February 11, 1996. source

Merck's patent on finasteride for the treatment of BPH expired on June 19, 2006.[23] Merck was awarded a separate patent for the use of finasteride to treat male pattern baldness. This patent is set to expire in November 2013. source

just my 2 pence, but i think the whole debate is moot considering the real patent expiration dates. Not to mention that big pharms essentially have control over the US area but can't do much about what happens in the rest in the world

 

[bigentries]

just my 2 pence, but i think the whole debate is moot considering the real patent expiration dates. Not to mention that big pharms essentially have control over the US area but can't do much about what happens in the rest in the world

That's an argument I always point out when people talk about non-existent AIDS conspiracies
Cuba and China suck at research and development, but if a cure was already discovered, you can bet it would be offered for free on the island.
All these "evil companies" get on their knees just to not offend the Chinese. Just watch how automakers in China just copy other successful Western cars and the companies barely fight back. They even need to reveal technological secrets to the Chinese government!

 

[giggle]

Just my 2 pence:
Your whole reply is "moot" because I was talking about the patents for the new HM technologies (invented by Follica, Histogen, Replicel, Aderans, etc...) being swallowed up by big pharm so they can sit on them for 20 years. I wasn't talking about Rogaine (minoxidil) or Propecia (Finasteride).

Besides, even when the patents expire(d) for those drugs, other companies can make the product, but the original company still can retain the majority of the market share and will likely continue to dominate in sales for MANY years (even decades) past the patent expiration date. They will still be cash cows for the original companies.

i think you're right : i don't understand your point. Correct me if i'm wrong, but from what i understand, you seem to think that big pharms will have a better advantage selling generic finasteride/minoxidil for 20 years before launching HM than launching HM as soon as they have it. Isn't that a bit ludicrous ? The benefit made selling generic drugs is simply ridiculous compared to the cash a company can make with a monopoly over an equally popular patented drug

You don't seem to realise that in today's world, the only thing that matters is short term benefit. I reckon i read before that you are studying accounting, and i'm a bit surprised that you seem unaware of this reality. In pretty much every big company, the only goal is to increase the company share value to satisfy shareholders

You may argue that the simple fact that the company owns the patent will increase its share value but you certainly know that it's not the case. The only thing most investors are looking at is the benefit the company made over the last month/semester/year. Everything else is simply irrelevant. Launching HM is the best bet for a big pharm owning the technology to increase its benefits. And since that's the only thing they really care about, they will do it no matter what. You are entitled to think otherwise but i think you should really think about it : short term benefits is what rules the world, we don't live in the 80's anymore

Another thing:
I bet when Propecia and Rogaine were first discovered, I bet they weren't originally discovered by big pharma. No - big pharma probably acquired the patents from some small startup company (much like Follica, Histogen, Replicel, etc...), and it may have been 20 years before those products came out on the market.

i don't know about minoxidil, but according to wiki, it doesn't seem so : Merck was on Finasteride from the very beginning (even if it wasn't for male pattern baldness at first)

edit: i didn't have read the whole thread before answering and i see that you already debated about short term vs long term benefits in page 2 of the thread; i definitely join bigentries' side on this issue. I don't mean to be rude but i think you are a bit deluded if you really think investors care about future profits. Nowadays, investors don't plan to keep their shares for 10 years like before: they will keep it 1 year of 2, and then bet on another horse.

Actually, i share your opinion that we might wait 20 years to have the cure but not for the same reasons : it will certainly not be because of big pharms strategies. Most probably because it seems really difficult to achieve, so this kind of thing will probably take (a lot of) time

 

[somone uk]

are you seriously stating big pharma are going to buy out Asia's largest wig manufacturer, USA's largest hair transplant clinic chain and 3 companies hostilely for what is small potatoes compared to their other drugs

that money could be more efficiently spent on a pancreatic cancer drug so they can rob steve jobs for the rest of his sorry life

only 2% of people with male pattern baldness actually treat it, that's about 10 million people in the western world (i wouldn't imagine people in Sub-Saharan Africa getting prescriptions)
propecia here is £500 a year so that is 5 billion sales
merk have drugs that make double that in profit

when the propecia patent expires there are things to take into account
1) there are already generics manufacturers making generic proscar, all they have to do is twiddle a knob from 5mg to 1
2) merk cannot charge as much much for propecia so they would have to reduce the price significantly to stay competitive
3) (a bit of psychology )people don't care about the brand of their prescription drugs and vendors will opt for the cheapest brand thus making the market more competitive we have idiots buy nurofen instead of generic ibuprofen because they are out in display, but with prescription meds it's hand over the prescription and hand over drugs, no brands, no gimmicks...just money, drugs

so the cash cow is running out of milk, they are much better off buying a cancer/heart disese drug and selling it for a grand a pill

there is no money in old news

 

[Vox]

... because, you know that number would increase exponentially IF there were treatments available that actually were able to completely restore a head of hair from an advanced state of male pattern baldness (or at least in the ballpark). The question is: how many more would opt to restore their hair?

This is very difficult to answer before seeing what would happen if a restoration solution was available.

Although I think that personally I would go immediately for it, now that I am thinking again about it I would certainly hesitate for a moment. Some physical traits that persist for years or decades, become unavoidably part of the personality, at least as it is perceived by the others. This alone tells me that some people, in contrast to what the discussions here let us believe, would not choose to restore their hair.

I remember what my dentist told me last year during a check-up. He had a patient with somewhat sparse teeth and who asked for possible solutions. The dentist explained to him that restoring normal density would alter the appearance of his face. The man was married and his wife loved him like he was from the beginning. When she heard all this she refused to let him do anything and they decided to leave it that way.

This is why I believe that hair restoration will appeal much only to the youngest population, let me say about 25-35 years old ones. In this age range I would not be surprised to see percentages near 100% among people who can afford it, but I expect this to fall rapidly with advancing age, especially among married men having a normal life and family obligations. This is just my feeling.

 

[bigentries]

I agree completely with you Vox

You can get a little deluded after reading UCman stories, but the fact is that the balding stigma decreases with age until it is an expected aging trait to rock the horseshoe look.
And yes, as much as some of us hate some physical trait, it gets ingrained into our personality after a while

I remember a co-worker who once shaved his characteristic unibrow just to get into the receiving end of jokes until it grew back.
I can see why a guy who his children have only known him as a bald dad would think twice about it

For me, as long as the procedure doesn't cost what I would spend in a house, and we don't hear propeciahelp-like stories, I'm all for it

 

[Oknow]

are you seriously stating big pharma are going to buy out Asia's largest wig manufacturer, USA's largest hair transplant clinic chain and 3 companies hostilely for what is small potatoes compared to their other drugs

that money could be more efficiently spent on a pancreatic cancer drug so they can rob steve jobs for the rest of his sorry life

only 2% of people with male pattern baldness actually treat it, that's about 10 million people in the western world (i wouldn't imagine people in Sub-Saharan Africa getting prescriptions)
propecia here is £500 a year so that is 5 billion sales
merk have drugs that make double that in profit

when the propecia patent expires there are things to take into account
1) there are already generics manufacturers making generic proscar, all they have to do is twiddle a knob from 5mg to 1
2) merk cannot charge as much much for propecia so they would have to reduce the price significantly to stay competitive
3) (a bit of psychology )people don't care about the brand of their prescription drugs and vendors will opt for the cheapest brand thus making the market more competitive we have idiots buy nurofen instead of generic ibuprofen because they are out in display, but with prescription meds it's hand over the prescription and hand over drugs, no brands, no gimmicks...just money, drugs

so the cash cow is running out of milk, they are much better off buying a cancer/heart disese drug and selling it for a grand a pill

there is no money in old news

Those are good points that nobody has brought up yet. But, you say that only 2% of the balding population does anything about it. However, that is quite misleading; because, you know that number would increase exponentially IF there were treatments available that actually were able to completely restore a head of hair from an advanced state of male pattern baldness (or at least in the ballpark). The question is: how many more would opt to restore their hair?

I am not on propecia or minoxidil, why?

Because they have a) sides b) not gaurenteed to work and c) if they do work, they are not good long term solutions.

I am 25, hitting NW2. And although I am greatful my hairloss is not aggressive, I would much rather there be a treatment available that gaurentees maintainence without my hair/health being at risk.

In terms of potential a viable short term solution which works, is a much more attractive cash cow then the current sh*t we have on the market. Where, currently A LOT of people are hesitant to try the existing treatments. Which in effect isolates their market base, due to guys like me being "on the fence" about it all.

If phams want to play it so conservatively, why don't they release treatments like propecia and minoxidil that actually work very well, but are only temporary. This will maximize their profits for both the long and short term.

Just doesn't add up.

I don't think there is a massive conspiracy, rather, there is nothing better developed right now. With your logic you could argue that pre-propecia, given the development of minoxidil, propecia should never have been released.

It's just a matter of time now...10 years max. Something new will come out.

P.S.

Not to mention that there is a large section of the balding population which cannot benefit from existing treatments....NW5+. Pharms are losing money.

 

[sammo]

Sorry Dudemon to have stared all this discussion and left off.

Thanks for bringing your accounting background to my argument. As much as I'd love to be hopeful that a new HM or treatment comes to market, it just seems there is too much money at stake for rogaine and all those companies which have the market by its balls. Even the hair transplant industry would be scared of a cure. I think the word 'conspiracy' that people have thrown around is a bit over the top, society has conditioned us to assume that things work in the best interests of the population, but it's the nature of capitalist society to want to retain consistent profits over time that drives society 'forward'.

For example...... In regards to 'short term profits' which people have mentioned to be contrary. People argued that short term profits of releasing a cure for baldness would be huge. I agree in theory, but chances are the type of procedure which is being offered is so simple to administrate that, suddenly the company who has the head start needs to open offices all around the world to make sure they hold the majority of customers. The thing about propecia and rogaine for example, is they can ship their half effective product all around the globe and they already have the most popular brand name out there. It is unventured to just release the new cure and I imagine they will only venture there if they have to or if someone else begins to release a new cure.

Just a rant off my head.

It happens in every other industry. Why would hair loss be different?

Don't you think if someone invented a car that ran purely on air, sun or water, that they would be the hottest property on the market? Ever wonder why it hasn't happened? Same thing.

I think it's good to question things like this.

 

[Oknow]

Sorry Dudemon to have stared all this discussion and left off.

Thanks for bringing your accounting background to my argument. As much as I'd love to be hopeful that a new HM or treatment comes to market, it just seems there is too much money at stake for rogaine and all those companies which have the market by its balls. Even the hair transplant industry would be scared of a cure. I think the word 'conspiracy' that people have thrown around is a bit over the top, society has conditioned us to assume that things work in the best interests of the population, but it's the nature of capitalist society to want to retain consistent profits over time that drives society 'forward'.

For example...... In regards to 'short term profits' which people have mentioned to be contrary. People argued that short term profits of releasing a cure for baldness would be huge. I agree in theory, but chances are the type of procedure which is being offered is so simple to administrate that, suddenly the company who has the head start needs to open offices all around the world to make sure they hold the majority of customers. The thing about propecia and rogaine for example, is they can ship their half effective product all around the globe and they already have the most popular brand name out there. It is unventured to just release the new cure and I imagine they will only venture there if they have to or if someone else begins to release a new cure.

Just a rant off my head.

It happens in every other industry. Why would hair loss be different?

Don't you think if someone invented a car that ran purely on air, sun or water, that they would be the hottest property on the market? Ever wonder why it hasn't happened? Same thing.

I think it's good to question things like this.

Then how do you explain:

Lazik
Permanent hair removal lazer
The computer making things such as the typewriter obsolete.

None of these should have been released going by your's and dudemons logic.

Aderans have pumped 150 mill into their research. Is that a joke of theirs. Then you have histogen. More then likely minoxidil and propecia will still be sold to those who cannot afford HM.

Lastly, the positives from curing hairloss means that workers will be much more efficient and happier. Productivity will improve which means a better economy. Why wouldnt they want to cure it?

 

[Oknow]

Sorry Dudemon to have stared all this discussion and left off.

Thanks for bringing your accounting background to my argument. As much as I'd love to be hopeful that a new HM or treatment comes to market, it just seems there is too much money at stake for rogaine and all those companies which have the market by its balls. Even the hair transplant industry would be scared of a cure. I think the word 'conspiracy' that people have thrown around is a bit over the top, society has conditioned us to assume that things work in the best interests of the population, but it's the nature of capitalist society to want to retain consistent profits over time that drives society 'forward'.

For example...... In regards to 'short term profits' which people have mentioned to be contrary. People argued that short term profits of releasing a cure for baldness would be huge. I agree in theory, but chances are the type of procedure which is being offered is so simple to administrate that, suddenly the company who has the head start needs to open offices all around the world to make sure they hold the majority of customers. The thing about propecia and rogaine for example, is they can ship their half effective product all around the globe and they already have the most popular brand name out there. It is unventured to just release the new cure and I imagine they will only venture there if they have to or if someone else begins to release a new cure.

Just a rant off my head.

It happens in every other industry. Why would hair loss be different?

Don't you think if someone invented a car that ran purely on air, sun or water, that they would be the hottest property on the market? Ever wonder why it hasn't happened? Same thing.

I think it's good to question things like this.

Then how do you explain:

Lazik
Permanent hair removal lazer
The computer making things such as the typewriter obsolete.

None of these should have been released going by your's and dudemons logic.

Aderans have pumped 150 mill into their research. Is that a joke of theirs. Then you have histogen. More then likely minoxidil and propecia will still be sold to those who cannot afford HM.

Lastly, the positives from curing hairloss means that workers will be much more efficient and happier. Productivity will improve which means a better economy. Why wouldnt they want to cure it?

I'm not saying that new technology can't or won't ever be released. I'm merely saying that it may take anywhere from a little to a LOT longer than 2014 (In the case of ARI) or any of the other possiblile "future release dates in the not-so-distant future." This delay will depend on a number oif factors; however, one of the biggest contingencies is how much Big Pharm and Big-Biotech wishes to control not only the release date(s) of this new technology, as well as the entire technology itself. They have the MASSIVE amounts of unlimited funds that can accomplish ANYTHING they wish to do...no matter what!

Bottom line: Money talks, and it doesn't always talk in our (the consumer's) best interest, at least not right away.

Even if the technology were available RIGHT NOW, can you imagine how much of a legal fight Big Pharm is going to put up, just to try to steal a piece of it, if not steal it entirely right out from under the small-time venture capital funded startups? How long is that going to delay it from being released into the market? years ? ... DECADES? ...???

And, BTW, the $150 million that ARI put out is "pocket change" to Big Pharm!

Yes, but you could say the same thing about propecia, it is competition for minoxidil, but yet still got released. So by your logic it should never have been released.

Besides let's take a look at the drug on the market - propecia.

Big Pharm - Merck is currently going through lawsuits over it due to sides. As a stand alone treatment it is known to be somewhat ineffective, MANY just can't handle it or in terms of continuous long term treatment, it's effects wear off after 5-10 years, maybe less for some.

So in terms of the ACTUAL market share, 'the big pharms' are potentially losing money due to shoddy exisiting treatments for male pattern baldness.

You then have minoxidil, again, something which provides an 'offset' of growth, but is no good in maintaining hair. And again, does not work for everyone.

The above factors is what puts people off using the "big pharm" products, many probably have chosen not to treat their baldness as a result and finally, I know a lot of people who personally are ignorant of these products. I know for a fact for example I would be using propecia right now, if it wasn't so shady.

You would have a more solid point if say the big pharms had a product out there on the market which was safe and effective in treating male pattern baldness, but this isn't the case. Propecia for example, is becoming a liability for Merck.

Well even if 150 mill is pocket change to the Big Pharm, the point is, it is still a hell of a lot of money. I don't think anyone will invest that much money into a 'high risk' product for the fun of it. When they could invest it elseware into something safer where they are gaurenteed some some sort of ROI.

 

[tonyj]

Although some investors were willing to put $150 million into it, it doesn't change the fact the the bigger fish will have no problems eating the little fish in the pond.

I thought is was strange that investors did not recognize this fact, or is it the fact they don't care about Big Pharma trying to leverage the playing field. I can't imagine why investors would throw in millions unless they see the goal in the long term, the risk of $150 Million is well worth the ROI.

 

[Oknow]

Although some investors were willing to put $150 million into it, it doesn't change the fact the the bigger fish will have no problems eating the little fish in the pond.

I thought is was strange that investors did not recognize this fact, or is it the fact they don't care about Big Pharma trying to leverage the playing field. I can't imagine why investors would throw in millions unless they see the goal in the long term, the risk of $150 Million is well worth the ROI.

That big "ROI" that all of you are talking about - you know, the one that the venture capital investors are most likely seeking for their $150 million investment, is going to come in the form of a payoff or buyout from 'Big Pharm/Big Biotech' once the process is developed to the point of being marketable. It will then be redistributed back to the hair transplant industry, but at the Big Pharm price, with Big Pharm/Big Biotech as the middle man getting a huge cut of the profits - if not most or all of them.

(On a side note: IMO - "$1,000 per injection" isn't going to happen. We can forget about that!)

That's my opinion anyways. :dunno:

Ridiculous, so cynical beyond belief. So I guess the pharms are going to do this with histogen, follica etc etc :shock:

Have you ever thought that MAYBE the reason why you were let down in the past was because companies such as intercytex were just sh*t?

 

[Oknow]

Ridiculous, so cynical beyond belief. So I guess the pharms are going to do this with histogen, follica etc etc :shock:

Have you ever thought that MAYBE the reason why you were let down in the past was because companies such as intercytex were just sh*t?

The way I see it we'll be lucky if even ONE of these companies produces ANYTHING in the next DECADE that is even a slight improvement over what is currently available.

Once one of them is successful, the others must either try to copy the process somehow (which may be difficult, if not impossible), or come out with their own that is better and/or cheaper. I really don't see either of these happening.

Therefore, when one of them finally breaks through with a real product, the others will most likely abandon and scrap theirs, sell off what they can to the successful company (even if they are owned by Big Pharm) and move on to something else once they realize they've been beaten.

Take a look at the Merck Board of the directors:

http://www.merck.com/about/leadership/b ... /home.html

Nearly all of them are bald as f***. They are clearly not on their wonderdrug "propecia" by the looks of it, and even if they are, it's doing f*** all. Their hairstyles are still sh*t. Not to mention if they have families of their own, and their sons are balding prematurely of whom are very depressed by that sh*t like every other hairloss sufferer out there. Don't you think these guys wish that they can help their child in a safe way without getting them to f*** around with their hormones.

Are you honestly going to tell me, that if there was a viable hair loss solution out there to give them a full head of hair, they wouldn't want to treat their hairloss; given the money these guys earn. f*** the Italian prime minister Bellusconi resorted to having two sh*t hair transplants to conceal his hairloss. So even the rich and powerful care.

Hairloss affects nearly every male, rich/poor/handsome/ugly whatever and I am sure even these big shot guys who work at big pharms self esteem with regards to their actual appearance gets affected by the onset of aggressive hairloss. Unless of course they are all secretly NW1s wearing bald/balding caps who are conspiring against baldies around the world.

RE: ICX
Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I understand, their work was basically an extension of some of the original Dr Gho experiments from a decade or so before them. So, they had something to build on to start with, and yet they were still unsucessful. :dunno:

That is very discouraging.

And what's your point? Maybe the protocol ICX used was just wrong; Histogen and Aderans have upped the benchmark since with their results. Heck Histogen in pre-clinical/phase 1 were getting better results then ICX. And this is what you should be focusing on. Not, "oh sh*t, ICX failed, they are all doomed", it's like saying "F*ck, I just got dumped by a girl, I will never ever take a chance with another girl again in case I get disappointed"

From what I remember ICX failed not because they couldn't multiply hair, but because the quality was so sh*t, that it wasn't even worth continuing.

 

[Ori83]

Would you please sum that post for us non-bio geeks in a sentence or two? i started reading but could not understand what exactly this post is all about... :dunno:

 

[wendal]

I second that. Please sum all that up in simple terms.

 

[ukmale24]

I 3rd that lol

 

[dimitar_berbagod]

Yeah I started reading but got bored a few lines in...

 

[TravisB]

Wow, I did not know that damaging our skin can actually make new follicles :mrgreen:. Good news, however possibility of tumor creation is dangerous. So, they actually have built this laser, and it's working?

Anyway. I know this is not just a few sentences like you wanted but it is pretty signifigant in my view and while it may take another 5 years for it to come to fruition....it looks to me that 5yrs. really does mean 5 yrs. this time! :ninja:

Ooooh yeah, let's hope it does. Since they don't need to go through FDA trials, it should take much less time to introduce it to the public. The question is, will it be able to make significant cosmetic difference to a completely bald scalp, and will the possible new hair will be DHT resistant.

 

[Loomis]

Follica have already completed Phase 2 of their trials in Europe for the method using Lithium, Just enter Follica into the search and click on DE for further information

https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/

Phase 3 can take between 1-3 years, so far they've completed their trials quite fast so hopefully that will be the same if they are going to be doing a phase 3, I'm not sure but I think they would have to issue a new drug application after phase 3 which takes between 6-10 months to be passed, so if everything goes well we might not be far from having Follica on the market, best case scenario would be phase 3 taking a year and the application going through in 6 months, but I doubt we'll be that fortunate. If this treatment is giving results then it should be available a lot sooner than 5 years anyway.

 

[TravisB]

Hmm I guess this is good news? If it's true that they completed phase II, then it's likely that it works and will reach the market. The question is how good it works? Where are the results of the trial?