How long have they been saying "only 5 years away"?

[EvilLocks]

It seems to me (and everyone else here) that the cure for baldness is always 5 years away. Why do they (researchers) say that the cure is 5 years away, but when those 5 years pass we are no closer to a cure? Now I'm reading that hair multiplication will most likely be available in 10-20 years (I.FREAKING.KNOW:doh, but what if those decades pass and they are still no closer to curing this beast? Something crossed my mind, what if the cure will ALWAYS be 5 years away? Since Finasteride became approved for hair loss there's been little to no progress, and how long ago was that? 20 years? It absolutely amazes me how hard it seems to cure such a "simple" thing as hair loss. Is it because hair loss is awfully complicated and poorly understood, or that there is not enough money put into research? What if this is one big conspiracy to keep us buying hair loss products until we overdose on finasteride, in a bath tub of minoxidil? What if the cure has already been discovered but they are keeping it from us to keep us buying ****ty products that might not work, or might not work enough? I'm going crazy thinking about it... :shakehead:

 

[2bald2young]

The truth is we will never know when the cure is going to come. Maybe they will find it accidentally. Also most hair loss research aren't telling anything about what they find in order to keep others in the dark. But looking at the current circumstances we need to be realistic here, the cure is still far away.

Don't buy this 5 years away thing. I think since 1988 they were saying that it is 5 years away.

 

[EvilLocks]

The truth is we will never know when the cure is going to come. Maybe they will find it accidentally. Also most hair loss research aren't telling anything about what they find in order to keep others in the dark. But looking at the current circumstances we need to be realistic here, the cure is still far away.

Don't buy this 5 years away thing. I think since 1988 they were saying that it is 5 years away.

IF they find it, I actually think it will be accidentally.

 

[CaptainForehead]

It seems to me (and everyone else here) that the cure for baldness is always 5 years away.

Um no, I dont think that is the common belief here.

And if you watch Star Trek, they have baldies. The implication being that baldness will not be cured for centuries to come. :smoke:

 

[kirk]

I really don't care how long they've been touting a cure. It is simply unacceptable that they haven't cured it yet!

Sometimes I'll walk by the Science department at my college and just think to myself - "USELESS!"

 

[bald29]

My theory is that finding the cure is not that complicated, but the pharma companies have no motivation to do it since they are earning billions with finasteride and minoxidil.

I'm 100% convinced that if we all stopped buying finasteride and minoxidil, the cure would appear in less than a year. I could bet my life (or my hair, same thing) on this.

 

[maher]

My theory is that finding the cure is not that complicated, but the pharma companies have no motivation to do it since they are earning billions with finasteride and minoxidil.

I'm 100% convinced that if we all stopped buying finasteride and minoxidil, the cure would appear in less than a year. I could bet my life (or my hair, same thing) on this.

Thats right- boycotting all the pharmaceutical and cosmetic products related to hairloss would be the best motivator.. but we all know that will never happen.

 

[EvilLocks]

My theory is that finding the cure is not that complicated, but the pharma companies have no motivation to do it since they are earning billions with finasteride and minoxidil.

I'm 100% convinced that if we all stopped buying finasteride and minoxidil, the cure would appear in less than a year. I could bet my life (or my hair, same thing) on this.

That is actually a pretty good idea. Too bad we can't get every finasteride/min-user to stop using... I don't even know if I would, out of fear that my hair would get even worse (only minoxidil for me).

 

[bald29]

That is actually a pretty good idea. Too bad we can't get every finasteride/min-user to stop using... I don't even know if I would, out of fear that my hair would get even worse (only minoxidil for me).

Exactly... so why would they bother finishing their research? That would be literally looking for a way to stop earning $100/month from millions of people. Doesn't make much sense from a financial point of view.

 

[EvilLocks]

Exactly... so why would they bother finishing their research? That would be literally looking for a way to stop earning $100/month from millions of people. Doesn't make much sense from a financial point of view.

Hmmm... Sounds like an evil circle... If we could only find a way to make our own minoxidil like they did with RU. Still it's impossible to reach every hair loss sufferer using finasteride and min, they are not all on this site either /: But yeah in this world it's all about profit, and sadly someone always has to pay the price for others to get richer.

 

[2bald2young]

They don't use this tactic only on us desperate balding people but also on people with deadly disease. It is all about making big profits for companies and there is no money to be made in cheap permanent cures. Humanity is fvcked up.

 

[Muzzle]

They don't use this tactic only on us desperate balding people but also on people with deadly disease. It is all about making big profits for companies and there is no money to be made in cheap permanent cures. Humanity is fvcked up.

Capitalism

 

[EvilLocks]

They don't use this tactic only on us desperate balding people but also on people with deadly disease. It is all about making big profits for companies and there is no money to be made in cheap permanent cures. Humanity is fvcked up.

Yeah and in the meantime they tell us "just hang in there 5 more years until the cure", so we keep using the treatments available to save our hair until then, although "then" never comes...

 

[benjt]

Who is "they" that you are speaking about in this thread? You are aware that there is not one consistent "they"?

Yes, that "they" do not want to provide better treatment would be true for Upjohn (Rogaine/Regaine) or Merck (Propecia). But obviously, there are dozens of other parties that would profit heavily from providing a better treatment than finasteride or minoxidil based stuff. The cake for hair loss treament revenues is large, and obviously companies would like their share - if they a way had to. But they don't. There is no conspiracy to deny us treatment, except for the companies that produce propecia and regaine/rogaine there is simply no incentive.

Also, you guys do realize that the "cure is 5 years away" statements are not made by independent researchers, but by media who want to generate clicks? Read the articles claiming "cure might be 5 years away": none of the last ones when the AA cure was published contained a statement by researchers working on treatments for Androgenetic Alopecia claiming that Androgenetic Alopecia will be cured in 5 years. In each of these articles, it was interpretation by the "journalist".

 

[bald29]

Who is "they" that you are speaking about in this thread? You are aware that there is not one consistent "they"?

Yes, that "they" do not want to provide better treatment would be true for Johnson & Johnsin (Rogaine/Regaine) or Merck (Propecia). But obviously, there are dozens of other parties that would profit heavily from providing a better treatment than finasteride or minoxidil based stuff. The cake for hair loss treament revenues is large, and obviously companies would like their share - if they a way had to. But they don't. There is no conspiracy to deny us treatment, except for the companies that produce propecia and regaine/rogaine there is simply no incentive.

Also, you guys do realize that the "cure is 5 years away" statements are not made by independent researchers, but by media who want to generate clicks? Read the articles claiming "cure might be 5 years away": none of the last ones when the AA cure was published contained a statement by researchers working on treatments for Androgenetic Alopecia claiming that Androgenetic Alopecia will be cured in 5 years. In each of these articles, it was interpretation by the "journalist".

The point is that there really is no motivation to cure this. Independent research is always slow, maybe even close to hopeless, since even if they found something they would need decades to get it approved.

This disease also has no social respect, or sympathy, and the real value of having hair comes from the existence of bald people. I don't see a bright future, and my only hope now is good response to the standard medication, and if not, a really good hair system. Doesn't look like things will change anytime soon.

 

[benjt]

The point is that there really is no motivation to cure this.

I'd say that a 100 million USD market per year is a pretty good incentive. Whoever can provide something better than existing treatments or, even better, something that provides incremental regrowth, will take most of this market for themselves.

Independent research is always slow, maybe even close to hopeless, since even if they found something they would need decades to get it approved.

Usually between 5 and 10 years.

 

[bald29]

I'd say that a 100 million USD market per year is a pretty good incentive. Whoever can provide something better than existing treatments or, even better, something that provides incremental regrowth, will take most of this market for themselves.


Usually between 5 and 10 years.

I would love to hear where you got that number from (100 million USD per year). If the cure comes from a simple vaccine or anything permanent, that market will not exist, people would pay $30 at the first signs of balding and problem solved.

I'd also love to hear about cases when finding a cure was a good business strategy. Do you think that finding the cure for AIDS or diabetes would be a good thing for pharmaceutical companies?

 

[benjt]

I would love to hear where you got that number from (100 million USD per year). If the cure comes from a simple vaccine or anything permanent, that market will not exist, people would pay $30 at the first signs of balding and problem solved.

The number was once posted in these forums, but apparently wrong. Quick Googling turned out there is a market in excess of 1 bln USD per year. And who says that a cure will be cheap? Take RepliCel, and lets just hypothetically assume their treatment is the cure: The repeated injections need to be cultured in small bioreactors which is extremely costly. Curing someone would bring them thousands of USD per patient. I'd say that would be pretty profitable.

I'd also love to hear about cases when finding a cure was a good business strategy. Do you think that finding the cure for AIDS or diabetes would be a good thing for pharmaceutical companies?

Not for the ones that currently provide remedial treatment, but for a new player with no current treatment on the market? Yes, most definitely. He'd be in for unimaginable riches.

 

[bald29]

The number was once posted in these forums, but apparently wrong. Quick Googling turned out there is a market in excess of 1 bln USD per year. And who says that a cure will be cheap? Take RepliCel, and lets just hypothetically assume their treatment is the cure: The repeated injections need to be cultured in small bioreactors which is extremely costly. Curing someone would bring them thousands of USD per patient. I'd say that would be pretty profitable.


Not for the ones that currently provide remedial treatment, but for a new player with no current treatment on the market? Yes, most definitely. He'd be in for unimaginable riches.

Again, I'm going to ask you where you got the 1bln USD per year number... If you are going to put numbers, expand on them, and provide reliable sources.

Also, you are assuming only one path: expensive drug, which can be patented, and which needs to be used constantly. That, could be found, but proves that no one is trying to find 'the cure'; those who are in the business are just trying to find a more effective and profitable treatment. What if their trials proved that some cheap drug is indeed an effective treatment or cure? Do you think that would be publicly known?

 

[benjt]

You could have googled yourself, but here goes:
Hair loss treatment, US alone: 569 million USD, source http://www.ibisworld.com/industry/default.aspx?indid=1720 , secondary source http://www.prweb.com/releases/2014/01/prweb11461480.htm . You can imagine yourself what this means for a global market, with the EU alone being a market of equal size to the US, PLUS all the other countries.
Global market for hair restoration: 1.8 bln USD, source http://www.bernsteinmedical.com/hair-transplant/more-info/hair-transplant-statistics/

And no, I am not assuming only one path. I gave one example. You were the one who assumed the "30$ one time treatment and done" path. There are many ways to make a cure into a profit. Economics 101: You can demand as much money for something as somebody else is willing to pay. If the cure was really simple and cheap to perform, but they would charge me 30k USD for it, I'd buy it instantly.

but proves that no one is trying to find 'the cure'

a) is this by no means a proof, and b) does this not touch on any party which does not have a share in the hair loss treatment cake. Currently, this cake is almost exclusively owned by Merck and Upjohn, so explain to me: Why would Bayer, Pfizer, and so on not want a share of that?