is this legit?
- Thread starter nate2004
- Start date
ANDREW_J_I
Experienced Member
- Reaction score
- 0
what u need to realise is, if theres ever some amazing new cure before hair cloning, it will be on the news, all over the web, EVERYWHERE. it will help millions of men.
the demand wud be ridiculous. this site is another load of crap it looks like.
the demand wud be ridiculous. this site is another load of crap it looks like.
the_swami
Established Member
- Reaction score
- 0
It's not NEARLY that simple!
First, both procyanidin B-2 and Proanthocyanidin (and flavonoids as well) ARE NOT PATENTABLE! They occur naturally in nature and hence CAN NOT BE PATENTED.
Second, because of this companies need to invent synthetic molecules that can be patented. Often this means altering some molecule found in nature until an "altered" but useable form is found (regardless of whether it is actually better than the original molecule for the desired purpose). This also often happens when a drug's patent is running out, the company will often look for some way to re-patent a similar molecule by changing it in some fashion (example: celexa and lexapro).
Why is this patentablity thing a problem? Simple economics:
"The U.S. and Canadian systems of new drug approvals are perhaps the most rigorous in the world. On average, it costs a company $359 million to get one new medicine from the laboratory to the pharmacist's shelf, according to a February 1993 report by the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment. It takes 12 years on average for an experimental drug to travel from lab to medicine chest. Only five in 5,000 compounds that enter preclinical testing make it to human testing. One of these five tested in people is approved."
If it costs that much money to bring something to market WHY EVEN BOTHER IF YOU CAN'T PATENT IT? If you're crazy enough to do it, other companies will just wait for you to spend all your money on FDA approval and then sell the same thing as you without having spent ~$350 million ( plus millions more on ads). In short, it's just financial suicide to do something like that.
Fucked up and sad? Yes, but it's the American way.
So what about not getting FDA approval and just keeping a low profile like all these online sites? Many of those studies that they based their claims on may be true, but making marketing claims without FDA's approval is dangerous and requires putting disclaimers everywhere. Plus, no one will take you seriously because there is so much bogus crap out there.
Next time your in a health food store, look at the bottles of pills and see how many times you can find the statement "This statement has not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease."
First, both procyanidin B-2 and Proanthocyanidin (and flavonoids as well) ARE NOT PATENTABLE! They occur naturally in nature and hence CAN NOT BE PATENTED.
Second, because of this companies need to invent synthetic molecules that can be patented. Often this means altering some molecule found in nature until an "altered" but useable form is found (regardless of whether it is actually better than the original molecule for the desired purpose). This also often happens when a drug's patent is running out, the company will often look for some way to re-patent a similar molecule by changing it in some fashion (example: celexa and lexapro).
Why is this patentablity thing a problem? Simple economics:
"The U.S. and Canadian systems of new drug approvals are perhaps the most rigorous in the world. On average, it costs a company $359 million to get one new medicine from the laboratory to the pharmacist's shelf, according to a February 1993 report by the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment. It takes 12 years on average for an experimental drug to travel from lab to medicine chest. Only five in 5,000 compounds that enter preclinical testing make it to human testing. One of these five tested in people is approved."
If it costs that much money to bring something to market WHY EVEN BOTHER IF YOU CAN'T PATENT IT? If you're crazy enough to do it, other companies will just wait for you to spend all your money on FDA approval and then sell the same thing as you without having spent ~$350 million ( plus millions more on ads). In short, it's just financial suicide to do something like that.
Fucked up and sad? Yes, but it's the American way.
So what about not getting FDA approval and just keeping a low profile like all these online sites? Many of those studies that they based their claims on may be true, but making marketing claims without FDA's approval is dangerous and requires putting disclaimers everywhere. Plus, no one will take you seriously because there is so much bogus crap out there.
Next time your in a health food store, look at the bottles of pills and see how many times you can find the statement "This statement has not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease."
westcovinajoe
Established Member
- Reaction score
- 0
Oh yeah?
Well there is no patent on Caffeine but muther phuckers sure be selling ***-loads of the stuff right?
If it works
it will sell.
That is the bottom line, and the American way too.
Joe
Well there is no patent on Caffeine but muther phuckers sure be selling ***-loads of the stuff right?
If it works
it will sell.
That is the bottom line, and the American way too.
Joe
the_swami
Established Member
- Reaction score
- 0
IMO, coffee sells itself. :lol:
Trouble with "things that may work" is that someone has to test it out rigorously to prove that they work and that costs money (if not VC then maybe a grant). I'm sure that some of those polyphenols / flavinoids and all that actually do work, but it's really hard to get from a few isolated studies to the shelves at Walgreens (or whatever). I mean, just the matter of stability (shelf-life) and delivery mechanisms, etc, could take years to get right. Add to that the fact that there are big companies that DON'T WANT THAT (it would hurt their bottom line) and things get even more complicated.
Trouble with "things that may work" is that someone has to test it out rigorously to prove that they work and that costs money (if not VC then maybe a grant). I'm sure that some of those polyphenols / flavinoids and all that actually do work, but it's really hard to get from a few isolated studies to the shelves at Walgreens (or whatever). I mean, just the matter of stability (shelf-life) and delivery mechanisms, etc, could take years to get right. Add to that the fact that there are big companies that DON'T WANT THAT (it would hurt their bottom line) and things get even more complicated.
westcovinajoe
Established Member
- Reaction score
- 0
Who tested marijuana?
Does it "work?"
Yes.
Does it sell?
Yes.
People buy sports drinks, energy pills, chocolate, and aspirin all with Caffeine. Why?
Because it works at waking them up.
If you or anyone else has a product that works at stopping baldness or doing anything else, IT WILL SELL.
Just the laws of nature.
Joe.
Does it "work?"
Yes.
Does it sell?
Yes.
People buy sports drinks, energy pills, chocolate, and aspirin all with Caffeine. Why?
Because it works at waking them up.
If you or anyone else has a product that works at stopping baldness or doing anything else, IT WILL SELL.
Just the laws of nature.
Joe.
the_swami
Established Member
- Reaction score
- 0
westcovinajoe said:
Maybe so, but there is a notable difference. Caffeine and THC work quickly and require very little effort to use, and one is addicting and the other illegal (sadly).
It takes months to see a change in hair loss (at least).
That complicates things a bit, and rules out a bunch of people. Most people have no patience. Also there is so much snake oil in this industry that even if it does work, people may not even believe you until you have put massive efforts into marketing.
westcovinajoe
Established Member
- Reaction score
- 0
the_swami said:
People being impatient is the biggest issue I feel.
There are thousands of posts here saying, "Hey, how come my hair isn't back, it's been 3 weeks."
Perhaps someone should invent pills for intelligence and patience and then people can see that there are reliable yet flawed solutions available now.
Just look at weight loss. We know how to lose weight; eat smart and exercise. That keeps precious few people from clamoring for a quick fix pill though.
But if someone does create a quick fix for baldness or fat, and it does more good than harm, rest assured it will sell like weed and caffeine.
Nice taking with you,
Joe