The Concept Behind Follica Has Been Known Since The 1950s, Why The Heck Is A Product Taking So Long

[The Baldy Man]

Rule of thumb for realistic hair advancement expectations, take however many years the company in question is claiming they will have it ready, and multiply it by 5 and that is how long it will be before it is actually out. The hair stimulating potential of minoxidil was known since 1972 but wasn't on the market until 1988.

 

[That Guy]

Several reasons, none of them good.

• Baldness research is seen as a waste of time and resources; the "just shave it, bros" only compound this problem.

• Most men don't care (and many still don't) before the age of the selfie.

• The FDA and other archaic administrations

• People bitching about "ethics" where the words "stem" and "cell" appear together in the same sentence.

 

[NewUser]

Baldness research has always been a good idea and for more reasons than curing baldness.
http://articles.latimes.com/2006/apr/17/health/he-haircancer17

 

[mdmnota]

It's because they are retarded and in a year we'll cross them off from potential list of treatments. Just like histogen went from promising cure, to complete sh*t in two days

 

[hanginginthewire]

Several reasons, none of them good.

• Baldness research is seen as a waste of time and resources; the "just shave it, bros" only compound this problem.

• Most men don't care (and many still don't) before the age of the selfie.

• The FDA and other archaic administrations

• People bitching about "ethics" where the words "stem" and "cell" appear together in the same sentence.

Your second bullet point only carries so much weight, though I see it tossed around on this site frequently to explain things. Men have been distressed by their balding for a thousand years, and the impetus to cure balding is not new, not at all.

 

[vernon]

or it simply doesnt work (I dont count getting 3 weak temporary hairs here and there as working)

its sad that we are talking about needling your head and hoping to trick your body to produce hair in 2017. with science supposedly advancing at lightspeed

 

[H]

Your second bullet point only carries so much weight, though I see it tossed around on this site frequently to explain things. Men have been distressed by their balding for a thousand years, and the impetus to cure balding is not new, not at all.

The social stigma around baldness has been the same for men all of these generations however and only now are we starting to be able to be openly concerned with our appearance before it was considered feminine still is to an extent. Nowadays men are more encouraged to express their feelings and drop the stoicism and woman are more encouraged to be independent and not like the damsel in distress which is a good thing.

 

[Trichosan]

The social stigma around baldness has been the same for men all of these generations however and only now are we starting to be able to be openly concerned with our appearance before it was considered feminine still is to an extent. Nowadays men are more encouraged to express their feelings and drop the stoicism and woman are more encouraged to be independent and not like the damsel in distress which is a good thing.

Yes! Baldness is finally coming out of the closet. Perhaps we should see if activism and social demonstrations will accelerate a solution. First we need a suitable acronym. POBG (Pissed Off Bald Guys)?

 

[norwood-1]

Guys we have it way worse than you. I live in a third world country where caring about your appearance is depicted as gay. I remember a guy who posted some sh*t on fb to get advise to get rid of dandruff and who got litteraly roasted by 90% of the people in the comments section.

 

[H]

Yes! Baldness is finally coming out of the closet. Perhaps we should see if activism and social demonstrations will accelerate a solution. First we need a suitable acronym. POBG (Pissed Off Bald Guys)?

Works for me.

 

[ALightInTheDark]

or it simply doesnt work (I dont count getting 3 weak temporary hairs here and there as working)

its sad that we are talking about needling your head and hoping to trick your body to produce hair in 2017. with science supposedly advancing at lightspeed

Doubting about dermarolling-wound efficiency is just pure stupidity.Scientists now proves it everyday.

 

[vernon]

Doubting about dermarolling-wound efficiency is just pure stupidity.Scientists now proves it everyday.

yeah but to which extent is it efficient? I m just saying that the method itself is pretty barbarically basic when you listen to how rapidly medicine and technology are advancing.

and why does it take so long to actually market it then? trying to optimize the aspects of it?

you could then say you can cure alzheimer, but just need to get some details sorted out before letting it out in x amount of years

 

[That Guy]

Your second bullet point only carries so much weight, though I see it tossed around on this site frequently to explain things. Men have been distressed by their balding for a thousand years, and the impetus to cure balding is not new, not at all.

The technology to actual be able to develop any sort of functional cure for baldness did not exist prior to the mid-20th century.

No amount of "impetus" before then was going to make any difference, and I think people knew it. This is exactly why snake oil salesmen have become such a stereotype regarding hairloss both now and hundreds of years ago.

As such, most people took the stance of "it's one of those things!" or "it happens!" as I've literally been told, as a way to rationalize something undesirable, but out of our hands, as if it isn't a bad thing at all; we do this with death, too.

There is also the whole "I don't need hair because I'm a man" and "confidence, bruh".

Now, more men are getting cosmetic surgery than ever before, tinder has (for the worse) become the staple of the dating world, and social media means that it's now you vs literally everyone else.

We're now at a point where various types of organ regeneration is an emergent technology, hair included — more men are learning the hard way that in 2017 and beyond, how you look and whether or not you have hair on your head, does have real social and professional consequences.

 

[hanginginthewire]

I guess. I don't really think so though. Human beings have always been shallow. There is nothing new under the sun. I think because this board is populated with younger people, you guys ascribe too much to social media, which is probably all you've ever known as adults Fact is human nature can be sh*t and 'twas always so. Beauty as an eternal human value back to the time of the Egyptians.

I agree science is progressing though, hopefully an answer will be found there. I don't agree that snapchat and Instagram make sciences efforts any more urgent though.

 

[ALightInTheDark]

yeah but to which extent is it efficient? I m just saying that the method itself is pretty barbarically basic when you listen to how rapidly medicine and technology are advancing.

and why does it take so long to actually market it then? trying to optimize the aspects of it?

you could then say you can cure alzheimer, but just need to get some details sorted out before letting it out in x amount of years

There is multiple settings to dermaneedling like skin depth,how often do you need it,with what components etc..
Discoveries are made everyday so maybe in 1950's it wasn't the same.

And with Folica we are just 2 to 3 years away max.
Why does it takes so much time ? Bcoz of FDA approbation. A medical device or new drug needs between 10 to 20 years to make it to the market (to the pre phase until phase IV)

 

[Trichosan]

And about $1,000,000 per filing on each trial, start to completion. We may have brilliant scientists in the USA but the red tape really interferes with motivation and direction when it comes to hair research. This type of research needs to be focused and intensified in a country like Japan where it will get done.

 

[vernon]

There is multiple settings to dermaneedling like skin depth,how often do you need it,with what components etc..
Discoveries are made everyday so maybe in 1950's it wasn't the same.

And with Folica we are just 2 to 3 years away max.
Why does it takes so much time ? Bcoz of FDA approbation. A medical device or new drug needs between 10 to 20 years to make it to the market (to the pre phase until phase IV)

sounds like 6 months of work, not 15 yrs and pending. since the basic concept is there for 50 yrs, I really dont see a problem

 

[Distressed]

Because a lot of it is believed to be a waste of time or something "silly" to worry about since it's been like that since the beginning of man (which is understandable in your mid-30s-50s, not your damn late teens-early 30s). We didn't get even hair loss treatments until about 30 years ago, and we assumed for 10+ years that they were doing the job on their own without realizing that it can lose efficiency over time and it becomes a hassle at a certain point, not to mention that there weren't even that many companies even involved in looking into hair loss until the late 2000s and 2010s.

Plus hair loss has had a stigma, but it didn't get severe until the social media age rolled in and now, nearly every young guy is worried about hair loss these days. Hell, even if you had hair and was only decent looking, it's tough getting with girls still if you don't stand out somehow.

The whole "just shave it" is said by either dudes who never experienced hair loss or if they do, won't happen for many years or have other things to make up for it.

The reason that we go all out to be test rats and spend thousands on research projects, use treatments that would be considered outdated in today's incredibly speed-increasing science/medicine advancements, and cry and lose our minds psychologically is because while other science and medicines are reaching futuristic science fiction levels of research and technology, we're still stuck in the late 90s-early 2000s with what we have for hair loss treatments.

 

[NewUser]

I've even changed my mind about big pharma being dogs in the Manger with respect to the dearth of blockbuster drugs over the last 25 years. I now firmly believe it is the banks and finance at the root cause of a lack of money in general. Hair loss is by far not the only area of research in addition to key areas of our economies in general that have been short changed and under-funded.

 

[cocona]

Rule of thumb for realistic hair advancement expectations, take however many years the company in question is claiming they will have it ready, and multiply it by 5 and that is how long it will be before it is actually out. The hair stimulating potential of minoxidil was known since 1972 but wasn't on the market until 1988.

The concept behind calculus was known for 2000 years. Why did it take so long?