Home | News | Find a Doctor | Ask a Question | Free

Agian Cotsarelis...Within "five years"!


#1

In May 2007 cotsarelis said “2/3 years”, now “within 5 years”…He thinks only of himself … Our hopes are closes: we live our lives by bald!

http://www.citypaper.net/articles/2009/01/22/george-cotsaleris-hair-follicle-research


#2

» In May 2007 cotsarelis said “2/3 years”,

that’s the real problem, you really believed that, against all logic, just because he has been reported to say that. Think for yourself !


#3

» In May 2007 cotsarelis said “2/3 years”, now “within 5 years”…He thinks
» only of himself … Our hopes are closes: we live our lives by bald!
»
» http://www.citypaper.net/articles/2009/01/22/george-cotsaleris-hair-follicle-research

I wonder why the second patent wasn’t pressing the wnt factor. Am I missing something here? I thought it was all about EGF-R inhibition during the embryonic window.

What previous researchers didn’t find (Penn scientist Albert M. Kligman studied in this field in the 1950s), and what Cotsarelis pursued in the 2000s, was Wnt — a gene trigger, an important protein in hair development in utero that coaxes stem cells into growing hair. Block Wnts during development and you don’t grow follicles. Increase it, and hair grows wild.

“If you get extra Wnts during that development you get extra follicles — wounding pushes skin into an embryonic state,” explains Cotsarelis. “‘Should I make a hair follicle or should I make myself into an epidermis?’ is what cells say during wound healing. Our goal is to bring skin to that embryonic state. If they get Wnt, they’ll make hair follicles.”


#4

» In May 2007 cotsarelis said “2/3 years”, now “within 5 years”…He thinks
» only of himself … Our hopes are closes: we live our lives by bald!
»
» http://www.citypaper.net/articles/2009/01/22/george-cotsaleris-hair-follicle-research

This article is aggravating, and its timeline goes against everything else we heard from Follica (however minor).
I wonder if they’re experiencing hiccups in their research? It would be nice to get an official press release from Follica, but I won’t hold my breathe.


#5

I dont think 5 years is a bad estimate, despite its notorious reputation. working proof of concept would be a good thing to see though.

Id like to know if Mike or Baccy are seeing anything positive.

(any updates, u guys ??)

» In May 2007 cotsarelis said “2/3 years”, now “within 5 years”…He thinks
» only of himself … Our hopes are closes: we live our lives by bald!
»
» http://www.citypaper.net/articles/2009/01/22/george-cotsaleris-hair-follicle-research


#6

if you guys want to cling to every lame brained HM theory, do not complain when ,oh gee…the claims of 5 yrs are bogus


#7

» if you guys want to cling to every lame brained HM theory, do not complain
» when ,oh gee…the claims of 5 yrs are bogus

Shocker…5 years. But those of us who say that these overly optimistic timelines are ridiculous are called trolls. You still haven’t learned that these people say “one to two years away” so they can attract VC money. For every year they claim, multiply by 5. That’s FDA reality - 10 years from synthesis to commercialization on average and under ideal conditions.

Why are you all upset with Costeralis? He’s the most qualified, credentialed researcher attacking this problem and still seems to have a pretty viable product - at least the most viable product so far. Its better than some veterinary cream or Japanese wig maker’s solution. What’s another 5 years? If you still have some hair, get on fin, niz, and rogaine, keep what you’ve got and wait. That’s what I’ve been doing for years and its worked out just fine.

On another note, is Rev insane or what? He’s so obsessed with me, he’s put me in his sig. Talk about creepy.


#8

Quote - » Shocker…5 years. But those of us who say that these overly optimistic timelines are ridiculous are called trolls. You still haven’t learned that these people say “one to two years away” so they can attract VC money

VCs dont fund so easily. theres a huge process of due diligence which confirms possible timelines for doing the math for return on investment, etc.

If you think Dr Cot said ‘2 years’ sometime ago to get some easy publicity and a few interviews on TV, Id buy your point.

» » if you guys want to cling to every lame brained HM theory, do not
» complain
» » when ,oh gee…the claims of 5 yrs are bogus
»
.» Shocker…5 years. But those of us who say that these overly optimistic
» timelines are ridiculous are called trolls. You still haven’t learned that
» these people say “one to two years away” so they can attract VC money For
» every year they claim, multiply by 5. That’s FDA reality - 10 years from
» synthesis to commercialization on average and under ideal conditions.
»
» Why are you all upset with Costeralis? He’s the most qualified,
» credentialed researcher attacking this problem and still seems to have a
» pretty viable product - at least the most viable product so far. Its
» better than some veterinary cream or Japanese wig maker’s solution. What’s
» another 5 years? If you still have some hair, get on fin, niz, and
» rogaine, keep what you’ve got and wait. That’s what I’ve been doing for
» years and its worked out just fine.
»
» On another note, is Rev insane or what? He’s so obsessed with me, he’s
» put me in his sig. Talk about creepy.


#9

I think the key quotes here are,

Without pinning himself to a timeline, the good doctor’s estimate for Follica’s treatment looks very possible for launch within the next five years. “It’s impossible to know for sure, but within the next several years — two to three — there’ll be a trial where we’ll use a procedure with the compound to see if it works in humans,” says Cotsarelis. “There will be the usual regulatory stuff after that, so perhaps in four to five years we’ll have something we can offer people.”


#10

cotsarelis you does not pass of a son of the B… LIAR… LIAR…LIAAAAR.


#11

All these 5 year companies are gonna feel stupid when some idiot figures out topical zix with pyridoxamine and not p5p is the cure.


#12

» » Id like to know if Mike or Baccy are seeing anything positive.
»
» (any updates, u guys ??)
»
Personally, I already have proof of concept. The question is whether I can get a cosmetically viable result.
Updates? Nothing to update yet but I have to say that at this point, I’m cautiously optimistic.
I think Mike and I will have a product ready to release in 4 to 5 years. :slight_smile:
Unless we get bribed to delay it of course in which case we’ll still say 5 years in 3 years time. :wink:


#13

» cotsarelis you does not pass of a son of the B… LIAR… LIAR…LIAAAAR.

Baldlatino, Ok … you’re not a poet, but this Costarellis isn’t a prophet either, take him as what he is, a human being and not a fu**ing god.


#14

well…now we know as usual, the same old song, this is even no more funny! i would say ridiculous in a certain way and absurd above all! exhausting to hear that song.


#15

» » In May 2007 cotsarelis said “2/3 years”, now “within 5 years”…He thinks
» » only of himself … Our hopes are closes: we live our lives by bald!
» »
» »
» http://www.citypaper.net/articles/2009/01/22/george-cotsaleris-hair-follicle-research
»
»
» I wonder why the second patent wasn’t pressing the wnt factor. Am I
» missing something here? I thought it was all about EGF-R inhibition during
» the embryonic window.

It was just a patent, Not a research paper! The original research paper specifically talked about Wnt, so did Elain Fuchs’s research. That’s what I’ve been saying on this board all along i.e. we should not waste our time with EGFR and whether its a small molecule or not, and whether it’s been delivered to the follicles or not. The main thing that’s coming up in proper research (not some patent) is Wnt. Like Cotsarelis himself just said, you increase Wnt and the hair growth goes wild! why are we wasting our time playing with somewhat risky EGFRs? We should find a better way of increasing/activating Wnt signaling, From all the research i’ve seen this should give us decent regrowth!

Guys, I really believe that we should change our focus to Wnt and experiment with that or at least discuss better ways of manipulating Wnt. I have this feeling that simply mixing lithium in DMSO just isn’t good enough.


#16

» Baldlatino, Ok … you’re not a poet, but this Costarellis isn’t a
» prophet either, take him as what he is, a human being and not a fu**ing
» god.>>>>>>>>>>>(but it thinks that it is) IT, who said 2, or 3 years…now, after almost waiting information of it per 2 years, it return and speaks in 5 years? COTSARELIS… YOU ARE RIDICULE.


#17

I don’t see what there are so many false stories always being believed when common sense says otherwise.

It takes most of a decade to get something through the FDA trials, period. Hear it, soak it in, process it, and adjust your views accordingly.

Anybody saying they can get a new to market any faster that this is misleading. It’s that simple. They’re basically saying 1+1=3 and you’re believing them.


#18

»
» .
»
»
»
»
» It takes most of a decade to get something through the FDA
» trials, period. Hear it, soak it in, process it, and adjust your
» views accordingly.

»
»
»

It does take a lot of time and sometimes a lot of inordinate hoop-jumping to satiate the FDA. If anybody has got this image of the FDA being a ‘whiter than white/holier than thou’ organisation that serves to protect the public from manically unsafe drugs and procedures, have a browse on the net and take a look at exactly what the FDA gets up to. I got the distinct impression of corruption and the FDA running very much like a profiteering business. I trust them about as much as I trust the government.
I’m not here to get into a lengthy discussion about this but I DO find them decidedly dubious and apparently they have been caught out on occasion.
Medicine is business, only with a different spelling.


#19

» » In May 2007 cotsarelis said “2/3 years”, now “within 5 years”…He thinks
» » only of himself … Our hopes are closes: we live our lives by bald!
» »
» »
» http://www.citypaper.net/articles/2009/01/22/george-cotsaleris-hair-follicle-research
»
» This article is aggravating, and its timeline goes against everything else
» we heard from Follica (however minor).
» I wonder if they’re experiencing hiccups in their research? It would be
» nice to get an official press release from Follica, but I won’t hold my
» breathe.

I don’t think that they are going to be very forthcoming with details now as they are no doubt aware that average joes in the street are doing their own experiments. Okay, this is only a handful of people and nothing to worry about at the moment. Unless, Mr. Average Joe gets a sh#tload of hair and broadcasts how to do this to every cueball in the world.
They don’t want to give away any more info that could possibly compromise their product.


#20

baccy or mike, you should open a back room office to make the product available to the public and make some money !
such as the procedure in itself, i still don’t understand why it takes so long! dermabraison already approuved, compounds already approved, the only question is if it’s working or not!
i am no more interesting by people claiming that they have a cure available “within you know the joke” than people who claims that “ok, guys we have the solution and it will be available this year” (not talking about the master of marketing from oxford)