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

Agian Cotsarelis...Within "five years"!


#21

» » » 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.

I agree. and wasn’t Baccy specifically going Wnt route? And wasn’t he that actually got something to show for it? I think we can crack this nut if we get enough of our own “trialists” to try different protocols targeting Wnt alone. I know- wishful thinking.


#22

I have to say i have always been very optimistic about Follica and i still believe they will come up with a compound that we can all use however now i am sadly drawn to the 5 year+ timeline! I think if you include the Vera Price comments as well, which i am sure most of you remember, 5 years seems more realistic!

I wonder what Zohar thinks about this from a business point of view?!

Anyway, maybe they will be pipped to the post by another company!


#23

» »
»
» I agree. and wasn’t Baccy specifically going Wnt route? And wasn’t he that
» actually got something to show for it? I think we can crack this nut if we
» get enough of our own “trialists” to try different protocols targeting Wnt
» alone. I know- wishful thinking.

I think the wnt route is just ONE of the ‘enhancers’ of the process another one being the EGF inhibition. Neogenesis theoretically works without either of these but it’s efficiency, in terms of numbers and size of follicles, increase dramatically with them.
Our only method at the moment of increasing wnt is to apply topical lithium. None of us are sure exactly how effective this is as it is an artificial method of promoting wnt. A bit like a frig in software I suppose.
Mike used topical gefitinib on it’s own with the wounding to inhibit EGF and his results are coming along nicely.
I’m hoping that my own resultss from his kindly donated topical produces similar results.


#24

5 years is obviouslyv overly optimistic.

I mean how many times you ppl need to be fooled to really accept that even the fastest trials take usually a decade?


#25

Just one simple question:

“What makes you say that you will have a product for ppl available in 5 years, if FDA trials usualy take a decade?”

I would rly want to hear his answer.


#26

» Just one simple question:
»
» “What makes you say that you will have a product for ppl available in 5
» years, if FDA trials usualy take a decade?”
»
» I would rly want to hear his answer.

Good idea. Give him a shout.


#27

does anyone know a contact number?


#28

» Just one simple question:
»
» “What makes you say that you will have a product for ppl available in 5
» years, if FDA trials usualy take a decade?”
»
» I would rly want to hear his answer.

Follica’s not one of these Euro fly-by-night outfits or a veterinary medicine company - he’s a legit, American researcher from one of the finest university’s in the world. They aren’t going to tell you anything. I’d just leave them alone and let them do their work.


#29

» Just one simple question:
»
» “What makes you say that you will have a product for ppl available in 5
» years, if FDA trials usualy take a decade?”
»
» I would rly want to hear his answer.

On average FDA trials normally take 8 years! We can only assume that because they are using drugs that have already been approved this will shorten the amount of time required!

I do agree with debris that this doesnt seem to make a lot of sense. What with Vera Prices comments a few months ago this seems to be a little more realistic!


#30

» » Just one simple question:
» »
» » “What makes you say that you will have a product for ppl available in 5
» » years, if FDA trials usualy take a decade?”
» »
» » I would rly want to hear his answer.
»
»
» On average FDA trials normally take 8 years! We can only assume that
» because they are using drugs that have already been approved this will
» shorten the amount of time required!
»
» I do agree with debris that this doesnt seem to make a lot of sense. What
» with Vera Prices comments a few months ago this seems to be a little more
» realistic!

Why does no one try to find out for them self? It is not that hard. I e- mailed FDA and received this answer:

"Thank you for your message to the Center for Drug Evaluation and
Research (CDER), one of the five centers within the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA).

The drug would be considered a new drug requiring an NDA for approval.
However, since already approved in a different dosage form, the
requirements or lack there of for its clinical testing would have to be
discussed
with the CDER division responsible for reviewing the drug,
perhaps in a pre-IND meeting.

Sincerely,

Division of Drug Information"


#31

I still don’t think you guys get it.

People in this field say “maybe 5 years” all the time, even in cases where there ISN’T any extenuating factor like a pre-approved drug. You guys are looking for truth/logic and predictability in a situation where there just isn’t going to be any.

They know the likely timeframe is 8-10 years, they look you in the eye, and say “possibly within 5 years.” That’s what is commonplace in medical research.


#32

» . “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,”

mmmmm, i think i’ve already heard that sentence somewhere. Oh wait, i remember, it was 5 years ago from Washenik. But oh wait! Didn’t Intercytex said the same ?? Bazan, yea … and that researcher, Fuchs!!! She said it five years ago!! And the other guy back in 1997, G…ho ? within five years, yup. I remember all of them!!! cool dudes, some more 5 years sentences to come within five years, that rocks!!! :slight_smile:


#33

» » » Just one simple question:
» » »
» » » “What makes you say that you will have a product for ppl available in
» 5
» » » years, if FDA trials usualy take a decade?”
» » »
» » » I would rly want to hear his answer.
» »
» »
» » On average FDA trials normally take 8 years! We can only assume that
» » because they are using drugs that have already been approved this will
» » shorten the amount of time required!
» »
» » I do agree with debris that this doesnt seem to make a lot of sense.
» What
» » with Vera Prices comments a few months ago this seems to be a little
» more
» » realistic!
»
» Why does no one try to find out for them self? It is not that hard. I e-
» mailed FDA and received this answer:
»
» “Thank you for your message to the Center for Drug Evaluation and
» Research (CDER), one of the five centers within the Food and Drug
» Administration (FDA).
»
» The drug would be considered a new drug requiring an NDA for approval.
» However, since already approved in a different dosage form, the
» requirements or lack there of for its clinical testing would have to be
» discussed
with the CDER division responsible for reviewing the drug,
» perhaps in a pre-IND meeting.
»
» Sincerely,
»
» Division of Drug Information”

nice. so because we know that both rogaine foam (when rogaine topical solution was already in use) had trials, finasteride had trials as well (although it was already approved for BPH), original minoxidil had trials as well (though topical minoxidil must be much safer then loniten oraly which was approved before), its fairly safe to say, it will need trials.

In fact, all the hairloss drugs i listed, had trials, had had been approved before for other use, and none of them was any different from the preapproved drug. Follica is mixture of random stuff, its not one drug, it also needs wounding (which is not usual way of applying a drug) so it even brings out this question of drug interaction safety.

All logic says, it will need trials. All our experience so far says the same.


#34

» 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

But isn’t this the Follica stuff? The stuff that doesn’t require clinical trials because they are using already approved drugs?? and there was a superfast trial “proof of concept” trial being done in a few months with a few volunteers? Hellooooo? Is my memory inventing all these things?? Am I going crazy??


#35

» nice. so because we know that both rogaine foam (when rogaine topical
» solution was already in use) had trials, finasteride had trials as well
» (although it was already approved for BPH), original minoxidil had trials
» as well (though topical minoxidil must be much safer then loniten oraly
» which was approved before), its fairly safe to say, it will need trials.
»
» In fact, all the hairloss drugs i listed, had trials, had had been
» approved before for other use, and none of them was any different from the
» preapproved drug. Follica is mixture of random stuff, its not one drug, it
» also needs wounding (which is not usual way of applying a drug) so it even
» brings out this question of drug interaction safety.
»
» All logic says, it will need trials. All our experience so far says the
» same.

You are damn right debris. Follica and Cotsy will need trials, a bunch of years. This proves that Cotsarellis, and the Follica guys are… well… like so many others before, LYING, AND KNOWINGLY LYING. They are just seeking for propaganda, fame or whatever. And at the end of the road, no matter if it is 5 years, or 10 years, we won’t see anything from them. Because it was a lie from the very beginning.

Now I see “Washenik and the 100 trialists” as our safest bet. We have to confirm if there will indeed be 100 trialists in Phase II.


#36

»
» You are damn right debris. Follica and Cotsy will need trials, a bunch of
» years. This proves that Cotsarellis, and the Follica guys are… well…
» like so many others before, LYING, AND KNOWINGLY LYING. They are just
» seeking for propaganda, fame or whatever. And at the end of the road, no
» matter if it is 5 years, or 10 years, we won’t see anything from them.
» Because it was a lie from the very beginning.
»
» Now I see “Washenik and the 100 trialists” as our safest bet. We have to
» confirm if there will indeed be 100 trialists in Phase II.

Let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I totally agree, Folica’s not coming onto the market in 3 years or anything. But most signs point to the operation being geniune and very promising in the big picture.

They’re pursuing what is probably the cheapest, safest, and fastest-to-approval plan out of all the HM efforts. And their raw principle is also the one with the most real world evidence that it can work.


#37

» I totally agree, Folica’s not coming onto the market in 3 years or
» anything. But most signs point to the operation being geniune and very
» promising in the big picture.
»
» They’re pursuing what is probably the cheapest, safest, and
» fastest-to-approval plan out of all the HM efforts. And their raw
» principle is also the one with the most real world evidence that it can
» work.

If it is sooo genuine then why they lied???
To attract venture capitalists? NO! You cannot attract investors telling things that in a few months are clearly exposed as lies.


#38

Are you actually reading what I’m saying in any of these posts?

They’re lying because everyone else in their industry generally lies in the same way. It’s NORMAL.


#39

Who’s lied anyway?

All I see is predictions being taken as gospel and people getting mad when they realise that.


#40

» Are you actually reading what I’m saying in any of these posts?
»
»
» They’re lying because everyone else in their industry generally lies in
» the same way. It’s NORMAL.

its even simpler imho, cotsarelis says “uhm we think we could have a drug in 3 years from now on which will then go through trials”. And tv just plays “we think we could have a drug in 3 years from now on.” CUT.