I think this is great news! They must see some opportunity otherwise they would not patent it.
How long will it take them to start with human trials and how long to get it on the market??
» I think this is great news! They must see some opportunity otherwise they
» would not patent it.
»
» How long will it take them to start with human trials and how long to get
» it on the market??
Patents don’t mean as much as it seems. It is relatively cheap to patent something, and you can patent things even if they don’t work.
So be patient…
» You are right Z79!!! The time i near: 2 years (in the bad view)!!!
Considering that they have yet to begin human testing, I think 5 years would be a very optimistic time line. Regardless of whether or not they will need FDA approval for the drugs they plan to use, they will need to prove their claims of hair growth to the FDA.
» » You are right Z79!!! The time i near: 2 years (in the bad view)!!!
»
» Considering that they have yet to begin human testing, I think 5 years
» would be a very optimistic time line. Regardless of whether or not they
» will need FDA approval for the drugs they plan to use, they will need to
» prove their claims of hair growth to the FDA.
This is from the department of veteran’s affairs:
How long does the FDA take to approve a medication?
It usually takes about 10 years for a drug to be developed and approved for prescription. Many people would like to take the newest medicine as soon as it is proven to work. However, even after a drug has been successful in a Phase III trial, it still may take six to 12 months before that drug is approved for prescription.
But why would they need FDA TRials ?
Didn’t they say that the drugs already passed FDA and the procedures are commonly used by dermatologist .
Wouldn’t this kinda of stuff come out … kinda like Botox did ?
» But why would they need FDA TRials ?
» Didn’t they say that the drugs already passed FDA and the procedures are
» commonly used by dermatologist .
» Wouldn’t this kinda of stuff come out … kinda like Botox did ?
What I find interesting is the level of detail in the schematic. There is a very specific architecture to the device; the fact that the abrasion media and “drugs” are delivered together and in some ratio suggests they’re pretty far along in the research of the protocol’s delivery and that they believe they’re on to something.
» » » You are right Z79!!! The time i near: 2 years (in the bad view)!!!
» »
» » Considering that they have yet to begin human testing, I think 5 years
» » would be a very optimistic time line. Regardless of whether or not they
» » will need FDA approval for the drugs they plan to use, they will need
» to
» » prove their claims of hair growth to the FDA.
»
» This is from the department of veteran’s affairs:
»
» How long does the FDA take to approve a medication?
»
» It usually takes about 10 years for a drug to be developed and approved
» for prescription. Many people would like to take the newest medicine as
» soon as it is proven to work. However, even after a drug has been
» successful in a Phase III trial, it still may take six to 12 months before
» that drug is approved for prescription.
Part of the development is animal trials. So Follica is somewhere in the middle of the 10 years.
Also if you take their word that they have enough capital to go through trials, what they raised would not last them 10 years, be lucky to get through 5 years. So they must believe that they can be generating revenue by then.
In the claims section, I see no details about the machine. Just details about the compounds that can be administered with the machine. Basically, they are not patenting the machine, but just the particular use of the machine with certain compounds. Its kind of weird.
I assume these machines already exist, and they are already patented, so Follica cannot patent them. They just can patent the particular use of these machines with a selected group of drugs/abradents.
Just my oppinion from a quick read.
Well you’re an idiot if you don’t understand why people are getting excited. Obviously, this won’t be on the shelves of our local drugstore next week. It’s the fact that one of the worlds leading experts in hair biology is pursing a possible solution to the problem. Yet somehow, you still have to be a jerkoff about all of this.
» » » » Will they be using that tool for their permanent hair removal as
» well?
» » »
» » » How would it work for hair removal? I remember reading that a while
» ago
» » » but I have no idea how that would work.
» »
» » This is what Follica said in one of their first interviews about this.
» »
» » “The follicle’s almost like the epicenter of human hair and
» » skin.” If you can control the follicles and the sebaceous glands that
» are
» » connected to each of them, you can theoretically create new hair, stop
» hair
» » from growing, or even treat acne, Zohar says. “Whatever you do to the
» » follicle is going to be beneficial to somebody,” she adds.
»
» Sounds to me this is all WAY WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY far from being reality
» Sounds like pure speculation. IF YOU CAN DO THIS WITH THE FOLLICLE you can
» grow hair
»
» well IF i win the lottery I will be a millionaire
»
» no tests with human trials even and you guys are acting so excited
They have already figured out how to control the follicles using human skin on mice. I like you don’t have a clue how far along they are with the development for humans but the science behind it isn’t speculation it’s fact.
(warning if you only like to read back slapping WOW look at this posts, do not click on Hangins posts)
The patent office is not concerned with the marketability of the product, or even if it works
anyone can patent anything as long as they can prove nobody eles has that same exact design, \
you can say this
"why would they patent something if it does not work"
simple
if, and this is a big if, but it is possible
If they wanted to point to something to investors, to PROVE that they are well on the way to a marketable product
A patent for a device like this
sure looks impressive
They do not have to ever even use the product, and the product does not even havce to work
Now is this a devils advocate opinion? sure
But all things are possible in todays environment of ENRONS, etc
If ENRON can pull off a multi billion dollar scam on its investors and Wall Street, with all the scrutiny they had, anything is possible
and with the secrecy that these HM companies operate under, it is even more possible
so just because this company filed for a patent on some device
doesnt mean first of all that the device even works
or if it does work that this means anything significant about HM
until they have proven results, with HUMAN TRIALS, cosmetically acceptable
terminal hair growing
i dont know what all the fuss is about
thats a BIG …IF
» » » » » Will they be using that tool for their permanent hair removal as
» » well?
» » » »
» » » » How would it work for hair removal? I remember reading that a while
» » ago
» » » » but I have no idea how that would work.
» » »
» » » This is what Follica said in one of their first interviews about
» this.
» » »
» » » “The follicle’s almost like the epicenter of human hair
» and
» » » skin.” If you can control the follicles and the sebaceous glands that
» » are
» » » connected to each of them, you can theoretically create new hair,
» stop
» » hair
» » » from growing, or even treat acne, Zohar says. “Whatever you do to the
» » » follicle is going to be beneficial to somebody,” she adds.
» »
» » Sounds to me this is all WAY WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY far from being reality
» » Sounds like pure speculation. IF YOU CAN DO THIS WITH THE FOLLICLE you
» can
» » grow hair
» »
» » well IF i win the lottery I will be a millionaire
» »
» » no tests with human trials even and you guys are acting so excited
»
» They have already figured out how to control the follicles using human
» skin on mice. I like you don’t have a clue how far along they are with the
» development for humans but the science behind it isn’t speculation it’s
» fact.
I have seen many photos even posted of great results of regrowth of hair, or
development of hair by these companies
but the studies seem to show pics of
- horses
- dogs
- monkeys
- mice
Dont you think that it does not necessarily mean that humans will respond in a similar manner? to me it seems on animals hair is quite easy to generate, as opposed to on humans where it seems to be quite a bit more difficult
so unless they replicate it on humans, the results are not that encouraging to me
I agree with Hanging, dont read too much into these patents, I remember Aderans has a patent many years ago about the scaffolds that they use to deliver the cultured hair cells, that doesn’t mean they will actually create a product for the market. There are tons of patents that are sitting around and doing nothing for decades.
If i couldn’t afford HM procedure, I would probably slam anything associated with it too… actually, probably not…
the FACT is that there are several companies working on HM solution with millions of $$$$ in research… maybe these companies should simply seek serial posters on this forum for a natural solution with some vitamins instead?
» You are right Z79!!! The time i near: 2 years (in the bad view)!!!
3 years is my guess… and when one company comes out with a solution, i suspect there will be a better solution within 5 years from that solution…
Ignore Hangin.
He sees no distinction between reasonably discussing bits of relevant HM news (on an experimental HM research forum) versus just blindly believing we’ll be getting our hair back next week.
» If i couldn’t afford HM procedure, I would probably slam anything
» associated with it too… actually, probably not…
»
» the FACT is that there are several companies working on HM solution with
» millions of $$$$ in research… maybe these companies should simply seek
» serial posters on this forum for a natural solution with some vitamins
» instead?
I am not “slamming” these companies
I am saying, there is no proof yet that these ideas are viable and the company with this patent has not even started human testing
yet you guys act like , OH WOW HEY LOOK AT THIS , GREAT HOW EXCITING
I am saying there is nothing to get excited about …yet
it may happen in the future, when it does, then get excited
Hangin’ is right. Patents mean very little. I have multiple patents with my name on them. And most of them sound impressive when you read them, but most of them are worthless IMO. Basically when I worked (or consulted as I did) for a large high-tech company, they made me patent my work to “protect their intellectual property”. It doesn’t mean that it will even look like this when it comes out, or that it will come out soon or even at all. It’s just a patent. It may just mean if somebody comes out with something similar, they have grounds to sue the company. Some companies make lots of money this way rather than by actually producing any product for sale.
ARI keeps patenting scaffolds. Recently, they have filed patents about scaffolds. Most probably, they are using them in the current Phase II trials.
ICX were not using scaffolds, and I thought that scaffolds were obsolete. But after ICX failure, now I think that scaffolds are still needed for a successful result.
» I agree with Hanging, dont read too much into these patents, I remember
» Aderans has a patent many years ago about the scaffolds that they use to
» deliver the cultured hair cells, that doesn’t mean they will actually
» create a product for the market. There are tons of patents that are sitting
» around and doing nothing for decades.
Hanging is right. This patent looks like this:
“oh, well, this machine would be cool to administer our drugs. We still don’t have any design for it, but we are going to patent the idea, just in case someone else have a real design, and then we will be able to claim money from them.”
I am still waiting for Follica’s “proof of concept” human trial. Wasn’t it suppossed to be a blazing-fast trial? where are the results? Or lack of them?
» (warning if you only like to read back slapping WOW look at this
» posts, do not click on Hangins posts)
»
»
» The patent office is not concerned with the marketability of the product,
» or even if it works
»
» anyone can patent anything as long as they can prove nobody eles has that
» same exact design, \
»
» you can say this
» “why would they patent something if it does not work”
»
» simple
»
» if, and this is a big if, but it is possible
»
» If they wanted to point to something to investors, to PROVE that they are
» well on the way to a marketable product
»
» A patent for a device like this
» sure looks impressive
»
» They do not have to ever even use the product, and the product does not
» even havce to work
»
» Now is this a devils advocate opinion? sure
» But all things are possible in todays environment of ENRONS, etc
»
» If ENRON can pull off a multi billion dollar scam on its investors and
» Wall Street, with all the scrutiny they had, anything is possible
»
» and with the secrecy that these HM companies operate under, it is even
» more possible
»
» so just because this company filed for a patent on some device
» doesnt mean first of all that the device even works
»
» or if it does work that this means anything significant about HM
»
»
» until they have proven results, with HUMAN TRIALS, cosmetically
» acceptable
» terminal hair growing
»
» i dont know what all the fuss is about
»
» thats a BIG …IF