I’d say it doesn’t look promising for them. Not only did they lose their Head of Pharma Development; but they also lost numerous staff scientists. And I’m not sure, but, according to linkedin, Stephen Prouty, the VP of research stopped working there sometime in early 2012. Unless it’s a typo or inaccurate for some reason, that would be a tough sign to ignore.
Another thing to consider is that they didn’t announce any replacements for these people. At least at VP level, new hires would be announced and updates made to the website. That it hasn’t occurred is a bad sign.
I don’t feel the patenting activity is a sign of life. I believe it’s standard practice for companies, especially ones that are closing their doors, to patent everything they can in the hopes of making money off companies that might need that type of technology in the future.
Sucks, but i can’t come to any other conclusion than these guys are toast.
» Yeah, even I am about ready to declare them dead.
»
» It’s been years since they showed indications of real activity. They might
» just be patenting stuff because they’ve got nothing to lose from it.
Not sure about Follica, they are super private. George Cotsarelis(co-owner) is still continuing his research and has offers from pharma companies etc so thats the main thing. Patent trolling wont get them anywhere, they are interested in research not money, no to mention they will already be paid highly for their derm work.
My opinion is that their P2 trials were disappointing, and as many of us guessed, it is not enough to simply upregulate Wnt. What I don’t get is why they even did it in the first place because at this point in time they knew about the different pathways that are involved, including PGD2.
What I think will happen is Follica will continue to exist, based on what Cotsarelis develops - things like PGD2, and likely other things he has not publicly declared. Even if they disappear, it’s not a huge deal as essentially Cotsarelis is Follica, and if he is in talks with pharma companies about bringing this research to clinical trials, it benefits us.
I agree with you completely. I think he knew that pdg2 had something to do with hairloss because he had observed the mice overexpressing pdg2 many years before his 2012 pdg2 paper. However he had no functional evidence so we wouldn’t of been able to get any fundng etc.
This is an advertising site for paid
advertisers to showcase successful hair restoration results only. It is not the
mandate of this site to engage in the discussion of failed, unsuccessful
procedures, lawsuits, litigations, refunds or complaint cases. Surgical hair
restoration procedures carry risks. Please do thorough research, consult your
own physician and investigate a doctor's background carefully before making a
decision. By proceeding to use our site, you agree to abide by our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy at http://hairsite.com/terms-of-use/ where you can also find a list of HairSite's sponsoring physicians.
