The popular attitude towards hair loss is very fatalistic and not very sympathetic - even comedic. Hair treatments to date have not done well in the market (Rogain, Propecia, etc.). How much motivation is there to solve the problem? Is it hard for start-ups with solutions to attract capital? Is the pharma industry putting the same kind of money behind hair solutions as they do behind other major ailments?
How much motivation is there to solve the problem?
Legitimate hair-loss treatments make up, potentially, a 10 billion dollar market. If that isn’t enough motivation than I think we’re all doomed to go bald.
» The popular attitude towards hair loss is very fatalistic and not very
» sympathetic - even comedic. Hair treatments to date have not done well in
» the market (Rogain, Propecia, etc.). How much motivation is there to solve
» the problem? Is it hard for start-ups with solutions to attract capital?
» Is the pharma industry putting the same kind of money behind hair
» solutions as they do behind other major ailments?
You do not think Rogaine has done well in the market, or Prop? they are billion dollar drugs
» How much motivation is there to solve the
» problem?
» Legitimate hair-loss treatments make up, potentially, a 10 billion dollar
» market. If that isn’t enough motivation than I think we’re all doomed to
» go bald.
That statement almost sounded intelligent
That statement almost sounded intelligent
wow-weeee… a near-compliment on my intelligence from Hangin… that’s like being told “you look great” by a blind person. I think I’ll reserve my gratitude when a qualified person dispenses that observation.
oh and nice touch using TWO posts. It’s great to see your ego has outgrown using one post like the rest of us.
.
» That statement almost sounded
» intelligent
» wow-weeee… a near-compliment on my intelligence from Hangin… that’s
» like being told “you look great” by a blind person. I think I’ll
» reserve my gratitude when a qualified person dispenses that observation.
»
» oh and nice touch using TWO posts. It’s great to see your ego has outgrown
» using one post like the rest of us.
»
»
»
» .
here is a newsflash, it was sarcasm, go look it up in the dictionary
doesn’t surprise me you thought it was a compliment…you take em however you can get them, even if they are not genuine…:rotfl:
» » The popular attitude towards hair loss is very fatalistic and not very
» » sympathetic - even comedic. Hair treatments to date have not done well
» in
» » the market (Rogain, Propecia, etc.). How much motivation is there to
» solve
» » the problem? Is it hard for start-ups with solutions to attract
» capital?
» » Is the pharma industry putting the same kind of money behind hair
» » solutions as they do behind other major ailments?
»
» You do not think Rogaine has done well in the market, or Prop? they are
» billion dollar drugs
It is known that Propecia was a disappointment, both as a treatment and as a product. Rogain had limited success. No treatment to date has been a blockbuster, but that may be due to their limited efficacy.
» » » The popular attitude towards hair loss is very fatalistic and not very
» » » sympathetic - even comedic. Hair treatments to date have not done
» well
» » in
» » » the market (Rogain, Propecia, etc.). How much motivation is there to
» » solve
» » » the problem? Is it hard for start-ups with solutions to attract
» » capital?
» » » Is the pharma industry putting the same kind of money behind hair
» » » solutions as they do behind other major ailments?
» »
» » You do not think Rogaine has done well in the market, or Prop? they are
» » billion dollar drugs
»
» It is known that Propecia was a disappointment, both as a treatment and as
» a product. Rogain had limited success. No treatment to date has been a
» blockbuster, but that may be due to their limited efficacy.
Limited success how? Financially? for the companies selling them?
or limited success as baldness remedies
» Limited success how? Financially? for the companies selling them?
» or limited success as baldness remedies
Both. Propecia was a disappointment to pharma industry, as it did not sell as well as predicted.
Are you guys kidding?
Nothing ever seen on the market has ever even scratched the surface of the TRUE demand for a decent MPB cure. We’ve simply never had one.
Imagine trying to describle the current MPB options to a business major in college: Minox, Propecia, even the best HTs in the business . . . describe any of these options (and their sexual side effects, surgical pain, recovery time, scarring, the true harsh-light results vs the patient’s continued natural balding) to a non-balding business student, and he’ll laugh his ass off.
He’ll LAUGH HIS ASS OFF at the thought of having to dump thousands of dollars over a lifetime into ANY of these pitiful options. (And then he’ll silently thank God he’s not balding with an uncomfortable shudder.)
Nobody has ever seen what a true MPB option could potentially rake in. Nobody. The MPB market so far has been limited to the number of people willing to spend $20K wrecking their scalps, hormone-depriving their cocks, and putting stingy crap onto their heads every 12 hours for the rest of their lives. That doesn’t tell us much.
» Are you guys kidding?
»
» Nothing ever seen on the market has ever even scratched the surface of the
» TRUE demand for a decent MPB cure. We’ve simply never had one.
»
»
» Imagine trying to describle the current MPB options to a business major in
» college: Minox, Propecia, even the best HTs in the business . . . describe
» any of these options (and their sexual side effects, surgical pain,
» recovery time, scarring, the true harsh-light results vs the patient’s
» continued natural balding) to a non-balding business student, and he’ll
» laugh his ass off.
»
» He’ll LAUGH HIS ASS OFF at the thought of having to dump thousands
» of dollars over a lifetime into ANY of these pitiful options. (And then
» he’ll silently thank God he’s not balding with an uncomfortable shudder.)
»
»
»
» Nobody has ever seen what a true MPB option could potentially rake in.
» Nobody. The MPB market so far has been limited to the number of people
» willing to spend $20K wrecking their scalps, hormone-depriving their
» cocks, and putting stingy crap onto their heads every 12 hours for the
» rest of their lives. That doesn’t tell us much.
I agree that treatments to date have been uneffective and frought with drawbacks that have limited their appeal. But the industry assumed that it could produce anything and see significant sales. It assumed that the balding would do almost anything to get some result. It based its research on the size and potentiality of the market on this assumption - that we’d take anything. That we didn’t have left them wondering how robust the market really is. Look at Dut. It was in the middle of trials and the quit. Why? Because Propecia didn’t sell. There are reports that they’ve gone back to a third trial, but that may have more to do with an effort to squeez some more revenue from a drug that isn’t performing than any real interest in treating MPB.
Remember: Propecia was a spin-off of a BHP drug that happened to show some hairgrowth potential. They weren’t looking at finasteride as a hair treatment drug, they didn’t put money into a study of finasteride as a MPB protocal - it was a pleasent side effect attached to the primary - and totally unrelated - study.
My point is, it doesn’t seem pharma is putting any real effort into treatment research targeted at MPB. Everything brought to market to date has simply been the renaming of an existing drug that was developed for something other than baldness. When was the last time a drug came out whose primary purpose was hairloss and not some other, unrelated ailment? Baldness treatments seem like secondary concerns to the major pharma players. They just don’t seem to care.
» My point is, it doesn’t seem pharma is putting any real effort into
» treatment research targeted at MPB. Everything brought to market to date
» has simply been the renaming of an existing drug that was developed for
» something other than baldness. When was the last time a drug came out
» whose primary purpose was hairloss and not some other, unrelated ailment?
» Baldness treatments seem like secondary concerns to the major pharma
» players. They just don’t seem to care.
If you’re waiting for big pharmaceutical companies to develop a sense of altruism, especially when it comes to aesthetic medicine, then I suggest you don’t hold your breath. They’re driven by economics; they always have been, and always will be. Which is why Cal’s point is so important - a treatment that actually does provide a full head of hair is going to be very lucrative financially. It is a totally different proposition than minoxodil, propecia or an HT, all of which have serious problems.
Consider an NW7 bald guy: his options right now are one of those three things. Minoxodil twice a day, or propecia once a day, is time-consuming, expensive, and will likely have little effect. An HT might provide him with sparse coverage; it’s not going to give him a full head of hair. It’ll also be very expensive. Given the expense and the inconvenience, the returns are terrible. The chances of him being willing to pay for any of those options are therefore reduced. But if a treatment existed that could restore his full head of hair, it’s a completely different thing. In other words, you can’t base the potential market for a proper MPB treatment on today’s figures. It’d be like predicting the sales of modern PC’s based on first generation computers.
I cant think of many treatments that could potentially earn more money.
You have roughly 25% of the worlds population as consumers.
And almost every single one of those people would really really want to use your drug if it works.
I cant think of any remedy that would be more successful.
» I cant think of many treatments that could potentially earn more money.
» You have roughly 25% of the worlds population as consumers.
»
» And almost every single one of those people would really really want to
» use your drug if it works.
» I cant think of any remedy that would be more successful.
But who can pay for it? Most insurance does not cover cosmetic medicines. If you had to buy a bottle of Propecia at cost, it would be $120 a month. Many of us would gladly pay, but not many could afford to. And as the medicine would most likely be prescribed, there’d be little recourse.
Pharma is interested in a large, built-in market. That doesn’t just mean want - it means need. People NEED cancer drugs. They NEED AIDS medicine (particularly Maneless). They don’t NEED a cure for baldness.
» People NEED cancer drugs. They NEED AIDS medicine
» (particularly Maneless). They don’t NEED a cure for baldness.
i need a cure for baldness atm… dont need aids medicine, and cancer drugs, cause im going to be bald. You’re not the one who can say what i need.
Many of the same arguments that “people don’t NEED hair” would also basically apply to all cosmetic work. And to most of the weight-loss industry for that matter.
But nobody doubts that there is SERIOUS money & effort going into those other areas.
» Many of the same arguments that “people don’t NEED hair” would also
» basically apply to all cosmetic work. And to most of the weight-loss
» industry for that matter.
»
» But nobody doubts that there is SERIOUS money & effort going into those
» other areas.
Again, those are “cash and carry” procedures and remedies - they do not rely on the insurance industry to pay for them. Also, the cosmetic surgery industry is fueled by women who are much more willing to poney up large sums of money for cosmetic procedures. While a lot of us want hair, I don’t think a lot of us would pay the prices women do for common procedures (10k +).
It just doesn’t look like the major pharmas or researchers put a lot of money or time into this problem.
I disagree about men not paying $10K.
Of course men probably won’t ever reach the heights of appearance concerns & spending that women do. Probably never even close.
But study after study shows that men disporportionately just care about losing their hair compared to most other cosmetic things. Men don’t give a very big crap about getting lipo, or tummy tucks, or a lot of skin work & lifting . . . but statistically, men DO give a very large crap about their hair disappearing.
If there’s a finite amount of X dollars that any given male would ever be willing to spend on fixing his appearance in total, then a (decent, no sides) hair loss treatment would be able to pry most of that amount out of their wallets. It would be better than any other single thing you could name.
There’s a statistic out there that hair transplants are by far the most common form of cosmetic surgery for men already. And that’s without ever really even producing good results in the majority of the bald men out there. (Good = dense no-mpb looking NW#2 without a pluggy hairline.)
I would pay over $100K for a full and natural looking head of hair.
» » Many of the same arguments that “people don’t NEED hair” would also
» » basically apply to all cosmetic work. And to most of the weight-loss
» » industry for that matter.
» »
» » But nobody doubts that there is SERIOUS money & effort going into those
» » other areas.
»
» Again, those are “cash and carry” procedures and remedies - they do not
» rely on the insurance industry to pay for them. Also, the cosmetic
» surgery industry is fueled by women who are much more willing to poney up
» large sums of money for cosmetic procedures. While a lot of us want hair,
» I don’t think a lot of us would pay the prices women do for common
» procedures (10k +).
»
» It just doesn’t look like the major pharmas or researchers put a lot of
» money or time into this problem.
If enough men file a class action law suit, then the insurance companies would have to pay for it. Hairloss, especially in young men, is directly co-related with depression etc. Its not a like saying “oh gosh! my nose is a little crooked, my life is ruined now!”. It is a legit disorder/disease that research has proven affects a man’s quality of life & state of mind. Insurance companies are already pay for anti-depressants, which is by-product of hairloss (in our group). I don’t see any reason for them to deny us coverage.