» It seems every year some sort of hype comes out, I remember couple of years
» ago it was Dr Gho and people were raving and ranting that the cure is near
» and it will be 3 to 5 years then the rave and hype turned to finger
» pointing and the forum turned to bunch of people attacking each other. The
» next big thing was HM and the same thing happened, and a year ago it was
» ICTRA or whatever they are called and everyone got excited and the hype
» faded and now it seems to be ACELL??
»
» I have was away from the site for a few years because I decided to get a
» system and it helps alot, at least you get along with your life and do not
» think about your hair 24/7. I think there are only three solutions to the
» hairloss problem for now, one is just shave your head and move on, or get a
» system which I do admit at some times it is to time consuming but at least
» I go out and have fun with friends without being depressed, or get a hair
» transplant.
»
» I realized we will not see a cure for maybe 10 , 20 , 30 years from now,
» there are cures out there but you think the hair transplant doctors, the
» drug companies selling rogain and proceia will let a cure come along, do
» you realize they will lose billions of dollars if a cure came out. The
» doctors would be out of business or they would have to learn to do some
» kind of other cosmetic surgery other than hair transplants, the drug
» companies would have to go back to the lab and try to come up with another
» drug for other than hair loss so they can make their billions, heck even
» the hair system companies would be bankrupted.
»
» So yes there is probabley a cure out there but it will not be released to
» the public as long as the drug companies having something to do with it.
»
» I will admit I do come on the site and check to see if there is any new
» news once in awhile, but I have noticed over the years its the same crap
» all over again, some news comes out and everyone clinch their hopes to
» that news being the cure for baldness but it turns out the company coming
» out with the news about a cure for baldness just fades with time and we
» wait for the next big news.
There will not be a cure fora long ass time…a cure will be genetic manipulation of the hair gene…plain and simple…and i will NOT be messing with my genes to die for hair…but there will be treatments that will give us a lot of hair…HM Folica type of stuff where HT Docs will be forced to train and learn how to do…it will bring them more business and more money…People want thick full hair instead of that HT work that gives u minimal results…As for the Pharm companies…yes they will get hurt and they will fight against it…however, HT today still provides u more hair than prop can ever give u…so wouldnt the pharm companies have stopped HT from being a reality??? Bosley is working with ICX and Folica was on the TODAY SHOW and is something real not fake like GHO…I think we will see something soon…propecia patten ends this year i believe and that will stop that battle…generics blah blah blah…i think in 2010 we will see something good!!!
The price of HM depends GREATLY on how cheaply they can get it done.
Some people are convinced that HM will be priced for millionaires only, but the simple math is OVERWHELMINGLY in favor of aiming as low & wide as they can. Maybe they’ll take a couple years first to gouge the millionaires, but in the long term they’ll be trying to make HM as cheap as they possibly can.
Let me put it this way:
If you invent a better acne treatment, you’re not gonna sell it to a few thousand people a year for $15,000 a pop. No, no, no. If you REALLY wanna get rich, then you sell it for only a couple hundred bucks to almost every teenager in the civilized world.
That’s kind of a positive view. I hope you’re right; but it makes sense to me to charge a lot for the first few years, and then, when you lower the price, you make the masses somehow dependent on the treatment to milk as much as possible overtime. Selling it cheap only once doesn’t make much sense.
I never said I thought they’d sell it “cheap.” Not truly cheap. I just firmly believe they’ll sell it cheap ENOUGH to put it within reach of the majority of men in the civilized world.
And if they do ANY market research into the current state of MPB at all, they will also figure out that the demographic is different from what they’ve been chasing in the past. Looking “boy-band” is in, and looking your own age is out. This has always been true for men hitting middle age, but now a lot of 24yo men who look 28 are trying to look 18 again. (And whatever this group lacks in size, they MORE than make up for it with extreme urgency to buy.) In english, this means that HM should be made affordable for THIS group too if they want to hit the big market.
If they can sell it as something that needs redoing or maintaining rather than one-shot permanent, then I agree that they probably will.
(At which point, competitors will probably start trying to swipe some of the orignal company’s business by offering a longer-lasting version of HM. And then the original maker will probably knuckle under and begin offering its own version that also lasts longer, but for a much higher price . . . )
But the bottom line is that Finasteride already gives “decent” results (at least in terms of maintainence), and yet it’s been a commercial disappointment.
I’m sure this has been instructive from a financial point of view.
Price, sides effects, and cosmetically-visible effectiveness. The balance of these three things was much too low with Finasteride for them to make the kind of money that the MPB market potentially holds. That much is clear.
Cal & Baccy let me tell you what your logic is flawed.
What if the cure is not patentable or sellable at all?
Let’s imagine for a second that the cure is (something I read some months ago) putting garlic on your head.
There is no money at all so companies won’t tell anyone about it.
Real cures are extremely cheap.
Vitamin B17 cures cancer among many other cures some of them are FREE.
» Cal & Baccy let me tell you what your logic is flawed.
»
» What if the cure is not patentable or sellable at all?
»
» Let’s imagine for a second that the cure is (something I read some months
» ago) putting garlic on your head.
» There is no money at all so companies won’t tell anyone about it.
»
» Real cures are extremely cheap.
» Vitamin B17 cures cancer among many other cures some of them are FREE.
What I’m saying is that it’s more financially lucrative to produce a TREATMENT rather than a CURE. A TREATMENT merely maintains and gives limited improvement. A CURE would totally remove the necessity for TREATMENT ever again and thus the company would lose out.
Drug companies NEVER look for cures. It’s not in their financial interests.
A LOT of companies and HT surgeons stand to lose a LOT of money should a true CURE emerge. In theory, Follica have the CURE. I have seen myself personally, that it is possible to rejuvenate/create follicles as per your original genetic coding. Hair will grow where it did when you was a child. If myself and a few other guys at home can get some results then it is proof of concept. The true scientists can make it work to give full cosmetic results. No more need for minox or that stuff that makes your pecker soft. No more need for costly HT. No more need for Folligen, Follipro, Revivogen, Regenerix or any other crap that begins with’R’ or ‘F’. If this is released in the form of a kit containing a wounding method and topical/oral drug combos, the balding man pays a once only fee and then nothing more.
That kind of cure is going to make a lot of people sweat.
And companies and individuals are going to lose A LOT OF MONEY to the CURE.
But these companies and individuals do not worry about TREATMENTS because TREATMENTS are ongoing, regular and usually for LIFE. Furthermore, several TREATMENTS can co-exist and indeed are used by the same patients. The drug companies are happy and the HT butch… er surgeons are happy too. Everybody gets their wad of cash and a piece of the cake.
Everyone fighting MPB always looks at this situation from the point of view of getting screwed. Always so much personal emotions involved, never enough rational detachment.
Bugler, I would point out that you are aware that “B17 cures cancer.” By the doom & gloom logic, you’d never know this because science would not have profited from figuring it out.
People want to find things out to make money and/or become famous in the medical world.
Companies want to find a commercial way to make a zillion dollars on continual hair treatments. But if they can’t do that, then I think a lot of well connected people would probably rather take their chances making ONLY half a zillion dollars with a one-shot cure.
These people are just trying to get rich. If they find a way to make some progress that they can actually sell, they don’t have any emotional NEED to keep us bald and hold out for 20 years for a more profitable way of doing something. It’s THEIR 20 years of THEIR lives they’d be waiting, too.
The researchers are not just thinking about US and THEM. They’re pretty damn worried about all the OTHER “thems” around the world they’re racing against, too.
The medical world is really not gonna end up having a viable baldness cure sitting on a shelf in a top-secret lab for decades while they wait for a more profitable way to release it. I’m sorry, but that’s a lot of Indiana Jones bullsh*t. It’s for people who have persecution complexes and need an arch-villian to blame for their problems.
»
»
»
»»
» The medical world is really not gonna end up having a viable baldness cure
» sitting on a shelf in a top-secret lab for decades while they wait for a
» more profitable way to release it. I’m sorry, but that’s a lot of Indiana
» Jones bullsh*t. It’s for people who have persecution complexes and need an
» arch-villian to blame for their problems.
I think we’ll just have to beg to differ on this one Cal. I still believe that the goal of any pharmaceutical company is TREATMENTS not CURES. And they will spend a lot of money to keep it that way.
you re paranoid. finasterid only makes 100 millions a year, thats nothing. and the patent is ending. so this is bs. hair transplant surgeons would benefit by HM so who should pay the HM-researchers for not getting a cure out?
its simply very hard to find a cure for baldness, its not that easy like you think.
often i hear people say “we cant fly to moon, why cant we find a cure for baldness?” i dont understand these people…
» you re paranoid. finasterid only makes 100 millions a year, thats nothing.
» and the patent is ending. so this is bs. hair transplant surgeons would
» benefit by HM so who should pay the HM-researchers for not getting a cure
» out?
»
» its simply very hard to find a cure for baldness, its not that easy like
» you think.
»
» often i hear people say “we cant fly to moon, why cant we find a cure for
» baldness?” i dont understand these people…
I’m not talking about HM. HM is labour intensive and have large costs attached as a result. Also, it would utilise the skills of the HT guys.
I’m talking about a one-shot, non-labour intensive cure that does not involve many man-hours work for each patient.
If I was a large drug company, I would pay a substantial sum to keep such a product off the market or even delay it for a number of years under some kind of ‘legal agreement’.
Paranoid? Me?
Maybe.
It’s just that I’m sure you know that these ‘arrangements’ go on in other areas of Life. I see no reason that the Hair Loss and Cosmetics industry is any different.
» » you re paranoid. finasterid only makes 100 millions a year, thats
» nothing.
» » and the patent is ending. so this is bs. hair transplant surgeons would
» » benefit by HM so who should pay the HM-researchers for not getting a
» cure
» » out?
» »
» » its simply very hard to find a cure for baldness, its not that easy
» like
» » you think.
» »
» » often i hear people say “we cant fly to moon, why cant we find a cure
» for
» » baldness?” i dont understand these people…
»
» I’m not talking about HM. HM is labour intensive and have large costs
» attached as a result. Also, it would utilise the skills of the HT guys.
»
» I’m talking about a one-shot, non-labour intensive cure that does not
» involve many man-hours work for each patient.
»
» If I was a large drug company, I would pay a substantial sum to keep such
» a product off the market or even delay it for a number of years under some
» kind of ‘legal agreement’.
» Paranoid? Me?
» Maybe.
» It’s just that I’m sure you know that these ‘arrangements’ go on in other
» areas of Life. I see no reason that the Hair Loss and Cosmetics industry is
» any different.
my post was more to cal . but ok. ya, i know, there are such ‘arrangements’ in other areas. but i dont think that HM is stopped by merck (its the company of fin, isnt it?). fin is only 100 mio per year like i said.
ya well, i dont think there is such a non-labour intensive cure that does not
involve many man-hours work for each patient. how are your experiments going?
Fine at the moment. it’s too early for me to comment but this time I’m angling towards the positive, although it may be biased optimism on my part. If I get something concrete, I’ll try to post pics.
But this is exactly the point - these “large sums of money” paid to squelch a cure . . . think about HOW LARGE they would need to be.
If you’re sitting on a product that could potentially make millions (like, multi-millions just from each of the 50 states individually), how much money would it take to make you refrain from releasing it?
Yeah, you’d have to get paid something near the same economic bracket as what that hair loss cure would have earned on the market! Now, where is this money coming from???
Not from a loose coalition of plastic surgeons. Hair transplants may seem like a big expense to most of US, but these surgeons are only a couple of notches above plumbers & electricians compared to a multi-national cosmetics corporation. They’re still just skilled labor in the big picture.
And other corporations? Who is gonna pay their competitor $100 million to try to prevent the release of a product? It’s an interesting idea, but business just doesn’t work that way. Coca-Cola does not count on staying in business by bribing Pepsi not to release another new product line every year. Pepsi just develops the better new product, and then the people at Coke race to get a copy out on the market.
» Think of how many different companies and surgeons actually account for
» that “billions spent on hair loss.” That big total is being divided up
» literally THOUSANDS of ways.
»
»
» Whoever cures it will get the majority of that ENTIRE market to
» THEMSELVES. Think about that. There is no way you’d get agreement
» among a couple thousand different (feuding) people and companies around the
» world to ALL refrain from trying to come up with a better
» product. There is just no logic in this idea.
I completely agree. There’s nothing that could stop a cure - if it was effective they could charge whatever they wanted for it…even it it wasn’t astronomically expensive they would have hundreds of thousands of people queuing up.
A bunch of HT doctors and pharma companies can’t stop that.
»
» I completely agree. There’s nothing that could stop a cure - if it was
» effective they could charge whatever they wanted for it…even it it wasn’t
» astronomically expensive they would have hundreds of thousands of people
» queuing up.
»
» A bunch of HT doctors and pharma companies can’t stop that.
A one-shot cure would be more efficiently priced at a low to medium price range to fully exploit the number of customers. If the price is overinflated, it minimises the market to several hundred thousand customers who are willing and able to pay the price.
When these several hundred thousand have been treated (This would not take very long. Remember, we are talking non-labour intensive one-shot cure here) there is little or no further revenue generated.
However, if they reduce the price to a low to medium range affordable by most people, the customer base will be many more times that of the first scenario, which despite the lower price, would generate a larger revenue.
The drawback in both scenarios is that there are a finite number of potential customers. There is one payment from each patient and then nothing more.
Which brings me back to the distinct financial disadvantage in a business sense, of having a CURE rather than a TREATMENT.
I really do hope you guys are right. But the logical side of me (which, being an engineer, is pretty much ALL of me) says that commercialisation of a CURE hasn’t only got barriers of science impeding it.
»
» Coca-Cola does not count on staying
» in business by bribing Pepsi not to release another new product line every
» year. Pepsi just develops the better new product, and then the people at
» Coke race to get a copy out on the market.
Good point. But the analogy here is that the makers of one hairloss TREATMENT doesn’t bribe another maker of a different TREATMENT. Because they know that they can co-exist.
It would not be possible for ANY treatment or transplant to compete with a one-shot cure.
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.
. but ok. ya, i know, there are such ‘arrangements’ in other areas. but i dont think that HM is stopped by merck (its the company of fin, isnt it?). fin is only 100 mio per year like i said.