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

Thomas Whitfield


#1

#2

» http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/yourbusiness/brightideas/4268434/Thomas-Whitfield-The-Oxford-student-who-plans-to-make-baldness-a-thing-of-the-past.html

Well I’ll be damned. It’s always nice to see people approach this problem from different directions.


#3

» »
» http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/yourbusiness/brightideas/4268434/Thomas-Whitfield-The-Oxford-student-who-plans-to-make-baldness-a-thing-of-the-past.html
»
» Well I’ll be damned. It’s always nice to see people approach this problem
» from different directions.

Something to look out for! Interesting he has almost given himself a 1 year deadline! Must pretty confident!


#4

» Something to look out for! Interesting he has almost given himself a 1
» year …

not possible as 1!= 5


#5

Dude, stop with the negative (albeit funny) posts man,

i may agree with you, but I come here to reassure myself that some solution might come up. I ignore anyone who says ‘its out next june for sure’. but each time i see someone post something about ‘its gonna take forever. we’re screwed’, it hits me all over again.

Like the good poster who brought this article up, we should all restrict ourselves to look at what is, and not what can be. or cannot be. Those would be judgmental conclusions based on our limited knowledge.

lets give the bloke a year and see what he does.

PLUS - all this activity in this space only confirms what Cal has been saying all along. so many efforts, atleast one should yield something, and maybe later, something more. and soon, nirvana.

» » Something to look out for! Interesting he has almost given himself a 1
» » year …
»
» not possible as 1!= 5


#6

» Dude, stop with the negative (albeit funny) posts man,
»
» i may agree with you, but I come here to reassure myself that some
» solution might come up. I ignore anyone who says ‘its out next june for
» sure’. but each time i see someone post something about ‘its gonna take
» forever. we’re screwed’, it hits me all over again.
»
» Like the good poster who brought this article up, we should all restrict
» ourselves to look at what is, and not what can be. or cannot be. Those
» would be judgmental conclusions based on our limited knowledge.
»
» lets give the bloke a year and see what he does.

Ageeed. What is the point of negative posts? To protect us from disappointment? Last I checked, I don’t think children suffer from mpb, so we are all adults here…let us read the information and make up our own minds.


#7

» Dude, stop with the negative (albeit funny) posts man,
»
» i may agree with you, but I come here to reassure myself that some
» solution might come up. I ignore anyone who says ‘its out next june for
» sure’. but each time i see someone post something about ‘its gonna take
» forever. we’re screwed’, it hits me all over again.
»
» Like the good poster who brought this article up, we should all restrict
» ourselves to look at what is, and not what can be. or cannot be. Those
» would be judgmental conclusions based on our limited knowledge.
»
» lets give the bloke a year and see what he does.
»
» PLUS - all this activity in this space only confirms what Cal has been
» saying all along. so many efforts, atleast one should yield something, and
» maybe later, something more. and soon, nirvana.
»
» » » Something to look out for! Interesting he has almost given himself a
» 1
» » » year …
» »
» » not possible as 1!= 5

So basically, you come here to try to be delusional? Well, you won’t find a shortage of members who share your objective.

I like that multiplier, but its too optimistic. It should be that each year claimed till commercialization should be multiplied by a factor of 7. 2 years till commercialization? Then expect 14.


#8

» http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/yourbusiness/brightideas/4268434/Thomas-Whitfield-The-Oxford-student-who-plans-to-make-baldness-a-thing-of-the-past.html

more on Thomas Whitfield:
http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/news_stories/2009/090116_2.html

Dr Thomas Whitfield of Oxford University has been marked out as one of the country’s most promising young entrepreneurs, being selected as one of this year’s Flying Start Global Entrepreneurs by the National Council for Graduate Entrepreneurship (NCGE).

Dr Whitfield has already launched one successful business while a graduate student at the University of Oxford, and is beginning work on a second now that he has completed his DPhil degree at the University’s Department of Biochemistry.

Eleven graduates from universities in England and Northern Ireland have been selected as Flying Start Global Entrepreneurs for showing the best prospects to be entrepreneurs behind innovative, high-growth UK businesses.

They will fly to the US this week to be hosted for six months by the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, the world’s biggest entrepreneurship foundation. They will visit several of America’s most active entrepreneurial universities, including Harvard and MIT, Stanford (and Silicon Valley), and the University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign. Each Global Entrepreneur will also spend four months on placement with an innovative US company.

The NCGE Flying Start Global Entrepreneur programme is a once in a lifetime opportunity to experience the entrepreneurial culture in the US at the same time as building up a business.

Dr Thomas Whitfield Dr Whitfield will use the experience to hit the ground running with a new venture on returning to the UK in the summer. He is currently working with colleagues on a new treatment for male pattern baldness that is in the product development stage.

‘The NCGE Flying Start Global Entrepreneur programme is a once in a lifetime opportunity to experience the entrepreneurial culture in the US at the same time as building up a business,’ says Dr Whitfield.

‘The experience gained will help me in the challenge of launching a globally operating, technology-based business,’ he adds.‘On my return, I hope to launch a well structured and financed venture in the UK.’

In 2007, Dr Whitfield was a winner of Idea Idol, a competition staged by the student group Oxford Entrepreneurs at the Saïd Business School. He delivered a two minute ‘elevator’ pitch with two of his friends from the University of Munich to create a website featuring a virtual timeline where users can reserve a moment to post their memorable experiences.

Two of the judges were so impressed that they offered to back the idea through their own investment fund. They promised ‘whatever it takes’ to ensure his idea became a commercial success. The website www.miomi.com was launched in the summer of 2007 with backing from Brightstation Ventures and cooperation agreements with companies including Microsoft UK, the Wikimedia Foundation and the British Library.

‘During his time at Oxford, Dr Whitfield has shown everything needed to become a successful entrepreneur,’ says Professor Tim Cook, visiting professor of science entrepreneurship at the Saïd Business School and former managing director of Isis Innovation, the University of Oxford’s technology transfer company. ‘He was a deserved winner in the Idea Idol competition and it is no surprise to me that he has now been selected as a Flying Start Global Entrepreneur. I have no doubt he has a bright future ahead of him.’


#9

» Dude, stop with the negative (albeit funny) posts man,

No, you have really misinterpreted me, I just referred to the fact that it doesn’t say “the cure is 5 years away” ( as usual ) but one year away, it’s really an optimistic post, and a bit of irony and humour is always good, don’t you think ?, what I’m really doing is criticizing the 5 years away crap, ok? but whatever … BTW, I agree with you, I like that this article has been brought up, I didn’t know it at all.


#10

» … I have no doubt he has a bright future ahead of him …"

shinny scalp ? :smiley: I hope the f***ing smiley converts this post into a “non-pesimistic” one


#11

i said -

» » Like the good poster who brought this article up, we should all
» restrict
» » ourselves to look at what is, and not what can be. or cannot be. Those
» » would be judgmental conclusions based on our limited knowledge.

What part of that is delusional ?

dont pass useless comments like this -

» I like that multiplier, but its too optimistic. It should be that each
» year claimed till commercialization should be multiplied by a factor of 7.
» 2 years till commercialization? Then expect 14.

Why 7 ? is there some research you would like to quote ? statistical analysis ?

and dont bother responding, asking me what im doing all alone on a friday night, or some such crap. it shows u in poor light.

» » Dude, stop with the negative (albeit funny) posts man,
» »
» » i may agree with you, but I come here to reassure myself that some
» » solution might come up. I ignore anyone who says ‘its out next june for
» » sure’. but each time i see someone post something about ‘its gonna take
» » forever. we’re screwed’, it hits me all over again.
» »
» » Like the good poster who brought this article up, we should all
» restrict
» » ourselves to look at what is, and not what can be. or cannot be. Those
» » would be judgmental conclusions based on our limited knowledge.
» »
» » lets give the bloke a year and see what he does.
» »
» » PLUS - all this activity in this space only confirms what Cal has been
» » saying all along. so many efforts, atleast one should yield something,
» and
» » maybe later, something more. and soon, nirvana.
» »
» » » » Something to look out for! Interesting he has almost given himself
» a
» » 1
» » » » year …
» » »
» » » not possible as 1!= 5
»
» So basically, you come here to try to be delusional? Well, you won’t find
» a shortage of members who share your objective.
»
» I like that multiplier, but its too optimistic. It should be that each
» year claimed till commercialization should be multiplied by a factor of 7.
» 2 years till commercialization? Then expect 14.


#12

:smiley: i got the joke, but the context wrong. my mistake…

» » Dude, stop with the negative (albeit funny) posts man,
»
» No, you have really misinterpreted me, I just referred to the fact that it
» doesn’t say “the cure is 5 years away” ( as usual ) but one year away, it’s
» really an optimistic post, and a bit of irony and humour is always good,
» don’t you think ?, what I’m really doing is criticizing the 5 years away
» crap, ok? but whatever … BTW, I agree with you, I like that this article
» has been brought up, I didn’t know it at all.


#13

» i said -
»
» » » Like the good poster who brought this article up, we should all
» » restrict
» » » ourselves to look at what is, and not what can be. or cannot be.
» Those
» » » would be judgmental conclusions based on our limited knowledge.
»
» What part of that is delusional ?
»
» dont pass useless comments like this -
»
» » I like that multiplier, but its too optimistic. It should be that each
» » year claimed till commercialization should be multiplied by a factor of
» 7.
» » 2 years till commercialization? Then expect 14.
»
» Why 7 ? is there some research you would like to quote ? statistical
» analysis ?

You wrote that you don’t like negative comments because you come here to try and sooth your spirit with the overly-optomistic pipe dreams that so many push here. You admit that you know that these predictions are unrealistic, but they make you feel better. What part of that is NOT dillusional?

7-10 years is the typical length of time it takes to go from the synthesis of a new protocol to market. So it wasn’t a “useless comment”, it was spot on. Here’s your “quote”:

http://people.musc.edu/~cooperjc/FDAapproval.htm

Read it; you might learn something. Oh wait, you don’t want to learn anything - you come here to be lied to so you can feel better about being bald.


#14

Ok, since you’ve appealed to some form of logic, il respond in the spirit of scholarly discussion -

  1. I come here to reassure myself that something is on its way. If someone were to tell me there is not, with proof, I would not deny it.

So, i dont like ppl posting grossly pessimistic replies. I do not approve of highly optimistic dreams either. as stated in my first post.

  1. You have no idea what this guy is upto. If you’ve taken the pains to look at that FDA protocol, im sure he has. If he claims ‘one year’, even the skeptic would wait before concluding. You did not.

So, you actually dont have a basis for concluding, but u do have some facts to speculate. what you should have done, is put up your FDA link, and raise a question, to tell people believing in the one year mark that it contradicts what you found on the internet. (or, in this case, might contradict)

that way, more people would research, and there will be a genuine discussion to follow.

stop the trash talk, and do something constructive. Im sure ur older than i am, and u dont need me to tell you that.

» You wrote that you don’t like negative comments because you come here to
» try and sooth your spirit with the overly-optomistic pipe dreams that so
» many push here. You admit that you know that these predictions are
» unrealistic, but they make you feel better. What part of that is NOT
» dillusional?
»
» 7-10 years is the typical length of time it takes to go from the synthesis
» of a new protocol to market. So it wasn’t a “useless comment”, it was spot
» on. Here’s your “quote”:
»
» http://people.musc.edu/~cooperjc/FDAapproval.htm
»
» Read it; you might learn something. Oh wait, you don’t want to learn
» anything - you come here to be lied to so you can feel better about being
» bald.


#15

» Ok, since you’ve appealed to some form of logic, il respond in the spirit
» of scholarly discussion -
»
» 1. I come here to reassure myself that something is on its way. If someone
» were to tell me there is not, with proof, I would not deny it.
»
» So, i dont like ppl posting grossly pessimistic replies. I do not approve
» of highly optimistic dreams either. as stated in my first post.
»
» 2. You have no idea what this guy is upto. If you’ve taken the pains to
» look at that FDA protocol, im sure he has. If he claims ‘one year’, even
» the skeptic would wait before concluding. You did not.
»
» So, you actually dont have a basis for concluding, but u do have some
» facts to speculate. what you should have done, is put up your FDA link, and
» raise a question, to tell people believing in the one year mark that it
» contradicts what you found on the internet. (or, in this case, might
» contradict)
»
» that way, more people would research, and there will be a genuine
» discussion to follow.
»
» stop the trash talk, and do something constructive. Im sure ur older than
» i am, and u dont need me to tell you that.
»
» » You wrote that you don’t like negative comments because you come here
» to
» » try and sooth your spirit with the overly-optomistic pipe dreams that
» so
» » many push here. You admit that you know that these predictions are
» » unrealistic, but they make you feel better. What part of that is NOT
» » dillusional?
» »
» » 7-10 years is the typical length of time it takes to go from the
» synthesis
» » of a new protocol to market. So it wasn’t a “useless comment”, it was
» spot
» » on. Here’s your “quote”:
» »
» » http://people.musc.edu/~cooperjc/FDAapproval.htm
» »
» » Read it; you might learn something. Oh wait, you don’t want to learn
» » anything - you come here to be lied to so you can feel better about
» being
» » bald.

Who the fck are you? The Hairsite Discussion Police? I don’t have to follow your rules as to how to initiate a discussion.

As for this, yet another obscure article that will now begin a new hysteria, I’ll say this:

  1. This guy is British. Who knows if he’s considered the FDA process?

  2. How many people touting a cure to hairloss claim it will be available in 2 years? Its almost as common as the “5 year till a cure” proclamation. Follica, the most reputable start-up doing hairloss research, had people claiming it would be available within the new year. It obviously won’t be. These people say these things to generate hype (and in turn, VC money), and you suckers buy into every time.

So I actually DO have a “basis” for position: its called “history”. Its your position that is baseless.

And unless you’re under 30, I’m not older than you. And thanks to Propecia, Rogain and Nizoral, I still have my hair. That’s why I don’t get suckered like the rest of you; I can afford the wait. Apparently, you can’t.


#16

well lets use soma rational thinking

if trial takes 10 years, then he cant have a medical product on the market

  • medical product trial takes 10 years
  • the journalist says 1 year to have product on the market
  • journalists lie, and make up stuff and dont understand stuff and misinterpret on daily basis
  • it could be something else the medical product (a toupee?)
  • it could be scam, http://trx2.com/ points to some mailing list register page. Looks like a cheap “gimme your mail address and ill spam you forever” trick.
  • the guy exists, seems to have made one project already, this points to not a complete scam

id say simplest explanation is that the guy hopes to find some drug candidates in one year from now on. and the journalist just misinterpreted that as 1 year to market. this explanation is simplest, and most probable. I give it 65%

scam is 30% (it wouldnt be the first scam some ppl here were willing to put all their money on would it?)

non medical product is 4.9% (the guy is smart, maybe he just invented a new toupee).

a miraculous cure that does not need approvals is 0.1% (and thats probably 0.1% more then I should assign here. this world has rules, and rule no1 is safety first, and trials needed for any medical products).


#17

To me, it sounds like some sort of cosmetic, like topix or a toupee or something.


#18

I was wrong, you had no intentions of any discussion. ur just immature, vain, and stupid.

anybody curing hairloss hits the US first. if not, they lose out on a very big market. and chances are, he doesnt need the FDA. OR. has already started trials of some form.

I keep an open mind, i dont take a stand on an issue until all the facts are on the table. unlike you.

I engage in a discussion, not abuses, stupid rhetoric, and other bullsht. unlike you.

and im younger than you too. and i have a lot of my hair left. i dont want to look bald in 7 years time. hence my efforts towards finding a solution.

so, i may be wrong abt this guy, but i dont consider myself any diff from any of the ‘suckers’ on this forum. you have no respect for the other ppl here, let alone their problems. Ur lack of self esteem is apparent from ur most obvious defense mechanism - aggression.

end of topic, here, now. ive wasted my time typing my responses to you.

» Who the fck are you? The Hairsite Discussion Police? I don’t have to
» follow your rules as to how to initiate a discussion.
»
» As for this, yet another obscure article that will now begin a new
» hysteria, I’ll say this:
»
» 1. This guy is British. Who knows if he’s considered the FDA process?
»
» 2. How many people touting a cure to hairloss claim it will be available
» in 2 years? Its almost as common as the “5 year till a cure” proclamation.
» Follica, the most reputable start-up doing hairloss research, had people
» claiming it would be available within the new year. It obviously won’t be.
» These people say these things to generate hype (and in turn, VC money),
» and you suckers buy into every time.
»
» So I actually DO have a “basis” for position: its called “history”. Its
» your position that is baseless.
»
» And unless you’re under 30, I’m not older than you. And thanks to
» Propecia, Rogain and Nizoral, I still have my hair. That’s why I don’t get
» suckered like the rest of you; I can afford the wait. Apparently, you
» can’t.


#19

» I was wrong, you had no intentions of any discussion. ur just immature,
» vain, and stupid.
»
» anybody curing hairloss hits the US first. if not, they lose out on a very
» big market. and chances are, he doesnt need the FDA. OR. has already
» started trials of some form.
»
» I keep an open mind, i dont take a stand on an issue until all the facts
» are on the table. unlike you.
»
» I engage in a discussion, not abuses, stupid rhetoric, and other bullsht.
» unlike you.
»
» and im younger than you too. and i have a lot of my hair left. i dont want
» to look bald in 7 years time. hence my efforts towards finding a solution.
»
» so, i may be wrong abt this guy, but i dont consider myself any diff from
» any of the ‘suckers’ on this forum. you have no respect for the other ppl
» here, let alone their problems. Ur lack of self esteem is apparent from ur
» most obvious defense mechanism - aggression.
»
» end of topic, here, now. ive wasted my time typing my responses to you.
»
» » Who the fck are you? The Hairsite Discussion Police? I don’t have to
» » follow your rules as to how to initiate a discussion.
» »
» » As for this, yet another obscure article that will now begin a new
» » hysteria, I’ll say this:
» »
» » 1. This guy is British. Who knows if he’s considered the FDA process?
»
» »
» » 2. How many people touting a cure to hairloss claim it will be
» available
» » in 2 years? Its almost as common as the “5 year till a cure”
» proclamation.
» » Follica, the most reputable start-up doing hairloss research, had
» people
» » claiming it would be available within the new year. It obviously won’t
» be.
» » These people say these things to generate hype (and in turn, VC
» money),
» » and you suckers buy into every time.
» »
» » So I actually DO have a “basis” for position: its called “history”.
» Its
» » your position that is baseless.
» »
» » And unless you’re under 30, I’m not older than you. And thanks to
» » Propecia, Rogain and Nizoral, I still have my hair. That’s why I don’t
» get
» » suckered like the rest of you; I can afford the wait. Apparently, you
» » can’t.

“I was wrong, you had no intentions of any discussion. ur just immature, vain, and stupid.” You call that a rebuttal? And you bashed me for my discussion technique? “Whaaaa! You’re winning the argument! So now I’m just going to call you names!”

“Stupid rhetoric”? Do you even know what “rhetoric” means? Because your employment of the word makes no sense. I wish you people would stick to using words you understand.

“Chances are he doesn’t need the FDA”? How do you know? Assuming he does is logical - hairloss is a medical problem, and any treatment of it (not cosmetic conealment) would “need the FDA”. Otherwise, its just another toupee product.

Its the height of irony that you started flaming me by accusing me of not employing rational discussion, only to end your posts by doing nothing but calling names.


#20

point is valid dude, i just have one question - is there a workaround to the FDA system ? like if intellectual property is bought, and if the original company had trials going/done, does it hold good for the new owners ?

i think thats the only way he brings it to market, if he does.

ur right, and i hadnt seen that link before. it looks shady.

» well lets use soma rational thinking
»
» if trial takes 10 years, then he cant have a medical product on the market
»
»
» - medical product trial takes 10 years
» - the journalist says 1 year to have product on the market
» - journalists lie, and make up stuff and dont understand stuff and
» misinterpret on daily basis
» - it could be something else the medical product (a toupee?)
» - it could be scam, http://trx2.com/ points to some mailing list register
» page. Looks like a cheap “gimme your mail address and ill spam you forever”
» trick.
» - the guy exists, seems to have made one project already, this points to
» not a complete scam
»
»
» id say simplest explanation is that the guy hopes to find some drug
» candidates in one year from now on. and the journalist just misinterpreted
» that as 1 year to market. this explanation is simplest, and most probable.
» I give it 65%
»
» scam is 30% (it wouldnt be the first scam some ppl here were willing to
» put all their money on would it?)
»
» non medical product is 4.9% (the guy is smart, maybe he just invented a
» new toupee).
»
» a miraculous cure that does not need approvals is 0.1% (and thats probably
» 0.1% more then I should assign here. this world has rules, and rule no1 is
» safety first, and trials needed for any medical products).