Bottom line: do you believe a cure for hair loss is on the horizon?

[peridot]

Thanks all for your thoughts. It *is* complex for women, though I pretty much subscribe to Occam's Razor type thinking, hence suspect based on the testing I've had done so far that Androgenetic Alopecia really is the primary culprit in my case.

On another thread someone was saying that there simply isn't enough $$ behind some of these projects because a) hair multiplication may be the wave of the future and b) until then the trend toward head shaving suits many men fine. If that's the case, potential funders are missing an opportunity; the 25% (roughly) of women facing this as they get older are probably a lot more willing to spend a lot more money on solving the problem.

Frustrating.

 

[abcdefg]

It all depends what you mean by cure. I consider a cure to be a true genetic solution where they modify our genes to completely stop male pattern baldness before it happens which I guess means a preventative cure. Once your a Norwood 7 I dont think we will ever be able to full regrow all the hair. I consider transplanting, multiplying or whatever else just a cover for male pattern baldness since really we didnt figure out how male pattern baldness works and cure it we simply found an alternative way to cover it up which I guess is still good just not a cure.

That being said I dont think we will cure male pattern baldness in our lifetimes. Science just moves to slowly for the reasons we already know and have seen. The past shows us the likely future. There have been numerous times people thought we might cure something and sadly thats just not true usually. I think regrowing a lot of hair like a Norwood 4 to Norwood 2 will be possible within 10 years or so with pretty high success rates I dont think we can hope for much more then that.

 

[abcdefg]

I dont think enough women lose there hair for it to be really profitable. Then it seems to be different from men. I think as we figure out male pattern baldness we will constantly test to see if it works on women and gradually over the years piece together the puzzle hopefully theres not to many pieces.

 

[Durandel]

The question was not about a cure for Male Pattern Baldness, it was about a cure for Hair Loss. male pattern baldness is a genetic disorder, and does not describe all forms of hair loss. A cure for Hair Loss would be a reliable treatment that grows new hair in areas where it has been lost, regardless of the cause.

Personally I'd far rather have my scalp re-seeded with hair than apply unpleasant topical treatments and take dodgy pills. I think most people would see this as a cure. I would most definitely rather go completely bald than tamper with my own genetics. I can't see many parents agreeing to having their children treated either.

minoxidil and finasteride are both old treatments, and I think they should be considered as an interim measure now. They've both been on sale for over a decade. Neither have a particularly great performance record - if they did this forum wouldn't exist. The way that they work, and the problem that seek to solve, is not understood. In addition they cause side effects, have very poor delivery, can be very inconvenient and are generally expensive. Some new active ingredients have been added, and some new ideas (lasercomb, for example) have been put forward, but there has been no siginificant breakthrough. Basically the current crop of regrowth treatments are crap.

A huge amount of research has be going on for years to find better, more targeted solutions. This is a problem afflicting a massive number of working people with high incomes, who can and will pay top dollar for a solution. A company that develops a effective cure would reap huge rewards. The resources being applied to this area of research are staggering. There are several new and exciting options currently reaching the end of their development cycles, and these will start to come through in the next 2-5 years. To suggest that all this promising research will produce nothing is needlessly pessimistic. We can look forward to revolution in treatment choices over the next 5-10 years, during which I think we can expect to see effective and reliable solutions. They'll be very expensive at first, and I'm sure that more refined/convenient versions will follow them, but they'll work.

So maybe I am being foolish, but I'm excited by the future. I am confident that I will be able to restore my hair within 5-10 years. And cash permitting, I think you all will too.

 

[bobs]

Good post.
I second that.

Impossible to say exactly when we will see a new treatment on the market but there will be one and hopefully sooner than later. Even if men are Okay with shaving every one one of them would rather go on with having hair.

I would say an early version of HM is possible for between 2010-2011 and as soon as it comes out it will be tweaked and improved constantly until it reaches its maximum level of efficiency.

A side note about women and hairloss;
Since I started to loose my hair I have been noticing others loosing since I often compare hair these days (unfortunately). and I have been noticing so many women with hairloss issues. Some of my close female friends are experiencing hairloss (not just slightly loosing some but really visible loss).
My mother, who has the thickest hair I have ever seen, was loosing some years ago she told me it was because of stress. I dont know but I feel stress plays the major part here when it comes to women. Those of my female friends loosing it are all overly-stressed and carrer-focused people.

There was a Television show on a year ago or so about this exact topic, women loosing their hair and how it really destroyed their self-esteem. I mean if this is a problem for a man, imagine how it is for a woman. It is not socially acceptable for a woman to loose her hair while it is fully normal for a man to.

 

[abcdefg]

i dont know i would say its any easier for a women or a man to lose there hair. Its not perfectly normal for a man to lose his hair some dont. If we all lost hair and it was normal why would be here caring about it? It might be harder for a women I dont know im not a women its equally painful why does one have to be worse then the other?

 

[Durandel]

i dont know i would say its any easier for a women or a man to lose there hair. Its not perfectly normal for a man to lose his hair some dont. If we all lost hair and it was normal why would be here caring about it? It might be harder for a women I dont know im not a women its equally painful why does one have to be worse then the other?

Seriously? You really don't see that there is a difference? Do you actually know any women?

You've made some very odd statements in this thread, demonstrating an astonishing combination of ignorance and insensitivity. For men hair loss is common, and it's perfectly acceptable to see obviously bald/balding men in public. By contrast, how many slap-head women do you see in public? Obvious hair loss in women is less common than in men, and women are far more focused on their apperance than men. Are you so wrapped up in self pity that you can't see how that would make things worse for women suffering from hair loss?

 

[metalheaddude]

i dont know i would say its any easier for a women or a man to lose there hair. Its not perfectly normal for a man to lose his hair some dont. If we all lost hair and it was normal why would be here caring about it? It might be harder for a women I dont know im not a women its equally painful why does one have to be worse then the other?

Seriously? You really don't see that there is a difference? Do you actually know any women?

You've made some very odd statements in this thread, demonstrating an astonishing combination of ignorance and insensitivity. For men hair loss is common, and it's perfectly acceptable to see obviously bald/balding men in public. By contrast, how many slap-head women do you see in public? Obvious hair loss in women is less common than in men, and women are far more focused on their apperance than men. Are you so wrapped up in self pity that you can't see how that would make things worse for women suffering from hair loss?

Im a guy and I think its ALOT more devastating for a young woman to lose her hair than a young male. Hair is the womans beauty (or at least plays a big part of it). Of course it does depend on the individual and its defintely not normal that EITHER sex should lose their hair, but the simple fact is, men have been loosing their hair since the dawn of time so its more socially acceptable. Seeing a completely bald woman is ALOT more striking and weird than seeing a bald male.

 

[flimflam]

The question was not about a cure for Male Pattern Baldness, it was about a cure for Hair Loss. male pattern baldness is a genetic disorder, and does not describe all forms of hair loss. A cure for Hair Loss would be a reliable treatment that grows new hair in areas where it has been lost, regardless of the cause.

(... snip ...)

A man after my own heart. Agree 100%, couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[DaSand]

I do think a cure for all types of hair loss will come in the next decade. It's going to be solved somehow.

 

[Cyan]

A cure for hair loss will NEVER be available simply for economical reasons. Imagine the Billions $$$$$$$$$ yearly profit for companies producing minoxidil and finasteride. People will never cease to buy minoxidil and finasteride since it's a lifetime commitment. Those companies will be the first to fight the existence of a cure.
May be an improved minoxidil-like treatment will appear but FOR SURE not a pure cure.
(Simply my theory)

 

[flimflam]

A cure for hair loss will NEVER be available simply for economical reasons. Imagine the Billions $$$$$$$$$ yearly profit for companies producing minoxidil and finasteride. People will never cease to buy minoxidil and finasteride since it's a lifetime commitment. Those companies will be the first to fight the existence of a cure.
May be an improved minoxidil-like treatment will appear but FOR SURE not a pure cure.
(Simply my theory)

It's a terrible theory.

 

[metalheaddude]

A cure for hair loss will NEVER be available simply for economical reasons. Imagine the Billions $$$$$$$$$ yearly profit for companies producing minoxidil and finasteride. People will never cease to buy minoxidil and finasteride since it's a lifetime commitment. Those companies will be the first to fight the existence of a cure.
May be an improved minoxidil-like treatment will appear but FOR SURE not a pure cure.
(Simply my theory)

It's a terrible theory.

Its not terrible. Look at oil and cigarette companies. For years they have suppressed information that would pretty much destroy them. Its not so inconceivable that these hairloss companies would do the same. Do you have any idea what money does to people? Money talks my friend. Just like Cigarette companies don't care that they are killing people with cancer or how countless junk food companies target young children in there advertisment campaigns. Its same with these hairloss companies, they dont care about the average balding joe. They just want money. Plain and simple. So its not "terrible". Its plausible. But probable? Probably not.

 

[flimflam]

Ok, I'm not so naïve that I didn't actually consider that.

 

[bobs]

It is a terrible theory in my opinion.

The two fields are completely different. Yes for years the tobacco companies have spent money on surpressing information but guess what? That information is out now so not even the tobacco companies could have it hidden for ever.
Besides, the tobacco companies have their tobacco and not much else going for them. As stated above the companies producing minoxidil+propecia got other things going for them. In fact propecia is considered a big failure.
Again besides, the tobacco companies are conducting most of their business to the third-world now where they can roam more freely with their filth.

And how would you fight a cure? Beat down the scientists at ICX or Aderans? Place a bomb at Neosils?
These companies are conducting research and there are plenty of other companies out there willing to invest in them and the question is who got the biggest interest, the companies willing to invest in a cure or companies wanting to hinder a cure?

There is not ONE Company producing minoxidil or ONE company producing finasteride but plenty too so the profit is not concentrated into one field.

 

[elguapo]

I spent a few minutes racking my brain, trying to think of a solid example to counter the theory that company A would pay company B for not releasing something better to the market, putting company A out of business.

The only story I ever heard in which a company did not go forward with the production of a drug was a company that produces or produced (past tense) Immthar, which is a damn near cure for a specific type of cancer called Ewing's Sarcoma, which is very rare (thankfully). I saw that on a CNN special about cancer, called Taming the Beast. Interesting. The company decided not to produce more of the drug, because it is not "cost effective". Even though doctors think that it cured a little girl, the drug company is not going through with it, because the target is too rare.

But I can think of plenty examples of either both old and new technology coexisting, or new technology simply outdoing the old, making it obsolete.
1) DVDs, outperforming VHS. Likewise, CDs and tapedecks, though tapedecks are pretty much obsolete. 8-tracks are certainly obsolete.
2) LASIC outperforming contacts, though not everybody qualifies for LASIC. Contacts outperforming or out-appealing glasses.
3) Computers and paper. The WWW and Libraries.

I don't think there were any "conspiracies" or attempts to thwart the progress of new technology in any of the above cases. So I really don't believe that the makers of minoxidil and finasteride will have any influence on the progress of HM. That's one of the beauties of capitalism. People got rich off of those products. And somebody new will get rich off of HM, and rightly so.

I don't think you can compare the tobacco industry to the hair loss industry, because the tobacco industry is a known "bad" thing, in that they do not develop a product that improves the quality of life. On the other hand, companies that produce solutions for hair loss - minoxidil, finasteride, hair transplant, HM - they are all producing something that improves a man's image, and hence his quality of life.

But I also believe that the tobacco industry will fall. I think the US will get hit HARD with all the baby boomers getting old and having problems, which will have a huge impact on health care, and uncle Sam will be pointing the finger at every entity that is detrimental, big tobacco being the first to blame. That's just me.

Admittedly, I have a rather optimistic, and altruistic, view on things.=)

 

[hairwegoagain]

Propecia is a small-time drug. Its sales are pretty much a rounding error in Merck's overall portfolio...far less than 2%. It was a sales failure from the beginning and continues to rot on the vine as patent protection expires in 5 years. It's just not the big deal that conspiracists here think it is.

There's a lot of Merck-bashing on this forum. Let me remind you that Merck developed your precious finasteride in the first place. It will be a company like Merck that introduces the next advance in medicinal treatment...and guess what? It takes a ton of money to do this. They deserve to make money for their effort just like everyone here deserves a paycheck for working. The lack of reason on this board sometimes shocks me.

No profit in hair loss drugs = not worth anyone's time = you go bald

 

[SoThatsLife]

Its wrong when you say Propecia is a sales failure. It makes Mercks a ton of money(300$ million a year), it just isn't the one of the biggest drugs in the world. One reason for the "low" sales is that prob quite a lot of the users use Proscar or generic finasteride.

But the people that say that hairloss products that really works get stopped could be right to some point. But this could only be a rumor: The company that researched RU was bought by a wig making company, that feared that RU could ruin their business.

 

[bobs]

What? A wig company bought the RU-Formula?

I thought a french company (strokan something) bought it and got in ph2 right now.
It has been in ph2 for a very long time but I dont think strokan is a wig-company.

 

[RaginDemon]

there will be a perfect fix in 100 yrs.