Hair Loss Will be Cured Within Ten Years

Will hair loss be cured within ten years

  • Yes

    Votes: 74 40.9%
  • No

    Votes: 107 59.1%

  • Total voters
    181

trialAcc

Senior Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
1,168
Many companies license out their production. nothing new about that.

Many companies run very few production runs at their "R&D facilities" and then license the production out when its stable. Its normal business procedure. Its extremely rare that a company does it all them self.

Same with R&D, its normal its a collaborative effort. Again nothing new about that.

Tsuji is one of those, Replicel does the same. many does this. Even within the car industry its quite normal to buy into R&D from their suppliers.

I would bet its rather difficult to find a company that DOES NOT license out anything.
No one said it was a new thing, but this isn't R&D like you are describing. This is a completed pre-clinical program with phase 1 data already available.

If this were a home run profitability wise then Bayer would be holding universal rights and developing it in-house. They clearly see massive potential risk or a lack of profitability to drag it past phase 1 and then license it out.
 
Last edited:

coolio

Established Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
367
There is no money in hairloss, and that's why there has been no progress.

If nobody has ever made much profit off a life-extension drug before, does that prove there is no money in life extension?

The baldness community is so caught up in the minutiae of our existing options that we have no normal perspective. No existing hair loss treatment has ever been worth half a sh*t.

The concept of "pay money to get your lost hair back" has never been commercially tested. "Pay money to get sexual side effects and slow down the rate of worsening hair loss" is not a representative stand-in for that. It just isn't.
 

trialAcc

Senior Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
1,168
If nobody has ever made much profit off a life-extension drug before, does that prove there is no money in life extension?

The baldness community is so caught up in the minutiae of our existing options that we have no normal perspective. No existing hair loss treatment has ever been worth half a sh*t.

The concept of "pay money to get your lost hair back" has never been commercially tested. "Pay money to get sexual side effects and slow down the rate of worsening hair loss" is not a representative stand-in for that. It just isn't.
No no, I agree. There is money in a curative treatment, but this means you are asking these companies to sink hundreds of millions to research and development for a treatment that has to be perfect or it's financially useless. I'm simply saying that there is no money in incremental treatments (ie a bit better than finasteride or minoxidil), and that's why we have nothing new in 20+ years.
 

MeDK

Experienced Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
417
No one said it was a new thing, but this isn't R&D like you are describing. This is a completed pre-clinical program with phase 1 data already available.

If this were a home run profitability wise then Bayer would be holding universal rights and developing it in-house. They clearly see massive potential risk or a lack of profitability to drag it past phase 1 and then license it out.
You do understand that Bayer still owns it?

That is why they can license it out to other with ressource they might not have them self.

So Bayer isn't seeing a loss of profitability just because they license it out.

To take one of the worlds biggest players within diabetes drugs is Novo Nordisk, they still work with other companies and universities, is that also a sign of lack of profitability?
 

trialAcc

Senior Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
1,168
You do understand that Bayer still owns it?

That is why they can license it out to other with ressource they might not have them self.

So Bayer isn't seeing a loss of profitability just because they license it out.

To take one of the worlds biggest players within diabetes drugs is Novo Nordisk, they still work with other companies and universities, is that also a sign of lack of profitability?
Bayer is going to get royalties for the life cycle of the product if it's successful, that's not full ownership, they licensed out the global rights to another company.

Again, I'm not saying collaboration and licensing is a bad thing in anyway, but once you get past the pre-clinical stages of research these huge companies are largely going to keep their bigger potential products under their own banner unless they require the synergistic collaboration with another firm that specializes or has IP they require for development. That, or they don't see big opportunity and would rather give it to another company to monetize it rather then just shelve it.

Please tell me how this applies to Bayer giving IP rights to a complete startup? HopeMed has nothing in terms of IP or infrastructure that would lead you to believe a company like Bayer would be better off giving them the rights unless it has something to do with Chinese health/governmental agency approvals.
 

MeDK

Experienced Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
417
Bayer is going to get royalties for the life cycle of the product if it's successful, that's not full ownership, they licensed out the global rights to another company.

Again, I'm not saying collaboration and licensing is a bad thing in anyway, but once you get past the pre-clinical stages of research these huge companies are largely going to keep their bigger potential products under their own banner unless they require the synergistic collaboration with another firm that specializes or has IP they require for development. That, or they don't see big opportunity and would rather give it to another company to monetize it rather then just shelve it.

Please tell me how this applies to Bayer giving IP rights to a complete startup? HopeMed has nothing in terms of IP or infrastructure that would lead you to believe a company like Bayer would be better off giving them the rights unless it has something to do with Chinese health/governmental agency approvals.

Well HopeMed, is a startup, that is based on the Peking University staff that was involved in the research to start with. So Bayer let people who already work with this continue doing so. Now they are just detatched from the university and gone commercially with investors in their back to advance their research.

So its not something that happened out of thin air. Its people who have been involved in the project the entire time.
 

pegasus2

Senior Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
3,666
No one said it was a new thing, but this isn't R&D like you are describing. This is a completed pre-clinical program with phase 1 data already available.

If this were a home run profitability wise then Bayer would be holding universal rights and developing it in-house. They clearly see massive potential risk or a lack of profitability to drag it past phase 1 and then license it out.
According to the article posted earlier, it wasn't even Bayer's idea to test it for hair loss. Xiao already had a collaboration with Bayer through the NHP center, and when they noticed hair growth in mice while testing for endometriosis they decided to test in primates at the NHP. Xiao and Bayer were both very excited by the results, but Bayer isn't focused on alopecia so Xiao formed HopeMed solely to develop it because of the macaque study. It says a lot that they formed the entire company just for this one drug and only for hair loss, any other indications are secondary. They then quickly completed multiple, large funding rounds based almost entirely on the success of this one treatment for alopecia. There are no red flags here
 

trialAcc

Senior Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
1,168
According to the article posted earlier, it wasn't even Bayer's idea to test it for hair loss. Xiao already had a collaboration with Bayer through the NHP center, and when they noticed hair growth in mice while testing for endometriosis they decided to test in primates at the NHP. Xiao and Bayer were both very excited by the results, but Bayer isn't focused on alopecia so Xiao formed HopeMed solely to develop it because of the macaque study. It says a lot that they formed the entire company just for this one drug and only for hair loss, any other indications are secondary. They then quickly completed multiple, large funding rounds based almost entirely on the success of this one treatment for alopecia. There are no red flags here
I wasn't aware of the history, that's for sure. I wasn't even implying there was a red flag with the drug, I even said when the series A was announced that this was a massive fund raise so there must be some very big hype behind the scenes. The issue for me was that I still see Bayer doubting the profit potential, not the efficacy.

I still stand by the fact that even if this drug becomes an essential cure for hairloss for those who havn't already been bald for decades, the future price point and intensive nature of the drug are going to greatly hinder it's profitability.
 

coolio

Established Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
367
No no, I agree. There is money in a curative treatment, but this means you are asking these companies to sink hundreds of millions to research and development for a treatment that has to be perfect or it's financially useless. I'm simply saying that there is no money in incremental treatments (ie a bit better than finasteride or minoxidil), and that's why we have nothing new in 20+ years.

Yes, I agree with that.

After the commercial results of Rogaine and Propecia they won't be investing money into fighting the ongoing loss. A new treatment needs to offer 'cosmetically significant' amounts of regrowth at minimum.
 

trialAcc

Senior Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
1,168
Yes, I agree with that.

After the commercial results of Rogaine and Propecia they won't be investing money into fighting the ongoing loss. A new treatment needs to offer 'cosmetically significant' amounts of regrowth at minimum.
Exactly, but curing complex conditions is not easy.
 

Keratinpro

Banned
My Regimen
Reaction score
135
I am curious to see if anyone will have the guts to say "I told you so" when we finally get a working cure.
I will, those who have been overly pessimistic shouldn't try these futuristic treatments. They should stay in a dark basement somewhere in Romania in a castle biting their nails saying "No, no, no this can't be possible. 10 more years minimum."
 

trialAcc

Senior Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
1,168
I feel like this is a @czecha call out.
Definitely not a call out of anyone, but you just know there is a certain percentage of people on forums like this that use hairloss as a scapegoat for every single problem they have in life. Once hairloss is solved they'll complain about how it's unaffordable or just move on to the next issue when nothing changes for them, or sit there and complain about how their youth was wasted and how it's too late now even though they're like 31 years old.
 

froggy7

Established Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
69
Definitely not a call out of anyone, but you just know there is a certain percentage of people on forums like this that use hairloss as a scapegoat for every single problem they have in life. Once hairloss is solved they'll complain about how it's unaffordable or just move on to the next issue when nothing changes for them, or sit there and complain about how their youth was wasted and how it's too late now even though they're like 31 years old.
but they are right - when you balding early this waste your youth
 

Keratinpro

Banned
My Regimen
Reaction score
135
1621352582547.gif
 

Diffused_confidence

Experienced Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
255
If you waste your youth, that's solely on you not your hair. You're doing exactly what I'm describing right now lol, scapegoating.
I think what he means is that your life experiences are hindered greatly due to hair loss. I'm mostly referring to those who first notice it under 20 years old. Their self esteem takes a major hit during what is supposed to be the best years of your life and yeah people say to just own it and grow up but if you are 18 years old you are still very young and hair loss is a tough thing to deal with. At 18 you are not nearly as mature as someone who is 30. It also doesn't help that at 18 it is stigmatized. Can you make the most of it? Sure, but I am thankful that I didn't have to worry about it until my early 30s.
 
Top