The consequences of a cure?

[Durandel]

In another thread most posters felt that an effective way to grow hair in areas where it has been lost would be available between 5 to 10 years from now. Everyone thought that such treatments would be very expensive for at first, and even after they've been out for a while I think you can be sure that they'll never be cheap.

This got me thinking. If true, then only those people who cannot or will not pay for treatment will have noticable hair loss. Will famously balding people (Donald Trump, Bruce Willis, etc.) stick with thier image or get the treatment? In wealthy nations, will baldness become a social indicator of low financial status? Should current hair loss sufferers start planning for the expense now?

 

[metalheaddude]

A cure will never come. Its alot like major oil companies suppressing technology that already exists to have "clean technology" automobiles. There is just to much money involved. Companies like Merck (makers of Propecia) have far to much invested in this, ALOT of money is being made. The last they want to see is "a cure" because the moment that happens their stock will plumet down to earth like a lead balloon. These rich fat cats dont give a crap about the average balding joe or a potential cure, all they care about is money. The same can be said for Hair Transplant surgeons, because the day a cure is created they will effectively be out of the job! It sounds rather pessimistic i know, but its just the reality of the sad world we live in.

 

[docj077]

Propecia is a very small fraction of another very, very small fraction when compared to the money that Merck puts into other products. They could totally drop that aspect of product development and their stocks wouldn't even budge. Merck's investment is in other products that actually have a purpose. The majority of their money is in drugs like Singulair, Fosamax, and Cozaar/Hyzaar. Not to mention the billions they've made off nexium and prilosec. They also had hundreds of millions invested in Vioxx, but we know how that turned out. They have investments in antiviral drugs, viral and bacterial vaccines and the like. Basically, propecia is worthless to them.

 

[kento]

I don't think that real cure will come in future, hair loss market start to produce nice income for some companies. Expect more treaments in future but i don't belive that once procedure (cure) will solve your hair loss problem forever. HM will be the first procedure that can give you full head of hair but again it's far from cure, i guess you still need to control your hormons with some medication.

 

[s.a.f]

Companies like Merck (makers of Propecia) have far to much invested in this, ALOT of money is being made. The last they want to see is "a cure" because the moment that happens their stock will plumet down to earth like a lead balloon. These rich fat cats dont give a crap about the average balding joe or a potential cure, all they care about is money. The same can be said for Hair Transplant surgeons, because the day a cure is created they will effectively be out of the job!

I'm not one of these HM is nearly here guys :jackit: but it makes sense to me that any real cure would be alot more profitable than current treatments that the majority of balding guys dont take because they are not proven to be totally effective and could possibly have side effects. If there was a real cure I'd predict that almost every bald guy would be interested the companies could pretty much charge whatever they liked and the profits made would dwarf the current finasteride/dutasteride profits.
However IMO its still just a dream. Until the day comes when all the big celebrities like Bruce Willis and the bald TV and sports stars suddenly start growing new heads of hair, then you can be pretty sure that there is no cure coming anytime soon.

 

[DaSand]

Companies making hair loss drugs would go out of business and so would the hair transplant doctors. People on these boards are quite pessimistic, but I choose to remain optimistic and realistic. TRC will be done after 2010 and that's only what two and a half years away?

But the drug companies and hair transplant surgeons will do all that they can to keep it from coming to the U.S. Something will come out once capitalism has been restrained.

I think something that will help everyone regardless will come.

 

[Durandel]

Seriously, the current drugs have an appallingly low success rate so anything even remotely resembling an effective treatment will just wipe them out. minoxidil and finasteride have had over 10 years on the market, they're unreliable crap, they're nasty to use and there are cheap generic alternatives on sale are everywhere.

Pharmacutical corporations must weep to see such a huge potential market that they aren't capitalising on. From thier point of view they need to be pushing something new, convenient and effective that people will pay big money for! That's why there's such a big research push. And hair transplant doctors won't go out of business; they'll just start offering the new treatment/s instead. HM will open the door for them to offer expensive, lower risk treatment to a much wider market. They'll be loving it. Everyone's a winner.

Except for the less well off, who won't be able to afford treatment. That's what I was wondering about. Under those circumstances, where hair loss is fixable for a price, could baldness become like having really bad teeth? Will it carry the same stigma of poverty and/or slobbishness?

 

[s.a.f]

But the drug companies and hair transplant surgeons will do all that they can to keep it from coming to the U.S. Something will come out once capitalism has been restrained.

Thats a bit like claiming that private Dr's and drug treatment companies are somehow suppressing the cure for diseases. Somehow I dont think that hair transplant surgeons or even private drug laboratories have any power to hold back/halt a cure for baldness even if they wanted to. :shakehead:

 

[s.a.f]

Seriously, the current drugs have an appallingly low success rate so anything even remotely resembling an effective treatment will just wipe them out. minoxidil and finasteride have had over 10 years on the market, they're unreliable crap, they're nasty to use and there are cheap generic alternatives on sale are everywhere.

Pharmacutical corporations must weep to see such a huge potential market that they aren't capitalising on. From thier point of view they need to be pushing something new, convenient and effective that people will big money for! That's why there's such a big research push. And hair transplant doctors won't go out of business; they'll just start offering the new treatment/s instead. HM will open the door for them to offer expensive, lower risk treatment to a much wider market. They'll be loving it. Everyone's a winner.

Exactly :agree:

Except for the less well off, who won't be able to afford treatment. That's what I was wondering about. Under those circumstances, where hair loss is fixable for a price, could baldness become like having really bad teeth? Will it carry the same stigma of poverty and/or slobbishness?

One things for sure there are plenty of guys out there who will pay whatever price they ask. Only after this initial period of at least a few years will the price slowly start to come down. Here we are talking about something that is still not even a reality yet.

 

[treeshrew]

minoxidil and finasteride have had over 10 years on the market, they're unreliable crap

there are a number of people here who have had success with these treatments. maybe they didn't work for you?

 

[Durandel]

minoxidil and finasteride have had over 10 years on the market, they're unreliable crap

there are a number of people here who have had success with these treatments. maybe they didn't work for you?

True enough, but can you honestly say that the "big three" are a reliable and effective treatment for hair loss?

The number of people who have had substantial results with them is proportionally tiny. If the treatments weren't unreliable crap then this forum wouldn't exist.

 

[s.a.f]

minoxidil and finasteride have had over 10 years on the market, they're unreliable crap

there are a number of people here who have had success with these treatments. maybe they didn't work for you?

People have different ideas as to what is a success. Some would consider a slowing or halting of you're hairloss to be a success. But others want a fullproof cure: regrowth of any lost hair and thats something that is still unavailable.

 

[bobs]

Even if people find the big 3 to be succesful, and they are plenty out there that do, it is still not good enough. Lets face it, you dont want to pop a pill once, apply minoxidil twice and well the schampooing you gotta do anyway so that is okay, for twelve months and then MAYBE see some results or in worse case no results and besides riskying all the side-effects.

Lets compare it with the hair-removal industry (funny comparison), they had some electrolysis out in the 70s, 80s that was okay but not good enough. People did it, it cost them money and it hurt but they did it and it did work but not good enough. Today anyone with 2000$ can get rid of hair all over the body for good with laser. People might have thought the electrolysis to be a success but it can't even be compared with the laser. Same will go for hair-loss, people might find the big 3 to be a success as it is now but in the future people will feel sorry for us poor bastards going through all this crap. I'm certain of that.

I believe the reason we dont have a cure right now in the market is because of the difficulty contra the superficiality of the thing. If it was a life or death situation then there would be a cure out there but it is not a life or death situation (for the majority of us, for some it might seem to be but they need to get their act straight). Same as hair-removal is not a life or death situation but there is more or less a cure out there now (laser) and it could be produced without too much hassle since it is easier to remove hair than grow it. This is why a cure for hair loss is taking such a time, because it needs more sophisticated techniques and there must be other things to gain for companies (like wound-healing, bone-growing etc) to make a go at it while they are at other things too.

 

[BobbyChalfont]

A cure will never come. Its alot like major oil companies suppressing technology that already exists to have "clean technology" automobiles. There is just to much money involved. Companies like Merck (makers of Propecia) have far to much invested in this, ALOT of money is being made. The last they want to see is "a cure" because the moment that happens their stock will plumet down to earth like a lead balloon. These rich fat cats dont give a crap about the average balding joe or a potential cure, all they care about is money. The same can be said for Hair Transplant surgeons, because the day a cure is created they will effectively be out of the job! It sounds rather pessimistic i know, but its just the reality of the sad world we live in.

This is such a stupid conspiracy.

Did the makers of the VHS stop the DVD being created? Did the makers of audio tapes halt the invention of the CD? Did the makers of the condom prevent the pill from being made?

All the current "cures" and "remedies" for hairloss are unpredictable at best. Loads of balding men DON'T take Propecia because of the sides and the uncertantity of it working. If a 100% cure was invented, it would be far, far, FAR more profitable than the current load of crappy snake oils. A company like Merck haven't got any say over the research and development of other companies.

 

[Durandel]

Even if people find the big 3 to be succesful, and they are plenty out there that do, it is still not good enough. Lets face it, you dont want to pop a pill once, apply minoxidil twice and well the schampooing you gotta do anyway so that is okay, for twelve months and then MAYBE see some results or in worse case no results and besides riskying all the side-effects.

Lets compare it with the hair-removal industry (funny comparison), they had some electrolysis out in the 70s, 80s that was okay but not good enough. People did it, it cost them money and it hurt but they did it and it did work but not good enough. Today anyone with 2000$ can get rid of hair all over the body for good with laser. People might have thought the electrolysis to be a success but it can't even be compared with the laser. Same will go for hair-loss, people might find the big 3 to be a success as it is now but in the future people will feel sorry for us poor bastards going through all this crap. I'm certain of that.

I believe the reason we dont have a cure right now in the market is because of the difficulty contra the superficiality of the thing. If it was a life or death situation then there would be a cure out there but it is not a life or death situation (for the majority of us, for some it might seem to be but they need to get their act straight). Same as hair-removal is not a life or death situation but there is more or less a cure out there now (laser) and it could be produced without too much hassle since it is easier to remove hair than grow it. This is why a cure for hair loss is taking such a time, because it needs more sophisticated techniques and there must be other things to gain for companies (like wound-healing, bone-growing etc) to make a go at it while they are at other things too.

I pretty much agree with all of that.

Actually, I was going to argue that market pressures from the fantastic profits potentially available would drive research of the most superficial ailments. However I started thinking about the scientists who are qualified to do medical research, and concluded that they might be more interested in saving lives. So maybe you're right; you certainly have a point.

In any event, we seem to be on the verge of a medical revolution in many fields and there's a lot of bright news to keep us all very hopeful for a cure!

 

[jdr_333]

I just thought I'd mention that I spent well over $2000. on laser hair removal for back hair a few years ago. The treatments were about once every 6 weeks or so and lasted for about a year. My back looked pretty good as long as I continued treatments, but once I stopped the treatments all of the hair grew back in within 6 months. So, in my experience the laser is not a permanent solution. Or, maybe I didn't go to a very good clinic.

 

[bobs]

I think you didnt go to a very good clinic to be honest. I have heard that it works very well.

 

[cal]

Look at the situation that we'll be seeing over the next 10 or 20 years:


-- There's a widespread belief that young men may be starting get male pattern baldness much worse than ever before these days for some reason.

-- The popularity cosmetic surgery, the popularity of males getting it, and just the general importance of looks in this culture has been absolutely skyrocketing in recent years.

-- There are also a lot of complaints that women are seeing a lot more "male-pattern" hair loss too. Men might be wanting cosmetic improvements more than ever before, but the demand among women is completely off the charts.

-- It seems like everything else on the body is already getting fixed better with a long series of scientific breakthroughs. Scar repair, skin rejuvenation stuff, teeth whitening, better acne options, etc. There's a feeling in the air that age-related symptoms should rightfully be getting fixed as long as you've got the money for it.

-- The baby boomers are getting older fast, and their hair loss is gonna be getting exponentially more severe as the whole group ages. This group REALLY does not want to look old yet, and they're still holding a disporportionate amount of the disposable income.



See what I'm getting at?
If you think a better hair loss treatment is already in high demand right now . . . then boy, just wait!

If medical scientists doesn't hurry up and produce a real hair loss treatment in the next few years, then it's probably just a matter of time before the public forms a lymch-mob. The medical reseach community is gonna get chased into the lab with pitchforks and held there with no food or water until they produce a male pattern baldness cure.

 

[s.a.f]

See what I'm getting at?
If you think a better hair loss treatment is already in high demand right now . . . then boy, just wait!

If medical scientists doesn't hurry up and produce a real hair loss treatment in the next few years, then it's probably just a matter of time before the public forms a lymch-mob. The medical reseach community is gonna get chased into the lab with pitchforks and held there with no food or water until they produce a male pattern baldness cure.

WTF :shakehead:
I think that some people need to realise that in the medical science world. A cure for m.p.b takes about as much priority (or probably even less) as a finding a cure for cellulite. :roll:
Treating and preventing diseases and health disorders will always take priority, and although a cure for m.p.b would make millions given that only a few million men worldwide would be interested or rich enough to buy it (Judging by the salesd of current treatments such as rogain/propecia).
If scientists were interested purely in making money it would be far more worthwhile concentrating on treatments for potentially more profitable cosmetic products such as wrinkles, weight loss or even grey hair treatments that about 2 billion+ women and men worldwide would be more interested in buying.

 

[cal]

It doesn't matter what research scientists want to do. It matters what gets funded. Throw enough money at the demand for male pattern baldness and it'll get a decent treatment.


My point is that the market for a real male pattern baldness treatment is not only gonna continue to exist and grow with the population; it's gonna expand even in proportion to that. And the greatest expansion of the demand will be among the same groups who are most able to spur the research for change in the situation and then pay a lot of money for it when it arrives.



A guy who complained about his "hair loss problem" and sought out info/treatment used to be a middle-aged guy with a receding/balding head. In decades past it wasn't usually a 22-year-old who sounds like he's having a nervous breakdown about going from a Norwood#1 to a Norwood#2. The male experience in the 21st century is being heavily "metrosexual-ized" these days. Baldness used to be a big problem when the chrome-dome began showing, but now a lot of guys are complaining as soon as they first see signs of losing the ridiculous teenage thickness and the Norwood#1 hairline. Teenage hair is becoming the desired "normal" for a lot of 38-year-olds now.



And once the fight against male pattern baldness reaches a certain tipping point it will matter less and less whether men care about it or not. Not all men might be inclined to give a crap about hair loss themselves, but eventually they'll be forced to care about it when nobody else around them has any visible male pattern baldness anymore and they can't get laid because of it.

Look at orthodontics & straight teeth: My father could have gotten braces as a kid (and kinda needed them), but at the time it wasn't something guys like him really cared about. But nowadays most kids like him or me get braces whether they personally care or not. It's no longer about vanity, it's just become a necessary part of socially fitting in to have perfect-looking teeth. It has became part of the continuing appearance arms-race in the culture that everyone must be concerned with whether they personally care or not.