THE MSYTERY OF FOLLICA!!!

[miozambrotta19]

Follica is a mystery.
1)3 years ago Xconomy had a article on Follica, and Zohar mentioned that it was starting pre trails on 15-20 patients and said it would be one year it had results . What ever happened to the results?????Article Xconomy 1/4/2008
"A proof of concept study involving 15 to 20 patients (Follica has no shortage of volunteers, as several hundred people sent in e-mails when word of Cotsarelis’s work reached the public) should begin in the next few months. The trial has several phases, however, and Zohar cautions that final data won’t be in for at least a year. So don’t pull your hair out waiting for results."
Xconomy 8/12/2008
With the regulatory path relatively clear, Follica’s plan was to use its Series A money to quickly begin a small proof of concept study, involving 15 to 20 patients. Zohar yesterday confirmed that a pilot study is underway but wouldn’t confirm where or give any other details on its timing other than to tacitly stick to the timeline she laid out in January, when she said that final data from the study would not be available for at least a year. “Everything is progressing on track,†she now says. “We are moving as quickly as possible within the constraints of clinically driven medicine.â€

3)Zohar mentioned that the products being used for this technology are already FDA approved and wouldn't have to go through the whole FDA trails stages. SO what is taking so Long?
Article Xconomy 1/4/2008 and written again in 8/2008 article
"Zohar says Follica has further developed this work and filed additional patents to protect the technology. What’s so beautiful about the approach, she says, is that translating it into a treatment for humans involves only devices and drugs that are already on the market. A doctor would first use a microdermabrasion tool, say, or a laser to remove the top layers of the skin—as is already commonly done in a number of dermatologic and cosmetic procedures—knocking some cells back into a primitive state. The doctor can then use this newly created therapeutic window to inject drugs that push the cells to develop along one pathway or another and grow hair or skin. Zohar won’t reveal what drugs Follica is using, except to say that they are small molecule drugs normally taken orally for purposes with no relation to hair growth."

How can a company Raise money for Series A and B and not have something to show for it. Why would anyone invest millions into something that wouldn't have merit. But Dr. Cots says they havent even started humans trails yet.
Xconomy 5/13/09
"What, exactly, Follica’s next step is—and when it will occur—is of intense interest to many of Xconomy’s readers, who struck up an often-spirited conversation on the site after we reported Follica’s $5.5 million Series A round in January 2008 and continued the discussion after the startup’s $11 million Series B funding last August." And they they come out and say in 6/2010 they raised another 7 million for there series b.

Is it a mystery or not. They said they have the technology, they obviously have the money, 3 years ago it was said they were in pre trials, but its almost 2011 and now they say there still experimenting and havent started human trails. Dr Cot said in a 2009 they were still 5 years away from market. So i ask, What ever happened to the pre trials results? How have they raised so much money and from what Dr Cots says are still in experimental and delivery method developments.? Why is this company being so weird?
Its either 1 of 2 things.
1-The technology they had back in 2006 -2008 that worked on mice didn't work on humans in the pretrials and had to develop a new technology or delivery method.
2-Or they are in humans trials but are saying there not so when they complete there trails will shock the world.

What does everyone think?

 

[eraofzzt]

I doubt it too and do not know what happened

 

[andrei_eremenko]

an update...I was thinking that they are already out of competition...

http://www.xconomy.com/boston/2011/03/3 ... invention/

 

[tonyj]

andrei_eremenko - following your link, I found that TrichoScience is still in the running.

http://google.brand.edgar-online.co...6723&ppu=%2fdefault.aspx%3fcompanyid%3d386723

 

[sammo]

the companies that provide temporary not 100% reversible hairloss solutions I'm sure just turn up with wads of cash and buy out any competition or potential sniffs of a cure / permanent result in one procedure. Like all this great promising trials we keep hearing about that never end up finishing or coming to the market.

Do you really think multi million dollar corporations like the people who own minoxidil will allow a cure for hairloss to just pop up?

The world is corrupt and things happen behind closed doors. Billions of dollars are made on temporary solutions.... The people with the money control the game.

For example who killed the electric car? We all know there is a 'cure' and ways of creating alternative cars yet.... greedy people who control the monopoly on that situation squash every instance of a 'cure' arriving for the motor industry to revolutionize the way our world works.

Sorry to sound like a downer, but we should always think cautiously about this stuff.

 

[Ori83]

there is no mystery and no Follica, thats a dead horse... wake up people :dunno:

 

[optimus prime]

I don't want to get peoples hopes up, but it seems Follica is either in the process of Phase II trials, or recently completed Phase II trials.

 

[Oknow]

the companies that provide temporary not 100% reversible hairloss solutions I'm sure just turn up with wads of cash and buy out any competition or potential sniffs of a cure / permanent result in one procedure. Like all this great promising trials we keep hearing about that never end up finishing or coming to the market.

Do you really think multi million dollar corporations like the people who own minoxidil will allow a cure for hairloss to just pop up?

The world is corrupt and things happen behind closed doors. Billions of dollars are made on temporary solutions.... The people with the money control the game.

For example who killed the electric car? We all know there is a 'cure' and ways of creating alternative cars yet.... greedy people who control the monopoly on that situation squash every instance of a 'cure' arriving for the motor industry to revolutionize the way our world works.

Sorry to sound like a downer, but we should always think cautiously about this stuff.

Yeah but you seem to forget that even if there was a cure, there will ALWAYS be bald/balding people...cure one bald person, another balding/bald person takes his place. With minoxidil and propecia, once they lose their effectiveness the drug companies will lose money, so it is all relative.

 

[bigentries]

the companies that provide temporary not 100% reversible hairloss solutions I'm sure just turn up with wads of cash and buy out any competition or potential sniffs of a cure / permanent result in one procedure. Like all this great promising trials we keep hearing about that never end up finishing or coming to the market.

Do you really think multi million dollar corporations like the people who own minoxidil will allow a cure for hairloss to just pop up?

The world is corrupt and things happen behind closed doors. Billions of dollars are made on temporary solutions.... The people with the money control the game.

For example who killed the electric car? We all know there is a 'cure' and ways of creating alternative cars yet.... greedy people who control the monopoly on that situation squash every instance of a 'cure' arriving for the motor industry to revolutionize the way our world works.

Sorry to sound like a downer, but we should always think cautiously about this stuff.

Too much conspiracy theories.

First, companies don't care about long term profits. They want the maximum amount of cash in a short period of time to impress their investors. Never hear how a company stocks fall when they still make a profit, but it was less than the previous quarter?
If a company can sell a complete solution for $10,000 instead of selling a foam each month for $15, they will gladly do it.
Yes, we live in a gready world. What about Pfizer or any other big pharma? Do you really think they are part of a big conspiracy to put baldies down? If they had a propecia-killer treatment they would had already market it.

There is no conspiracy, there is just no treatment available yet.
And where do people get that minoxidil and finasteride get most of the cake? I'm pretty sure the biggest sellers of treatments are cosmetic companies selling shampoos that don't even work

 

[optimus prime]

I am surprised nobody is talking about the fact that Follica are in Phase II trials. That is ahead of Histogen.

 

[Oknow]

I am surprised nobody is talking about the fact that Follica are in Phase II trials. That is ahead of Histogen.

Probably because nobody has seen the actual results from phase I trials

 

[Oknow]

the companies that provide temporary not 100% reversible hairloss solutions I'm sure just turn up with wads of cash and buy out any competition or potential sniffs of a cure / permanent result in one procedure. Like all this great promising trials we keep hearing about that never end up finishing or coming to the market.

Do you really think multi million dollar corporations like the people who own minoxidil will allow a cure for hairloss to just pop up?

The world is corrupt and things happen behind closed doors. Billions of dollars are made on temporary solutions.... The people with the money control the game.

For example who killed the electric car? We all know there is a 'cure' and ways of creating alternative cars yet.... greedy people who control the monopoly on that situation squash every instance of a 'cure' arriving for the motor industry to revolutionize the way our world works.

Sorry to sound like a downer, but we should always think cautiously about this stuff.

There is no conspiracy, there is just no treatment available yet.
And where do people get that minoxidil and finasteride get most of the cake? I'm pretty sure the biggest sellers of treatments are cosmetic companies selling shampoos that don't even work

Yes, exactly.

A lot of people do not touch minoxidil or finasteride, because they are scared of sides or shedding. But would gladly use x shampoo as a viable alternative. The quacks are the ones making the most money.

 

[Oknow]

the companies that provide temporary not 100% reversible hairloss solutions I'm sure just turn up with wads of cash and buy out any competition or potential sniffs of a cure / permanent result in one procedure. Like all this great promising trials we keep hearing about that never end up finishing or coming to the market.

Do you really think multi million dollar corporations like the people who own minoxidil will allow a cure for hairloss to just pop up?

The world is corrupt and things happen behind closed doors. Billions of dollars are made on temporary solutions.... The people with the money control the game.

For example who killed the electric car? We all know there is a 'cure' and ways of creating alternative cars yet.... greedy people who control the monopoly on that situation squash every instance of a 'cure' arriving for the motor industry to revolutionize the way our world works.

Sorry to sound like a downer, but we should always think cautiously about this stuff.

Too much conspiracy theories.

First, companies don't care about long term profits. They want the maximum amount of cash in a short period of time to impress their investors. Never hear how a company stocks fall when they still make a profit, but it was less than the previous quarter?
If a company can sell a complete solution for $10,000 instead of selling a foam each month for $15, they will gladly do it.
Yes, we live in a gready world. What about Pfizer or any other big pharma? Do you really think they are part of a big conspiracy to put baldies down? If they had a propecia-killer treatment they would had already market it.

There is no conspiracy, there is just no treatment available yet.
And where do people get that minoxidil and finasteride get most of the cake? I'm pretty sure the biggest sellers of treatments are cosmetic companies selling shampoos that don't even work

Yes, but those big pharm companies depend on those "temporary" bald treatments as being some of their biggest cash cows, for which they want to milk as long as they can. Once a real permanent baldness cure comes out that can treat male pattern baldness more effectively, why would anyone want to spend $10,000 over their lifetime (at $15 a month) on a half-*** "cure" that barely does anything vs. spending the same amount on a real permanent solution that only has to be done once, and produces 100x better results? Nobody.

Therefore, in order to keep milking their cash cows and put off the inevitable and eventual onset of the new technology for as long as possible (ie - 20 years down the road, until the patents expire) why would they NOT stop it from coming out? This would give them 20 more years of milking their cash cows + HUGE profits from the release of the new technology 20 years down the road. It is a "win-win" for doing it this way and a "win-lose" for releasing it right away.

IMO, they would stop it from being released by buying the patents up to sit on them as long as possible, IF their analysts determined that they could make way more $$$ in the long run (bottom line) by preventing the release for as long as possible.

Folks, this is a no-brainer!

Like someone else already said here: "It's a greedy world."

You can base that argument on anything new, that improves peoples lives.

If that was the case, what is the point in having medical advancements? Why not just stop here, and milk people out of cash? Things change. Technology advances, and you can see this in other areas of medicine.

Also, we are having a lot more breakthroughs in hair cloning now then 10 years ago.

 

[bigentries]

Yes, but those big pharm companies depend on those "temporary" bald treatments as being some of their biggest cash cows, for which they want to milk as long as they can. Once a real permanent baldness cure comes out that can treat male pattern baldness more effectively, why would anyone want to spend $10,000 over their lifetime (at $15 a month) on a half-*** "cure" that barely does anything vs. spending the same amount on a real permanent solution that only has to be done once, and produces 100x better results? Nobody.

Therefore, in order to keep milking their cash cows and put off the inevitable and eventual onset of the new technology for as long as possible (ie - 20 years down the road, until the patents expire) why would they NOT stop it from coming out? This would give them 20 more years of milking their cash cows + HUGE profits from the release of the new technology 20 years down the road. It is a "win-win" for doing it this way and a "win-lose" for releasing it right away.

IMO, they would stop it from being released by buying the patents up to sit on them as long as possible, IF their analysts determined that they could make way more $$$ in the long run (bottom line) by preventing the release for as long as possible.

Folks, this is a no-brainer!

Like someone else already said here: "It's a greedy world."

Dudemon, I expected more from you

Yes, we live in a greedy world. That's the point

Merck barely gets money from propecia, a drugs that is already generic even in 1mg form in many countries.

Let's say that they do make a lot of money from propecia. Let's say that a cure already exists.
What about the competition? Do they really belong to an evil conspiracy to regulate medicines worldwide?
What is stopping, let's say, Pfizer, the biggest drug company in the world from destroying its competitors by releasing the cure?

The only reason is that there is no cure. Patents my ***. If a cure already existed, and these evil companies were trying to stop aids, cancer or baldness from being cured a similar product would had already surfaced in Cuba or China.

You are also an accountant, you know that companies love to maximize profits in the short run. Why would they want to milk a bald guy for decades when they can get the same amount of money in an instant?

There are examples like Lasik eye surgery or laser hair removal that prove that conspiracy theories don't make any sense. If someone can make a profit from a particular cure, it will be released, even if the cost for other companies is very big

 

[Oknow]

Yes, but those big pharm companies depend on those "temporary" bald treatments as being some of their biggest cash cows, for which they want to milk as long as they can. Once a real permanent baldness cure comes out that can treat male pattern baldness more effectively, why would anyone want to spend $10,000 over their lifetime (at $15 a month) on a half-*** "cure" that barely does anything vs. spending the same amount on a real permanent solution that only has to be done once, and produces 100x better results? Nobody.

Therefore, in order to keep milking their cash cows and put off the inevitable and eventual onset of the new technology for as long as possible (ie - 20 years down the road, until the patents expire) why would they NOT stop it from coming out? This would give them 20 more years of milking their cash cows + HUGE profits from the release of the new technology 20 years down the road. It is a "win-win" for doing it this way and a "win-lose" for releasing it right away.

IMO, they would stop it from being released by buying the patents up to sit on them as long as possible, IF their analysts determined that they could make way more $$$ in the long run (bottom line) by preventing the release for as long as possible.

Folks, this is a no-brainer!

Like someone else already said here: "It's a greedy world."

Dudemon, I expected more from you

Yes, we live in a greedy world. That's the point

Merck barely gets money from propecia, a drugs that is already generic even in 1mg form in many countries.

Let's say that they do make a lot of money from propecia. Let's say that a cure already exists.
What about the competition? Do they really belong to an evil conspiracy to regulate medicines worldwide?
What is stopping, let's say, Pfizer, the biggest drug company in the world from destroying its competitors by releasing the cure?

The only reason is that there is no cure. Patents my ***. If a cure already existed, and these evil companies were trying to stop aids, cancer or baldness from being cured a similar product would had already surfaced in Cuba or China.

You are also an accountant, you know that companies love to maximize profits in the short run. Why would they want to milk a bald guy for decades when they can get the same amount of money in an instant?

There are examples like Lasik eye surgery or laser hair removal that prove that conspiracy theories don't make any sense. If someone can make a profit from a particular cure, it will be released, even if the cost for other companies is very big

Actually, this kind of thing was covered in my marketing and business management classes. But since I have only majored in accounting, but haven't actually worked as an accountant (yet) ... I can't say that I really know what I'm talking about. :mrgreen:

But, I do have a relative that worked for Hoffman-LaRoche for 30 years. You could say that I have heard quite a few things over the years. From what I have been told is that Big Pharm will keep cures for just about anything from being released ... even cancer , HIV, .... you name it ... if it will bring more profits even if they are long-term vs. immediate.

Have a look at this article:
http://obambi.wordpress.com/2009/12/27/ ... stay-sick/

As far as them only wanting short-term profits, that may be true to some extent, but most big corporations don't need short-term capital any more than is needed to cover operating expenses. Its a well-known fact in the finance world that debt is the preferred way to finance their capital structure. As a matter of fact, the more debt the better. (crazy? I know! But that is the way it is) If the SEC would allow it, they would use 100% debt to fiance EVERYTHING. The main reason for this is taxes. They get a big deduction on their corporate taxes (which is ~40-45% in th US) by using as much debt as possible. When they use equities (stocks) they don't get that tax deduction.

As long as they retain enough of their earnings to meet their debt obligations, they're fine. If they need more capital, they borrow more and they keep borrowing until they can't borrow any more. Then ... they will issue more stock ... practically as a last resort.

One of the ONLY reasons for them to really need short-term capital is to keep their debt covenants with their lenders in order to keep their credit rating. The sole purpose of this is to be able to borrow more. (More debt incurred for various reasons: expansion, consolidation, mergers, etc...).

Their stock price increases in intrinsic value as the value of the company is perceived to be worth more than the current stock price. Higher stock price = higher dividends for investors and higher bonuses for their executives.

What is the one of the main things that will raise the stock price? Future prospective profits ... from future products.

Thing is dudemon, a lot of people won't touch propecia with a bargepole because of sides. Secondly, there will always be a market for balding/bald people, the Pharms are therefore more likely to make more of a profit from a cure of some sort, then from something like propecia as every bald/balding man will jump onto it. Where right now, they are inadequate in the sense that people come off it, or they lose their effectiveness. They are NOT good cash cows at all. At best very clumsy solutions.

Finally as bigentries pointed out, how can you explain advances in technologies such as Lasik or laser hair removal. Going by your theory they should never be released as it means companies will lose revenue from temporary solutions such as contact lenses/ and hair waxing.

I remember you wrote a while ago about how Histogen will fold due to an ongoing law suit, how that was down to a big conspiracy by the phams, they just won their law suit and finished phase 1 trials. Also, have a product on the market. Again, how do you explain this?

Even if you are right, I do think a more effective solution to what we have now that is temporary to cure hairloss will come out soon, that actually works. That way the phams can maximise their profits over a much longer period of time. Thus, being a more effective cash cow.

 

[Oknow]

Thing is dudemon, a lot of people won't touch propecia with a bargepole because of sides. Secondly, there will always be a market for balding/bald people, the Pharms are therefore more likely to make more of a profit from a cure of some sort, then from something like propecia as every bald/balding man will jump onto it. Where right now, they are inadequate in the sense that people come off it, or they lose their effectiveness. They are NOT good cash cows at all. At best very clumsy solutions.

Finally as bigentries pointed out, how can you explain advances in technologies such as Lasik or laser hair removal. Going by your theory they should never be released as it means companies will lose revenue from temporary solutions such as contact lenses/ and hair waxing.

I remember you wrote a while ago about how Histogen will fold due to an ongoing law suit, how that was down to a big conspiracy by the phams, they just won their law suit and finished phase 1 trials. Also, have a product on the market. Again, how do you explain this?

Even if you are right, I do think a more effective solution to what we have now that is temporary to cure hairloss will come out soon, that actually works. That way the phams can maximise their profits over a much longer period of time. Thus, being a more effective cash cow.

RE: Histogen
They may have "won the battle, but they (will probably) lose the war." :mrgreen:

When new products are introduced, particularly in the medical industry, most (if not all) of them have already been around, tested and developed ... only to be released 10, 15 or even 25 years later. That's just how that industry works.

The example you gave with Lasik is no different. Guaranteed - it was already developed and tested ... but probably not introduced for 10, 15 ... or even 20 years later - until 'laser technology' was able to be used for these treatments safely and effectively.

With all these new cutting edge hair regeneration processes, the same rationale applies. At this time, they haven't even been developed or tested all the way yet. So, even after all this testing and even if they work wonders, we are still not likely to see them anytime soon...possibly for another 20 years or so. Just my opinion.

I guess it doesn't hurt to dream though! :jackit:

But, honestly, if they come out in my lifetime, I'd be tickled to death!

Well that doesn't make financial sense for Histogen/or anyone else does it? Say their HSC product is developed or its equivilent, what do they get out of delaying introduction to the market when there is a huge market for it?

Whoever develops haircloning will be rich beyond belief.

I just think this is a really pessimistic approach imo.

With the amount of people tapping into the market, sooner or later, there will be a viable product. It is inevitable. And you predicted that Histogen will lose their court case a while back.

 

[Ori83]

Something will come, but not anytime soon, my guess would be around 30-50 years from now they will cure it for real

 

[Oknow]

You can base that argument on anything new, that improves peoples lives.

If that was the case, what is the point in having medical advancements? Why not just stop here, and milk people out of cash? Things change. Technology advances, and you can see this in other areas of medicine.

Also, we are having a lot more breakthroughs in hair cloning now then 10 years ago.

It's a well-known fact that for decades now, big pharm has been deliberately keeping information and certain drugs and cures and all kinds of stuff from being released to the public....for ONE reason: They make more money by selling their less-effective drugs that we have to use the rest of our lives to us all. Kind of sounds a little like Rogaine and minoxidil here ... :whistle: .. but this is for drugs that treat diseases like cancer and luekemia - that big pharm deliberately keeps from the public, all in the name of a better "bottom line" for them.

Have you ever read that book (I forgot the title of it??) about how big pharm want to keep us all sick?

In the US, the FDA is in on it, as they do as big pharm tells them to do. In other words, big pharm tells the FDA what to do - not the other way around as it should be.

What makes you think that any type of new hair treatment (that actually works) is going to be any different? It won't. Further, its also considered a "luxury, cosmetic" item, so you know that they will put profits before anything else. People's lives are not at stake by them holding back on a release - even for 20 more years.

Got this over in the "off-topic" section posted by Monty1978:


http://articles.mercola.com/sites/artic ... movie.aspx

It is 100% proof of what Dudemon is saying....100% proof

Explains why Dr Lee shut down.

Depressing

 

[terrapin12]

Yes, but those big pharm companies depend on those "temporary" bald treatments as being some of their biggest cash cows, for which they want to milk as long as they can. Once a real permanent baldness cure comes out that can treat male pattern baldness more effectively, why would anyone want to spend $10,000 over their lifetime (at $15 a month) on a half-*** "cure" that barely does anything vs. spending the same amount on a real permanent solution that only has to be done once, and produces 100x better results? Nobody.

Therefore, in order to keep milking their cash cows and put off the inevitable and eventual onset of the new technology for as long as possible (ie - 20 years down the road, until the patents expire) why would they NOT stop it from coming out? This would give them 20 more years of milking their cash cows + HUGE profits from the release of the new technology 20 years down the road. It is a "win-win" for doing it this way and a "win-lose" for releasing it right away.

IMO, they would stop it from being released by buying the patents up to sit on them as long as possible, IF their analysts determined that they could make way more $$$ in the long run (bottom line) by preventing the release for as long as possible.

Folks, this is a no-brainer!

Like someone else already said here: "It's a greedy world."

Dudemon, I expected more from you

Yes, we live in a greedy world. That's the point

Merck barely gets money from propecia, a drugs that is already generic even in 1mg form in many countries.

Let's say that they do make a lot of money from propecia. Let's say that a cure already exists.
What about the competition? Do they really belong to an evil conspiracy to regulate medicines worldwide?
What is stopping, let's say, Pfizer, the biggest drug company in the world from destroying its competitors by releasing the cure?

The only reason is that there is no cure. Patents my ***. If a cure already existed, and these evil companies were trying to stop aids, cancer or baldness from being cured a similar product would had already surfaced in Cuba or China.

You are also an accountant, you know that companies love to maximize profits in the short run. Why would they want to milk a bald guy for decades when they can get the same amount of money in an instant?

There are examples like Lasik eye surgery or laser hair removal that prove that conspiracy theories don't make any sense. If someone can make a profit from a particular cure, it will be released, even if the cost for other companies is very big

Actually, this kind of thing was covered in my marketing and business management classes. But since I have only majored in accounting, but haven't actually worked as an accountant (yet) ... I can't say that I really know what I'm talking about. :mrgreen:

But, I do have a relative that worked for Hoffman-LaRoche for 30 years. You could say that I have heard quite a few things over the years. From what I have been told is that Big Pharm will keep cures for just about anything from being released ... even cancer , HIV, .... you name it ... if it will bring more profits even if they are long-term vs. immediate.

Have a look at this article:
http://obambi.wordpress.com/2009/12/27/ ... stay-sick/

As far as them only wanting short-term profits, that may be true to some extent, but most big corporations don't need short-term capital any more than is needed to cover operating expenses. Its a well-known fact in the finance world that debt is the preferred way to finance their capital structure. As a matter of fact, the more debt the better. (crazy? I know! But that is the way it is) If the SEC would allow it, they would use 100% debt to fiance EVERYTHING. The main reason for this is taxes. They get a big deduction on their corporate taxes (which is ~40-45% in th US) by using as much debt as possible. When they use equities (stocks) they don't get that tax deduction.

As long as they retain enough of their earnings to meet their debt obligations, they're fine. If they need more capital, they borrow more and they keep borrowing until they can't borrow any more. Then ... they will issue more stock ... practically as a last resort.

One of the ONLY reasons for them to really need short-term capital is to keep their debt covenants with their lenders in order to keep their credit rating. The sole purpose of this is to be able to borrow more. (More debt incurred for various reasons: expansion, consolidation, mergers, etc...).

Their stock price increases in intrinsic value as the value of the company is perceived to be worth more than the current stock price. Higher stock price = higher dividends for investors and higher bonuses for their executives.

What is the one of the main things that will raise the stock price? Future prospective profits ... from future products.

This is paranoid right wing horseshit. If you actually believe anything on that ridiculous blog, that's fine. That's your business. But to cite that as a source? I hope you're not doing that at school. Equally as questionable is your relative that claims to have knowledge of the pharmaceutical industry.

Not to mention that all the drug companies are competing against each other! What do you know! It's probably a conspiracy against bald people, even though Rogaine profits have been tumbling since the patent expiration. You have to use bimatoprost everyday too, but that doesn't mean it's going to be rushed through FDA approval.

I used to think you were just frustrated and cynical. That I could understand. Now it seems like an obsession with an agenda.

 

[Technical]

Burzynski is a scam artist and a fraud. Most of the "facts" presented aren't facts at all. Nothing he does is something that a patient can't do themselves. He also charges ridiculous amounts of money to "help" people.

No. He's the one making money, not the FDA.