To HairLossTalk.com and senior posters.

[Guest]

I´m new here so I haven´t really got a clue on how the atmosphere around hair research etc was a say a couple of years ago.

I myself get the feeling that there has been some sort of breaking point where compaines are actually looking at hairrestoration as something possible and something worth spending money on developing - is this your view aswell or was it just as buzzed up a couple of years ago?

 

[Axon]

I'd answer your question if I could decipher it. Are you asking if pharmaceutical companies are making hair loss a greater priority?

If so, no, they are not, as far as we know. The only major player with something down the pipe is Glaxo, and that's whatever the male pattern baldness version of Avodart ends up being. The drugs have not sold as well as the companies had hoped and hair loss is not a life-theatening illness, so don't expect to see it move up much.

 

[Guest]

Propecia only makes about $100,000,000 a year. Drugs companies want
drugs that make about $1,000,000,000 a year.

So far hair drugs have proven themselves not to be very profitable.

 

[Guest]

Fdondie: considering the side effects of the drug I´d say that propecia is not doing too shabby - don´t you agree?

 

[drinkrum]

It takes a lot of money to make and market the drug too, you know. So $100M in revenues might seem like a lot, but after manufacturing expenses, R&D, payroll, marketing, etc., it's really not that much.

D.

 

[Guest]

Hmmm we are not talking the latest cellphone you know. We are talking about a drug invented to help enlarged prostates! how do you advertise that? have bruce willis on a billboard.

Arnie - Do you also have a problem with big balls.

 

[12344321]

It takes a lot of money to make and market the drug too, you know. So $100M in revenues might seem like a lot, but after manufacturing expenses, R&D, payroll, marketing, etc., it's really not that much.

ya but propecia is just proscar but in smaller doeses. They didnt have to spend that much on it because proscar has been around for years and people just noticed it was making some people grow hair.

 

[Guest]

Maybe I wasn´t clear with my question.

I´m wondering if there is a general buzz around hair research today that wasn´t there a couple of years ago. whether it be drugs, transplants, cloning, the works.

I know for a fact that back in the days it was - you lose, accept it. minoxidil was discovered by chance and so was propecia.

 

[Axon]

A couple of years ago? 2002? Pretty much the same. Hair cloning, Hair Multiplication.

1980? Yeah, it was like "you lose it, you're fucked."

Propecia was not stumbled on by chance - Merck has documents going back to the 70's with the possible effects of a Type 2 AR inhibitor. It's a common myth.

Right on with Minoxidil, however.

 

[David77]

Propecia only makes about $100,000,000 a year. Drugs companies want
drugs that make about $1,000,000,000 a year.

So far hair drugs have proven themselves not to be very profitable.

Yeah, but there's only two proven to work... One sounds like a pain in the arse to use and the other can be a real ride.

If a company did come up with something that can rid the world of baldness, without much hassle, and with a 100% success rate, the sales would be through the roof.

I'd pay thousands.

Of course you never know what some nutter might come up with in a lab in the early hours of the morning. If you're reading this, please keep working on it! :hairy:

 

[Guest]

I still don´t know what hair multiplication is

 

[Bryan]

minoxidil was discovered by chance and so was propecia.

Gee, I wondered why my ears were burning early this morning! :wink:

Axon already responded to what you said, but I'll reinforce it: finasteride for balding wasn't any kind of accidental discovery. Merck knew all about the possible use of 5a-reductase inhibitors for hairloss even before finasteride was synthesized for the first time in their laboratories.

Bryan

 

[HairlossTalk]

nesta, go to the home page of this site and type it in the search.