Hair Loss - will the financial crisis affect GETTING OUR HAIR BACK???

Hair Transplant Patient Reviews

baldbaby

06.10.2008, 11:43

will the financial crisis affect GETTING OUR HAIR BACK??? (Support & General Discussions)
Thread locked

how will the global financial crisis affect the search for a hairloss cure?

i would think that with banks failing, and credit much more hard to come by, lots of researchers will be shutting down their research and trials for a while. this more than anything else, may slow down the search for a cure, and the reality of making it available to the public!

how will companies like intercytex, which were strapped for cash even before the crisis, survive? their stock was dropping like a lead brick before the meltdown, what's likely to happen to it now?

and with their stock falling, so their valuation falls, they can't get credit, they have to start laying people off, or asking them to volunteer, etc. it won't be pretty in 2009.

what do people think on this board???

baldbaby is located in [NA] and he is available to meet: NO

TylerDurden

06.10.2008, 15:19

@ baldbaby
will the financial crisis affect GETTING OUR HAIR BACK???

No.

TylerDurden is located in [NA] and he is available to meet: NO

benji

06.10.2008, 16:32

@ baldbaby
will the financial crisis affect GETTING OUR HAIR BACK???

� how will the global financial crisis affect the search for a hairloss
� cure?
�
� i would think that with banks failing, and credit much more hard to come
� by, lots of researchers will be shutting down their research and trials for
� a while. this more than anything else, may slow down the search for a
� cure, and the reality of making it available to the public!
�
� how will companies like intercytex, which were strapped for cash even
� before the crisis, survive? their stock was dropping like a lead brick
� before the meltdown, what's likely to happen to it now?
�
� and with their stock falling, so their valuation falls, they can't get
� credit, they have to start laying people off, or asking them to volunteer,
� etc. it won't be pretty in 2009.
�
� what do people think on this board???

i dont think very many people on this board were counting on ICX at this point anyway as their phase two results didn't justify continued optimism

Aderans, Follica, Histogen, ACELL out of one of those four will an effective solution most likely come

benji is located in [NA] and he is available to meet: NO

rev

your nightmares,
06.10.2008, 16:40

@ TylerDurden
will the financial crisis affect GETTING OUR HAIR BACK???

� No.
^ what he said.

Do you really want to know what will affect us from getting our hair back?

SCIENCE!!!

rev is located in YOUR NIGHTMARES and he is available to meet: NO
---
InterCytex �noun
a place where good ideas go to die.

Follica �noun
a clandestine organization that puts the C.I.A to shame.

Ken Washenik, MD, PhD �noun
inventor of the world famous "5 year" timeline

baldbaby

06.10.2008, 16:57

@ benji
will the financial crisis affect GETTING OUR HAIR BACK???

� Aderans, Follica, Histogen, ACELL out of one of those four will an
� effective solution most likely come

thank you, yoda! :-)

seriously, i don't know how anyone can cite acell as a potential hairloss cure for mpb.

it was just a complete fluke that someone on this board happened on the acell site, saw some photos of wounds healing in a dog, with what *looked* like regrowth of hair, and then he decided to mount a one-man campaign to promote it among ht docs.

of course the ht docs loved the idea and many responded. they don't have to spend a penny on research and development, can do all the "research" on their existing patients if they want to (and charge them for it)... and if acell is found to regrow hair, these docs surgical skills will still be needed, so they won't be obsolete (or almost obsolete), which is where hm would put them.

so of course they loved the idea.

doesn't mean it will work. in fact, the fact that they jumped for it so quickly isn't proof of anything, except that it's a cheap way for them to improve results (if it works) and still charge patients for the same ht shyte...

and if it doesn't work? there is no risk for the ht docs at all, so this is the ideal "cure" for them... a non-cure cure.

baldbaby is located in [NA] and he is available to meet: NO

fckhrls

06.10.2008, 17:32

@ baldbaby
Yes

� how will the global financial crisis affect the search for a hairloss
� cure?
�
� i would think that with banks failing, and credit much more hard to come
� by, lots of researchers will be shutting down their research and trials for
� a while. this more than anything else, may slow down the search for a
� cure, and the reality of making it available to the public!
�
� how will companies like intercytex, which were strapped for cash even
� before the crisis, survive? their stock was dropping like a lead brick
� before the meltdown, what's likely to happen to it now?
�
� and with their stock falling, so their valuation falls, they can't get
� credit, they have to start laying people off, or asking them to volunteer,
� etc. it won't be pretty in 2009.
�
� what do people think on this board???

I agree. Its simple macroeconomics. Less liquidity, less credit, less investment. Pharma will be looking to fund only those research efforts that are likely to return viable products. Where they once would have had a higher tolerance for failure, they will now revise their risk guidelines. I do think that the major player - Follica - is far enough along that its efforts won't be impacted too greatly. Acell is already on the market, but it has no application for hairloss, so its irrelevant to the discussion. As for those new technologies and treatments that are currently just ideas in some Phd candidate's head, this collapse just pushed back their timelines.

fckhrls is located in [NA] and he is available to meet: NO

Willy

06.10.2008, 18:28

@ baldbaby
will the financial crisis affect GETTING OUR HAIR BACK???

� � Aderans, Follica, Histogen, ACELL out of one of those four will an
� � effective solution most likely come
�
� thank you, yoda! :-)
�
� seriously, i don't know how anyone can cite acell as a potential hairloss
� cure for mpb.
�
� it was just a complete fluke that someone on this board happened on the
� acell site, saw some photos of wounds healing in a dog, with what *looked*
� like regrowth of hair, and then he decided to mount a one-man campaign to
� promote it among ht docs.
�
� of course the ht docs loved the idea and many responded. they don't have
� to spend a penny on research and development, can do all the "research" on
� their existing patients if they want to (and charge them for it)... and if
� acell is found to regrow hair, these docs surgical skills will still be
� needed, so they won't be obsolete (or almost obsolete), which is where hm
� would put them.
�
� so of course they loved the idea.
�
� doesn't mean it will work. in fact, the fact that they jumped for it so
� quickly isn't proof of anything, except that it's a cheap way for them to
� improve results (if it works) and still charge patients for the same ht
� shyte...
�
� and if it doesn't work? there is no risk for the ht docs at all, so this
� is the ideal "cure" for them... a non-cure cure.

If it works........I'm happy. It's pretty simple, most people who post here just want their hair back. If it works (a big if)...THEN DON'T USE IT! At least you will have a choice.

By the way, I spoke with them today (I call every few weeks to see if there is anything new) and they said that Dr. Umar should be reporting results to them this week. His patient is supposidly going to send him pictures of the results. Hopefully, he'll send them to Acell (if they're positive) and we can see some pics. Not a prediction.....just a wish.

Willy is located in [NA] and he is available to meet: NO

Willy

06.10.2008, 18:29

@ fckhrls
Yes

� � how will the global financial crisis affect the search for a hairloss
� � cure?
� �
� � i would think that with banks failing, and credit much more hard to
� come
� � by, lots of researchers will be shutting down their research and trials
� for
� � a while. this more than anything else, may slow down the search for a
� � cure, and the reality of making it available to the public!
� �
� � how will companies like intercytex, which were strapped for cash even
� � before the crisis, survive? their stock was dropping like a lead
� brick
� � before the meltdown, what's likely to happen to it now?
� �
� � and with their stock falling, so their valuation falls, they can't get
� � credit, they have to start laying people off, or asking them to
� volunteer,
� � etc. it won't be pretty in 2009.
� �
� � what do people think on this board???
�
� I agree. Its simple macroeconomics. Less liquidity, less credit, less
� investment. Pharma will be looking to fund only those research efforts
� that are likely to return viable products. Where they once would have had
� a higher tolerance for failure, they will now revise their risk guidelines.
� I do think that the major player - Follica - is far enough along that its
� efforts won't be impacted too greatly. Acell is already on the market, but
� it has no application for hairloss, so its irrelevant to the discussion.
� As for those new technologies and treatments that are currently just ideas
� in some Phd candidate's head, this collapse just pushed back their
� timelines.

Thank God you're here to shed some light on the situation.

Willy is located in [NA] and he is available to meet: NO

Leonard

06.10.2008, 18:50

@ fckhrls
Yes

� � how will the global financial crisis affect the search for a hairloss
� � cure?
� �
� � i would think that with banks failing, and credit much more hard to
� come
� � by, lots of researchers will be shutting down their research and trials
� for
� � a while. this more than anything else, may slow down the search for a
� � cure, and the reality of making it available to the public!
� �
� � how will companies like intercytex, which were strapped for cash even
� � before the crisis, survive? their stock was dropping like a lead
� brick
� � before the meltdown, what's likely to happen to it now?
� �
� � and with their stock falling, so their valuation falls, they can't get
� � credit, they have to start laying people off, or asking them to
� volunteer,
� � etc. it won't be pretty in 2009.
� �
� � what do people think on this board???
�
� I agree. Its simple macroeconomics. Less liquidity, less credit, less
� investment. Pharma will be looking to fund only those research efforts
� that are likely to return viable products. Where they once would have had
� a higher tolerance for failure, they will now revise their risk guidelines.
� I do think that the major player - Follica - is far enough along that its
� efforts won't be impacted too greatly. Acell is already on the market, but
� it has no application for hairloss, so its irrelevant to the discussion.
� As for those new technologies and treatments that are currently just ideas
� in some Phd candidate's head, this collapse just pushed back their
� timelines.

Incorrect on several fronts. Few things:

1. Venture or biotech capital relies on 100% equity investment. There is no debt - it's too risky an asset class for debt. So the credit crunch is not going to affect liquidity for startups.
2. The vast majority venture capital funds took advantage of the boom market to raise huge, billion dollar funds. These funds are now committed and ready to be invested. The credit crunch is not going to affect this money.
3. The billion dollar funds in the hands of venture capitalists have to be put to work (eg. investment).

Case in point: Follica raised $11m in August. Financing led by Polaris Venture Parters.

Ask yourself this: you are sitting on a big pile of money that needs to be invested. Are you going to hold-off investing in good opportunities simply because of the credit crisis (which is not going to affect the success or failure of your developing technology)?

Leonard is located in [NA] and he is available to meet: NO

fckhrls

06.10.2008, 23:04

@ Leonard
Yes

� � � how will the global financial crisis affect the search for a hairloss
� � � cure?
� � �
� � � i would think that with banks failing, and credit much more hard to
� � come
� � � by, lots of researchers will be shutting down their research and
� trials
� � for
� � � a while. this more than anything else, may slow down the search for
� a
� � � cure, and the reality of making it available to the public!
� � �
� � � how will companies like intercytex, which were strapped for cash even
� � � before the crisis, survive? their stock was dropping like a lead
� � brick
� � � before the meltdown, what's likely to happen to it now?
� � �
� � � and with their stock falling, so their valuation falls, they can't
� get
� � � credit, they have to start laying people off, or asking them to
� � volunteer,
� � � etc. it won't be pretty in 2009.
� � �
� � � what do people think on this board???
� �
� � I agree. Its simple macroeconomics. Less liquidity, less credit, less
� � investment. Pharma will be looking to fund only those research efforts
� � that are likely to return viable products. Where they once would have
� had
� � a higher tolerance for failure, they will now revise their risk
� guidelines.
� � I do think that the major player - Follica - is far enough along that
� its
� � efforts won't be impacted too greatly. Acell is already on the market,
� but
� � it has no application for hairloss, so its irrelevant to the discussion.
�
� � As for those new technologies and treatments that are currently just
� ideas
� � in some Phd candidate's head, this collapse just pushed back their
� � timelines.
�
� Incorrect on several fronts. Few things:
�
� 1. Venture or biotech capital relies on 100% equity investment. There is
� no debt - it's too risky an asset class for debt. So the credit crunch is
� not going to affect liquidity for startups.
� 2. The vast majority venture capital funds took advantage of the boom
� market to raise huge, billion dollar funds. These funds are now committed
� and ready to be invested. The credit crunch is not going to affect this
� money.
� 3. The billion dollar funds in the hands of venture capitalists have to be
� put to work (eg. investment).
�
� Case in point: Follica raised $11m in August. Financing led by Polaris
� Venture Parters.
�
� Ask yourself this: you are sitting on a big pile of money that needs to be
� invested. Are you going to hold-off investing in good opportunities simply
� because of the credit crisis (which is not going to affect the success or
� failure of your developing technology)?

1. I said PHARMA, not VCs, but...

2. Where do you think VCs get their capital from? It just materializes? It is funded, reconstituted and maintained through the activities of its participants. EVERYTHING is dependent on the credit market, if not directly, then indirectly.

fckhrls is located in [NA] and he is available to meet: NO

fckhrls

06.10.2008, 23:06

@ Willy
Yes

� � � how will the global financial crisis affect the search for a hairloss
� � � cure?
� � �
� � � i would think that with banks failing, and credit much more hard to
� � come
� � � by, lots of researchers will be shutting down their research and
� trials
� � for
� � � a while. this more than anything else, may slow down the search for
� a
� � � cure, and the reality of making it available to the public!
� � �
� � � how will companies like intercytex, which were strapped for cash even
� � � before the crisis, survive? their stock was dropping like a lead
� � brick
� � � before the meltdown, what's likely to happen to it now?
� � �
� � � and with their stock falling, so their valuation falls, they can't
� get
� � � credit, they have to start laying people off, or asking them to
� � volunteer,
� � � etc. it won't be pretty in 2009.
� � �
� � � what do people think on this board???
� �
� � I agree. Its simple macroeconomics. Less liquidity, less credit, less
� � investment. Pharma will be looking to fund only those research efforts
� � that are likely to return viable products. Where they once would have
� had
� � a higher tolerance for failure, they will now revise their risk
� guidelines.
� � I do think that the major player - Follica - is far enough along that
� its
� � efforts won't be impacted too greatly. Acell is already on the market,
� but
� � it has no application for hairloss, so its irrelevant to the discussion.
�
� � As for those new technologies and treatments that are currently just
� ideas
� � in some Phd candidate's head, this collapse just pushed back their
� � timelines.
�
� Thank God you're here to shed some light on the situation.

What an excellent contribution to the topic.

Don't be angry because you pumped hype for months only to have it fizzle. Your credibility is shot.

fckhrls is located in [NA] and he is available to meet: NO

Leonard

07.10.2008, 01:50

@ fckhrls
Yes

� � � � how will the global financial crisis affect the search for a
� hairloss
� � � � cure?
� � � �
� � � � i would think that with banks failing, and credit much more hard to
� � � come
� � � � by, lots of researchers will be shutting down their research and
� � trials
� � � for
� � � � a while. this more than anything else, may slow down the search
� for
� � a
� � � � cure, and the reality of making it available to the public!
� � � �
� � � � how will companies like intercytex, which were strapped for cash
� even
� � � � before the crisis, survive? their stock was dropping like a lead
� � � brick
� � � � before the meltdown, what's likely to happen to it now?
� � � �
� � � � and with their stock falling, so their valuation falls, they can't
� � get
� � � � credit, they have to start laying people off, or asking them to
� � � volunteer,
� � � � etc. it won't be pretty in 2009.
� � � �
� � � � what do people think on this board???
� � �
� � � I agree. Its simple macroeconomics. Less liquidity, less credit,
� less
� � � investment. Pharma will be looking to fund only those research
� efforts
� � � that are likely to return viable products. Where they once would
� have
� � had
� � � a higher tolerance for failure, they will now revise their risk
� � guidelines.
� � � I do think that the major player - Follica - is far enough along
� that
� � its
� � � efforts won't be impacted too greatly. Acell is already on the
� market,
� � but
� � � it has no application for hairloss, so its irrelevant to the
� discussion.
� �
� � � As for those new technologies and treatments that are currently just
� � ideas
� � � in some Phd candidate's head, this collapse just pushed back their
� � � timelines.
� �
� � Incorrect on several fronts. Few things:
� �
� � 1. Venture or biotech capital relies on 100% equity investment. There
� is
� � no debt - it's too risky an asset class for debt. So the credit crunch
� is
� � not going to affect liquidity for startups.
� � 2. The vast majority venture capital funds took advantage of the boom
� � market to raise huge, billion dollar funds. These funds are now
� committed
� � and ready to be invested. The credit crunch is not going to affect this
� � money.
� � 3. The billion dollar funds in the hands of venture capitalists have to
� be
� � put to work (eg. investment).
� �
� � Case in point: Follica raised $11m in August. Financing led by Polaris
� � Venture Parters.
� �
� � Ask yourself this: you are sitting on a big pile of money that needs to
� be
� � invested. Are you going to hold-off investing in good opportunities
� simply
� � because of the credit crisis (which is not going to affect the success
� or
� � failure of your developing technology)?
�
� 1. I said PHARMA, not VCs, but...
�
� 2. Where do you think VCs get their capital from? It just materializes?
� It is funded, reconstituted and maintained through the activities of its
� participants. EVERYTHING is dependent on the credit market, if not
� directly, then indirectly.

You said Pharma but you mention Follica and Acell. Do you know that Follica and Acell are VC funded? Also, Pharma does not get its money from the capital markets. They get it from their customers. R&D is funded out of operating cash flow. Despite the state of the economy, the medical business is one of the industries that is least affected by GDP declines, so their cash flow should remain strong.

Tell me in detail what you mean by participants and how money is reconstituted and maintained. I work in the capital markets business, and I suspect that you have no idea how funding lines work.

Also, try reading the above - VCs ALREADY have their money and it is already in the bank.

A statement like "everything depends on the credit market" is just silly. Of course this is true - it's the basic economics of a globalized, interlinked economy. I can also say "everything in finance depends on the weather", which is true as the weather affects weather derivatives, which affects bank profits, which affects consumer spending, and which affects everything according to Keynesian Model of the economy. But my statement would be just as silly as yours, because what's more important is the extent of the elasticity. In VC land, the credit market is not going to affect funding for biotech startups significantly. How would you explain the ease at which Follica received their funding?

Leonard is located in [NA] and he is available to meet: NO

debris

07.10.2008, 03:14
(edited by debris, 07.10.2008, 03:19)

@ Leonard
Yes

Well lEonard,

I don't know who'se financing follica, if the investors (whoever they are) have also invested in some sort of SIVs, they now may be taking losses. Most ppl who have abudance of money, keep most of their money invested, so all this is perfectly possible.

It can even be that their bank would screw instead of them. Or for gods sake, they simply could have had majority of their money in stock. whatever, all in all, possibility is there, that even these guys will get some losses. If their losses will be big enough, they may decide to lower their risks, and cease funding into risky things.

So I guess the right answer to this topic is "we don't know" because all in all it could affect Follica but it does not have to.

All in all, I wouldnt be worried. The cure wont come in less then 5 years anyway. And personally I think that there are good chances it wont affect their funding much or at all.

debris has 1 Personal Journal(s). Click here to view
debris is located in [NA] and he is available to meet: NO

baldbaby

07.10.2008, 05:25

@ fckhrls
Yes

�
� 2. Where do you think VCs get their capital from? It just materializes?
� It is funded, reconstituted and maintained through the activities of its
� participants. EVERYTHING is dependent on the credit market, if not
� directly, then indirectly.

exactly, fckhrls.

baldbaby is located in [NA] and he is available to meet: NO

HanginInThere

Hair loss University,
07.10.2008, 05:38

@ fckhrls
Yes

� � � � how will the global financial crisis affect the search for a
� hairloss
� � � � cure?
� � � �
� � � � i would think that with banks failing, and credit much more hard to
� � � come
� � � � by, lots of researchers will be shutting down their research and
� � trials
� � � for
� � � � a while. this more than anything else, may slow down the search
� for
� � a
� � � � cure, and the reality of making it available to the public!
� � � �
� � � � how will companies like intercytex, which were strapped for cash
� even
� � � � before the crisis, survive? their stock was dropping like a lead
� � � brick
� � � � before the meltdown, what's likely to happen to it now?
� � � �
� � � � and with their stock falling, so their valuation falls, they can't
� � get
� � � � credit, they have to start laying people off, or asking them to
� � � volunteer,
� � � � etc. it won't be pretty in 2009.
� � � �
� � � � what do people think on this board???
� � �
� � � I agree. Its simple macroeconomics. Less liquidity, less credit,
� less
� � � investment. Pharma will be looking to fund only those research
� efforts
� � � that are likely to return viable products. Where they once would
� have
� � had
� � � a higher tolerance for failure, they will now revise their risk
� � guidelines.
� � � I do think that the major player - Follica - is far enough along
� that
� � its
� � � efforts won't be impacted too greatly. Acell is already on the
� market,
� � but
� � � it has no application for hairloss, so its irrelevant to the
� discussion.
� �
� � � As for those new technologies and treatments that are currently just
� � ideas
� � � in some Phd candidate's head, this collapse just pushed back their
� � � timelines.
� �
� � Incorrect on several fronts. Few things:
� �
� � 1. Venture or biotech capital relies on 100% equity investment. There
� is
� � no debt - it's too risky an asset class for debt. So the credit crunch
� is
� � not going to affect liquidity for startups.
� � 2. The vast majority venture capital funds took advantage of the boom
� � market to raise huge, billion dollar funds. These funds are now
� committed
� � and ready to be invested. The credit crunch is not going to affect this
� � money.
� � 3. The billion dollar funds in the hands of venture capitalists have to
� be
� � put to work (eg. investment).
� �
� � Case in point: Follica raised $11m in August. Financing led by Polaris
� � Venture Parters.
� �
� � Ask yourself this: you are sitting on a big pile of money that needs to
� be
� � invested. Are you going to hold-off investing in good opportunities
� simply
� � because of the credit crisis (which is not going to affect the success
� or
� � failure of your developing technology)?
�
� 1. I said PHARMA, not VCs, but...
�
� 2. Where do you think VCs get their capital from? It just materializes?
� It is funded, reconstituted and maintained through the activities of its
� participants. EVERYTHING is dependent on the credit market, if not
� directly, then indirectly.

so you think Venture capitalists must BORROW all their money? and be dependent on the credit markets?

nope , shows how dumb you are

they have the money , they have 10s of millions of dollars from people who are looking for VENTURES TO CAPITALIZE....................thats why they are called venture capitalists

HanginInThere is located in HAIR LOSS UNIVERSITY and he is available to meet: NO
---
Hangin Regimen...........

Maxi Hair by Country Life 2/day
Kal Amino Max ..Chelated Multi Mineral..2/day

DHT blockers (daily intake)
Saw Palmetto, 320mg Standardized
Pygeum 500mg
Nettles 500mg
Beta Sitosterol 125mg

rev

your nightmares,
07.10.2008, 05:53

@ baldbaby
Yes

� �
� � 2. Where do you think VCs get their capital from? It just
� materializes?
� � It is funded, reconstituted and maintained through the activities of
� its
� � participants. EVERYTHING is dependent on the credit market, if not
� � directly, then indirectly.
�
� exactly, fckhrls.

Leonard, someone employed in the capital markets sector told you how things work, so you decided to listen to the village idiot instead. Honestly, I think hairloss is the least of some people's worries.

.

rev is located in YOUR NIGHTMARES and he is available to meet: NO
---
InterCytex �noun
a place where good ideas go to die.

Follica �noun
a clandestine organization that puts the C.I.A to shame.

Ken Washenik, MD, PhD �noun
inventor of the world famous "5 year" timeline

baldbaby

07.10.2008, 06:20

@ HanginInThere
Yes

� so you think Venture capitalists must BORROW all their money? and be
� dependent on the credit markets?
�
� nope , shows how dumb you are
�
� they have the money , they have 10s of millions of dollars from people who
� are looking for VENTURES TO CAPITALIZE....................thats why they
� are called venture capitalists

no, no, fckhrls did NOT say that. he did NOT say that vcs have to borrow their money.

i think what he was driving at is that in a time of depressed credit, or a freeze in the credit markets (actually this is an almost unprecedented situation, since the great depression), EVERY SOURCE OF FUNDING for r&d, plant and equipment, etc. dries up in one way or another.

even vc, because while vcs do not borrow their money, they still expand or contract their activities based on the health of markets and the overall economy.

vcs get their money from private investors and institutional investors. in times of a credit crisis like right now, BOTH private investors and institutional investors will be much, much more cautious with their money.

this will filter down to how the vcs actually deploy their funds, to the decisions they make day-to-day, because they are supposed to make responsible decisions with the money in their funds. they cannot go around throwing big bucks at startups with unproven or speculative technologies in a crisis economy where credit is frozen around the globe, and banks are dropping like flies.

look at internet vc. the "second internet bubble" (web 2.0) has already largely burst due to the bad economy. if you look at a chart of funding deals from 2 years ago, and 1 year ago, compared to right now, ull see much less deals going on now...

wonder why..... :-P

baldbaby is located in [NA] and he is available to meet: NO

fckhrls

07.10.2008, 10:02

@ baldbaby
Yes

� no, no, fckhrls did NOT say that. he did NOT say that vcs have to borrow
� their money.
�
� i think what he was driving at is that in a time of depressed credit, or a
� freeze in the credit markets (actually this is an almost unprecedented
� situation, since the great depression), EVERY SOURCE OF FUNDING for r&d,
� plant and equipment, etc. dries up in one way or another.

� vcs get their money from private investors and institutional investors.
� in times of a credit crisis like right now, BOTH private investors and
� institutional investors will be much, much more cautious with their money.

Exactly.

fckhrls is located in [NA] and he is available to meet: NO

fckhrls

07.10.2008, 10:15
(edited by fckhrls, 07.10.2008, 11:29)

@ Leonard
Yes

� � � � � how will the global financial crisis affect the search for a
� � hairloss
� � � � � cure?
� � � � �
� � � � � i would think that with banks failing, and credit much more hard
� to
� � � � come
� � � � � by, lots of researchers will be shutting down their research and
� � � trials
� � � � for
� � � � � a while. this more than anything else, may slow down the search
� � for
� � � a
� � � � � cure, and the reality of making it available to the public!
� � � � �
� � � � � how will companies like intercytex, which were strapped for cash
� � even
� � � � � before the crisis, survive? their stock was dropping like a
� lead
� � � � brick
� � � � � before the meltdown, what's likely to happen to it now?
� � � � �
� � � � � and with their stock falling, so their valuation falls, they
� can't
� � � get
� � � � � credit, they have to start laying people off, or asking them to
� � � � volunteer,
� � � � � etc. it won't be pretty in 2009.
� � � � �
� � � � � what do people think on this board???
� � � �
� � � � I agree. Its simple macroeconomics. Less liquidity, less credit,
� � less
� � � � investment. Pharma will be looking to fund only those research
� � efforts
� � � � that are likely to return viable products. Where they once would
� � have
� � � had
� � � � a higher tolerance for failure, they will now revise their risk
� � � guidelines.
� � � � I do think that the major player - Follica - is far enough along
� � that
� � � its
� � � � efforts won't be impacted too greatly. Acell is already on the
� � market,
� � � but
� � � � it has no application for hairloss, so its irrelevant to the
� � discussion.
� � �
� � � � As for those new technologies and treatments that are currently
� just
� � � ideas
� � � � in some Phd candidate's head, this collapse just pushed back their
� � � � timelines.
� � �
� � � Incorrect on several fronts. Few things:
� � �
� � � 1. Venture or biotech capital relies on 100% equity investment. There
� � is
� � � no debt - it's too risky an asset class for debt. So the credit
� crunch
� � is
� � � not going to affect liquidity for startups.
� � � 2. The vast majority venture capital funds took advantage of the boom
� � � market to raise huge, billion dollar funds. These funds are now
� � committed
� � � and ready to be invested. The credit crunch is not going to affect
� this
� � � money.
� � � 3. The billion dollar funds in the hands of venture capitalists have
� to
� � be
� � � put to work (eg. investment).
� � �
� � � Case in point: Follica raised $11m in August. Financing led by
� Polaris
� � � Venture Parters.
� � �
� � � Ask yourself this: you are sitting on a big pile of money that needs
� to
� � be
� � � invested. Are you going to hold-off investing in good opportunities
� � simply
� � � because of the credit crisis (which is not going to affect the
� success
� � or
� � � failure of your developing technology)?
� �
� � 1. I said PHARMA, not VCs, but...
� �
� � 2. Where do you think VCs get their capital from? It just
� materializes?
� � It is funded, reconstituted and maintained through the activities of
� its
� � participants. EVERYTHING is dependent on the credit market, if not
� � directly, then indirectly.
�
� You said Pharma but you mention Follica and Acell. Do you know that
� Follica and Acell are VC funded? Also, Pharma does not get its money from
� the capital markets. They get it from their customers. R&D is funded out of
� operating cash flow. Despite the state of the economy, the medical business
� is one of the industries that is least affected by GDP declines, so their
� cash flow should remain strong.
�
� Tell me in detail what you mean by participants and how money is
� reconstituted and maintained. I work in the capital markets business, and I
� suspect that you have no idea how funding lines work.
�
� Also, try reading the above - VCs ALREADY have their money and it is
� already in the bank.
�
� A statement like "everything depends on the credit market" is just silly.
� Of course this is true - it's the basic economics of a globalized,
� interlinked economy. I can also say "everything in finance depends on the
� weather", which is true as the weather affects weather derivatives, which
� affects bank profits, which affects consumer spending, and which affects
� everything according to Keynesian Model of the economy. But my statement
� would be just as silly as yours, because what's more important is the
� extent of the elasticity. In VC land, the credit market is not going to
� affect funding for biotech startups significantly. How would you explain
� the ease at which Follica received their funding?

1. Acell is irrelevent to the discussion. It has no application for hairloss

2. Why do you assume that Pharma cashflow is recession proof? I work in healthcare, and I can tell you its not. Pharma sales suffer along with everyone else. Less sales, smaller flow, smaller flow, less research.

3. Yes, I know Follica is VC funded, and I said they are already far enough along to keep attracting money.

4. Reconstituted and maintained = attract new private and institutional wealth. Wealth built on investment. Investment dependent on credit and the health of the finacial markets.

5. VCs already have money "in the bank", but as you point out, it must be spent, and is being done so everyday. They don't hold it in a special fund entitled "hair loss research". Going forward over the next 5 years, see point 4.

6. If its true, then why were you arguing against it? Comparing the impact of weather derivatives or trying to claim that they have as much influence as the credit market is what's silly.

7. As for the "ease" of Follica's funding, it had already established its protocol and begun seeking investment YEARS ago. The question is about how this MAJOR contraction is going to affect future prospects, not established players.

fckhrls is located in [NA] and he is available to meet: NO

fckhrls

07.10.2008, 10:17
(edited by fckhrls, 07.10.2008, 10:49)

@ rev
Yes

� � �
� � � 2. Where do you think VCs get their capital from? It just
� � materializes?
� � � It is funded, reconstituted and maintained through the activities of
� � its
� � � participants. EVERYTHING is dependent on the credit market, if not
� � � directly, then indirectly.
� �
� � exactly, fckhrls.
�
� Leonard, someone employed in the capital markets sector told you how
� things work, so you decided to listen to the village idiot instead.
� Honestly, I think hairloss is the least of some people's worries.
�
�
�
� .

Man, have I gotten under your skin. It just reinforces what I've said about you all along - you're a creepy loner. Only a loner without any relationships in the real world would let someone on the internet get them so worked up. This place is your home, its where you come to interact socially, and I ruined it for you. I'm actually kind of sorry.

fckhrls is located in [NA] and he is available to meet: NO

cal

07.10.2008, 17:48

@ fckhrls
Yes

�
� Acell is irrelevent to the discussion. It has no application for hairloss.

You don't know that. Not even the inventors of the stuff or the doctors who are testing it know that yet.

You just told a lie to further your own viewpoint.

cal is located in [NA] and he is available to meet: NO

fckhrls

07.10.2008, 18:02

@ cal
Yes

� �
� � Acell is irrelevent to the discussion. It has no application for
� hairloss.
�
�
� You don't know that. Not even the inventors of the stuff or the doctors
� who are testing it know that yet.
�
� You just told a lie to further your own viewpoint.

You don't know that praying to Vishnu while standing on your head doesn't grow hair, but that doesn't mean it does. And calling it a "lie" would indicate you can prove I'm wrong, and unless I missed something, there's still no proof that Acell can regrow hair. But do we really have to have this argument? Its off-topic and so last summer.

fckhrls is located in [NA] and he is available to meet: NO

cal

07.10.2008, 20:02

@ fckhrls
Yes

I don't have to prove Acell works. You have to prove it doesn't.

I never said it works. I just said you were lying because you purposely gave the impression that the issue was settled (in the direction you want to encourage) when you knew it was absolutely not settled whatsoever.

I call that lying. Relaying information that you know to be false for the purpose of misleading others.

cal is located in [NA] and he is available to meet: NO

fckhrls

07.10.2008, 22:05
(edited by fckhrls, 07.10.2008, 22:34)

@ cal
You want me to prove a negative?

� I don't have to prove Acell works. You have to prove it doesn't.
�
� I never said it works. I just said you were lying because you purposely
� gave the impression that the issue was settled (in the direction you want
� to encourage) when you knew it was absolutely not settled whatsoever.
�
� I call that lying. Relaying information that you know to be false for the
� purpose of misleading others.

No, you DO have to prove it works. You're asking me to prove a negative. That's a classic logic fallacy, and not how science works.

What do I "know to be false"? That Acell works for hairloss? I know there is NO empirical evidence to suggest it does. No anecdotal evidence, no evidence from double-blind research studies. The fact that the parent company isn't funding any hairloss protocol trials says it all. When was the last time a major pharma depended on phiscians - not researchers - to test their product for them? Their response has been, "couldn't hurt!" as they handed it off to some HT docs on the recommendation of an anonymous nut from an obscure hairloss forum. The HT docs will declare it a success (without publication), then happily mark it up and sell it to people like you who either don't understand the Scientific Method or don't want to believe it.

Acell was a figment of this board's - and mainly one poster's - imagination. It may treat scars, but it doesn't grow hair. But believe what you want, you silly, desperate "man".

fckhrls is located in [NA] and he is available to meet: NO

Leonard

08.10.2008, 00:56

@ fckhrls
Yes

� � no, no, fckhrls did NOT say that. he did NOT say that vcs have to
� borrow
� � their money.
� �
� � i think what he was driving at is that in a time of depressed credit, or
� a
� � freeze in the credit markets (actually this is an almost unprecedented
� � situation, since the great depression), EVERY SOURCE OF FUNDING for
� r&d,
� � plant and equipment, etc. dries up in one way or another.
�
� � vcs get their money from private investors and institutional investors.
�
� � in times of a credit crisis like right now, BOTH private investors and
� � institutional investors will be much, much more cautious with their
� money.
�
� Exactly.

That's not right at all. A large proportion of VC money comes from large pension funds (I believe they are called 401K in the US). These funds have a tonne of money to invest and the problem is actually finding somewhere to put the money.

But why take my word for it when you can read it here. TheDeal.com is a realiable source of information. Contradicts fckhrls in every way. I would believe TheDeal.com over an anonymous poster on the internet, but Baldbaby that is your call.

http://www.thedeal.com/dealscape/2008/10/private_capital_fund_raising_p.php

You will see that 2008 was a flat year for VC fund raising. But this is compared to 2007 which was a record year for fund raising in all asset classes.

Baldbaby - if you want a real answer to your question, just research it. You don't have to take my word for it. I was trying to tell you what I know, but if you have already made up your mind then there is nothing I can do about that, and there is no use discussing it further.

Leonard is located in [NA] and he is available to meet: NO

cal

08.10.2008, 01:02

@ Leonard
Yes

fckhrls:

1. You said Acell doesn't work.

2. I said you don't know that, and you're lying to imply that anyone on earth currently does know.

3. Now you're trying to argue with me about the wisdom in placing faith in Acell or not. This is beside the point.

If you really think I'm a big Acell cheerleader, just look at my past posts on the subject. I'm not more than mediocre about its chances.

All I want you to do is NOT KNOWINGLY TELL LIES ON HERE just because it supports your viewpoint.

cal is located in [NA] and he is available to meet: NO

Leonard

08.10.2008, 01:05

@ fckhrls
Yes

� � � � � � how will the global financial crisis affect the search for a
� � � hairloss
� � � � � � cure?
� � � � � �
� � � � � � i would think that with banks failing, and credit much more
� hard
� � to
� � � � � come
� � � � � � by, lots of researchers will be shutting down their research
� and
� � � � trials
� � � � � for
� � � � � � a while. this more than anything else, may slow down the
� search
� � � for
� � � � a
� � � � � � cure, and the reality of making it available to the public!
� � � � � �
� � � � � � how will companies like intercytex, which were strapped for
� cash
� � � even
� � � � � � before the crisis, survive? their stock was dropping like a
� � lead
� � � � � brick
� � � � � � before the meltdown, what's likely to happen to it now?
� � � � � �
� � � � � � and with their stock falling, so their valuation falls, they
� � can't
� � � � get
� � � � � � credit, they have to start laying people off, or asking them to
� � � � � volunteer,
� � � � � � etc. it won't be pretty in 2009.
� � � � � �
� � � � � � what do people think on this board???
� � � � �
� � � � � I agree. Its simple macroeconomics. Less liquidity, less
� credit,
� � � less
� � � � � investment. Pharma will be looking to fund only those research
� � � efforts
� � � � � that are likely to return viable products. Where they once would
� � � have
� � � � had
� � � � � a higher tolerance for failure, they will now revise their risk
� � � � guidelines.
� � � � � I do think that the major player - Follica - is far enough
� along
� � � that
� � � � its
� � � � � efforts won't be impacted too greatly. Acell is already on the
� � � market,
� � � � but
� � � � � it has no application for hairloss, so its irrelevant to the
� � � discussion.
� � � �
� � � � � As for those new technologies and treatments that are currently
� � just
� � � � ideas
� � � � � in some Phd candidate's head, this collapse just pushed back
� their
� � � � � timelines.
� � � �
� � � � Incorrect on several fronts. Few things:
� � � �
� � � � 1. Venture or biotech capital relies on 100% equity investment.
� There
� � � is
� � � � no debt - it's too risky an asset class for debt. So the credit
� � crunch
� � � is
� � � � not going to affect liquidity for startups.
� � � � 2. The vast majority venture capital funds took advantage of the
� boom
� � � � market to raise huge, billion dollar funds. These funds are now
� � � committed
� � � � and ready to be invested. The credit crunch is not going to affect
� � this
� � � � money.
� � � � 3. The billion dollar funds in the hands of venture capitalists
� have
� � to
� � � be
� � � � put to work (eg. investment).
� � � �
� � � � Case in point: Follica raised $11m in August. Financing led by
� � Polaris
� � � � Venture Parters.
� � � �
� � � � Ask yourself this: you are sitting on a big pile of money that
� needs
� � to
� � � be
� � � � invested. Are you going to hold-off investing in good opportunities
� � � simply
� � � � because of the credit crisis (which is not going to affect the
� � success
� � � or
� � � � failure of your developing technology)?
� � �
� � � 1. I said PHARMA, not VCs, but...
� � �
� � � 2. Where do you think VCs get their capital from? It just
� � materializes?
� � � It is funded, reconstituted and maintained through the activities of
� � its
� � � participants. EVERYTHING is dependent on the credit market, if not
� � � directly, then indirectly.
� �
� � You said Pharma but you mention Follica and Acell. Do you know that
� � Follica and Acell are VC funded? Also, Pharma does not get its money
� from
� � the capital markets. They get it from their customers. R&D is funded out
� of
� � operating cash flow. Despite the state of the economy, the medical
� business
� � is one of the industries that is least affected by GDP declines, so
� their
� � cash flow should remain strong.
� �
� � Tell me in detail what you mean by participants and how money is
� � reconstituted and maintained. I work in the capital markets business,
� and I
� � suspect that you have no idea how funding lines work.
� �
� � Also, try reading the above - VCs ALREADY have their money and it is
� � already in the bank.
� �
� � A statement like "everything depends on the credit market" is just
� silly.
� � Of course this is true - it's the basic economics of a globalized,
� � interlinked economy. I can also say "everything in finance depends on
� the
� � weather", which is true as the weather affects weather derivatives,
� which
� � affects bank profits, which affects consumer spending, and which
� affects
� � everything according to Keynesian Model of the economy. But my
� statement
� � would be just as silly as yours, because what's more important is the
� � extent of the elasticity. In VC land, the credit market is not going to
� � affect funding for biotech startups significantly. How would you
� explain
� � the ease at which Follica received their funding?
�
� 1. Acell is irrelevent to the discussion. It has no application for
� hairloss
�
� 2. Why do you assume that Pharma cashflow is recession proof? I work in
� healthcare, and I can tell you its not. Pharma sales suffer along with
� everyone else. Less sales, smaller flow, smaller flow, less research.
�
� 3. Yes, I know Follica is VC funded, and I said they are already far
� enough along to keep attracting money.
�
� 4. Reconstituted and maintained = attract new private and institutional
� wealth. Wealth built on investment. Investment dependent on credit and
� the health of the finacial markets.
�
� 5. VCs already have money "in the bank", but as you point out, it must be
� spent, and is being done so everyday. They don't hold it in a special fund
� entitled "hair loss research". Going forward over the next 5 years, see
� point 4.
�
� 6. If its true, then why were you arguing against it? Comparing the
� impact of weather derivatives or trying to claim that they have as much
� influence as the credit market is what's silly.
�
� 7. As for the "ease" of Follica's funding, it had already established its
� protocol and begun seeking investment YEARS ago. The question is about how
� this MAJOR contraction is going to affect future prospects, not established
� players.

I pasted a link to an article somewhere else which contradicts a lot of what you said. But in any case, I'm not interested in debating with you any further. If you feel that you are correct, then that's fine. I don't get any pleasure over showing up an anonymous poster, especially one who has not contibuted anything.

Leonard is located in [NA] and he is available to meet: NO

Willy

08.10.2008, 07:29
(edited by Willy, 08.10.2008, 07:41)

@ fckhrls
You want me to prove a negative?

You've made your decision before waiting to hear the results. Very open minded.....a true sign of intelligence. Whether Acell works or not, I'm just happy to know that the outcome lies in the hands of people who are far more qualified than you.

You would make a good politician.....alot of babble but no effort to accomplish anything.

By the way, I'm still waiting for you find ONE post where I've stated that Acell WILL work. I've posed this challenge to you several times before and have yet to get a response. Since you're into proving your statements....PLEASE PROVIDE THE PROOF OF YOUR CLAIMS.

I've simply stated that I think that it's worth investigating. Obviously, several doctors feel the same way. Who has more credibility on this forum, HT doctors who have spent thier career DIRECTLY involved in the HT industry or some random forum member who has made NO effort to add anything positive to the forum.

Willy is located in [NA] and he is available to meet: NO

baldbaby

08.10.2008, 10:32

@ cal
Yes

� I don't have to prove Acell works. You have to prove it doesn't.

fckhrls, or anyone for that matter, should only have to prove acell doesn't work if first there was credible evidence that it does work. there has been absolutely NO credible evidence that it does regrow hair, apart from a few people on this board reading things into certain photos they've seen of dogs' legs on the website of a company that never claimed to regrow hair in the first place.

hey, if i were acell, and some eager people started bombarding me with emails telling me my company could make a lot of money on a brand new application for my product, and in fact offering to do all the networking for me to organise clinical tests, and even do some free publicity and "evangelism" for me, then i'd probably jump at the chance, too -- even if i had absolutely no idea that their speculation had any merit. i would jump at the chance because i would have absolutely nothing to lose, and others were doing ALL the work and spending ALL the money.

if acell grew new hair, we'd know about it already because this company would already have been out there long ago touting its procedure as a hair regeneration remedy for humans. if they had any indication the stuff can regrow brand new hair, de novo, they would have retooled their company into a human hair regeneration startup and would be in a very different position right now.

baldbaby is located in [NA] and he is available to meet: NO

Sceptic

08.10.2008, 10:54

@ baldbaby
Yes

� there has been absolutely NO credible evidence that it does regrow hair,

you must be joking, Acell regenerates EVERYTHING it touches, including your hair follicles, obviously.

Sceptic is located in [NA] and he is available to meet: NO

fckhrls

08.10.2008, 10:56
(edited by fckhrls, 08.10.2008, 11:31)

@ Leonard
Yes

� � � no, no, fckhrls did NOT say that. he did NOT say that vcs have to
� � borrow
� � � their money.
� � �
� � � i think what he was driving at is that in a time of depressed credit,
� or
� � a
� � � freeze in the credit markets (actually this is an almost
� unprecedented
� � � situation, since the great depression), EVERY SOURCE OF FUNDING for
� � r&d,
� � � plant and equipment, etc. dries up in one way or another.
� �
� � � vcs get their money from private investors and institutional
� investors.
� �
� � � in times of a credit crisis like right now, BOTH private investors
� and
� � � institutional investors will be much, much more cautious with their
� � money.
� �
� � Exactly.
�
� That's not right at all. A large proportion of VC money comes from large
� pension funds (I believe they are called 401K in the US). These funds have
� a tonne of money to invest and the problem is actually finding somewhere to
� put the money.
�
� But why take my word for it when you can read it here. TheDeal.com is a
� realiable source of information. Contradicts fckhrls in every way. I would
� believe TheDeal.com over an anonymous poster on the internet, but Baldbaby
� that is your call.
�
� http://www.thedeal.com/dealscape/2008/10/private_capital_fund_raising_p.php
�
� You will see that 2008 was a flat year for VC fund raising. But this is
� compared to 2007 which was a record year for fund raising in all asset
� classes.
�
� Baldbaby - if you want a real answer to your question, just research it.
� You don't have to take my word for it. I was trying to tell you what I
� know, but if you have already made up your mind then there is nothing I can
� do about that, and there is no use discussing it further.

I responded to your argument with a 7 point rebuttal. You didn't address any of them. Again, I ask you where the wealth that constitutes VC funding comes from, and how it is made. You know the answer - investment. Your pension fund example is a case in point. Who invests in pension funds? Employees. If they are being laid-off, what happens to that fund? If the investments those funds use decline, what happens to those funds? Do they continue to grow at its previous rate? Do they seek risky vehicles like VCs, or shelter in more traditional, stable investments?

The article you posted is talking about money raised through the 3 previous quarters, not raised in the last week. Much of that money was probably generated by the energy bubble that has now collapsed. If you want to make your point, provide me historical evidence that is actually relevant to the discussion. You "work in capital marekets"; just punch up a graph that shows private capital fundraising behaving in the inverse to the economy during the last recession.

You're making a straw man argument from a statement neither I nor Balbaby ever made. We're talking about research and capital going forward, not previous capital or research already raised and funded.

Its absolutely preposterous to claim that VC is immune to global economic contractions.

fckhrls is located in [NA] and he is available to meet: NO

Willy

08.10.2008, 11:00

@ baldbaby
Yes

� � I don't have to prove Acell works. You have to prove it doesn't.
�
� fckhrls, or anyone for that matter, should only have to prove acell
� doesn't work if first there was credible evidence that it does work.
� there has been absolutely NO credible evidence that it does regrow hair,
� apart from a few people on this board reading things into certain photos
� they've seen of dogs' legs on the website of a company that never claimed
� to regrow hair in the first place.

I disagree. You guys make the statement that Acell won't work as if you know this for a fact. You are the only ones that are definite about Acell. I believe that anyone makes such a bold statement should be able to back it up with proof. As far as claiming to regrow hair, they said that they are confident it will regrow removed donor hair (but made no guarantees).

� hey, if i were acell, and some eager people started bombarding me with
� emails telling me my company could make a lot of money on a brand new
� application for my product, and in fact offering to do all the networking
� for me to organise clinical tests, and even do some free publicity and
� "evangelism" for me, then i'd probably jump at the chance, too -- even if i
� had absolutely no idea that their speculation had any merit. i would jump
� at the chance because i would have absolutely nothing to lose, and others
� were doing ALL the work and spending ALL the money.

You speak as if the HT doctors are idiots. If they have enough faith to try it....why wouldn't you want them to? As far as someone else doing all the work....that was done on my time (not yours) and a few other forum members so why do you care? And by the way, I don't regret the time I spent on Acell no matter how the r