Possibly. I think they will market it as a 6 month treatment, and if you want more results then double up. Many people will be happy with the 6 month results, and those who can afford it go for a year
Bayer Prolactin Receptor Antibody For Male And Female Pattern Hair Loss
- Thread starter Ollie
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 24
can you look more into this molecule called LFA 102? i think it has really good group buy potential. It passed phase 1 studies for prostate cancer and its also a monoclonal antibody
"FA102, a humanized monoclonal antibody (mAb) that binds to and inhibits the PRLR, has exhibited promising preclinical antitumor activity."
here is the phase 1 study :
Phase I Study of the Prolactin Receptor Antagonist LFA102 in Metastatic Breast and Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer - PubMed
Treatment with LFA102 was safe and well tolerated, but did not show antitumor activity as monotherapy at the doses tested.
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
also this study confirms that PRL antibody is safe to use the side effects seemed tolerable .
- Reaction score
- 5
I would definitely take out 100k to cure baldness. Sign me the f*** up.
Prolly not getting another house no time soon anyway.
Prolly not getting another house no time soon anyway.
- Reaction score
- 340
Very interesting! So if there's a competing antibody maybe competition could bring the price down?can you look more into this molecule called LFA 102? i think it has really good group buy potential. It passed phase 1 studies for prostate cancer and its also a monoclonal antibody
"FA102, a humanized monoclonal antibody (mAb) that binds to and inhibits the PRLR, has exhibited promising preclinical antitumor activity."
here is the phase 1 study :
Phase I Study of the Prolactin Receptor Antagonist LFA102 in Metastatic Breast and Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer - PubMed
Treatment with LFA102 was safe and well tolerated, but did not show antitumor activity as monotherapy at the doses tested.
also this study confirms that PRL antibody is safe to use the side effects seemed tolerable .
It's also interesting that both DHT and PRL are involved in both Androgenetic Alopecia and prostate cancer.
Come on, guys, obvious troll. Let's, for once, not take the bait.
- Reaction score
- 340
Why are you not comfortable with SMI-6 at high doses, given that an antibody is, presumably, safe? Because of impurity?
Yes, perhaps something downstream would be cheaper, in fact, didn't we mention something like that in the thread a while ago, whatever became of that?
Although, as you say, we don't know what it is downstream that causes the regrowth, but perhaps we can speculate or, hell, just try at random if there aren't too many downstream effects. I mean, may as well if we're gonna be priced out of HMI.
But, you say "what would seem to be the likely candidates", so you know already what the downstream effects are and which might be the ones doing the work?
So you're the house grammar police. Thank goodness you're here to correct us every time one of us makes a typo.
That aside, hair growth in macaques and humans is not interchangeable. I live in Portland, Oregon and I used to have convos with a researcher named Hideo Uno, who ran the local Primate facility in nearby Beaverton. We used to talk on the phone quite a bit. You might want to google Hideo Uno to learn who he is. It was from him that I got the info that it's easier to regrow hair on macaques than on humans. I respect his opinion on this issue more than a respect some grammar-cop know-nothing on the internet.
In fact, it's easier to regrow hair on a macaque than a human.
It's a weak PRLR mAb. It is just as expensive as HMI-115, but 10x less potent, and was not effective in animal models. The only effective mAb for the PRLR in animal models is HMI-115.can you look more into this molecule called LFA 102? i think it has really good group buy potential. It passed phase 1 studies for prostate cancer and its also a monoclonal antibody
"FA102, a humanized monoclonal antibody (mAb) that binds to and inhibits the PRLR, has exhibited promising preclinical antitumor activity."
here is the phase 1 study :
Phase I Study of the Prolactin Receptor Antagonist LFA102 in Metastatic Breast and Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer - PubMed
Treatment with LFA102 was safe and well tolerated, but did not show antitumor activity as monotherapy at the doses tested.
also this study confirms that PRL antibody is safe to use the side effects seemed tolerable .
Because we don't know enough about the drug, there is possibility for toxicity at high doses. The doses we tried didn't seem to work that great, we can't go any higher.
I have some theories on that. The most promising downstream target is Twist1, but it's very difficult to get anything to inhibit that.
You don't even know the efficacy of this stuff yet. You might want to wait until phase 2 studies are complete to see if the subjects get any regrowth at all. Just because it grows good hair on macaques does not mean it will grow hair on humans. It's easier to grow hair on macaques than humans. Here below is a study with the world-famous Hideo Uno and in his study ALL macaques regrew hair with minoxidil and we all know that all humans do not regrow hair with minoxidil.can you look more into this molecule called LFA 102? i think it has really good group buy potential. It passed phase 1 studies for prostate cancer and its also a monoclonal antibody
"FA102, a humanized monoclonal antibody (mAb) that binds to and inhibits the PRLR, has exhibited promising preclinical antitumor activity."
here is the phase 1 study :
Phase I Study of the Prolactin Receptor Antagonist LFA102 in Metastatic Breast and Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer - PubMed
Treatment with LFA102 was safe and well tolerated, but did not show antitumor activity as monotherapy at the doses tested.
also this study confirms that PRL antibody is safe to use the side effects seemed tolerable .
The stumptailed macaque as a model for androgenetic alopecia: Effects of topical minoxidil analyzed by use of the folliculogram
The use of the stumptailed macaque, which possesses hereditary balding characteristics similar in many respects to that of androgenetic alopecia in hu…
Was he talking about stumptailed macaques specifically, or other types of macaques? Stumptailed macaques are the only ones whose hair loss is similar to ours afaik. The others do indeed have types of hair loss that is much easier to treat. If he actually claims stuptailed macaque hair loss is easier to treat, I'd like to know what he bases that on. The trials for minoxidil and finasteride in macaques show similar regrowth to the human trials for those drugs.
Virtually all humans regrow hair with oral minoxidil. Many don't regrow hair with topical minoxidil because they lack the enzyme in the skin which converts minoxidil into its active form. Taking it orally converts it in the liver where the enzyme is present in all humans, so that's why all of them respond to oral minoxidil even though they don't respond to topical. Apparently all macaques have the sulfotransferase enzyme in their skin.You don't even know the efficacy of this stuff yet. You might want to wait until phase 2 studies are complete to see if the subjects get any regrowth at all. Just because it grows good hair on macaques does not mean it will grow hair on humans. It's easier to grow hair on macaques than humans. Here below is a study with the world-famous Hideo Uno and in his study ALL macaques regrew hair with 2% minoxidil and we all know that all humans do not regrow hair with 2% minoxidil.
The stumptailed macaque as a model for androgenetic alopecia: Effects of topical minoxidil analyzed by use of the folliculogram
The use of the stumptailed macaque, which possesses hereditary balding characteristics similar in many respects to that of androgenetic alopecia in hu…www.sciencedirect.com
It doesn't matter if oral minoxidil regrows hair in humans because I am not talking about oral minoxidil. The Hideo Uno study I posted showed that ALL macaques regrew hair with minoxidil involved topical minoxidil. Hideo Uno was one of the top 3 or 4 researchers using macaques in the world some years back, and he and I spoke quite a bit by phone. And he told me in no uncertain terms that it's easier to grow hair on macaques than it is to grow hair on humans. The study I posted above is about topical application of minoxidil on macaques and like I said, they ALL grew hair.
You do not know why it's easier to grow hair on macaques than on humans. And I don't believe you know why some humans grow hair with minoxidil while others do not. You're doing a lot of assuming, guessing, and making stuff up.
Last edited:
He was talking about stump-tailed macaques. I used to go to his facility 3 or 4 times per year to talk with him and pick up any nuggets of info I could get from him. He's a nice guy. We talked on the phone quite a bit for a couple of years. Make no mistake about it, he told me in no uncertain terms that it's easier to regrow hair on macaques than on humans. I was telling him that some experimental drug would regrow hair on humans because it regrew substantial hair on macaques and he would caution me with, "It's easier to regrow hair on macaques than humans."
This man was always doing research with macaques using all kinds of topicals. He was as nice as a man could possibly be. Great guy. He did some of the RU58841 studies for the drug company. And like I said, he was at the top of the dermatological research food chain. He ran the Primate Center here and he did bald testing on macaques for all of the drug companies. He was considered to be the go-to guy for macaque testing for male pattern hair loss.
I'm telling you that he told me repeatedly that it's easier to regrow hair on macaques than on humans. I wish it wasn't so but it is so.
He based his statements on decades of research done with many different topical and oral drugs to treat hair loss. And I don't know why this would surprise anyone when we all know that it's easier to grow hair on mice than on humans.
I don't agree with you so that means I'm a troll. Give me a break! Hideo Uno says it's easier to regrow hair on macaques than on humans and I respect his opinion on the matter, whereas I do not respect your opinion on the matter. I know you're wrong.
Last edited:
You don't have any specifics? Show me the studies. Every Androgenetic Alopecia trial that I've seen on stumptailed macaques correlates with human trials for the same drug. There isn't a single macaque trial I have ever seen published for a drug that grew hair on macaques and failed to grow a similar amount of hair on humans. If there is one Is like to see it. If there was ever an experimental compound that grew this kind of hair on macaques I think it would've been published in some form. We would have heard about it if it wasn't very recent. Mice do not have androgenetic alopecia so the comparison. Comparing them to macaques belies ignorance. In mouse studies all they do is shave the mouse and see how fast it grows back.
I don't engage in wishful thinking, I'm going by the evidence, you have not provided any evidence that supports this mans claims. I have provided evidence that supports my claim, the burden is on you to provide additional evidence, all you are providing is hearsay.
You keep making this factual statement without any evidence to back it up. You may not get called a troll if you say, "I think, or I have been told" to qualify your statement.
Did you not read what I wrote about sulfotransferase or did you not understand it? It matters. I explained why it matters. You completely ignored it and repeated your assertion. Now I just think you're trolling. You know for a fact that macaques grow hair as easily as mice, yet you don't even know how minoxidil is activated
Last edited:
Hey 9 post account, can you provide even 1 study that isn't 2% minoxidil? Seriously link us a single study that showed hair growth in macaques but not humans, otherwise you're full of sh*t.
There are 4-5 readily available studies that prove the opposite of what you just said (finasteride, dutasteride, minoxidil, lataprost and RU with anecdotal evidence) but I've never seen a single study of a compound that was successfully trialed for hairloss in stump-tailed macaques that failed on humans.
I even googled Hideo Uno's research papers and he doesn't have one either, so please show some proof. The minoxidil example you just quoted isn't even proving what you intend it to prove, just that humans needed a higher dose the maqacues due to less enzyme to convert on the scalp but the compound itself still works on both macaques and humans almost equally well. The same thing took place with finasteride where they dosed macaques with 1mg/kg of body weight, it's a dosing difference, that's it.
Last edited:
Hey wrongheaded poster, NO I will not go hunting for studies for you. I know what I know, and I've told the rest of you what I know. If you want to be fool enough to assume I'm wrong even though I'm right, go ahead.
You post the links to all of the studies you just got done talking about that prove it's EASIER to grow hair on the heads of humans than Macaques. After all, you just got done saying that there are all of these studies involving all of these different treatments and they all disproved my claims that it's easier to grow hair on macaques than on humans.
Go ahead and post the links to all of those studies. LMAO!
I already posted a study showing that plain old 2% topical minoxidil all by itself regrew hair on 100% of macaques in a Hideo Uno study and we all know that 2% topical minoxidil by itself does not work on 100% of humans. Hence, I have already proved that it's easier to grow hair on macaques than on humans, while you have bullshitted about how finasteride, dutasteride, minoxidil, lataprost and RU have all grown more hair on humans than macaques but you didn't even show one study to support your claims.
Your stories for why humans need higher doses of minoxidil than macaques is bs for 2 reasons -
1. You don't know why it's easier for minoxidil to grow hair on macaques than humans. The fact that it takes higher doses of minoxidil & finasteride to get success in humans than it does in macaques shows that your cute little enzyme theory is likely wrong because minoxidil & finasteride work by different modes of action. Hence, your own claim that it takes higher doses of either medicine (minoxidil or finas) to get efficacy in humans than it does in macaques proves my point that it's easier to regrow hair in macaques than in humans.
2. You're sweeping the issue that 2% minoxidil worked on 100% of macaques and 2% minoxidil does not grow hair on 100% of humans proves my point that it's easier to grow hair on macaques on humans. Let me say this again, the study I posted shows that 2% minoxidil grows hair on 100% of macaques. If you jack up the minoxidil to 5% it still won't grow hair in 100% of humans.
Be a man and face the truth.
Please do. I would like to know what he says about HMI-115.
Firstly, I have produced one specific in this very thread. I posted a study by Uno showing that 2% minoxidil grows hair on 100% of macaques and we all know that 2% minoxidil does NOT grow hair on 100% of humans. This shows that the macaque results do not correlate to human results.
All of the studies you've seen re: macaque results do not correlate to human results. We know you've seen at least one study that shows it's easier to grow hair on macaques than on humans because this very day you saw a Hideo Uno study I posted showing that 100% of macaques grow hair with 2% minoxidil whereas we all know that 100% of humans do not grow hair with 2% minoxidil. So you're talking sh*t when you say ALL of the studies you've seen show the results achieved by macaques correlate to human results. You're talking sh*t that you want to believe.
And I never said that it's as easy to grow hair on macaques as it is to grow hair on mice. I said it's easier to grow hair on macaques than on humans. I have no idea if it's easier to grow hair on macaques or mice.
Last edited:
One thing is that if Hideo Uno is now a consultant for Bayer he might not be willing to give an opinion about it but ask him what he thinks and let's see what he says.
Last edited: