Bayer Prolactin Receptor Antibody For Male And Female Pattern Hair Loss

[thomps1523]

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 please ask him what he thinks and let's see what he says. And tell him that even though it grows lots of hair on macaques that doesn't mean it will have the same results in humans. Tell him that you're talking to a guy on the internet who used to live in the Portland, Oregon area and he's met Mr. Uno and Mr. Uno told him that it's easier to grow hair on macaques than on humans. He might remember me. I certainly remember him.

Nameless? Welcome back bro!

 

[JohnDoe5]

Nameless? Welcome back bro!

Who? Not him.

 

[Janko]

Who? Not him.

The legend, the myth, the nameless one!
Golden age of peak mental disorders on this forum.

 

[pegasus2]

OK, you can stop repeating yourself now. Every claim you make has been addressed, and you have no answers for the rebuttals other than to repeat your original claim. Show us the studies that support your claims or let it go

 

[Armando Jose]

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 please ask him what he thinks and let's see what he says. And tell him that a guy who says he used to know the esteemed Dr. Hideo Uno is telling you that even though it grows lots of hair on macaques that doesn't mean it will grow lots of hair on humans. Tell him that you're talking to a guy on the who used to live in the Portland, Oregon area and he's met Dr. Uno and Dr. Uno told him that it's easier to grow hair on macaques than humans. He might remember me. I certainly remember him.

Hideo Unno 1987

 

[Dimitri001]

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.

This was already tested for Androgenetic Alopecia in monkeys? Was it by Bayer in the same study as HMI?

I was under the impression that an antibody silences the receptor without fail once it binds to it, so it isn't so? What's then the distinction between an antagonist and an antibody, that an antibody doesn't have to compete, but can bind even when the hormone is bound to the receptor?

 

[trialAcc]

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.

So your rebuttal is you know what you know and that studies exist but we are the fools because we don't believe you?

Someone already explained to you why humans have a worse overall responder rate to topical minoxidil then macaques (the enzyme varies more in humans) but have the same 100% response rate to oral minoxidil where the enzyme is produced by the liver.

You don't even know how to read, I told you the inverse was true in macaques for finasteride. ie the dose used on macaques was about 60-70x the dose used on humans and got worse results on macaques then humans. One would easily claim that it is easier to grow hair on humans then macaques when applying the same logic that you keep repeating. You're an idiot lmao

 

[Tarcko]

Hello, I am French and I did not fully understand your messages. I understood that the price could be very expensive. But in what form will the drug be? is there any real hope for baldness?

 

[pegasus2]

This was already tested for Androgenetic Alopecia in monkeys? Was it by Bayer in the same study as HMI?

I was under the impression that an antibody silences the receptor without fail once it binds to it, so it isn't so? What's then the distinction between an antagonist and an antibody, that an antibody doesn't have to compete, but can bind even when the hormone is bound to the receptor?

No, it's been tested for prostate cancer in humans, and it didn't work. It wasn't tested for hair loss in any model AFAIK. In mice it failed to mimic a PRLRko phenotype. HMI-115 did mimic a PRLRko phenotype in mice, with full infertility in females, and failure to lactate. It is the only PRLR antagonist to ever mimic this phenotype, so it is superior to any other.

Yes, that's essentially the practical difference. No one knows why LFA102 fails, but it does.

 

[pegasus2]

Hello, I am French and I did not fully understand your messages. I understood that the price could be very expensive. But in what form will the drug be? is there any real hope for baldness?

The drug will come in vials which must be reconstituted with sterile water and injected subcutaneously, in the abdomen or elsewhere, every 2 weeks for at least 6 months.

 

[Dimitri001]

By the way, folks, the Australian trial is a hit on Tressles and several members have said they've registered or will register. We should definitely advertise all these trials over there, because, as Pegasus said, the sooner they get all the subjects they need, the sooner the trial will start and, furthermore, anyone who learns of it from us and enrolls might become an informant for us.

Is there any info on where in Europe the trial will be?

You don't even know how to read, I told you the inverse was true in macaques for finasteride. ie the dose used on macaques was about 60-70x the dose used on humans and got worse results on macaques then humans. One would easily claim that it is easier to grow hair on humans then macaques when applying the same logic that you keep repeating. You're an idiot lmao

Did the authors of the paper say anything about why finasteride may be so much less efficient than in humans?

 

[trialAcc]

By the way, folks, the Australian trial is a hit on Tressles and several members have said they've registered or will register. We should definitely advertise all these trials over there, because, as Pegasus said, the sooner they get all the subjects they need, the sooner the trial will start.

Did the authors of the paper say anything about why finasteride may be so much less efficient than in humans?

It was tested on macaques before humans afaik. It's not actually very much less efficient on macaques then humans, I was using hyperbole to highlight how flawed the logic is to do comparisons based on dosage and efficacy to say it's easier to grow hair on one of the other.

The antibody we're discussing right now was dosed at 40mg/kg on these macaques (the equivalent of 2.8 grams on a 70kg human) and will be dosed at roughly 90% less on humans. Same deal as finasteride, it's just dosing differences between animals.

For the minoxidil study that the troll posted, Pegasus already told him why the response to 2% minoxidil was greater in macaques then humans, because humans produce less of the enzyme on their scalp that activates the pathway that minoxidil works through. When you take oral minoxidil, the enzyme gets produced by the liver and humans have almost the same 100% response rate as the macaques did.

 

[Zon Ama]

From the reddit thread:

"Yes, but in men, Prolactin also initiates the refractory period in males after orgasm. Men with chronically too high prolactin often have low libido and ed issues. However, ive also read that too little prolactin can also cause same issues."

Is this true?

 

[LouisSarkozy]

Hello, I am French and I did not fully understand your messages. I understood that the price could be very expensive. But in what form will the drug be? is there any real hope for baldness?

la cure est là on on est sauvés dans 1 an......................... et non les shills on va mourir nw7

 

[JohnDoe5]

OK, you can stop repeating yourself now. Every claim you make has been addressed, and you have no answers for the rebuttals other than to repeat your original claim. Show us the studies that support your claims or let it go

At least I did post a study supporting my claim.

You are the one who has not posted even 1 study showing that it's as easy, or easier, to regrow hair on humans as it is to regrow hair on macaques. You are the one who has not posted one study verifying your claims or refuting my claims. You just blab that I'm wrong without supplying any evidence.

And I assure you that I am, in fact, correct, and anyone who gets involved in a GB for the Bayer drug because it grew hair on macaques is a fool because it's easier to regrow hair on macaques than humans, and anyone who says otherwise is a fool or a liar.

 

[JohnDoe5]

So your rebuttal is you know what you know and that studies exist but we are the fools because we don't believe you?

Someone already explained to you why humans have a worse overall responder rate to topical minoxidil then macaques (the enzyme varies more in humans) but have the same 100% response rate to oral minoxidil where the enzyme is produced by the liver.

You don't even know how to read, I told you the inverse was true in macaques for finasteride. ie the dose used on macaques was about 60-70x the dose used on humans and got worse results on macaques then humans. One would easily claim that it is easier to grow hair on humans then macaques when applying the same logic that you keep repeating. You're an idiot lmao

And your rebuttal is that you know I'm wrong and that there are numerous studies that show I'm wrong but you haven't posted even 1 study that shows I'm wrong. You have not posted one study establishing that some enzyme in humans explains why minoxidil grows hair on macaques easier than humans. You just blab on that your claims are true and only a fool would base money decisions on what an internet bloke says. Anyone who chips in for a GB of the Bayer drug before it proves effective in a phase 2 HUMAN study is a fool.

In fact, it's easier to regrow hair on macaques than on humans.

 

[JohnDoe5]

OK, you can stop repeating yourself now. Every claim you make has been addressed, and you have no answers for the rebuttals other than to repeat your original claim. Show us the studies that support your claims or let it go

What claims of mine have been addressed -

1. Other than your fool opinion, where did you prove that macaques and humans respond to topical treatments similarily? Where are the studies demonstrating this assertion by you?

2. Other than your fool opinion, where did you prove that some enzyme explains why humans respond worse to topical 2% minoxidil than macaques?
Where are the studies that prove this assertion by you?

3. And even if it's true, which I doubt that it is, that some enzyme limits the efficacy of 2% minoxidil in humans but not in macaques, then that proves I'm right about it being easier to regrow hair on macaques than on humans. After all, you yourself agree that 2% minoxidil works better on macaques than humans, while you also claim I'm wrong about it being easier to regrow hair on macaques than on humans. You're talking out of both sides of your mouth, mate.

4. And why would some liver enzyme allegedly prevent TOPICAL minoxidil from working while allowing ORAL minoxidil to work? WTF is up with that nonsense? Are you saying that your infamous, minoxidil-killing liver enzyme can tell if minoxidil is applied topically or taken orally? LMAO!

 

[Jackshtbro]

What claims of mine have been addressed -

1. Other than your fool opinion, where did you prove that macaques and humans respond to topical treatments similarily? Where are the studies demonstrating this assertion by you?

2. Other than your fool opinion, where did you prove that some enzyme explains why humans respond worse to topical 2% minoxidil than macaques?
Where are the studies that prove this assertion by you?

3. And even if it's a fact, which I doubt it is, that some enzyme limits the efficacy of 2% minoxidil in humans vs macaques, then that proves I'm right about it being easier to regrow hair on macaques than on humans. You agree that 2% minoxidil works better on macaques than humans while you also claim I'm wrong about it being easier to regrow hair on macaques than on humans. You're talking out of both sides of your mouth, mate.

4. And why would some liver enzyme allegedly prevent TOPICAL minoxidil from working while allowing ORAL minoxidil to work? WTF is up with that nonsense? Are you saying that your infamous, minoxidil-killing liver enzyme can tell if minoxidil is applied topically or taken orally? LMAO!

4/10 trolling tbh, mildly amusing

 

[Dimitri001]

What claims of mine have been addressed -

1. Other than your fool opinion, where did you prove that macaques and humans respond to topical treatments similarily? Where are the studies demonstrating this assertion by you?

2. Other than your fool opinion, where did you prove that some enzyme explains why humans respond worse to topical 2% minoxidil than macaques?
Where are the studies that prove this assertion by you?

3. And even if it's true, which I doubt that it is, that some enzyme limits the efficacy of 2% minoxidil in humans but not in macaques, then that proves I'm right about it being easier to regrow hair on macaques than on humans. After all, you yourself agree that 2% minoxidil works better on macaques than humans, while you also claim I'm wrong about it being easier to regrow hair on macaques than on humans. You're talking out of both sides of your mouth, mate.

4. And why would some liver enzyme allegedly prevent TOPICAL minoxidil from working while allowing ORAL minoxidil to work? WTF is up with that nonsense? Are you saying that your infamous, minoxidil-killing liver enzyme can tell if minoxidil is applied topically or taken orally? LMAO!

What about trialAcc's point that finasteride works better in humans?

 

[trialAcc]

What claims of mine have been addressed -

1. Other than your fool opinion, where did you prove that macaques and humans respond to topical treatments similarily? Where are the studies demonstrating this assertion by you?

2. Other than your fool opinion, where did you prove that some enzyme explains why humans respond worse to topical 2% minoxidil than macaques?
Where are the studies that prove this assertion by you?

3. And even if it's true, which I doubt that it is, that some enzyme limits the efficacy of 2% minoxidil in humans but not in macaques, then that proves I'm right about it being easier to regrow hair on macaques than on humans. After all, you yourself agree that 2% minoxidil works better on macaques than humans, while you also claim I'm wrong about it being easier to regrow hair on macaques than on humans. You're talking out of both sides of your mouth, mate.

4. And why would some liver enzyme allegedly prevent TOPICAL minoxidil from working while allowing ORAL minoxidil to work? WTF is up with that nonsense? Are you saying that your infamous, minoxidil-killing liver enzyme can tell if minoxidil is applied topically or taken orally? LMAO!

Some guy gave you a 4/10 troll but this is like a 2/10 at best. You're so dumb you don't even understand the slightest bit about how minoxidil works, yet are using it as your one and only argument.