OC & RU

I

it2wi

Member
Reaction score
23
Hey guys,

Long time lurker here, currently on the big 3 and having trouble maintaining. I've been thinking a lot about PDG2 and how it works along with our understanding of DHT and its effects on follicles, but I would like to start a discussion in case anyone has information to contribute.

After reading up on OC, PGD2 and its role in hair cycle signaling, it is clear that it certainly is part of the puzzle. The problem is that we don't have many instances of members reporting their usage of OC over time, with or without pictures.

While most people on OC have experienced a halt in shedding, they have not noticed any regrowth... The question is: While blocking PDG2 receptors with OC slows or halts shedding, is the follicle still being effected/malnourished by DHT? In other words, while the hair may not be falling out as frequently, is it continuing to weaken over time? If one were to stop OC and thus revert back to their excessive shedding, would the new hairs grow in fine and miniaturized due to the continued effects of DHT while on OC?

We know that PDG2 is downstream of DHT, so do we think that PDG2 is simply the cause of shedding, while DHT is the cause of miniaturization? (i.e. they work together as a whole function)

If this is the case, wouldn't it be best to combine OC + RU? (OC to stop shedding and RU to reduce the effects of DHT on the follicles). It appears that most combine OC + minoxidil, and while the desired result is the same (stability and regrowth), this is quite different than blocking the DHT receptors using RU..

Thoughts are welcome.
 
whatevr

whatevr

Senior Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
3,655
I don't get it, we've had OC000459, TM30089 for several years now, I'd wager enough people used those that if they were successful we'd know. It would have blown up by now.

Yet here we are, they modify the same molecule to be weaker, give it a pronouncible name and a big doctor behind it, and all of a sudden it's hyped off the planet. That's the story of Setipiprant. And Fevipiprant.

We already have compounds like this available, you don't even need to wait, go to Kane, or Rechemco, buy them this instant and start putting them on your head. They're all DP2 antagonists and better than what's coming out.

The solution is never going to be to make more exotic molecules that hit downstream growth or inhibition factors, when you are only targetting one of these and genetic expression on the androgen/estrogen receptor could easily cause several dozen of these to be problematic. You would need a whole cocktail of highly selective antagonists/agonists just to get to maintenance and even as good as these chemicals are, people still report side effects even from just one.

We already have all the molecules we need to stop baldness, what we really need to work on is delivery methods. Something like affordable iontophoresis or hydroelectrophoresis would probably cure most of us. They should be working on improving local delivery only to the scalp without systemic absorption, in fact I'm pretty sure it's possible already just not affordable for most of us. Like the Hydrofor device that Cosmo used to test CB-03-01 and noticed great results without side effects.
 
WMQ

WMQ

Experienced Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
375
whatevr said:
I don't get it, we've had OC000459, TM30089 for several years now, I'd wager enough people used those that if they were successful we'd know. It would have blown up by now.

Yet here we are, they modify the same molecule to be weaker, give it a pronouncible name and a big doctor behind it, and all of a sudden it's hyped off the planet. That's the story of Setipiprant. And Fevipiprant.

We already have compounds like this available, you don't even need to wait, go to Kane, or Rechemco, buy them this instant and start putting them on your head. They're all DP2 antagonists and better than what's coming out.

The solution is never going to be to make more exotic molecules that hit downstream growth or inhibition factors, when you are only targetting one of these and genetic expression on the androgen/estrogen receptor could easily cause several dozen of these to be problematic. You would need a whole cocktail of highly selective antagonists/agonists just to get to maintenance and even as good as these chemicals are, people still report side effects even from just one.

We already have all the molecules we need to stop baldness, what we really need to work on is delivery methods. Something like affordable iontophoresis or hydroelectrophoresis would probably cure most of us. They should be working on improving local delivery only to the scalp without systemic absorption, in fact I'm pretty sure it's possible already just not affordable for most of us. Like the Hydrofor device that Cosmo used to test CB-03-01 and noticed great results without side effects.
Click to expand...
What is the rationale behind iontophresis delivery having no systemic absorption? Care to share some sources?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Community platform by XenForo® © 2010-2023 XenForo Ltd.
Top