Proxiphen(-N) a scam?

[Cassin]

yessir. I randomly use one or the other. But mainly the foam.

 

[Bryan]

Im very surprised that nearly nobody here is using topical flut. it´s great stuff!I know you are affraid of syst. absorbtion. But if you use 20mg topicaly then the total sys. absorbed amount is so tiny it will not cause any probs! ... In europe many people use it and i never heard of anybody who had probs with it.

Yes, but an important consideration that many of us have is that animal experiments strongly suggest that topical flutamide works purely by a systemic route of absorption. If that's correct for humans, too, then what's even the point of applying it topically? Why not just take that 20 mg of flutamide ORALLY every day, and save yourself a lot of trouble from having to use a topical application?

Here's the main graph from a study by Chen et al showing the sytemic absorption of both flutamide and finasteride, when applied topically to male hamsters:

http://img479.imageshack.us/my.php?imag ... de8la7.jpg

As you can see yourself, both flank organs show an almost IDENTICAL response to the drugs, indicating a clear sytemic route of absorption. BTW, there is also at least one other earlier study which got similar results with hamsters, mice, and rats. While it's true that humans aren't rodents, the above graph should give pause to anybody entertaining the idea of using topical flutamide on their scalps.

 

[Dogs3]

cassin thats interesting that you use both, did you see improvement over lees 500 after you started using both the foam and lees?

 

[Cassin]

I use both because I think its a good idea to mix things up a bit.

I have always used Dr Lees item 500 since I cannot use off the shelf minoxidil due to the PPG.

The foam is fine though since it dries in moments.

Bryan I would love to see what you think of the foam. I would be happy to ship you a new bottle, free of course.

If you would like to try it pm me your address.

 

[pippo24]

Sorry if I sound like I'm pressing you on this, but you've got me curious and you seem to be rather vague about it.

How do you KNOW you're having "stability problems"? What are you actually SEEING??


pippo24 wrote:
Im very surprised that nearly nobody here is using topical flut. it´s great stuff!I know you are affraid of syst. absorbtion. But if you use 20mg topicaly then the total sys. absorbed amount is so tiny it will not cause any probs! ... In europe many people use it and i never heard of anybody who had probs with it.


Yes, but an important consideration that many of us have is that animal experiments strongly suggest that topical flutamide works purely by a systemic route of absorption. If that's correct for humans, too, then what's even the point of applying it topically? Why not just take that 20 mg of flutamide ORALLY every day, and save yourself a lot of trouble from having to use a topical application?

yes iknow the hamster test.And no doubt flut seems to work mainly through sys route.
Anyway I think it may has some local effect like spironolactone.
I tried to find a study which shows good succses with topical flut 1,5%
I will try to post it later.
And there is a differencefor sure if you use 20mg oral or topicaly.
Some of the systemic absorbed flut-( if i rember right ,around17% are absorbed sys.) is going directly to the androgenreceptors in the scalp.(and doing there what we want)
If you use it oral a huge amount is lost through your liver and sticks randomly to and.rec. all over your body.
So there is a big difference.
I see you are really interested in the stability prob when mixing them togehter-I try to explain it the next days as i will post the study i was talking about.

 

[Bryan]

yes iknow the hamster test.And no doubt flut seems to work mainly through sys route.
Anyway I think it may has some local effect like spironolactone.
I tried to find a study which shows good succses with topical flut 1,5%
I will try to post it later.

I also have a study on topical flutamide in HUMANS, but it wasn't designed to check for systemic absorption like the rodent studies. I'll be surprised if you can find another human flutamide study that I've overlooked, because I looked far and wide for any that were available.

And there is a differencefor sure if you use 20mg oral or topicaly.

You know that FOR SURE?

Some of the systemic absorbed flut-( if i rember right ,around17% are absorbed sys.) is going directly to the androgenreceptors in the scalp.(and doing there what we want)

How do you know that? Why wasn't there any "local" effect at all in the animal studies?

If you use it oral a huge amount is lost through your liver and sticks randomly to and.rec. all over your body.
So there is a big difference.

What makes you think that it's any different from the way it was in the animal trials?

 

[Old Baldy]

Bryan: The bayberry extract study was conducted in vivo on hamster flank organs and black mice. (That's the only study I know of in vivo.)

It acts like a 5AR inhibitor and mild anti-androgen. Plus it does more. I'll get some links on this "does more".

Dr. Matusda stated in answer to Waseda that either Eastern bayberry root bark powder or Western bayberry root bark powder would suffice.

I called a professional herbal extraction company years ago and the owner knew of bayberry root bark extracts. He directly stated Eastern and Western bayberry root bark powders have the same basic active compounds. (He, in essence, agreed with Dr. Matsuda on using either type of bayberry root bark powder. My results indicate they both are correct. I've used both Eastern and Western for many months each separately and noticed absolutely no difference. Both helped the same for me.)

Kalyx.com is where I buy bayberry root bark powder. However, there are many places to buy this powder or as a cut and sifted root bark product. It is a very common herb in America. It's used for alot of "things".

All you do is mix 125 grams into 500ml of 100 proof vodka for the basic solution. (I make mine at 25 percent strength instead of the 20 percent rate in the study for a possible extra "punch"?)

(Let the stuff extract for 24 hours, as in the study, or much longer like if you want, which is what I do. You can generally let herbs soak in 100 proof vodka for 6 months to get stronger solutions. Anywhere in between is fine according to the pros.)

If you get the cut and sifted, it is a little more intact and will not have broken down as much as the powder. However, you will have to let the cut and sifted soak longer than the powder to get most of the stuff extracted according the herbal professional I talked with.

The pro recommended a two week soak for the cut and sifted type of root bark. But he did say the cut and sifted product would probably be better because it is "fresher" than root bark powders. Not much he said but "a little fresher". So buy either one for our purposes IMHO.

Give it a try, cheap and easy to make. Dr. Matsuda used 1ml dosages but that was on rodents.

If you want to dissolve other stuff into the final extraction, I don't see a problem but I only add salicylic acid and/or nicotinic acid to lower the PH which is a good thing with bayberry extracts according to various studies. (I add one tablespoon of salicylic acid or nicotinic acid to each 500ml concoction as it is soaking.)

Here's a link to the study:

http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/bpb/24/3/259/_pdf

Let me repeat, this stuff is a very common herb in America and has been used for a LONG time for other "ailments". Just shop around IMHO.

Here's another interesting abstract from a study on bayberry:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1241 ... d_RVDocSum

And another:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1576 ... d_RVDocSum

 

[pippo24]

I think that is the rraph you talking about
http://img479.imageshack.us/my.php?imag ... de8la7.jpg
For the beginning ,here is a study for topical flut:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entre ... d_RVDocSum
i was looking for another one but this one shows some succes too.

 

[Bryan]

Bryan: The bayberry extract study was conducted in vivo on hamster flank organs and black mice. (That's the only study I know of in vivo.)

Dang, OB, you got me all excited when you suggested that it had been tested on humans. I was getting ready to :jackit: !!!

Do you think bayberry (or its extract) might be available in large health food stores? If so, I might get some and experiment a little with it. It would be interesting to see if it has an effect on sebum production (via Sebutape testing).

 

[Bryan]

I think that is the rraph you talking about
http://img479.imageshack.us/my.php?imag ... de8la7.jpg

Yeah, that's the Chen et al study I was talking about.

For the beginning ,here is a study for topical flut:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entre ... d_RVDocSum

Oh, that's just the Sintov study. I find it mildly interesting, but it's FAR from being conclusive. The problem with it is that it in my humble opinion, it wasn't designed well-enought to prove conclusively that the flutamide had no systemic effects when applied in that special topical gel that Sintov concocted. I've posted my comments and criticisms of Sintov's methodology in the past on alt.baldspot.

i was looking for another one but this one shows some succes too.

After doing a lot of searching in the past for any studies at all (human or animal) on the effects of topical flutamide, I found exactly five (5). I have paper copies of all the studies, with the exception of the Sintov study, which I have in electronic format. Here's a brief summary of each one, in approximately the chronological order that the studies first appeared:

1) An early study on rodents (hamsters, mice, and rats), shortly after flutamide had been first released. It showed a great deal of systemic absorption after topical application in the animals.

2) A study on humans which measured the amount of flutamide absorbed systemically when the drug is applied topically (you referred to this one yourself earlier).

3) Another study on humans which measured the antiandrogenic effect of topical flutamide; unfortunately, this trial wasn't designed in a way which allowed the researchers to test for systemic absorption, so it's not terribly useful for our purpose.

4) The Chen et al study of topical flutamide and finasteride on hamsters. It showed MASSIVE systemic absorption.

5) The Sintov rodent study of flutamide in a special topical gel. Sintov claimed that it didn't show systemic absorption, but I find his methodology to be less than convincing.

Overall, the outlook for the use of topical flutamide looks pretty grim because it appears to work mainly (or maybe even entirely) through systemic absorption, based on all the available scientific evidence. I don't recommend it.

 

[Dogs3]

Bryan, while your still active on this thread i figure id ask you a question: In your opinion do you believe that topical spironolactone or prox-N is more effective when used in conjununction with minoxidil and finasteride to fight male pattern baldness?

Ive got myself some 2% spironolactone solution here and the LEF version of prox-n, i already use finasteride and minoxidil but want to add one more thing i doubt i can consistantly afford to use both for years to come. I need to choose, i realize that everyone reacts differently to different treatments but in your best judgement what do you believe can be more effective?

 

[Old Baldy]

Sorry Bryan but hamster flank organs ain't too bad as you know.

I don't know if the extract or powder would be carried in large health food stores because there aren't any near me. I have to order my stuff online.

There might very well be (at least) capsules of powdered extract that you'd have to reconstitute in 50 percent alcohol like in the Matsuda study.

But I really don't know.

Here's where I usually buy my bayberry root bark powder. They sell liquid extracts at prices that are pretty equal to most other sites IIRC.

http://www.kalyx.com/store/search.cfm?R ... imeout=480

But there are alot of places selling bayberry in its various forms. For better prices, I'd just shop around.

 

[Beethoven]

Guys, I don't understand why are there so many off-topics here (foam, flutamide, baybarry, etc, etc, etc...).
Why can't we concentrate on the very important on-topic: whether Dr.P's patented chemicals work or not?

Now let's make it simple:

1. Regarding Proxiphen-Rx: since it contains minoxidil and spironolactone, it is not scam. The legitimate discussion is if 100$ for a very small amount is overpriced or not.

2. The real issue here is Prox-N: it is based on the patented chemical of Dr.P only, and does not contain any other proven chemical. The question is if Dr.P gives enough scientific proofs? I don't think that user evidences are enough since we can always argue if they are real or just fake sales rep evidences. I don't think that Dr.P gives enough convincing proofs in his science page.
I also find it real suspicious that in his 20 years (or more) of producing hair loss meds, he didn't find the time to publish his results (he has patents - so he is protected from stealing his ideas). What I want is one article describing the three steps: in-vitro tests, mice tests and in-vivo humen tests.
I read Dr.P's explainations about not publishing a paper - he said it's a waste of time and the patents are enough. I'm sorry but I don't agree with that. the judgment of the reviewer of a serious journal are extremly important to prove that a med works.

Anyone comments (On-topic!!!) are welcome.
(and sorry if I have english mistakes - it's my second language, and I'm too lazy to check...)

 

[Old Baldy]

Beethoven, tempo/tempol is close to being accepted by the FDA as preventing hairloss in chemo. treated patients.

 

[bcapop]

Beethoven, tempo/tempol is close to being accepted by the FDA as preventing hairloss in chemo. treated patients.

That doesn't mean anything. The studies involve cancer patients, not male pattern baldness patients.

 

[Beethoven]

On topic discussion!!! unk: that's great

Do you guys have any idea what is the exact mechanism of work of this tempol? so we could guess/estimate if it's relevant also for male pattern baldness?

 

[Old Baldy]

Beethoven, tempo/tempol is close to being accepted by the FDA as preventing hairloss in chemo. treated patients.

That doesn't mean anything. The studies involve cancer patients, not male pattern baldness patients.

As usual, you make rash, generalized statements rather than research the subject.

Tempo/tempol is used as a regrowth agent so chemo patients can grow their hair back faster. It is a regrowth enhancer and very strong, effective anti-oxidant.

Geez BC, I'm getting tired of your laziness.

 

[bcapop]

[quote="Old Baldy":1ytgw50a]Beethoven, tempo/tempol is close to being accepted by the FDA as preventing hairloss in chemo. treated patients.

That doesn't mean anything. The studies involve cancer patients, not male pattern baldness patients.

As usual, you make rash, generalized statements rather than research the subject.

Tempo/tempol is used as a regrowth agent so chemo patients can grow their hair back faster. It is a regrowth enhancer and very strong, effective anti-oxidant.

Geez BC, I'm getting tired of your laziness. [/quote:1ytgw50a]

No, it's you who doesn't understand that cancer patients differ from male pattern baldness patients. Cancer cells differ from hair cells etc. I know what Tempo/Tempol is used for. You are just playing dumb.

You have absolutely no idea what "radiation-induced alopecia" is, do you?

Don't think you know that 70% of the people in the study were woman.

Also:
"Of the 10 patients who completed radiation with Tempol administration, 4 (40%) completed the full study with 3-month follow-up evaluation. In two of these patients, hair regrowth was substantial with rapid recovery of hair. In the other two patients, hair regrowth was not observed."

Wonder if the 2 with hair regrowth were woman..

 

[Old Baldy]

I give up. You're hopeless.

 

[bcapop]

I give up. You're hopeless.

Great arguments! Good job and thanks.