We have a vehicle for CB-03-01: VERSAPRO

[Phatalis]

And when i say my libido dropped.. it was virtually non existant

[joachim]

So RU is not safe to use?

if i remember correctly, some users who tried RU also faced some side effects, more or less. and not everyone is seeing positive effects of RU. i'm not sure if hellouser still uses it... i think he stopped it some months ago... maybe back on it again. hellouser, what's the status with you?

[diffuseloser]

I hear you man. I made an informed decision not to take it... ever. It's thanks to guys like you that I arrived at that decision. Otherwise, I'd be on it and putting my sexual health at risk. I have an amazing girlfriend and I know I'm a very lucky man. We want to get married and start a family. It came down to sex/family vs hair and for me that was an easy choice. I tinkered with the idea for a long time. I really think finasteride is a dangerous drug. I ain't got the balls to go near it. Call me a coward if you want but I'm sticking with my decision. It's torturous losing your hair and it really gets me down sometimes but shit could be a whole lot worse, trust me. We just have to stay positive and try not to let it get to us. Anyway sorry for going off topic a bit but I do feel a lot more comfortable with RU and CB. Maybe I'm wrong.

[diffuseloser]

If you get sides, it's your body's way of telling you to get off the shit immediately. It's not natural. Same applies to any drug. I'm willing to take the risk with RU and CB. If there's sides, I'm off it and not messing with it no more.

[Phatalis]

Nah man. You're not a coward. Took me years to give it a try. And yes ru or cb for me unless they give sides too. I had to get a first hand exp with fin to know. And now I know... it's not for me. I like sex too much.

[diffuseloser]

Thanks man. Same goes for me. Sex is something we don't wanna mess with. I'd rather be completely bald than have issues there. Hair loss does make you insecure but you learn to deal with it after a while. The important thing is that we're moving in the right direction. Might not seem like it at times but things will get better before they get worse. We have RU and minoxidil to tide us over until CB comes to the fore. And if it's a let down it's nothing to cry about. Losing an arm or a leg is something to cry about and you see a lot of people with bigger issues than hair loss get on with it so let's try to take a leaf out of their book.

[mlouis]

Spot on. Ironically CB-03-01 is way more experimental than RU-58841. The literature on it is incredibly scarce. Secondly, the vehicle was never a problem. The liphoplicity of CB-03-01 is even better than RU and has a lower molecular weight. There is no hypothetical reason to suggest it wouldn't work with a normal vehicle. The guys who used it at 5% said it was doing it's job while the guys who went with 2% and under never had real results.

Also keep in mind that this is a steroidal anti-androgen. They affect the cardiovascular system long-term if it goes systematic (cyproterone acetate). It has been proposed as not going systematic but this is only proven in a hamster flank organ test.

Don't get hyped up by press releases especially from companies guys. You need regulated studies or either studies which are not affiliated with the company itself. Do you know how often they sugarcoat results or even influence them? To create attention and attract investors? . I wouldn't even be surprised if the results from this cream are way overthrown, you see it all the time. Be realistic and good luck.

If vehicle isn't an issue then why did 17a-estradiol work so well in the Cosmo Phase 1 trial (nearly as well as CB)? If you ask me, that's proof that even a very weak anti-androgen can work if the vehicle allows for penetration (iontophoresis in this case).

[Swooping]

If vehicle isn't an issue then why did 17a-estradiol work so well in the Cosmo Phase 1 trial (nearly as well as CB)? If you ask me, that's proof that even a very weak anti-androgen can work if the vehicle allows for penetration (iontophoresis in this case).

Because the primary action of 17a-estradiol is not as a anti-androgen. It is a indirect anti-androgen. The hair follicle has estrogen receptors too where it binds to and affects pathways through there. Estradiol has a long half life too and if it goes systematic it leads to a increase of SHBG and thus lowering your free testosterone. So it works on multiple levels and the anti-androgen effect of it is least important for hair growth actually. People can regrow ALLOT of hair on estrogen therapy.

[mlouis]

Because the primary action of 17a-estradiol is not as a anti-androgen. It is a indirect anti-androgen. The hair follicle has estrogen receptors too where it binds to and affects pathways through there. Estradiol has a long half life too and if it goes systematic it leads to a increase of SHBG and thus lowering your free testosterone. So it works on multiple levels and the anti-androgen effect of it is least important for hair growth actually. People can regrow ALLOT of hair on estrogen therapy.

Understood. However, very few (if any) have ever reported success with 17a-estradiol. Yet when applied via iontophoresis results were quite good. I believe vehicle matters...a lot.

[Swooping]

Understood. However, very few (if any) have ever reported success with 17a-estradiol. Yet when applied via iontophoresis results were quite good. I believe vehicle matters...a lot.

You know these results are way to shiny for me anyway, especially because they only delivered 5 times. Perhaps iontophoresis makes all of them work this good. Just saying that CB is pound for pound a bit weaker than RU-58841 and as strong as cyproterone acetate so the most likely answer is to use a higher strength instead of other vehicle. Maybe iontophoresis is in a other league though and would make all compounds function better (something to explore), or cosmo is sugarcoating.

[Kudu]

No drug is safe except marijuana. Ironically, it's the FDA approved drug that scares me the most.

Right on man.

[rdawg]

Sounds like we may need a 5% solution for this to work. I'm worried some of you will do a 1% solution and have little to no results and say it doesn't work.


unfortunately 5% would cost me about $3000 for a years supply($1000 per 100 days) which is essentially HT cost over 3 years. Unfortunately for me im a diffuse thinner and need to stabalize my loss in order to get an HT

my only option now is to move to DUT and hope it helps. As an agressive hairloss sufferer FIN is not enough for me

[mlouis]

You know these results are way to shiny for me anyway, especially because they only delivered 5 times. Perhaps iontophoresis makes all of them work this good. Just saying that CB is pound for pound a bit weaker than RU-58841 and as strong as cyproterone acetate so the most likely answer is to use a higher strength instead of other vehicle. Maybe iontophoresis is in a other league though and would make all compounds function better (something to explore), or cosmo is sugarcoating.

Perhaps iontophoresis is in another league. Or perhaps any excellent transdermal vehicle is an another league. I certainly would not put PG/ethanol in that category. As for results being too shiny I highly doubt they were faked...we're dealing with a multi $b public company here.

[diffuseloser]

Right on man.

If weed could cure hair loss, I'd be a gorilla.

[Kudu]

You know these results are way to shiny for me anyway, especially because they only delivered 5 times. Perhaps iontophoresis makes all of them work this good. Just saying that CB is pound for pound a bit weaker than RU-58841 and as strong as cyproterone acetate so the most likely answer is to use a higher strength instead of other vehicle. Maybe iontophoresis is in a other league though and would make all compounds function better (something to explore), or cosmo is sugarcoating.

Iontophoresis would make a lot of topicals function better, and you wouldn't need to apply as much or as often. There's a study with iontophoresis and minoxidil sulfate in some sort of gel that was applied every three days I believe. The protocol yielded much better results. This is just an example of what we could do with a device. There are drawbacks, however, the active substance has to be charges or it's useless. Most of the drugs we would use need to be modified, and unfortunately I'm sure that would require some cash to say the least. Making CB a charged molecule and using iontophoresis appears to be complicated and more expensive. If a standard vehicle worked then why use something that requires a $12,000 machine? (The cheapest Hydro4 unit is $12,000 by the way.)