Setipiprant

[Swooping]

Wrong. From Swiss himself.

What are your thoughts on PGE2 and its supposed carcinogenic effects?No PGE2 itself is not carcinogenic (cancer causing). It's only involved in the growth of cancer cells.
Do you know what else is involved in cancer? Glycogen. Also known as sugar and carbohydrates. So does bread cause cancer? Does chocolate cause cancer? Does ice cream cause cancer? Do your mothers cucpcakes cause cancer? No but it can help it grow.

Let me explain it once again so it's more clear. And please educate everyone you see worrying about this so we can get rid of this myth for good. Carcinogenesis is the actual formation of cancer, turning normal cells cancerous. Examples of carcinogenic substances are benzenes, dioxins and one you definitely heard about before: Asbestos. These are the ones you have to watch out for and avoid. However once cancerous cells have grown there are several things that are involved in their further growth. One way to battle cancers is to inhibit them of one or several of their vital pathways. IGF1 for example causes cancer to *grow*. It's also what makes your muscle and your hair grow though, so should we stop using everything that increases IGF1? The answer is no, because even food can increase IGF1. Another way cancer grows is by feeding on glycogen as I already mentioned. If you do have cancer and cut out carbohydrates you can actually starve some cancer cells. This is however once again only the case when you already *have* cancer. So do you have to cut out all carbohydrates? No, but you can. Yet ANOTHER way cancers grow is through PGE2. Does that mean we have to cut out PGE2? Well maybe if you already *have* cancer. But PGE2 itself is also involved in wound healing, in hair growth and plenty of other things in the body.

I don't know if the person who told you PGE2 causes cancer is just uninformed or wildly stupid. But it's definitely not the case that you have to worry about it giving you cancer. It's involved in processes all over your body, processes you can't stricly call either "good" or "bad". It's part of you and me and every human on the planet and that's ok lol.

Do me a favor and share this post everywhere you see people claiming PGE2 causes cancer. Thanks!

For further reading:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carcinogen
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3702200/
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture14034.html
http://link.springer.com/article/10....281-012-0342-8

Swiss is wrong. I don't want to get into complex signalling issues and pathways here because he doesn't understand them. However let's keep it short. The definition of a carcinogen is;

A carcinogen is any substance that has the potential to cause cancer in living tissues.

So this doesn't mean that a carcinogen WILL cause cancer. But that does mean that a substance that is carcinogenic raises cancer risk. This isn't hard to understand. Many things can act as a carcinogen.

What is a carcinogen?

Cancer is caused by changes in a cell's DNA – its genetic "blueprint." Some of these changes may be inherited from our parents, while others may be caused by outside exposures, which are often referred to as environmental factors. Environmental factors can include a wide range of exposures, such as:

Lifestyle factors (nutrition, tobacco use, physical activity, etc.)

Naturally occurring exposures (ultraviolet light, radon gas, infectious agents, etc.)

Medical treatments (radiation and medicines including chemotherapy, hormone drugs, drugs that suppress the immune system, etc.)

Workplace exposures

Household exposures

Pollution

If we speak about COX-2 for example I can show you tons of studies, the same for PGE2 like I did in my previous message. Hence even Garza calls PGE2 having pro-carcinogenic effects.

http://www.cancernetwork.com/review-...-and-treatment

Over the past decade, in vitro, preclinical, and clinical data have supported the hypothesis that cyclooxygenase (COX)-2 plays a central role in oncogenesis and that treatment with COX-2 inhibitors offers an effective chemoprevention strategy, as exemplified by the activity of celecoxib (Celebrex) in familial adenomatous polyposis. These COX-2 data have contributed to initiation of clinical trials testing COX-2 inhibitors for the chemoprevention of a wide variety of cancers that overexpress COX-2.

So there are many compounds even with DATA backup that some substances act as a carcinogen which increase cancer risk. For example Regranex gel which is PDGF-AA which acts mitogenic;

http://www.regranex.com/patient/

Important Safety Information
People who use 3 or more tubes of REGRANEX® Gel may have an increased risk of death from cancer.
You should talk with your healthcare provider about the possible benefits and risks to you if you use
more than 3 tubes of REGRANEX® Gel. If you already have cancer, you and your healthcare provider
should carefully consider whether you will use REGRANEX® Gel.

A other example is for example 17b-estradiol which can work awesome for hair growth has a black box warning and is considered a carcinogen with an increased risk for cancer. Does this mean you will get cancer? No but it puts you at increased cancer risk.

So he is not only applying PGE2 which has been shown to have a big role in cancer. No he is even powering up this effect by the other compounds he uses. He even reduces his immunity response with sulfasalazine.

And bullshit IGF-1 doesn't only make cancer grow. People who are deficient of IGF-1 levels have shown to have a way reduced risk of getting cancer in comparison to the general public. So someone who is using IGF-1 will definitely have increased risk of cancer. That doesn't mean that you will get cancer. It's called Laron syndrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laron_syndrome

People with Laron syndrome have strikingly low rates of cancer and diabetes,

In 2011, it was reported that people with this syndrome in the Ecuadorian villages are resistant to cancer and diabetes and are somewhat protected against aging.

This is the truth. To think otherwise would be laughable. I have so much more data and studies to back this up.

Anyway the broscience that he thinks his peach fuzz is because of increasing PGE2, decreasing PGD2, wounding and increasing progenitors is laughable. He can't make such a correlation. Nobody can. This would defy science.

Next time listen to yourself Tubzy instead of just affirming with someone else his thoughts which might be not true at all.

[hairy]

Jose1991 got the cure, just reduce PGD2, increase PGE2, start wounding, and promote progenitor cells .

Now on to a serious note. I believe what I am saying because I rely on science, not broscience. Furthermore I am rational and objective not bound by emotions as you clearly display in your response to me. You didn’t even try to make counter arguments on the content of my message. Kinda weird.

The guy you talk about uses different compounds


- Wounding, diverse broad biological action (profileration)
- Lithium chloride (gsk3b inhibition, wnt agonist, profileration)
- UV-B (hormesis, profileration)
- Sulfasalazine (nf-kb antagonist, reduces immunity response)
- Increases PGE2 through different compounds UV-B, castor oil and such (profileration)
- Dutasteride

Let me tell you a few things about using a regimen like this. PGE2 itself is in extensive research now and the EP1-4 receptors , not because of hair growth but because it has shown to initiate cancer and maintenance of cancer.

Garza already mentions this is in his paper; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3982925/.



There is a shitload more of this for example; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26377664



Now I’ll keep this short, and I’m not going to quote you tons of studies. But WNT has a major role in cancer development and progression too. Couple this with UV-B which is obviously cancerous and a compound like Sulfasalazine which reduces immunity response and you got yourself a damn nice formula to push cells into an hyper-profileration mode! It’s pretty much inducing carcinogenic signalling. So using these compounds will actually work on downstream pathways that are implicated in mitosis, profileration and far more complex pathways. A miniaturized hair follicle is a hair follicle that is very small so letting these cells hyper-profilerate might easily lead to peach fuzz like that.

I say peach fuzz because it’s indeed still peach fuzz in my eyes. Or an intermediate vellus hair. A 200 graft procedure would yield way better cosmetic appearance. I have also seen more impressive results solely from the use of minoxidil/finasteride with lucky individuals too. You would impress me if it’s really fully healthy anagen regrowth and more people will achieve the same results. Something like this is healthy hair regrowth and not kinky wired hair that can’t be styled;





If he drops the compounds/treatments it’s extremely likely he will lose that peach fuzz growth also. Then again what are you waiting for? Show the world your awesome regrowth Jose1991. If you think it’s worth it to apply that many chemicals/treatments, your time and you think it’s safe then that’s your decision to make not mine.

But please don’t talk broscience about the fact that increasing PGE2, decreasing PGD2, directly inducing CD34 and CD200 and wounding is the 4 keys to cure AGA while someone is using many chemicals/treatments with a very broad biological action that you don't even have one clue about. That’s just as short sighted as saying that the fact that minoxidil grows hair is because it induces PGE2. You can't make correlations like that.

So if PGE2 increase is correlated with higher chances of cancer, then Minoxidil is dangerous since it raises PGE2?

[Swooping]

Hello Swooping,

Thanks a lot for you point of view. I think it's important to show that it's important to be cautionous about health.
Nevertheless it's a good thing to remember than pge2 will be topically and temporally, like Licl.
The goal is to regrowth hair, and, next, just continue with Setipiprant with maintenance.

I understand that wnt-agonist and pge2 "could be" involved in some cancer but we are speaking about "little dose" , a topicaly use, and, a temporally use.

From your point of view...what could be the best today, to induce regrowth?

Thanks,

Best regards,

Seuxin

No problem. My point wasn't primarily to show you to be cautious of your health though. You are responsible for your own health. My point was to make that whatever you are doing, you can't correlate it to any pathways. Simply because you are using a vast arrange of compounds/methods that have a complex effect on various pathways. Acting on the EP receptors will have various consequences on downstream pathways that for instance might have an effect of hair regrowth but not because of activation of the EP receptor itself. So if we take one study just as a pure example;

Prostaglandin E2 Increases Cardiac Fibroblast Proliferation and Increases Cyclin D Expression via EP1 Receptor

So the EP1 receptor might for instance induce Cyclin D1 expression. So while you might be using PGE2, cyclin D1 might be responsible for the pro-hair growth effects (pure hypothesis). This is in cardiac fibroblasts, but nonetheless you should get the point now. Acting on the EP receptors has many consequences on other (complex) pathways. So it's not that one dimensional, far from actually.

[Swooping]

So if PGE2 increase is correlated with higher chances of cancer, then Minoxidil is dangerous since it raises PGE2?

Good question. Let me be a bit more clear on this one. There is obviously a "risk chance" for everything. For instance maybe using a little IGF-1 for example won't matter and will barely increase your chances of increased cancer risk, maybe not at all. However if you are going to administer a high amount of IGF-1 over a longer period of time the risk raises substantially. If you use more carcinogenic compounds/methods this might raise even more.

Comparing IGF-1 or PGE2 to icecream for instance is laughable by swiss. Typical broscience response.

However minoxidil does not raise cancer risk. We would already know if it did. Yes the in vitro (petri-dish) study did say that it did raise PGE2 levels but this amount secreted by the cells was extremely small, negligible. Also in vitro doesn't always correlate with how cells behave in vivo. But that would be another discussion. Let's get back on-topic though.

[TubZy]

So what about castor oil, latisse etc. And all these other compounds that are related to PGE2 and PGF2? Isn't latisse/bim FDA approved and they act as a PGF2 analogue.

So you are saying minox could cause cancer now....lol

Also, we are talking about micro amounts of PGE2 applied topically to the scalp.

There is a risk to everything? You are including Kanes RU right too?

[Keki]

Iirc those pics were about a guy who took massive shots of extrogen or something like that, so not exactly something we want to emulate

[eldarlmario]

Swiss is wrong. I don't want to get into complex signalling issues and pathways here because he doesn't understand them. However let's keep it short. The definition of a carcinogen is;



So this doesn't mean that a carcinogen WILL cause cancer. But that does mean that a substance that is carcinogenic raises cancer risk. This isn't hard to understand. Many things can act as a carcinogen.



If we speak about COX-2 for example I can show you tons of studies, the same for PGE2 like I did in my previous message. Hence even Garza calls PGE2 having pro-carcinogenic effects.

http://www.cancernetwork.com/review-...-and-treatment



So there are many compounds even with DATA backup that some substances act as a carcinogen which increase cancer risk. For example Regranex gel which is PDGF-AA which acts mitogenic;

http://www.regranex.com/patient/



A other example is for example 17b-estradiol which can work awesome for hair growth has a black box warning and is considered a carcinogen with an increased risk for cancer. Does this mean you will get cancer? No but it puts you at increased cancer risk.

So he is not only applying PGE2 which has been shown to have a big role in cancer. No he is even powering up this effect by the other compounds he uses. He even reduces his immunity response with sulfasalazine.

And bullshit IGF-1 doesn't only make cancer grow. People who are deficient of IGF-1 levels have shown to have a way reduced risk of getting cancer in comparison to the general public. So someone who is using IGF-1 will definitely have increased risk of cancer. That doesn't mean that you will get cancer. It's called Laron syndrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laron_syndrome





This is the truth. To think otherwise would be laughable. I have so much more data and studies to back this up.

Anyway the broscience that he thinks his peach fuzz is because of increasing PGE2, decreasing PGD2, wounding and increasing progenitors is laughable. He can't make such a correlation. Nobody can. This would defy science.

Next time listen to yourself Tubzy instead of just affirming with someone else his thoughts which might be not true at all.

These are right

[Swooping]

So what about castor oil, latisse etc. And all these other compounds that are related to PGE2 and PGF2? Isn't latisse/bim FDA approved and they act as a PGF2 analogue.

So you are saying minox could cause cancer now....lol

Also, we are talking about micro amounts of PGE2 applied topically to the scalp.

There is a risk to everything? You are including Kanes RU right too?

I don't say that minoxidil causes cancer? Where do you see that. Open up your eyes.

Your response was hilarious dude to say the least. Comparing PGE2 with icecream. Or saying that something like IGF-1 can only make "cancer grow". People with laron syndrome are the proof that you are talking total nonsense. Who are you to argue with literature and studies anyway? You copy things which are nonsense and where you have no clue about.

Yes there is a risk in "everything". It's relative. We might aswell argue that crossing the street is dangerous or breathing in air is dangerous. What's your point?

Again you are responsible for your own health, do whatever you want.

I'll repeat again. My initial response was more to project a picture that the guy you mention has no clue what he is doing and on which pathways he is acting. He uses that much stuff/methods (probably sitting in the mirror all day) that he might be acting on other pathways that help him (somewhat).

However anyone that says that he knows what the cure is, is laughable. Even more laughable if he is going to correlate it with pathways or "progenitors" while he has no clue what he is doing. In science we work through the scientific method;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method.

Make yourself familiar with it so you don't post such a ridiculous response next time.

[eldarlmario]

I don't say that minoxidil causes cancer? Where do you see that. Open up your eyes.

Your response was hilarious dude to say the least. Comparing PGE2 with icecream. Or saying that something like IGF-1 can only make "cancer grow". People with laron syndrome are the proof that you are talking total nonsense. Who are you to argue with literature and studies anyway? You copy things which are nonsense and where you have no clue about.

Yes there is a risk in "everything". It's relative. We might aswell argue that crossing the street is dangerous or breathing in air is dangerous. What's your point?

Again you are responsible for your own health, do whatever you want.

I'll repeat again. My initial response was more to project a picture that the guy you mention has no clue what he is doing and on which pathways he is acting. He uses that much stuff/methods (probably sitting in the mirror all day) that he might be acting on other pathways that help him (somewhat).

However anyone that says that he knows what the cure is, is laughable. Even more laughable if he is going to correlate it with pathways or "progenitors" while he has no clue what he is doing. In science we work through the scientific method;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method.

Make yourself familiar with it so you don't post such a ridiculous response next time.

Hi, cool yourself down and don't reply to lazy trolls- they enjoy it the more u respond to them

[JayM]

Another thread bites the dust.