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

[rbrown]

Desmond thank you for the info.I have a question for you. Can Ketoconazole be mixed with Versapro? I am not brave enough to try something that is still on trial like cb but i can try keto. I have good results with Keto and from what i read about cb i cannot tell the difference between them when it comes to hairloss.

[ChemicalBrother]

Desmond, you made so much for us already so I feel like an idiot for asking. But since you got the credibility and the knowledge, would it be possible for you to mix a huge bowl of this cream + CB before you send it out to the forum members, with the criteria that everyone that orders from you also post weekly pictures? It would be such a great trial.

Of course we should all then prepay you using prices that makes it all worth it for you.

+1

[Dimoxynil]

UK Posters,

Have sent out emails to CB suppliers. Have asked about things such as pricing and shipping arrangements. Will let you know if/when I hear anything. If anyone wants to be of help and research the best way to aquire the vehicle that would be appreciated.

[sdsurfin]

Just so you all know, before you drop more than 70 bucks a month on CB, last time I talked to cosmo they said their acne version concentration is too weak for hair loss. I believe that is 2%. Meaning you're gonna have to prob use 5% or more. I'm also not sold on this vehicle noise, cosmo said that the cream vehicle they use for acne is not correct for hair loss. the molecule in both studies is the same, and their pre clinical trials used an anhydrous solution for hair loss. i don't think versapro is what they are using.

I hope CB works and is safe (one pre-clinical trial does NOT guarantee that it has no sides or complications, hence the many more trials it must undergo. in THEORY it has no sides, and so far it seems safe, but lets just remember propecia got passed and is still wrecking peoples' bodies. In my experience there is no such thing as a chemical without sides). If it does work, i will probably wait until it can be bought at a reasonable cost and has been proven effective, otherwise its a really easy way to burn money. I caution the young guys on here especially before you blow a lot of loot, to let it play out. In a year or two cosmo will have more data on the effectiveness and maybe even info on a vehicle.

[Avacfc]

Thanks for this information desmond its definitely interesting times with this and CD being trialed.

I am also in the uk and already have some CB left over from when I was trailing it with ETH/PG. All I need is a source for the new vehicle and I can get trailing right away!

[Swooping]

Just so you all know, before you drop more than 70 bucks a month on CB, last time I talked to cosmo they said their acne version concentration is too weak for hair loss. I believe that is 2%. Meaning you're gonna have to prob use 5% or more. I'm also not sold on this vehicle noise, cosmo said that the cream vehicle they use for acne is not correct for hair loss. the molecule in both studies is the same, and their pre clinical trials used an anhydrous solution for hair loss. i don't think versapro is what they are using.

I hope CB works and is safe (one pre-clinical trial does NOT guarantee that it has no sides or complications, hence the many more trials it must undergo. in THEORY it has no sides, and so far it seems safe, but lets just remember propecia got passed and is still wrecking peoples' bodies. In my experience there is no such thing as a chemical without sides). If it does work, i will probably wait until it can be bought at a reasonable cost and has been proven effective, otherwise its a really easy way to burn money. I caution the young guys on here especially before you blow a lot of loot, to let it play out. In a year or two cosmo will have more data on the effectiveness and maybe even info on a vehicle.

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.

[balding1983]

Just so you all know, before you drop more than 70 bucks a month on CB, last time I talked to cosmo they said their acne version concentration is too weak for hair loss. I believe that is 2%. Meaning you're gonna have to prob use 5% or more. I'm also not sold on this vehicle noise, cosmo said that the cream vehicle they use for acne is not correct for hair loss. the molecule in both studies is the same, and their pre clinical trials used an anhydrous solution for hair loss. i don't think versapro is what they are using.

I hope CB works and is safe (one pre-clinical trial does NOT guarantee that it has no sides or complications, hence the many more trials it must undergo. in THEORY it has no sides, and so far it seems safe, but lets just remember propecia got passed and is still wrecking peoples' bodies. In my experience there is no such thing as a chemical without sides). If it does work, i will probably wait until it can be bought at a reasonable cost and has been proven effective, otherwise its a really easy way to burn money. I caution the young guys on here especially before you blow a lot of loot, to let it play out. In a year or two cosmo will have more data on the effectiveness and maybe even info on a vehicle.

This!

I wish CB will be the treatment we all hope it could be but be patient. Desmond has done a lot of work to provide this info and if not for CB why not try topical finasteride or Dutasteride with this vehicle. I would have thought the liquid in the dutasteride will be ideal to mix as a cream base?

I'm based in the UK. I will not be trying CB as I'm not comfortable using grey market meds. However, I plan on trying topical finasteride using this cream base. If that doesn't work then perhaps Dutasteride.

[ank1]

Maybe I'm being too skeptic but it just sounds too good to be true.

I do not believe that Cosmo has not tried such vehicle that's already out in the market.

I'll have to wait and see how you guys do with it.

[Justinian]

Just so you all know, before you drop more than 70 bucks a month on CB, last time I talked to cosmo they said their acne version concentration is too weak for hair loss. I believe that is 2%. Meaning you're gonna have to prob use 5% or more. I'm also not sold on this vehicle noise, cosmo said that the cream vehicle they use for acne is not correct for hair loss. the molecule in both studies is the same, and their pre clinical trials used an anhydrous solution for hair loss. i don't think versapro is what they are using.

I hope CB works and is safe (one pre-clinical trial does NOT guarantee that it has no sides or complications, hence the many more trials it must undergo. in THEORY it has no sides, and so far it seems safe, but lets just remember propecia got passed and is still wrecking peoples' bodies. In my experience there is no such thing as a chemical without sides). If it does work, i will probably wait until it can be bought at a reasonable cost and has been proven effective, otherwise its a really easy way to burn money. I caution the young guys on here especially before you blow a lot of loot, to let it play out. In a year or two cosmo will have more data on the effectiveness and maybe even info on a vehicle.

Valid points, but there have been two clinical trials completed (one for acne, one for hair). And two are currently taking place(one for hair, one for acne). They specifically stated there were no side effects observed and no evidence of it going systemic. Long term there could possibly be some effects, though.

[Justinian]

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.

Cosmo stated after the phase 1 trial that there was no observed evidence of steroidal side effects in humans, which backs up the science saying that it's metabolized into a harmless substance in the bloodstream. On mobile so I won't find the link now. Long term there is s chance for some unknown side effect I guess, though.

[ank1]

BTW, does anybody know where I can find the evidence that shows CB should be more effective than RU?

I read somewhere that CB should be at least 4x more effective but can't remember where.

I was rather trying to get RU instead since it's already been tested by many

[hellouser]

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.

Who was using it at 5%? That's the only troubling issue with the stuff... at 5%, its going to be ridiculously expensive.

[Kudu]

Thanks Justinian and Hellouser for the clear up on Kane and the private forums.

Now then, does anyone have an idea on why CB didn't work with an Ethanol/PG vehicle? Just trying to clarify some things and make sure we don't have MORE issues.

[Dees Dab]

Maybe a group buy would be more affordable if there is enough people interested. Im lookin to try it and am from Ontario, Canada.

Searched PHG for CB-03=01 no results ?

[Swooping]

BTW, does anybody know where I can find the evidence that shows CB should be more effective than RU?

I read somewhere that CB should be at least 4x more effective but can't remember where.

I was rather trying to get RU instead since it's already been tested by many

Fcking no hell lol broscience, we wish it was like that. Evidence atm points out it is less potent than RU-58841. You refer to this study; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15646372



This is from the study, now note cyproterone acetate is just a little bit more active than cb-03-01 in the hamster flank organ test. I have a study about RU-58841 on hamster flank organ test also I'll dig it up later if you are interested but I'm sure it was more potent than these figures. Secondly the following is a statement about RU58841;

When compared with the antiandrogenic compound cyproterone acetate, PSK-3841 exhibited a 20% increase in AR binding [18].

Meaning RU-58841 is likely stronger than than cyproterone acetate and thus likely stronger than CB-03-01.

Also be aware that the cb-03-01 comparison to finasteride in this test is hilarious. They are comparing a 5ar2 inhibitor with a anti-androgen. This obviously will say nothing about it translating for AGA, keep that in mind.

Now guys, think about it. Why was the vehicle ever a problem? Wouldn't it be logical for it that we need a higher concentration for it being effective?

If RU-58841 and cyproterone acetate outperform cb-03-01 then why would cb-03-01 work at a dosage of 1-2%, do you see RU-58841 or cyproterone acetate working that good at such a dosage? I don't think so.

That is what the problem ever was, cosmo just released a new patent in 2014, where they also state the pharmaceutical composition of the cream, and it is nothing special.

The vehicle was never a problem, the concentration was. If you think otherwise come up with reasoning, or I would like to hear it from desmond. I have spoken to chemists and there is literally no reason to think the vehicle was a problem ever.

And yes 5% is going to be expensive as hell I guess.