Bayer Prolactin Receptor Antibody For Male And Female Pattern Hair Loss

trialAcc

Senior Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
1,531
What claims of mine have been addressed -

1. Other than your fool opinion, where did you prove that macaques and humans respond to topical treatments similarily? Where are the studies demonstrating this assertion by you?

2. Other than your fool opinion, where did you prove that some enzyme explains why humans respond worse to topical 2% minoxidil than macaques?
Where are the studies that prove this assertion by you?

3. And even if it's true, which I doubt that it is, that some enzyme limits the efficacy of 2% minoxidil in humans but not in macaques, then that proves I'm right about it being easier to regrow hair on macaques than on humans. After all, you yourself agree that 2% minoxidil works better on macaques than humans, while you also claim I'm wrong about it being easier to regrow hair on macaques than on humans. You're talking out of both sides of your mouth, mate.

4. And why would some liver enzyme allegedly prevent TOPICAL minoxidil from working while allowing ORAL minoxidil to work? WTF is up with that nonsense? Are you saying that your infamous, minoxidil-killing liver enzyme can tell if minoxidil is applied topically or taken orally? LMAO!
Some guy gave you a 4/10 troll but this is like a 2/10 at best. You're so dumb you don't even understand the slightest bit about how minoxidil works, yet are using it as your one and only argument.
 

JohnDoe5

Established Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
57
Some guy gave you a 4/10 troll but this is like a 2/10 at best. You're so dumb you don't even understand the slightest bit about how minoxidil works, yet are using it as your one and only argument.

The "some guy" you're referring to gave me a 4/10 troll score because he doesn't want to believe what I'm saying is true, not because what I'm saying isn't true. And some subhuman like you calling me dumb doesn't mean sh!t to me. I have no respect for your intelligence.
 

JohnDoe5

Established Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
57
What about trialAcc's point that finasteride works better in humans?

HIs point is sh!t. He's just some guy on the internet talking bullshit. He hasn't proved anything. He hasn't posted one study proving his assertions. He posts stuff that he wants to believe rather than facts.
 
Last edited:

JohnDoe5

Established Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
57
When he did that one study doesn't tell the whole story. I was talking with Hideo Uno in 1998 & 1999 AND he had done many many studies involving topical treatments on stumptail macaques. The guys who disagree with me here know nothing about the stuff they're talking about and they're just saying the stuff that supports the treatment they hope will work. What the guys here are doing is called confirmation bias.
 
Last edited:

JohnDoe5

Established Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
57
Did the authors of the paper say anything about why finasteride may be so much less efficient than in humans?

The fool just says the stuff he wants to believe. He wants to believe that hair growth in macaques is a total barometer for hair growth in humans because the Bayer-treated macaques got great hair growth and he wants to believe he will get the same great results. What he's doing is called confirmation bias where he's stating bullshit because he wants to support the idea that the Bayer drug will grow a lot of hair in humans because that's what he wants to believe.

In fact, it's easier to regrow hair on macaques than humans.
 
Last edited:

JohnDoe5

Established Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
57
It was tested on macaques before humans afaik. It's not actually very much less efficient on macaques then humans, I was using hyperbole to highlight how flawed the logic is to do comparisons based on dosage and efficacy to say it's easier to grow hair on one of the other.
So now you're saying you don't even know for sure if it was tested on macaques before humans. LMAO! You know nothing about the stuff you're blabbing about. You were talking sh!t all long, just like I said you were. And then you say it's "not actually very much less effective on macaques than humans". Prove that it's less effective in macaques than humans. Post studies establishing your bullshit, lizard brain.

Anybody who listens to you is a fool. You have no idea what you're talking about.

And FYI finasteride was, in fact, tested on macaques before humans.
 
Last edited:

trialAcc

Senior Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
1,531
6 posts in a row and has to edit every single one of them. Can't even figure out the multi-quote on a forum.
 

RolfLeeBuckler

Experienced Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
984
does anybody has a theory Why Hope Medicine didnt start Phase II trials in US and Europe as expected?
 

Dimitri001

Experienced Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
342
When he did that one study doesn't tell the whole story. I was talking with Hideo Uno in 1998 & 1999 AND he had done many many studies involving topical treatments on stumptail macaques. The guys who disagree with me here know nothing about the stuff they're talking about and they're just saying the stuff that supports the treatment they hope will work. What the guys here are doing is called confirmation bias.
Which other topicals, besides minoxidil, did he find to work better on macaques?
 

pegasus2

Senior Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
4,512
does anybody has a theory Why Hope Medicine didnt start Phase II trials in US and Europe as expected?
Clearly because they were waiting for the go ahead from Australia but didn't get it. Maybe they will change their plans now and do a US only phase 2 rather than a global one
 
Top