Bi-estro contains E2 and E3. E3 has very poor intrinsic activity at the ER (see one of my previous posts on this thread) and as I am sceptical anyway about the transcriptional effects being positive I do not see the merit of E3. Furthermore, to achieve a purely (or as pure as possible) dermal delivery you need a specialized vehicle. This may be the reason that many topicals are not effective: they may have effective actives but they
do not have an effective vehicle. Bi-estro is no exception. Using a custom vehicle is extremely important, and I have mentioned a few ways how to proceed in my previous post.
@JaneyElizabeth. Higher systemic E2 will very likely increase local concentrations as well. However, I feel like I need to stress that this
is not an option for males whatsoever. Even for transgenders I would advise to be hesitant about introducing large amount of hormones in systemic circulation. Hormones are extremely complex, and have countless downstream effects that are not well understood. With a purely dermal delivery local concentrations can be achieved that trump any systemic dose, without any of the systemic (side) effects. This goes not only for E2 but literally any drug that is not a prodrug
and can be metabolized by the skin (you would have to check the presence of the particular cytochrome P450 enzyme for your drug in the skin). Estrogel and bi-estro are
not suitable for such dermal delivery. I would place them under the umbrella of systemic E2.
@Norwoody. RU is actually a mediocre antiandrogen. IdealForehead once made a great thread (although not
entirely scientifically sound) about the binding affinities of different AA's. Not only the binding affinities matter when looking at AA's. Receptor binding time is important as well, as is half-life (RU has a very short serum half-life which is extended somewhat in the skin) and diffusive ability (which should ideally as low as possible to keep things local). However, the most important variable is again the
vehicle. A PG-based vehicle is poor and will not yield maximum results for everyone as it is not ideally dermal (or
local). Personally I would never use a drug (RU) that is not clinically approved, which (for me) is the minimum threshold for anything to even consider experimenting with. Currently I am using Apalutamide as it has a decent half-life (which means it is not broken down in a matter of hours. When using a good vehicle that can keep things
as local as possible the serum half-life should ideally be around a day or so), is clinically approved and is currently the most effective drug against prostate cancer, which is a good measure of antiandrogenic potency (Enzalutamide shares the same effectivity, but has a half-life too long for my liking). Darolutamide has a perfect half-life but is intrinsically inferior to Apalutamide. The lack of results reported in the past with Darolutamide and Enzalutamide can be attributed to use of very poor vehicles (I mean DMSO, come on...) or AR upregulation. Upregulation can be effectively prevented by E2 as mentioned. To further increase the efficiency finasteride or dutasteride can be added. Microneedling should be done in order to provide the necessary growth factors. Possibly add a PKCa/b inhibitor like BIM-I after wounding to stop epidermal differentiation à la pegasus2 as a bonus.