HMI-115 PRLR antibody: The Most Promising Treatment Ever

B

badnewsbearer

Established Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
179
coolio said:
I'm feeling too lazy to go into the specifics of this one. I've been occasionally talking about it online for years.

I will just say that over-studying a drug doesn't mean anything if the results still don't match reality.
Click to expand...
oh thats a great argument lol. the reality is the studies though. you can make up your own reality but it just means you are completely delusional and cant put together an argument. what does this even mean, overstudying doesnt match reality lol. basically what it means is the same argument, personal anecdotes are better than clinical trials(randomized, placebo controlled, double blinded) which is the highest form of clinical evidence vs the lowest form of evidence(case reports). are you the same type of person who says vaccines cause autism and argues away studies that disprove this because "they dont match reality"? because thats the logic behind it

or you are just saying all studies are bad (in methology or what?) but then you have to argue why you feel that way, simply stating they dont match reality is not even an argument at all

there are entire meta reviews by reputable androglogists(e.g. Dr Landon Trost) going over the sexual side effects of 5AR inhibitors. these actually go into he details of the study design and rate the studies based on how well they are conducted and give them evidence scores etc. they still find that sexual sides exist and are about 5-8%. you can not get any better evidence and to suggest this does not match up with "reality" is a little ridiculous I think
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: INT
C

coolio

Experienced Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
561
Okay, fine. Let's take that meta-figure that you just threw out.

Stop and think how much bigger 5-8% is than 1-2% (in the original Merck trials). If you trust that larger figure, you are also admitting that the truth is at least a couple hundred percent of the original published figure. Maybe as much as 800%. That's a big difference.


Exactly how much bigger does a newer figure have to get, before I'm allowed to say "Merck's published figure is garbage"? Is that ever okay? Or do we always have to support the researchers (and ridicule the patient community) in any disagreement?

Many years ago guys would get mocked on the forums for saying they though it was 10%. Now that estimate doesn't sound nearly so crazy, does it? Guys used to get mocked for saying the drug made them depressed too, and now that's a recognized issue.



The patients are always crazy, right up until they aren't.
The researchers are always correct, right up until they revise their findings.

Finasteride has a significant side-effect problem. It's usually not life-wrecking, but it's common enough to have made Propecia a commercial failure.

IMO Merck's researchers didn't find a common side-effect problem because they didn't want to find it. That was decades ago and there was a lot more denial about the whole issue on all sides.

IMO this is reality. You can keep throwing more research at it, but that won't do anything to change what is happening in real life. The side effect problem is gonna just keep right on happening. It's been this way for decades.
 
Last edited:
B

badnewsbearer

Established Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
179
coolio said:
Okay, fine. Let's take that meta-figure that you just threw out.

Stop and think how much bigger 5-8% is than 1-2% (in the original Merck trials). If you trust that larger figure, you are also admitting that the truth is at least a couple hundred percent of the original published figure. Maybe as much as 800%. That's a big difference.


Exactly how much bigger does a newer figure have to get, before I'm allowed to say "Merck's published figure is garbage"? Is that ever okay? Or do we always have to support the researchers (and ridicule the patient community) in any disagreement?

Many years ago guys would get mocked on the forums for saying they though it was 10%. Now that estimate doesn't sound nearly so crazy, does it? Guys used to get mocked for saying the drug made them depressed too, and now that's a recognized issue.



The patients are always crazy, right up until they aren't.
The researchers are always correct, right up until they revise their findings.

Finasteride has a significant side-effect problem. It's usually not life-wrecking, but it's common enough to have made Propecia a commercial failure.

IMO Merck's researchers didn't find a common side-effect problem because they didn't want to find it. That was decades ago and there was a lot more denial about the whole issue on all sides.

IMO this is reality. You can keep throwing more research at it, but that won't do anything to change what is happening in real life. The side effect problem is gonna just keep right on happening. It's been this way for decades.
Click to expand...


I mean everything sounds major when you formulate it like that but might not have any meaning. like if a drug increased the incidence of sides from 1 to 1.5% you can say oh wow, 50% increase but its a lot less meaningful and might even be statistically insignificant. when you have an increase in sides from 20 to 40% that might have different meaning already and less prone to outliners for example. also thats why this meta review exists. there are studies that saw 15% and there are studies that say 0% and both are low quality. however in general the results of studies correlate very well with each other. the findings are still the same, it has sexual sides but they are not that common. thats totally different from what people on here are arguing.

you are allowed to say that the Merck figure is garbage and im inclined to agree because I dont know the mythology they used to analyzed sexual dysfunction. but now we have much more and better studies and they mostly agree on the overall picture. nobody is ridiculing anybody but the fact is that they did report sides and so have subsequent studies yet people here act like its a big conspiracy to suppress them. we have a pretty solid picture at this point.

you act like I am trying to convince anyone that Merck is a holy saint or that finasteride is the best safest drugs, I dont say any of that. I just argue that clinical trials and meta reviews are a lot more valuable than personal anecdotes on a forum. especially for drugs that are not approved and that people have obtained through underground labs.


for example CB has not shown sexual sides and there is a mechanism behind it that explains it. sure it might be a very rare side effect but claims here about how common it is are in quite significant contradiction with the findings of that study. and its not a matter of "is it 1 or 5%" but rather is it 0% or legit 50%.

and to conclude, so the meta review DOES match reality then after all? I dont think it claims to pin down a totally precise number like 5.5% but rather a rough range. and that seems a pretty good approach
 
C

coolio

Experienced Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
561
My position is this:

Looking at the totality of the last 30+ years, the side effect problem with Finasteride is BLATANTLY OBVIOUS. I have zero patience left for people denying it, minimizing it, or ridiculing people for doubting the published stats.

Finasteride patients take a drug that blocks androgens & raises estrogens. Then they face an uphill battle to convince anybody that they are having symptoms of low androgens & high estrogens. This isn't responsible treatment, it's gaslighting.
 
Last edited:
It_is_over_for_nw7

It_is_over_for_nw7

Established Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
108
-specter- said:
when the trials in EU and USA start?

this is a treatment of weekly injections for six months, from what has been seen in monkeys the results should last at least four years.
Click to expand...
If you use Propecia with it, I would expect it to last longer.

What annoys the hell out of me is that there are no strong treatments to REVERSE HAIR LOSS. Every drug is about maintaining hair for the poor zoomers who are balding at 21 from norwood 1 to norwood 2.

I was norwood 7 by 26 and I have been on Avodart and rogaine for over 2 years and it has got me back to a diffused looking norwood 5. I still don't have the hair quality and coverage to get surgery according to consultation. I NEED something to get me back further above where I am now.

I'm willing to risk anything to get my hair back now because I can't live like this anymore. If I have to risk death then so be it.
 
I

INT

Senior Member
Reaction score
2,836
coolio said:
My position is this:

Looking at the totality of the last 30+ years, the side effect problem with Finasteride is BLATANTLY OBVIOUS. I have zero patience left for people denying it, minimizing it, or ridiculing people for doubting the published stats.
Click to expand...
It is blatantly obvious that a small minority of users gets side effects, as was confirmed by numerous studies. No one here is doubting that.
 
B

badnewsbearer

Established Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
179
i dont understand why people talk about sides. even if there are systemic sides with this it could probably be worked around a) because in monkey, the results were still present for years after injection so you can get the injections, tolerate the sides for a few months and then be fine for a few years(maybe longer if the new hairs are protected by e.g an anti androgen) and b) because it seems that the prolactin receptor only in the dermal papilla is actually relevant so they could figure out a way to keep it localized. there is no evidence that an anti body injected into the skin will even go systemic as these type of things other than drugs like finasteride could either have poor penetrative abilities or they disintegrate in the blood.

even if this does not work out, if the results are actually legit and this guy is not trolling everyone which I doubt since he has been harassed by degenerates when going to the follow ups, there will be new insights into the role of prolactin signaling on HF and that receptor problem could be addressed by other means. for example one could think about a local prolactin receptor degrader or something that modulates the action of the anti body in the same way(once it is identified) which could be much cheaper as producing anti bodies is quite expensive. I hope that if the results are actually solid, they find out a way to make this a profitable but affordable business to mass produce these things and dont just drop it like it has happened so often in the past. drop it and hold the patent still is fucked up
 
-specter-

-specter-

Established Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
47
so when can i buy this treatment? Seriously this seems to me the very first treatment that actually works and doesn't seem to have any serious side effects. I don't see how it can't have an excellent economic return, I and many other people would be interested in starting the treatment as soon as possible to recover our hair, some inner peace and put a stone on the matter, at least for some time.
 
B

badnewsbearer

Established Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
179
-specter- said:
so when can i buy this treatment? Seriously this seems to me the very first treatment that actually works and doesn't seem to have any serious side effects. I don't see how it can't have an excellent economic return, I and many other people would be interested in starting the treatment as soon as possible to recover our hair, some inner peace and put a stone on the matter, at least for some time.
Click to expand...
people on this forum will have massive side effects from his. or any other future treatment. also its going through clinical trials so it'll take a few more years
 
It_is_over_for_nw7

It_is_over_for_nw7

Established Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
108
badnewsbearer said:
people on this forum will have massive side effects from his. or any other future treatment. also its going through clinical trials so it'll take a few more years
Click to expand...
The sad thing is that this potential treatment keeps me hopeful. But I don't know if I can take another disappointment again.

I've been norwood 7 since 26 and started Propecia 6 months ago. I have some regrowth but nowhere near a full head of hair. If this can get me back to a Norwood 4 then I might consider surgery to get my life back.

Living like this is literally suffering in today's world. If you are ugly then no woman will ever love you because of your subhuman genes. bald is ugly and therefore bad.

I have a bad feeling that this guy on reddit is a super troll. If hmi is truly a legitimate cure for hairloss then why the hell is there never any news about it?
 
L

lukedorian

Member
Reaction score
20
GoodHair8 said:
Really hoping this could help for DUPA. There is 0 research about this type of hair loss and finasteride is not working.
Click to expand...
Maybe because DUPA is also a form of androgenetic alopecia, every treatment available for Androgenetic Alopecia works on DUPA with even better results
 
G

GoodHair8

Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
14
lukedorian said:
Maybe because DUPA is also a form of androgenetic alopecia, every treatment available for Androgenetic Alopecia works on DUPA with even better results
Click to expand...
Where did you get those informations ? DUPA is not DPA. Classic Androgenetic Alopecia treatments works well for DPA (diffuse thinning on top) but not for DUPA (diffuse everywhere - Inculding the donor area)
 
G

GoodHair8

Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
14
1675545252041.png

I don't really understand this part, can someone explain ? Does it mean that CsA interaction with prolactin receptor is useful (cause it act right on the receptor instead of the total prolactin level)?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Community platform by XenForo® © 2010-2023 XenForo Ltd.
Top