Ok so, let's say we all just utterly doused our heads in flu

[Hoppi]

EDIT -- Ok I've got to stop posting from my phone, sorry thats the second time a thread title has been cut off lol it was supposed to finish with "fluridil every morning"

male pattern baldness death? I mean... unless there is something I'm missing about the properties or strength of fluridil, wouldn't a daily overkill of the stuff nuke the receptors so bad that it was game over?

And if not why not! lol


Hoppi! ^_^

 

[Cassin]

:whistle:

 

[Hoppi]

lol sorry, it's just my point is that if fluridil is that powerful, and has no noteworthy systemic absorption, then perhaps when it comes down in price it will be a much greater force to be reckoned with as it could be applied in very large amounts with no negatives.

It's just really cool to see such great new treatments on the horizon, and getting closer

 

[Todd]

Fluridil really isn't that powerful. I'd say it's.... decent. It's proven effective at stopping hair loss, but we don't know for how long it's effective as we do with finasteride (at least 5 years, if not longer) and minoxidil (peak after 1 year, stable for 3 years, slow decline after 5 years).

Neither do we know HOW effective it is, compared to those treatments...

But, ok, I get your point. What if, at the slightest sign of hair loss, we managed to totally suppress any androgen activity: knocking out or blocking every receptor essentially making our scalps feminine.

My guess: a dead halt in hair loss,


but of course, there's always the question with inflammation. Alpha reductase activity in the skin could also be a problem, although if you really did manage to knock out every receptor, maybe not...

 

[Hoppi]

Yeah I mean, I think the reason I chose fluridil for this is because it works uniquely I believe by degrading androgen receptors, and of course it is not really systemically absorbed, and so it's probably possible to use a lot more of it without suffering ill effects. Surely if one topical IS capable of just knocking the receptors out cold as fluridil maaayyyy be.. then why bother with anything else?

And it's side-free, of course

 

[Todd]

I've been thinking a lot about a total topical anti- androgen regime. Surely: if you use fluridil to knock out the receptors, RU to block the ones that isn't affected by fluridil, and spironolactone just for good measure, you would if not stop hair loss, at least slow it down by like a million years.

But seriously, if you kill androgen activity early enough in the process, there really shouldn't be any need for growth stimulators...

 

[Hoppi]

Exactly

What's weird is that a significant percentage of people say that RU or fluridil doesn't work for them.. which I don't really get. Of course, some of the people using RU forgot to rub it in to their scalp properly, or probably got poor quality RU, or left it out of the freezer or something. And people using fluridil, if your scalp was a bit wet or you'd been sweating then it of course wouldn't work, or wouldn't work well. I find it odd though that these treatments work for some and not others, when at the very least we must know that male pattern baldness involves the androgen receptors. I would be fascinated to learn why it is that these things fail for some individuals. Hell, many even claim that RU in fact INCREASED their shedding.

Perhaps more independent studies need to be done with these things, and independent analysis of the results.

 

[nickypoos]

I don't think their is any evidence to support fluridil actually degrades the receptors. I recall Bryan saying he doesn't believe fluridil actually does this.

 

[Bryan]

I don't think their is any evidence to support fluridil actually degrades the receptors. I recall Bryan saying he doesn't believe fluridil actually does this.

I don't have much trust in anything the makers of fluridil say about it, and the thing in the patent about supposedly downregulating androgen receptors is the thing I trust the LEAST.

 

[thinincrown]

I don't think their is any evidence to support fluridil actually degrades the receptors. I recall Bryan saying he doesn't believe fluridil actually does this.

I don't have much trust in anything the makers of fluridil say about it, and the thing in the patent about supposedly downregulating androgen receptors is the thing I trust the LEAST.

ok, them why the hell did fluridil keep my hair from falling out when finasteride and spironolactone couldnt?

 

[Hoppi]

Totally man! I think when the patent runs out on Eucapil/fluridil (and when WILL that happen, does anyone know?) it will be a great day for many of us - the price will plummet

We may also find stronger fluridil concentrations (higher than just 2% as in Eucapil) and that the stuff is more readily available!

 

[Hoppi]

aw thanks man that would really help actually. And man I wonder why it suddenly stopped working. There must be a distinct biological reason for that!


EDIT -- To be honest I think the reason why the theme of this thread does not work (for everyone) right now is because we don't see to have a topical anti-androgen that is... well, not so much that is STRONG enough, but that works for everyone.

The problem seems to be that let's say RU58841 it seems to be spectacularly powerful for some people, and hold up there hair almost single handedly, while for others they experience no improvement, or even supposedly an increase in shedding. Fluridil again seems to be either very potent or ineffective.

My guess is this is down to one of two things. Either the properties of the exact person's androgen receptors, or something to do with how well the substance is reaching them. Maybe we all have very slightly differing receptors, or some sort of difference in the chemicals path to them. I know it feels like I'm thinking about this too much lol, but wouldn't it be fantastic to establish for example why RU isn't working for some, and correct it?

 

[Hoppi]

I would say give RU a blast on it's own (after this little fluridil experiment) and if you get some effects from it you could combine them, although I know it's getting very expensive by that point ._.

The problem is I think that the follicles become tremendously sensitive. I really hope there is some truth in what I've been looking into about what inside the body actually upregulates the follicles or makes them sensitive in the first place. I think if we are going to really stop male pattern baldness, aside from gene therapy, we need to work out precisely what the gene triggers in the androgen receptors or what the trigger of the upregulation does, and then combat THAT.

 

[Todd]

Actually, I believe the makers state that fluridil downgrades or degrades the androgen receptor, not "downregulates" it.

And even though it is a bold claim to make: they did conduct a successful clinical trial, with high standards, even published in the USA, Univeristy of San Diego http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12174057 (abstract only)


I've got to say, I don't think fluridil works as well as finasteride or minoxidil. But it's still important to know the difference between dietary speculations, snake oils, doubtful kitchen sink experiments with somewhat proven in- vitro results (azelaic acid, anyone?) and a drug that has actually passed a randomized double blinded placebo study- with flying colours.

It's a general trend among hair loss forum users (myself included, especially) when we review products, that we give up too fast on, and expect too much.

Fluridil works; and I'm not saying this because I want it to work. Nor do I say it because I use it (I don't).
I say it because clinical trials have proven it.

 

[nickypoos]

I don't think anyone is saying it doesn't "work" as such, when theres clear results to say it does. But what I think Bryan and others are trying to say is it doesn't work in the way it claims, not by degrading or downregulating receptors, possibly a more potent receptor blocker than spironolactone?

 

[thinincrown]

Why is Fluridil being hyped again all of the sudden, that stuff has been around for years. I remember it being mildy populair in 2006 or something. If it really is the holy grail, wouldn't everbody be using it by now?

I dont think it's being "hyped" all of the sudden, I just think people who were so gungho about finasteride a while back, and rightly so, began to have sides or saw a decrease in it's effectiveness.

So recently more people have begun to see Fluridil as a safe, topical option for combating male pattern baldness. I think when it originally came out people just didnt give it a chance (6-12 mths.) to work, or they felt the price was too steep. So instead of sticking to it they just got on generic finasteride or spironolactone for a lower price.

All I know is that neither finasteride or spironolactone halted my loss like fluridil. Ive since moved on to RU by itself, but if the loss were to increase I would add fluridil back into the mix in a heartbeat....

 

[Bryan]

Fluridil works; and I'm not saying this because I want it to work. Nor do I say it because I use it (I don't).

I say it because clinical trials have proven it.

As I've said several times in the past, I would be FAR more accepting of fluridil, if only it were to be tested successfully by independent doctors and scientists. The only ones to have tested it in clinical trials (I believe) were the makers/sellers of the drug themselves. An incredible number of independent doctors have tested topical minoxidil and finasteride over the years; why hasn't the same thing ever been done even ONE TIME for fluridil? :dunno:

 

[thinincrown]

Fluridil works; and I'm not saying this because I want it to work. Nor do I say it because I use it (I don't).

I say it because clinical trials have proven it.

As I've said several times in the past, I would be FAR more accepting of fluridil, if only it were to be tested successfully by independent doctors and scientists. The only ones to have tested it in clinical trials (I believe) were the makers/sellers of the drug themselves. An incredible number of independent doctors have tested topical minoxidil and finasteride over the years; why hasn't the same thing ever been done even ONE TIME for fluridil? :dunno:

Probably because if they did everyone would say "hmmm independent study, must be BS" Im curious to know if Dr Proctor has done any independent studies on prox-n?

Have you seen the survey results that Eucapil sent out to all of it's users in the last 12 months? The results of the survey, which I know, I know, are not a trial or study, were none the less encouraging. These were people who have actually been using Fluridi for at least 3 months. I completed the survey myself.

Bryan, if you are skeptical of Fluridil thats fine, dont use it...but I wouldnt discourage people from at least trying something, that at least in my case, was far better than spironolactone, revivogen, or minoxidil all of which I have used. It even halted my excessive loss which not even proscar could do after 6 years of use.

 

[Hoppi]

The impression I get is that the treatments seem to go in this order in terms of topical anti-androgen effectiveness:

Revivogen < Flutamide < Spironolactone < Fluridil < RU58841



What do you think?

I'm not sure where ketoconazole fits in but I think it works by different mechanisms

 

[thinincrown]

thats about right Hoppi....