- Reaction score
- 1,052
whats your opinion on this? see my post #460 ty
Some "way 316606" Stuff Is Making Headlines Today.
- Thread starter MomoGee
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 686
Increase the size of the pic. On the after pic you see vellus hair on the forehead where no hair is supposed to be. So it is very powerfull indead maybe too powerfull.
- Reaction score
- 375
- Reaction score
- 1,400
Honestly I’m not educated enough on this subject to talk about that. I’m still learning and researching this myself
- Reaction score
- 73
I think I might take oral Cyclosporine even after reading through the side effects though only bc my hairloss has pushed me to the edge, I'll document any results
- Reaction score
- 686
She hasn t started yet like the whole gb except the guy with the pics she posted
- Reaction score
- 2,721
No such thing! I’m salivating at the thought of hypertrichosis
- Reaction score
- 2,721
No it’s all been paid for. I paid for it on Thursday, but there’s some Chinese holiday on so Wuhan are sorting it from their end on Monday.
- Reaction score
- 39
A carcinogen is a lot different than deregulating a pathway that is a common theme in cancer. In fact, repression of SFRP1(which is called a tumor suppressor) leading to WNT overexpression is associated with cancer progression. The claim on the original study saying it is ligand limited is misleading because SFRP1 is present in tissues prone to cancer such as the breast and prostate. In addition, if there are any existing tumors in the body then inhibiting SFRP1 will greatly accelerate growth.
They key here is potency. If the guy is really noticing increased hair growth all over his body then the drug is going systemic and inhibiting SFRP1 with great potency. This is obviously not good. This drug is really promising but it seems vital to make sure it does not go significantly systemic.
There are also studies showing those with vertex balding are more prone to prostate cancer, so inhibiting SFRP1 may increase the risk further.
I'll be using this drug too eventually, but I will be doing the minimum effective dose for the above reasons.
I'm assuming this will be experimented with topically? So what is the consensus on dosage, vehicle and frequency?
- Reaction score
- 39
Yes it will be used topically. There is also no consensus, as only one person has used it but we can assume what he's using is too much if it's causing systemic effects.
- Reaction score
- 78
nice. what is his source?
- Reaction score
- 2,564
That looks exactly like the supposed Brotzu picture.
This field is a damn swamp I don’t know what to believe anymore.
- Reaction score
- 2,721
Yeah to be honest I am much more likely to believe in WAY than I am most other things. It works through the same mechanism and Csa, which we know, when taken orally grows hair more efficiently even than minoxidil. Countless people have experience these effects from csa is real life. In studies on cultured human hair, WAY outperformed Csa. I would have been surprised quite frankly if it didn’t work at all.
I mean, as for brotzu.. that’s a question mark. In theory it should work somewhat like a weak minoxidil. In practice.. I guess we will see. You would need to have mild hairloss to benefit I feel. I have personally taken high oral doses of equol and noticed nothing. I was once a good responder to minoxidil but not anymore. I think it’s over priced and will not meet expectations.
- Reaction score
- 2,721
Wuhan hengheda
- Reaction score
- 2,721
In the study they used 5mg/ml so that’s what we are going with. That dose was found not to cause any safety issues.
- Reaction score
- 73
good luck to everyone trying it, if there are good results reported I'm sure there will be another group buy soon
- Reaction score
- 39
That was a short term ex vivo study. They did not study safety, so of course they didn't find any safety issues. It is safer than a non selective SFRP inhibitor or a WNT agonist, but it doesn't mean throw caution to the wind.
This compound has good potential and can be safe if kept local, but any systemic absorption will increase cancer risk in susceptible tissues.
It's all fun and games till you're slick bald from chemo.
- Reaction score
- 1,052
to some male pattern baldness is already highly linked with cardiac issues such as blood pressure, circulation calcification, then prostate, some say it may be linked with MS or diabetes and all other theories... or other things than may trigger local inflammation(more for diffuse patterns) I don't really think Im afraid low risk of cancer such as these (I mean it's not like it was a coin flip) Arround me , people still die from cancer at young age despite having a healthy lifestyle and without taking any medications which MAY cause....
Final note Im one of the couple of guys who went bald early in my whole family.So in a few words: f**** odds.
at the end of the day most meds can trigger some nasty unexpected things.
Let's think about guys who had good time after taking cialis and died because of it. That's the way to pass away.
Oh and special mention to my "past" neighbour who was 91 and full head of hairs (ok norwood 3like) and was cycling every f*****g days he was more lively than most 20yo guys. He died after a car rammed into his bike. can you believe it? life is like a lottery
Last edited:
- Reaction score
- 39
I'm not saying don't take it, but you won't see any noticeable difference in effectiveness once you reach a saturation dose vs. a lower dose. If you are getting systemic effects then you are taking too much.
When systemic, you will inhibit the SFRP1 in tissues around your body. The most significant tissues affected are the prostate and breast. You are inhibiting a tumor suppressor, not intaking a weak carcinogen. The risk of cancer is significant. Not only that, but you also risk androgen independent prostate growth. People get cancer when their cancer prevention systems can't cope. This drug directly inhibits one such tumor suppressor. There is nothing to lose from harm reduction.