Why not a RU topical?

[Guest]

Why isnt it already some company selling a RU topical for hairloss?

 

[Goingat20]

i wish they were, but luckily we got ccs hehe

 

[CCS]

yeah, CCS the big procrastinator who waits til the night before the test to learn the material for the first time and gets a C when he could have done better. I'm making it tonight, though.

 

[Guest]

hehe, but CSS,, do you see a obvious problem making it for commercial sale?

 

[Bryan]

hehe, but CSS,, do you see a obvious problem making it for commercial sale?

There are obvious legal and liability issues:

1) RU58841 is patented.

2) Even if #1 above were taken care of, nobody is going to spend hundreds of millions of $$$ to get official FDA approval for it here in the USA.

3) I doubt that many companies would want to take the risk of severe potential liability problems from the injudicious use of this highly experimental substance, especially one that hasn't been tested in humans very much.

Bryan

 

[Old Baldy]

Yes, you're right Bryan. Too bad, this stuff could have been a good treatment for us. Oh well.

With dutasteride., finasteride. and spironolactone. being so much cheaper I guess I shouldn't complain too much. But it would be nice if some chemical whiz could start making and selling this stuff at more reasonable prices and with more stability. (You posted the recipe for this stuff years ago and it would take a pro to make it IMHO.)

Why did the patent holder just put it on the back burner (or the licensee put it on the back burner)? Was it not as good as they thought it would be or not any better than dutasteride./finasteride.? Was it too hard to make and/or too unstable to use easily, etc.?

Doctor Proctor felt it probably didn't do better than existing stuff and that's why it hit a dead end.

 

[Bryan]

I think it was put on the back-burner for all of those reasons. It would probably be about as effective as finasteride/dutasteride, but it's rather difficult and expensive to make, and it's yet another messy daily topical that requires perseverance and conscientiousness to apply consistently on a daily basis. While it's quite well-known among hairloss enthusiasts like us, I doubt that a pharmaceutical company would ever be willing to invest hundreds of millions of dollars to get it approved for the mass market. It'll never have more than just a tiny little niche market among those of us who are "in-the-know".

Bryan

 

[powersam]

are there not also storage issues? does it become inactive after a little while or if stored improperly?

 

[Bryan]

There's been speculation about alleged storage issues, but I don't know if I put any stock in them.

Bryan

 

[Old Baldy]

Well, I guess not all is lost. Reading the posts on this French site seems to indicate PSK 3841 is currently in Phase II trials in Europe.

(PSK 3841 is the name of RU 58841 used by the licensee, I think?)

http://216.109.125.130/search/cache?p=r ... 1&.intl=us

HURRY UP Proskelia Co.!!! :lol:

Here's one post stating it is currently in Phase II trials as of 2006. (Well, that's when the member made his post.)

juste pour completer: ma comprehension est que le RU xxx est devenu PSK3841, et que la société Proskelia en continue la phase 2. Proskelia est issue de Aventis et recherche a donner la licence a un grand labo pour cette molecule, ou la donnera logiquement a Aventis si la phase 2 se passe bien. Ca ressemble a un processus d'externalisation juste pour reduire les couts de Aventis.

http://www.proskelia.com/c_5.htm

Here's the link showing it is in what Proskelia calls Phase IIB trials.

http://www.proskelia.com/rd_3.htm

So, maybe we'll eventually see some RU58841 becoming available afterall?

Powersam: I think the powder is stable (maybe keep it cold)?. Maybe you read the stuff is only good for a few weeks/months when mixed with solvents?