# Men's Hair Loss > Hair Loss Treatments > Cutting Edge / Future Treatments >  Setipiprant

## sdsurfin

http://www.chemicalbook.com/Chemical...CB52683701.htm


Can possibly obtain setipiprant from this source.  This drug has been tested pretty thoroughly for safety already, so someone with loot get on this and try it out! I wouldn't expect a lot of regrowth, but who knows what's possible, and should at least be good for maintenance. If we can get a reliable source then maybe we can also find ways to use it topically and not wait the whatever number of years for this to be put through the wringer.  Filing an IND alone is gonna take at least a year.

----------


## HairlossAt15

> http://www.chemicalbook.com/Chemical...CB52683701.htm
> 
> 
> Can possibly obtain setipiprant from this source.  This drug has been tested pretty thoroughly for safety already, so someone with loot get on this and try it out! I wouldn't expect a lot of regrowth, but who knows what's possible, and should at least be good for maintenance. If we can get a reliable source then maybe we can also find ways to use it topically and not wait the whatever number of years for this to be put through the wringer.  Filing an IND alone is gonna take at least a year.


 Just wait until it is formulated correctly for hairloss, cant just buy raw product, slap it on and live happily ever after. For all you know, product can be bust or not handled correctly

----------


## HairlossAt15

Also look at this


Hair grows as normal when PGD2 blocked!! human hair!!

----------


## Seuxin

And when will it be available on the real market ?
And same question for the "black market" ?

----------


## burtandernie

Yeah speed is definitely not the strength of the FDA. That being said this stuff is the most promising thing for MPB in the last 20 years IMO but I would feel better seeing a little more evidence to how well it works. CB, BIM and this in the next 5 years? MPB would be toast.

----------


## Trenblastoise

Excuse me guys for being ignorant of this drug - But can anyone link me to information about side effects, etc?

EDIT: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24095247

*Results*
All subjects completed the study. Both formulations were well tolerated, with headache the most frequently reported adverse event (25% of subjects), followed by flatulence (15%) and somnolence and fatigue (10%). The adverse event profile in men and women and between formulations was similar. The ratios of geometric means for Cmax (0.94; 95% CI, 0.79-1.12) and AUC0-∞ (1.01; 95% CI, 0.92-1.12) were mostly within the limits of 0.80 to 1.25. When corrected for weight, the differences observed between sexes, within each treatment, for Cmax (capsules: 1.01; 95% CI, 0.71-1.44; tablet: 0.89; 95% CI, 0.62-1.26) and AUC0-∞ (capsules: 1.12; 95% CI, 0.86-1.47; tablet: 0.96; 95% CI, 0.73-1.25) were minor.

So this one doesn't interfere with androgen's I take?

----------


## beetee

> Also look at this
> Attachment 37431
> 
> Hair grows as normal when PGD2 blocked!! human hair!!


 This is interesting. Can you please say where it came from?

----------


## It's2014ComeOnAlready

> This is interesting. Can you please say where it came from?


 kythera's presentation on the development of this drug for hair loss, page 7: 
http://files.shareholder.com/downloa...0Deck%209FEB15

----------


## charlie76761

> Excuse me guys for being ignorant of this drug - But can anyone link me to information about side effects, etc?
> 
> EDIT: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24095247
> 
> *Results*
> All subjects completed the study. Both formulations were well tolerated, with headache the most frequently reported adverse event (25% of subjects), followed by flatulence (15%) and somnolence and fatigue (10%). The adverse event profile in men and women and between formulations was similar. The ratios of geometric means for Cmax (0.94; 95% CI, 0.79-1.12) and AUC0-∞ (1.01; 95% CI, 0.92-1.12) were mostly within the limits of 0.80 to 1.25. When corrected for weight, the differences observed between sexes, within each treatment, for Cmax (capsules: 1.01; 95% CI, 0.71-1.44; tablet: 0.89; 95% CI, 0.62-1.26) and AUC0-∞ (capsules: 1.12; 95% CI, 0.86-1.47; tablet: 0.96; 95% CI, 0.73-1.25) were minor.
> 
> So this one doesn't interfere with androgen's I take?


 Hi i'm thinking of getting in on a Seti GB, but something baffles - there have been 8 clinical trials with over 1000 patients  and then with 211 using 1000mg (see link below), how come it wasnt noticed or reported that Seti caused any positive influence to hair loss as as a side-effect from these trials? Admittedly, of the 211 only a say, 10% - 20% will have AGA, but still, that's 21 to 42 patients. 

I would have thought it would have been spotted (like fin when initially only used for prostate cancer, or minox etc) and jumped on by pharma from the headlines rather than Cotsarelis's unrelated research that PGD2 inhibition should limit hair loss and then Seti being identified as an strong inhibitor and thus should work leading to a trials etc

Thoughts?

http://files.shareholder.com/downloa...tipiprant_.pdf

----------


## Ziggyz123

I thought this exact thing however, it is probably because setipiprant isn't going to regrow hair. It's ping to be for halting hairloss. It is puzzling however like you say that propecia regrew hair.. You'd think that seti would be even better. However, seti could possibly rejuvenate hair that was on its way to miniaturization. I'm in the group buy and have paid. I was thinking of just trialing seti at 1000mg til I run out so 25 days lol. But just to see if this halts shedding and what not so that we know if seti is a dead end.

----------


## Swooping

> Wrong. From Swiss himself.
> 
> _What are your thoughts on PGE2 and its supposed carcinogenic effects?No PGE2 itself is not carcinogenic (cancer causing). It's only involved in the growth of cancer cells.
> Do you know what else is involved in cancer? Glycogen. Also known as sugar and carbohydrates. So does bread cause cancer? Does chocolate cause cancer? Does ice cream cause cancer? Do your mothers cucpcakes cause cancer? No but it can help it grow.
> 
> Let me explain it once again so it's more clear. And please educate everyone you see worrying about this so we can get rid of this myth for good. Carcinogenesis is the actual formation of cancer, turning normal cells cancerous. Examples of carcinogenic substances are benzenes, dioxins and one you definitely heard about before: Asbestos. These are the ones you have to watch out for and avoid. However once cancerous cells have grown there are several things that are involved in their further growth. One way to battle cancers is to inhibit them of one or several of their vital pathways. IGF1 for example causes cancer to *grow*. It's also what makes your muscle and your hair grow though, so should we stop using everything that increases IGF1? The answer is no, because even food can increase IGF1. Another way cancer grows is by feeding on glycogen as I already mentioned. If you do have cancer and cut out carbohydrates you can actually starve some cancer cells. This is however once again only the case when you already *have* cancer. So do you have to cut out all carbohydrates? No, but you can. Yet ANOTHER way cancers grow is through PGE2. Does that mean we have to cut out PGE2? Well maybe if you already *have* cancer. But PGE2 itself is also involved in wound healing, in hair growth and plenty of other things in the body.
> 
> I don't know if the person who told you PGE2 causes cancer is just uninformed or wildly stupid. But it's definitely not the case that you have to worry about it giving you cancer. It's involved in processes all over your body, processes you can't stricly call either "good" or "bad". It's part of you and me and every human on the planet and that's ok lol.
> 
> ...


 Swiss is wrong. I don't want to get into complex signalling issues and pathways here because he doesn't understand them. However let's keep it short. The definition of a carcinogen is;




> A carcinogen is any substance that has the potential to cause cancer in living tissues.


 So this doesn't mean that a carcinogen WILL cause cancer. But that does mean that a substance that is carcinogenic raises cancer risk. This isn't hard to understand. Many things can act as a carcinogen.




> What is a carcinogen?
> 
> Cancer is caused by changes in a cell's DNA – its genetic "blueprint." Some of these changes may be inherited from our parents, while others may be caused by outside exposures, which are often referred to as environmental factors. Environmental factors can include a wide range of exposures, such as:
> 
> Lifestyle factors (nutrition, tobacco use, physical activity, etc.)
> 
> Naturally occurring exposures (ultraviolet light, radon gas, infectious agents, etc.)
> 
> Medical treatments (radiation and medicines including chemotherapy, hormone drugs, drugs that suppress the immune system, etc.)
> ...


 If we speak about COX-2 for example I can show you tons of studies, the same for PGE2 like I did in my previous message. Hence even Garza calls PGE2 having pro-carcinogenic effects. 

http://www.cancernetwork.com/review-...-and-treatment




> *Over the past decade, in vitro, preclinical, and clinical data have supported the hypothesis that cyclooxygenase (COX)-2 plays a central role in oncogenesis and that treatment with COX-2 inhibitors offers an effective chemoprevention strategy*, as exemplified by the activity of celecoxib (Celebrex) in familial adenomatous polyposis. *These COX-2 data have contributed to initiation of clinical trials testing COX-2 inhibitors for the chemoprevention of a wide variety of cancers that overexpress COX-2.*


 So there are many compounds even with DATA backup that some substances act as a carcinogen which increase cancer risk. For example Regranex gel which is PDGF-AA which acts mitogenic;

http://www.regranex.com/patient/




> Important Safety Information
> People who use 3 or more tubes of REGRANEX® Gel may have an increased risk of death from cancer.
> You should talk with your healthcare provider about the possible benefits and risks to you if you use
> more than 3 tubes of REGRANEX® Gel. If you already have cancer, you and your healthcare provider
> should carefully consider whether you will use REGRANEX® Gel.


 A other example is for example 17b-estradiol which can work awesome for hair growth has a black box warning and is considered a carcinogen with an increased risk for cancer. Does this mean you will get cancer? No but it puts you at increased cancer risk. 

So he is not only applying PGE2 which has been shown to have a big role in cancer. No he is even powering up this effect by the other compounds he uses. He even reduces his immunity response with sulfasalazine. 

And bullshit IGF-1 doesn't only make cancer grow. People who are deficient of IGF-1 levels have shown to have a way reduced risk of getting cancer in comparison to the general public. So someone who is using IGF-1 will definitely have increased risk of cancer. That doesn't mean that you will get cancer. It's called Laron syndrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laron_syndrome




> People with Laron syndrome have strikingly low rates of cancer and diabetes,


 


> In 2011, it was reported that people with this syndrome in the Ecuadorian villages are resistant to cancer and diabetes and are somewhat protected against aging.


 This is the truth. To think otherwise would be laughable. I have so much more data and studies to back this up.  

Anyway the broscience that he thinks his peach fuzz is because of increasing PGE2, decreasing PGD2, wounding and increasing progenitors is laughable. He can't make such a correlation. Nobody can. This would defy science. 

Next time listen to yourself Tubzy instead of just affirming with someone else his thoughts which might be not true at all.

----------


## hairy

> Jose1991 got the cure, just reduce PGD2, increase PGE2, start wounding, and promote progenitor cells .
> 
> Now on to a serious note. I believe what I am saying because I rely on science, not broscience. Furthermore I am rational and objective not bound by emotions as you clearly display in your response to me. You didn’t even try to make counter arguments on the content of my message. Kinda weird. 
> 
> The guy you talk about uses different compounds
> 
> 
> -	Wounding, diverse broad biological action (profileration)
> -	Lithium chloride (gsk3b inhibition, wnt agonist, profileration)
> ...


 
So if PGE2 increase is correlated with higher chances of cancer, then Minoxidil is dangerous since it raises PGE2?

----------


## Swooping

> Hello Swooping,
> 
> Thanks a lot for you point of view. I think it's important to show that it's important to be cautionous about health.
> Nevertheless it's a good thing to remember than pge2 will be topically and temporally, like Licl.
> The goal is to regrowth hair, and, next, just continue with Setipiprant with maintenance.
> 
> I understand that wnt-agonist and pge2 "could be" involved in some cancer but we are speaking about "little dose" , a topicaly use, and, a temporally use.
> 
> From your point of view...what could be the best today, to induce regrowth?
> ...


 No problem. My point wasn't primarily to show you to be cautious of your health though. You are responsible for your own health. My point was to make that whatever you are doing, you can't correlate it to any pathways. Simply because you are using a vast arrange of compounds/methods that have a complex effect on various pathways. Acting on the EP receptors will have various consequences on downstream pathways that for instance might have an effect of hair regrowth but not because of activation of the EP receptor itself. So if we take one study just as a pure example;




> Prostaglandin E2 Increases Cardiac Fibroblast Proliferation and Increases Cyclin D Expression via EP1 Receptor


 So the EP1 receptor might for instance induce Cyclin D1 expression. So while you might be using PGE2, cyclin D1 might be responsible for the pro-hair growth effects (pure hypothesis). This is in cardiac fibroblasts, but nonetheless you should get the point now. Acting on the EP receptors has many consequences on other (complex) pathways. So it's not that one dimensional, far from actually.

----------


## Swooping

> So if PGE2 increase is correlated with higher chances of cancer, then Minoxidil is dangerous since it raises PGE2?


 Good question. Let me be a bit more clear on this one. There is obviously a "risk chance" for everything. For instance maybe using a little IGF-1 for example won't matter and will barely increase your chances of increased cancer risk, maybe not at all. However if you are going to administer a high amount of IGF-1 over a longer period of time the risk raises substantially. If you use more carcinogenic compounds/methods this might raise even more. 

Comparing IGF-1 or PGE2 to icecream for instance is laughable by swiss. Typical broscience response.

However minoxidil does not raise cancer risk. We would already know if it did. Yes the in *vitro* (petri-dish) study did say that it did raise PGE2 levels but this amount secreted by the cells was extremely small, negligible. Also in vitro doesn't always correlate with how cells behave in vivo. But that would be another discussion. Let's get back on-topic though.

----------


## TubZy

So what about castor oil, latisse etc. And all these other compounds that are related to PGE2 and PGF2?  Isn't latisse/bim FDA approved and they act as a PGF2 analogue.

So you are saying minox could cause cancer now....lol

Also, we are talking about micro amounts of PGE2 applied topically to the scalp.  

There is a risk to everything? You are including Kanes RU right too?

----------


## Keki

Iirc those pics were about a guy who took massive shots of extrogen or something like that, so not exactly something we want to emulate

----------


## eldarlmario

> Swiss is wrong. I don't want to get into complex signalling issues and pathways here because he doesn't understand them. However let's keep it short. The definition of a carcinogen is;
> 
> 
> 
> So this doesn't mean that a carcinogen WILL cause cancer. But that does mean that a substance that is carcinogenic raises cancer risk. This isn't hard to understand. Many things can act as a carcinogen.
> 
> 
> 
> If we speak about COX-2 for example I can show you tons of studies, the same for PGE2 like I did in my previous message. Hence even Garza calls PGE2 having pro-carcinogenic effects. 
> ...


 These are right

----------


## Swooping

> So what about castor oil, latisse etc. And all these other compounds that are related to PGE2 and PGF2?  Isn't latisse/bim FDA approved and they act as a PGF2 analogue.
> 
> So you are saying minox could cause cancer now....lol
> 
> Also, we are talking about micro amounts of PGE2 applied topically to the scalp.  
> 
> There is a risk to everything? You are including Kanes RU right too?


 I don't say that minoxidil causes cancer? Where do you see that. Open up your eyes. 

Your response was hilarious dude to say the least. Comparing PGE2 with icecream. Or saying that something like IGF-1 can only make "cancer grow". People with laron syndrome are the proof that you are talking total nonsense. Who are you to argue with literature and studies anyway? You copy things which are nonsense and where you have no clue about.

Yes there is a risk in "everything". It's relative. We might aswell argue that crossing the street is dangerous or breathing in air is dangerous. What's your point?

Again you are responsible for your own health, do whatever you want. 

I'll repeat again. My initial response was more to project a picture that the guy you mention has no clue what he is doing and on which pathways he is acting. He uses that much stuff/methods (probably sitting in the mirror all day) that he might be acting on other pathways that help him (somewhat). 

However anyone that says that he knows what the cure is, is laughable. Even more laughable if he is going to correlate it with pathways or "progenitors" while he has no clue what he is doing. In science we work through the scientific method; 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method. 

Make yourself familiar with it so you don't post such a ridiculous response next time.

----------


## eldarlmario

> I don't say that minoxidil causes cancer? Where do you see that. Open up your eyes. 
> 
> Your response was hilarious dude to say the least. Comparing PGE2 with icecream. Or saying that something like IGF-1 can only make "cancer grow". People with laron syndrome are the proof that you are talking total nonsense. Who are you to argue with literature and studies anyway? You copy things which are nonsense and where you have no clue about.
> 
> Yes there is a risk in "everything". It's relative. We might aswell argue that crossing the street is dangerous or breathing in air is dangerous. What's your point?
> 
> Again you are responsible for your own health, do whatever you want. 
> 
> I'll repeat again. My initial response was more to project a picture that the guy you mention has no clue what he is doing and on which pathways he is acting. He uses that much stuff/methods (probably sitting in the mirror all day) that he might be acting on other pathways that help him (somewhat). 
> ...


 Hi, cool yourself down and don't reply to lazy trolls- they enjoy it the more u respond to them

----------


## JayM

Another thread bites the dust.

----------


## Follisket

Yeah, well, at least he's doing something. I may not believe his method is a viable option for most of us, but at least he's doing something and not just waiting to be screwd over by society's complete indifference to this disease. Sure beats spreading negativity and trying to convince everyone a cure or effective treatment isn't coming within the next five centuries.
You know, even if he _did_ end up messing up his health, I'd still commend him for the balls and dedication. I am so done with this baldie passivity.

----------


## TubZy

> I don't say that minoxidil causes cancer? Where do you see that. Open up your eyes. 
> 
> Your response was hilarious dude to say the least. Comparing PGE2 with icecream. Or saying that something like IGF-1 can only make "cancer grow". People with laron syndrome are the proof that you are talking total nonsense. Who are you to argue with literature and studies anyway? You copy things which are nonsense and where you have no clue about.
> 
> Yes there is a risk in "everything". It's relative. We might aswell argue that crossing the street is dangerous or breathing in air is dangerous. What's your point?
> 
> Again you are responsible for your own health, do whatever you want. 
> 
> I'll repeat again. My initial response was more to project a picture that the guy you mention has no clue what he is doing and on which pathways he is acting. He uses that much stuff/methods (probably sitting in the mirror all day) that he might be acting on other pathways that help him (somewhat). 
> ...


 All I know is that Kanes RU gave me sides and setipiprant has stopped my shedding and itch completely with zero sides.  At least Swiss is doing this all for free and it openly working with the hair loss community with his blog. He is not selling anything and answers questions on his ask.fm

I'm not sure why you still get involved in the hair loss forums so much?  You had a transplant and are on RU for maintenance.  Go enjoy life bro instead of researching all these theories all day.  You are the only person that is really trying hard to bring Swiss' protocol down when people have been having results with it.  Why do you care so much? He put in hard work to help at least provide a viable solution.  It is still early but I have never seen someone so against it for no reason esepcislly when he is not even selling anything.  Unless you are still getting paid from Kane to sell his RU....you are not fooling anyone man

----------


## Swooping

> Yeah, well, at least he's doing something. I may not believe his method is a viable option for most of us, but at least he's doing something and not just waiting to be screwd over by society's complete indifference to this disease. Sure beats spreading negativity and trying to convince everyone a cure or effective treatment isn't coming within the next five centuries.
> You know, even if he _did_ end up messing up his health, I'd still commend him for the balls and dedication. I am so done with this baldie passivity.


 Sure he has balls and dedication. I applaud him for that. He just doesn't always know what he is talking about at all. His previous message reflected that immensely. 

Being negative or positive doesn't matter anyway. It won't influence how fast a cure will arrive in the future right? One can be objective, realistic and rely on science about particular things though. 

Time will tell eventually when we will get a cure. Could be over 10 years, could be over 20 years. Yes we are passive, but it´s easy to point fingers. What would your plan be? Surely if we would unite we could achieve great things or at least put effort into stuff to get something done. That is the only way, there is no other way.

----------


## InBeforeTheCure

Can someone help me understand the graph on page 7 of this Setipiprant document from Kythera? It shows full PGD2 inhibition at 100nM.

The molar mass of Seti is apparently 402.138 g/mol. 100e-9 mols per liter would be 4.02e-5 g/L, which is extremely dilute.

That can't be right. What am I doing wrong?

----------


## JSmith120

@Swooping

Thank you for correcting to me. I learn more and more by reading your posts. You truly are amazing.
I understand where you are coming from. Both you and TubZy bring up excellent points. 

If you did not know, California warns people that the water they are drinking contains carcinogens. 

It seems like everything contains carcinogens. You are right, we should be looking more closely into PGE2 and its functions. Thank you for taking the time to respond to me. Btw, I saw your transplant. Looks good man. Wonder why you are even on here? Shoot, once I cure my hairloss, I'm outta here! But i'm pretty sure you are just here to help, right?

----------


## Swooping

> All I know is that Kanes RU gave me sides and setipiprant has stopped my shedding and itch completely with zero sides.  At least Swiss is doing this all for free and it openly working with the hair loss community with his blog. He is not selling anything and answers questions on his ask.fm
> 
> I'm not sure why you still get involved in the hair loss forums so much?  You had a transplant and are on RU for maintenance.  Go enjoy life bro instead of researching all these theories all day.  You are the only person that is really trying hard to bring Swiss' protocol down when people have been having results with it.  Why do you care so much? He put in hard work to help at least provide a viable solution.  It is still early but I have never seen someone so against it for no reason esepcislly when he is not even selling anything.  Unless you are still getting paid from Kane to sell his RU....you are not fooling anyone man


 I try to put him down? Nah, not at all. Don't bring up that discussion even. He is a evil person, permabanned from every forum. Has blackmailed a transgender (what a hero), released private information about people, is a neo-nazi etc. So dude please, don't start that way. Everyone is aware of this. In fact he is the reason that PM functions on forums are gone. You didn't know this? Now you do. 

Where do you see I am against it? I'm just saying that primarily he talks bro science. Anyone who talks about a "cure" from behind his keyboard by slamming chemicals on his head, burning and wounding his head is a joke. Even more funny is how he pretends to know the "cure" by acting on "progenitors" etc.  How hard is this to understand? Not even the best hair researchers in the world know what pathways act after AR activation. Anyone other who is pretending to know better is* lying*. Period. 

I know Swiss argues that Kane has 12 soldiers who are marketing for him. Hilarious, truth being told the only one who is earning money with these groupbuys is Swiss itself seeing the outrageous prices of seti for example. It's way cheaper but you don't know this. That "private forum" handles with no transparency. Hence you don't even know where you get your stuff from. You don't even know where they test the products. Cause they are being sold to you with a huge mark-up dummy. You believe what you want to believe and what you is told. Just like with your previous message. You copied his message that I were wrong. I replied to you and showed how stupid that reply of him was. That explains everything from you pretty quickly how fast you tend to believe things that are being told to you. 

About your question I study bio science and have a particular emphasis and interest in hair follicle biology. I'm here to help people. My hair loss is fixed now somewhat yes although I would love to drop RU for a better alternative in the future. But my interest for hair follicle biology won't fade away. I have had a shitload of questions lately too across the forums because of my hair transplant from people. So I'm quite busy and like to help people. I also enjoy scientific discussions. My posting history on websites tell all. Just go look at them.

Do whatever you want furthermore lol and stay on-topic.

----------


## TubZy

> I try to put him down? Nah, not at all. Don't bring up that discussion even. He is a evil person, permabanned from every forum. Has blackmailed a transgender (what a hero), released private information about people, is a neo-nazi etc. So dude please, don't start that way. Everyone is aware of this. In fact he is the reason that PM functions on forums are gone. You didn't know this? Now you do. 
> 
> Where do you see I am against it? I'm just saying that primarily he talks bro science. Anyone who talks about a "cure" from behind his keyboard by slamming chemicals on his head, burning and wounding his head is a joke. Even more funny is how he pretends to know the "cure" by acting on "progenitors" etc.  How hard is this to understand? Not even the best hair researchers in the world know how to tackle the problem or what pathways act after AR activation. Anyone other who is pretending to know better is lying. Period. 
> 
> I know Swiss argues that Kane has 12 soldiers who are marketing for him. Hilarious, truth being told the only one who is earning money with these groupbuys is Swiss itself seeing the outrageous prices of seti for example. It's way cheaper but you don't know this. That "private forum" handles with no transparency. Hence you don't even know where you get your stuff from. You don't even know where they test the products. Cause they are being sold to you with a huge mark-up dummy. You believe what you want to believe and what you is told. Just like with your previous message. You copied his message that I were wrong. I replied to you and showed how stupid that reply of him was. That explains everything from you pretty quickly how fast you tend to believe things that are being told to you. 
> 
> About your question I study bio science and have a particular emphasis and interest in hair follicle biology. I'm here to help people. My hair loss is fixed now somewhat yes although I would love to drop RU for a better alternative in the future. But my interest for hair follicle biology won't fade away. I have had a shitload of questions lately too across the forums because of my hair transplant. So I'm quite busy and like to help people. I also enjoy scientific discussions. My post records on websites tell all. Just go look at them .


 So how is this any different than putting Kane's RU on your head?  You DON'T know what you are putting on your head either.  So your statement about slamming chemicals on your head is invalid.  He is following research from one of the world's top doctor Dr. Cotsarelis, so how is it all bro science?  If anything, seti is more safe than RU.  

I can honestly really care less if you think he is a neo-nazi or blackmailed a transgender.  This is about hair loss not a drama scene.

Where do I see your against? lmao, you are on every forum saying PGD2 won't regrow hair when it's for maintenance.  Then you are claiming PGE2 is is going to cause cancer, then switch to saying "well there is a risk to everything" after someone calls you out on it.

----------


## Diffuse Danny

sorry swooping me thinks you doth protest too much.... (a saying that's probably way before the time of most here)

----------


## Swooping

> So how is this any different than putting Kane's RU on your head?  You DON'T know what you are putting on your head either.  So your statement about slamming chemicals on your head is invalid.  He is following research from one of the world's top doctor Dr. Cotsarelis, so how is it all bro science?  If anything, seti is more safe than RU.  
> 
> I can honestly really care less if you think he is a neo-nazi or blackmailed a transgender. This is about hair loss not a drama scene.
> 
> Where do I see your against? lmao, you are on every forum saying PGD2 won't regrow hair when it's for maintenance.  Then you are claiming PGE2 is is going to cause cancer, then switch to saying "well there is a risk to everything" after someone calls you out on it.


 Wow damn man. What are you smoking? My whole argumentation on this topic is that setipiprant will never get regrowth by the primary intention of in-vivo observational evidence of other DP2 antagonists. Furthermore I didn't say that PGE2 is going to CAUSE cancer it's a carcinogen. That's a big, big difference. After all this discussion you still don't get it unbelievable. People who will read this topic will understand that. Studies back me up in this one, I quoted them. Even I hope that the clinical trials will come close to the effectiveness of finasteride, but that's far from sure at this point. 

You make it sound as if PGE2 only works on PGE2. No, it works on allot of downstream pathways that you have no clue about, hence they could be for instance attributing to some pro-hair growth effect. This is the essence of molecular signalling. Just like the best hair loss researchers still don't know why minoxidil works. So in a recent review of A.M Christiano in 2013 she mentions 2 probable mechanisms of minoxidil action for the pro-hair growth effects but even she is unsure, just like every other elite researcher. 

What has Kane to do with this all? He has a shop based on commercial incentive with the primary intention of earning money. Just like 100's of other research chemicals shops online. Why do you keep bringing him up? Who cares about him. It's funny that you talk about a "drama scene". Who is creating drama here dude, you are. I'm making argumentation in a discussion you don't even provide counter arguments to the content. 

Yes it's Cotsarelis his research. But it's a *hypothesis.*. How many times do I need to tell you furthermore that the primary intention of my message wasn't to warn you for something. You are responsible for your own health. The primary intention of my message was and I repeat again that he does that many things on his scalp that you can't relate it to any pathway(s) because the compounds he uses have a* BROAD biological action*. Do whatever you want dude. If you want to use 17b-estradiol and turn yourself into a women that is fine too with me, you are responsible for your own health. You probably did that already lol.

----------


## breakbot

> *So how is this any different than putting Kane's RU on your head?*  You DON'T know what you are putting on your head either.  So your statement about slamming chemicals on your head is invalid.  He is following research from one of the world's top doctor Dr. Cotsarelis, so how is it all bro science?  If anything, seti is more safe than RU.  
> 
> I can honestly really care less if you think he is a neo-nazi or blackmailed a transgender.  This is about hair loss not a drama scene.
> 
> Where do I see your against? lmao, you are on every forum saying PGD2 won't regrow hair when it's for maintenance.  Then you are claiming PGE2 is is going to cause cancer, then switch to saying "well there is a risk to everything" after someone calls you out on it.


 You are right. It's too risky using a drug that didn't get the fda approval. 
Also nobody should care about the opinion of anybody -wannabe star through a hairloss forum(so pathetic)..

----------


## warner8

Has Kane actually started selling seti yet? I could not find it on the site. if yes, could someone post the link.
also will be be selling it pre-mixed like the RU or just the powder. does anyone have a recipe for the powder.

----------


## unbalding

Hey Swooping. I have a couple questions for you, as you seem to have done a lot of reading on cancer and PGE2. I was just looking at a couple studies last night about the role PGE2 plays in cancer growth, and I was thinking that maybe it's better to go bald than to keep putting various unproven compounds on my scalp. Now I come on here this morning and see this discussion, and needless to say it only heightened my concerns. It seems that swiss is right in that there's no evidence that PGE2 causes cancer directly, it just makes it grow once it is already there. However, the latest research seems to suggest that we all develop cancer, it just normally gets destroyed by our immune systems before it becomes a problem. This has me very concerned that introducing large amounts of PGE2 to the body will allow cancerous cells, which would normally be destroyed, to proliferate and form tumors. Is this a fair assessment to your knowledge? How large a dose of PGE2 would you be concerned about, and over what period of time? My plans were to apply 1mg/day of PGE2 for 100 days, and then if it is working to continue using it for a year. Now I am seriously considering not using it at all or only using it for 100 days.

----------


## Swooping

> Hey Swooping. I have a couple questions for you, as you seem to have done a lot of reading on cancer and PGE2. I was just looking at a couple studies last night about the role PGE2 plays in cancer growth, and I was thinking that maybe it's better to go bald than to keep putting various unproven compounds on my scalp. Now I come on here this morning and see this discussion, and needless to say it only heightened my concerns. It seems that swiss is right in that there's no evidence that PGE2 causes cancer directly, it just makes it grow once it is already there. However, the latest research seems to suggest that we all develop cancer, it just normally gets destroyed by our immune systems before it becomes a problem. This has me very concerned that introducing large amounts of PGE2 to the body will allow cancerous cells, which would normally be destroyed, to proliferate and form tumors. Is this a fair assessment to your knowledge? How large a dose of PGE2 would you be concerned about, and over what period of time? My plans were to apply 1mg/day of PGE2 for 100 days, and then if it is working to continue using it for a year. Now I am seriously considering not using it at all or only using it for 100 days.


 Unbalding my response was to post #107. I explained that the dermal papilla acts as a instructive niche for the progenitors cells in the hair follicle in post #106. In response to post #107 however I explain that he can't make such a statement. First of all you can't say that upregulation of progenitor cells will act as the cure. Cotsarelis would understand this he even mentions this in his study in 2011;




> Whether the decrease in these cells is a* primary or secondary event* in AGA remains to be determined; however, their previously reported high proliferative potential in vitro raises the possibility that they are necessary for generation of large follicles.


 After that study of Cotsarelis we have come to understand that the dermal papilla niche is regulating these progenitors. So if the dermal papilla is altered for instance as shown by other researchers it would automatically lead to a lack of progenitors. This would make the lack of progenitors a secondary event. I hope you understand this so far and everyone else. So to argue that upregulation of progenitors will lead to a cure is ridiculous. 

Now he also mentioned that PGD2 down and PGE2 up needs to be done to provide a cure. Well in post #108 (https://www.baldtruthtalk.com/thread...l=1#post219757) I reply. Not with the intention of showing you that PGE2 is carcinogenic. No I reply that the guy is using many compounds that have a lot of effect on downstream pathways. 

Look 17b-estradiol tends to grow awesome hair in some people. Can we shout now that 17b-estradiol is a cure now? Hell no. If we look at 17b-estradiol it has much effect on downstream pathways(1);

-P53
-Cyclin D1
-MAPK Pathway
-IGF-1 
-SHH
-WNT
-EGFR
-BMP's

And many more. So (some) of these downstream pathways might be attributing to the pro-hair growth effects of 17b-estradiol. Not because 17b-estradiol binds to both estrogen receptors (ERa and ERb)  in the hair follicle. Same thing with minoxidil. It grows hair but we don't understand which pathways or what mechanism is responsible for this. If we do know the pathways responsible for it we could perhaps modulate them directly which would possibly provide a far better result. However that could lead to safety concerns obviously but you get the point. 

So PGE2 binds to the EP receptors and has many effect on downstream pathways too. So if we go to Garza his study; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3982925/. He says that PGE2 has pro-carcinogenic effects and links to two studies. Let's take one of these studies; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759608/.  We can see that PGE2 in this study has an effect on

- Cyclin D1
- MAPK pathway
- EGFR
- Other stuff

Hey, do you see some correlations between the two compounds? Now this just acts as an example to explain things but I hope you get the point now. For instance we do know that PGF2A (bimatoprost) grows hair. Does that mean that PGF2A has a big role upstream in the pathway of AGA or acts as a cure? Nope it could have a very small role in the pathology of AGA. Yet it seems to grow hair. That seems strange right? But this can be because using a compound like PGF2A can actually have downstream effect on other pathways that *DO* have a bigger role upstream in the pathology of AGA. 

And I repeat again we don't know what happens after AR activation. I don't concur with the whole prostaglandin hypothesis. I concur with other researchers that master regulatory pathways come into play that decide cell fate decision in the dermal papilla niche. This ultimately leads to an altered dermal papilla niche. We have seen from studies that the dermal papilla regulates hair follicle size. An altered dermal papilla niche would indeed cause a lack of progenitors. I have seen to many correlations and find the evidence of other researchers having it on the right end way way more convincing. Besides that the attention on that hypothesis overall is way more focused than the prostaglandin hypothesis. This is only my opinion. Time will tell eventually.

Hopefully you have gained a bit more insight now. After that reply of my post someone else posted that I was wrong with a total broscience response. So I just reacted to that again. Many things can act as a carcinogen that doesn't mean that they will CAUSE cancer. Read this page and understand for yourself

http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancerc...an-carcinogens


Hope that helps unbalding. I wasn't trying to project fear. No, my intention was to explain that some things are far more complex than most think they are. We definitely can't look at someone his temples who grows some intermediate vellus hair by using a whole array of compounds/methods and then make a conclusive statement that this is because of upregulation of PGE2, downregulation of PGD2 and enhancing progenitors or that that will act as a cure. That´s pure broscience.

(1)http://press.endocrine.org/doi/full/...0/er.2006-0020

----------


## eldarlmario

> Unbalding my response was to post #107. I explained that the dermal papilla acts as a instructive niche for the progenitors cells in the hair follicle in post #106. In response to post #107 however I explain that he can't make such a statement. First of all you can't say that upregulation of progenitor cells will act as the cure. Cotsarelis would understand this he even mentions this in his study in 2011;
> 
> 
> 
> After that study of Cotsarelis we have come to understand that the dermal papilla niche is regulating these progenitors. So if the dermal papilla is altered for instance as shown by other researchers it would automatically lead to a lack of progenitors. This would make the lack of progenitors a secondary event. I hope you understand this so far and everyone else. So to argue that upregulation of progenitors will lead to a cure is ridiculous. 
> 
> Now he also mentioned that PGD2 down and PGE2 up needs to be done to provide a cure. Well in post #108 (https://www.baldtruthtalk.com/thread...l=1#post219757) I reply. Not with the intention of showing you that PGE2 is carcinogenic. No I reply that the guy is using many compounds that have a lot of effect on downstream pathways. 
> 
> Look 17b-estradiol tends to grow awesome hair in some people. Can we shout now that 17b-estradiol is a cure now? Hell no. If we look at 17b-estradiol it has much effect on downstream pathways(1);
> ...


 Hi swooping.

if u like, i can invite u to my small group and u will be able to see the list i've complied of whatever upregualtes/downregulates ALl the genes mentioned in Cosarelis's patent

----------


## CurlyBird

I believe minoxidil upregulates PGE2. I don't know why Swooping is saying we don't know how it works because we sort of do.

----------


## Swooping

> Hi swooping.
> 
> if u like, i can invite u to my small group and u will be able to see the list i've complied of whatever upregualtes/downregulates ALl the genes mentioned in Cosarelis's patent


 Sure, can you post it too? I'm always very interested to learn more about everything relating hair follicle biology or androgenetic alopecia. Perhaps a separate topic will do? Else we'll be going to much off topic I guess.




> I believe minoxidil upregulates PGE2. I don't know why Swooping is saying we don't know how it works because we sort of do.


 Ahh, so minoxidil grows hair because of PGE2? If that is what you mean and you have read the above you are short-sighted. If we go to this study from 2014 actually; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24351010

_"Regenerative medicine and hair loss: how hair follicle culture has advanced our understanding of treatment options for androgenetic alopecia."_

_By A.M Christiano & Higgins._  

They write some things about minoxidil. I quote from the executive summary;

"Minoxidil *may* act on dermal papilla cells by phospholyrating ERK and AKT and by increasing BCL-2:Bax ratio"
"Minoxidil *may* also upregulate adenosine, which in turn is capable of inducing several hair growth related genes such as FGF7"

Frankly they don't even mention anything about PGE2. However besides this I can tell you that Minoxidil has shown to do many things which *may* explain why it works. As upregulating several growth factors, activating b-catenin in DPC, downregulating P53 and P27 and some other things. Again, it's way more complex than you think they are. But what do you know? Not much it seems. Anyway, let's stay on topic now.

----------


## walrus

> Frankly they don't even mention anything about PGE2. However besides this I can tell you that Minoxidil has shown to do many things which *may* explain why it works. As upregulating several growth factors, activating b-catenin in DPC, downregulating P53 and P27 and some other things. Again, it's way more complex than you think they are. But what do you know? Not much it seems.


 The precise mode of action for Minoxidil on AGA is currently unknown, but there *is* evidence to believe that it influences prostaglandin levels: 

"Minoxidil has effects on prostaglandins. a. In early literature on the mechanism of minoxidil’s effect on reducing blood pressure, it was noted that it has the capacity to increase PGE2, which has been shown to be reduced in AGA (53–55). Although not proven, minoxi- dil’s effects on prostaglandins would be consistent with their aberrant regulation in AGA."

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1.../exd.12348/pdf

"Additional evidence that prostaglandins control hair follicle cycling and can be used therapeutically to treat AGA arises from findings on the possible mechanism of the AGA drug minoxidil. Although min- oxidil alters potassium channel kinetics (7), it is also known to increase production of PGE2 (37). Given the decreased amount of PGE2 present in bald scalp versus haired scalp (Fig. 2E), minoxidil may normalize PGE2 levels. Future studies should address whether minoxidil can con- comitantly decrease PGD2 levels and thus normalize multiple prosta- glandin species as a mechanism to improve AGA."

http://stm.sciencemag.org/content/4/126/126ra34

Saying that something is complex, and then belittling another posters knowledge of a subject that *no-one* knows a great deal about (yourself included) is hardly productive.

----------


## Swooping

> The precise mode of action for Minoxidil on AGA is currently unknown, but there *is* evidence to believe that it influences prostaglandin levels: 
> 
> "Minoxidil has effects on prostaglandins. a. In early literature on the mechanism of minoxidil’s effect on reducing blood pressure, it was noted that it has the capacity to increase PGE2, which has been shown to be reduced in AGA (53–55). Although not proven, minoxi- dil’s effects on prostaglandins would be consistent with their aberrant regulation in AGA."
> 
> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1.../exd.12348/pdf
> 
> "Additional evidence that prostaglandins control hair follicle cycling and can be used therapeutically to treat AGA arises from findings on the possible mechanism of the AGA drug minoxidil. Although min- oxidil alters potassium channel kinetics (7), it is also known to increase production of PGE2 (37). Given the decreased amount of PGE2 present in bald scalp versus haired scalp (Fig. 2E), minoxidil may normalize PGE2 levels. Future studies should address whether minoxidil can con- comitantly decrease PGD2 levels and thus normalize multiple prosta- glandin species as a mechanism to improve AGA."
> 
> http://stm.sciencemag.org/content/4/126/126ra34
> ...


 Did I ever mention there is no evidence to believe of minoxidil altering PGE2 levels? Where do you see me stating that?  I even referred to a study here in relation of minoxidil & PGE2. Did I ever say that I know a great deal or anything about hair follicle biology? Where do you see me stating that?

So what is the purpose of your message? It's totally unrelated rofl. You still don't get the big picture do you? So start learning a bit more so you at least get the basics down. Seek to understand, and don't be ignorant.  Or didn't you follow this topic?

Hence look at your quotation;

[QUOTE*]Although not* *proven*, minoxi- dil’s effects on prostaglandins would be consistent with their aberrant regulation in AGA."[/QUOTE]

That's how good researchers will talk about such findings. They don't speak in conclusive language when nothing is proven. It's that simple. Scientific method, you know? If you have an opinion that's fine but don't project your opinion as the truth. If you have evidence of tested theories, please provide them?

----------


## eldarlmario

> Did I ever mention there is no evidence to believe of minoxidil altering PGE2 levels? Where do you see me stating that?  I even referred to a study here in relation of minoxidil & PGE2. Did I ever say that I know a great deal about hair follicle biology? Where do you see me stating that?
> 
> So what is the purpose of your message? It's totally unrelated rofl. You still don't get the big picture do you? So start learning a bit more so you at least get the basics down. Seek to understand, and don't be ignorant.  Or didn't you follow this topic?
> 
> Hence look your quotation;
> 
> 
> 
> That's how elite researchers will talk about such findings. They don't speak in conclusive language when nothing is proven. It's that simple. Scientific method, you know? If you have an opinion that's fine but don't project your opinion as the truth. If you have evidence of tested theories, please provide them?


 please dun get yourself angry with trolls. it's obvious he did that intentionally to piss u off

----------


## walrus

> Did I ever say that I know a great deal about hair follicle biology? Where do you see me stating that?


 


> But what do you know? Not much it seems.


 I guess this applies to you as well as the other poster you were responding to then?




> Did I ever mention there is no evidence of minoxidil altering PGE2 levels? Where do you see me stating that?


 You highlight a paper that "Frankly [doesn't] even mention anything about PGE2." in relation to Minoxidil.

I highlight two further papers that do. Such is research.




> If you have an opinion that's fine but don't project your opinion as the truth.


 Good science is *hypothesis driven*. That Minoxidil operates by regulating prostaglandin levels, is a testable, evidence-based hypothesis that has been put forward and published in peer-reviewed journals. An opinion is a personal view that requires no proof and cannot objectively be proved 'wrong'. 




> Scientific method, you know?


 Yes bro, I learned all about that during my real-life science PhD---how about you?

----------


## Swooping

@walrus

_I guess this applies to you as well as the other poster you were responding to then?

You highlight a paper that "Frankly [doesn't] even mention anything about PGE2." in relation to Minoxidil.

I highlight two further papers that do. Such is research._

*This was more to project a view that perhaps some researchers tend to find some factors more important to mention than others. Fine that you highlight those but that already was clear in this topic. I assume you read the whole topic instead of just hooking in on my last message? I wanted to give a clear picture that we don't know by which mechanism minoxidil exactly does work, again as should be clear in my previous messages.* 

_Good science is hypothesis driven. That Minoxidil operates by regulating prostaglandin levels, is a testable, evidence-based hypothesis that has been put forward and published in peer-reviewed journals. An opinion is a personal view that requires no proof and cannot objectively be proved 'wrong'._ 

*A hypothesis is based on conjecture for which no proof has been found.  So it is a testable and evidence based hypothesis of PGE2 in relation to minoxidil? Oh really? Please provide me evidence of in vivo expression of upregulation of PGE2 in any of the hair follicle cell lines after minoxidil application.? I'm curious.*  

_Yes bro, I learned all about that during my real-life science PhD---how about you?_

*Still studying bio science, but that doesn't even matter. Nice argumentum ab auctoritate though. Kinda like Dr. Hsu right?*

----------


## unbalding

> Unbalding my response was to post #107. I explained that the dermal papilla acts as a instructive niche for the progenitors cells in the hair follicle in post #106. In response to post #107 however I explain that he can't make such a statement. First of all you can't say that upregulation of progenitor cells will act as the cure. Cotsarelis would understand this he even mentions this in his study in 2011;
> 
> 
> 
> After that study of Cotsarelis we have come to understand that the dermal papilla niche is regulating these progenitors. So if the dermal papilla is altered for instance as shown by other researchers it would automatically lead to a lack of progenitors. This would make the lack of progenitors a secondary event. I hope you understand this so far and everyone else. So to argue that upregulation of progenitors will lead to a cure is ridiculous. 
> 
> Now he also mentioned that PGD2 down and PGE2 up needs to be done to provide a cure. Well in post #108 (https://www.baldtruthtalk.com/thread...l=1#post219757) I reply. Not with the intention of showing you that PGE2 is carcinogenic. No I reply that the guy is using many compounds that have a lot of effect on downstream pathways. 
> 
> Look 17b-estradiol tends to grow awesome hair in some people. Can we shout now that 17b-estradiol is a cure now? Hell no. If we look at 17b-estradiol it has much effect on downstream pathways(1);
> ...


 I am not up to date with the latest research, but I generally agree with you about prostaglandin theory. However, I think it could prove to be very useful as a treatment. I'm just rethinking the idea of putting a half dozen different compounds on my head that may or may not do anything positive, but will almost certainly have side effects. It's one thing to use drugs without a proven safety profile when you know they work, but I'm questioning the risk/reward ratio of drugs that are not proven to work. Then again, I know from experience that RU works only because I took that risk. I am going to try PGE2 for 100 days and evaluate the result. If there is no change after that time, I will drop it.

----------


## Swooping

> I am not up to date with the latest research, but I generally agree with you about prostaglandin theory. However, I think it could prove to be very useful as a treatment. I'm just rethinking the idea of putting a half dozen different compounds on my head that may or may not do anything positive, but will almost certainly have side effects. It's one thing to use drugs without a proven safety profile when you know they work, but I'm questioning the risk/reward ratio of drugs that are not proven to work. Then again, I know from experience that RU works only because I took that risk. I am going to try PGE2 for 100 days and evaluate the result. If there is no change after that time, I will drop it.


 I Understand your point. Hope you grow much hair with PGE2 which will serve as cosmetic regrowth/thickening. If you do and others will do, I'll definitely try it too. Good luck!

----------


## breakbot

> please dun get yourself angry with trolls. it's obvious he did that intentionally to piss u off


 Eldarlmario are you in love with Swooping or something?
There are studies about green tea, red ginseng etc.  Do they work? No i guess.
Everybody can paste a paper and make a hypothesis, fact. 

Οh sorry i forgot, you follow only Cotsarelis.
This man is a complete disaster for hairloss research. 
I read all your nonsense in your thread, about scoliosis and the correlation with aga. I have to admit it was funny enough. Keep in mind that you don't need calcitriol to upregulate cd200 cells. This is happening through wounding. Good luck with your broscience experiments in your laboratory.

----------


## CurlyBird

I'm also unable to find seti on Kane's site. I guess people are getting emails only?

----------


## warner8

we are in the same boat.

I'm wondering if he even sells it at all, i emailed him this week with no response.




> I'm also unable to find seti on Kane's site. I guess people are getting emails only?

----------


## JayM

He's only sending emails. Why don't you just email him. He probably offering to past customers first (email addresses he has) first or something.

----------


## warner8

is he selling premixed or just powder? if you get the powder, do you know how to use it? 


> He's only sending emails. Why don't you just email him. He probably offering to past customers first (email addresses he has) first or something.

----------


## Unsure1

In on this
Wouldn't Seti provide the same blocking mechanisms that OC provides? 
Or is the logic here that Seti has undergone more clinical trials and is therefore safer?
I believe adding an internal like sulfasalazine would increase risk due to its effect on the immune system, however I fail to see how various topical methods would cause much effect, although systematic absorption cannot be denied, it is more localised.

----------


## champpy

I believe kane is selling powder, as i asked about getting 25 grams. But he is def selling seti and said he will have his own groupbuy page running shortly

----------


## Hubris

> I believe kane is selling powder, as i asked about getting 25 grams. But he is def selling seti and said he will have his own groupbuy page running shortly


 If any of you guys on the forum manage to get seti, will you please document your results in a similar fashion to Hellouser with RU? I don't have the money to buy seti on the off chance it might work, but if I see that it is working very well for a few people on here, I may be able to justify it to myself.

----------


## JayM

Is anyone going to get Kanes stuff tested?

----------


## baldybald

There another website that buys it as a pill but expensive

----------


## JayM

Website name pls  :Smile:

----------


## baldybald

> Website name pls


 It is super expensive man. But here 

http://www.keyorganics.net/bionet/se...19fn2o3-1.html

----------


## Link Mahboi

We shouldn't be giving Kane a single cent..

----------


## warner8

So is septiprant only available through group order at this point from Kane?

----------


## JayM

You can buy it on your own but you would have to be hella loaded

----------


## warner8

whats group buy price and the individua price?



> You can buy it on your own but you would have to be hella loaded

----------


## champpy

I asked for the cost of 25 grams for individual purchase. He said it would be $340 w shipping included. 
Not sure on GB prices yet, but he was mentioning  the quantity would be 100 grams minimum i believe.

Why should we not buy from kane? Because of his prices or is it not good quality?

----------


## warner8

so who is in charge of the group buy? can anyone let me know who the contact is and the price?

$340 is insanely expensive for an untested-unrpoven product, borderline rip off.





> I asked for the cost of 25 grams for individual purchase. He said it would be $340 w shipping included. 
> Not sure on GB prices yet, but he was mentioning  the quantity would be 100 grams minimum i believe.
> 
> Why should we not buy from kane? Because of his prices or is it not good quality?

----------


## baldybald

> so who is in charge of the group buy? can anyone let me know who the contact is and the price?
> 
> $340 is insanely expensive for an untested-unrpoven product, borderline rip off.


 Being unproven is the result of being expensive

----------


## ghostrider

I just received this mail for seti and the prices look not too bad!

I'm currently on OC + ru but want to try seti instead. which one you guys think will work better? And how to prepare the mix? I was used to dissolve Seti in K&B solution. can we do the same with seti? I read on other forum you can dissolve 2-3% in neogenic, is this true?


the mail:
"
Dear friends,

We receive many e-mails for interest of setipiprant. We are proud and thankful that you all support us. Because of your request we have synthesized bulk Batch
which is in stock now. Purity is 99.2% , please check HPLC & NMR attached.

-Individual purchase price is 100USD/10G
- no shipping guarantee for this product, customer responsible for customs clearance

Because of the many requests we'll provide setipiprant for research purpose at bulk price through groupbuy.

- 100g minimum of setipiprant for $700
- Tracked Shipping cost per person $35
-we can do many small 100G or bigger groupbuys

The low price is possible because of our capability to invest in bulk production. This price will only count for groupbuy. Please check the following rules & guidelines for th groupbuy:

- 1 Payment through western union or bank transfer
- Collect money in one lot
- Communication with one groupbuy organizer per groupbuy
- Groupbuy organizer sends list of participants with their addresses attached in one file
- Minimum QTY 100g
- NO delivery guarantee, Customer responsible for his local customs & package clearance for this product (shipment sent from china directly)
- Only for research purpose


For example. You find 5 person who want 20 gram of setipiprant each. This is 100 gram total and need to go to 5 addresses. Cost will be about**:

- 100g $700
- 5x shipping cost of $35 = $175

Total cost = $875

Please note countries excluded;

-Germany
-India
- All South America countries


Available NOW

you can contact us at any time  for groupbuys at groupbuys@koutingchina.com 
Best regards,

Kane
group
"

looks like indivual prices are 10usd/Gram and groubuy 7usd/Gram

----------


## baldybald

> I just received this mail for seti and the prices look not too bad!
> 
> I'm currently on OC + ru but want to try seti instead. which one you guys think will work better? And how to prepare the mix? I was used to dissolve Seti in K&B solution. can we do the same with seti? I read on other forum you can dissolve 2-3% in neogenic, is this true?
> 
> 
> the mail:
> "
> Dear friends,
> 
> ...


 Powder or pills? And what is the dosage recommended per day ?

----------


## champpy

from what I've read it's topical or oral. I don't know about the topical mixture, but I believe orally is 100 mg 2 times a day.

----------


## Diffuse Danny

Can anyone tell me what is actually meant by the phrase "maintain your hair" ?

Does it mean that Seti is expected to make miniturised and diffuse hair grow healthy again?
Or does it just mean healthy hair will continue to grow healthily if Seti is taken?

Anyone else confused on this point?

----------


## Diffuse Danny

Can anyone tell me what is actually meant by the phrase "maintain your hair" ?

Does it mean that Seti is expected to make miniturised and diffuse hair grow healthy again?
Or does it just mean healthy hair will continue to grow healthily if Seti is taken?

Meaning hair that is on its way out will continue to be lost even with taking Seti?

Anyone else confused on this point?

----------


## champpy

pretty sure it mean trying to keep what you have right now. The hair you have may appear healthier after use, but I wouldn't expect any regrowth or new follicle creation

----------


## baldybald

> pretty sure it mean trying to keep what you have right now. The hair you have may appear healthier after use, but I wouldn't expect any regrowth or new follicle creation


  Regrowth in some cases, new follicle unfortunately no. Well I think it will be like fun but a little bit better because it will halt your hair forever while fin for few years. Only my opinion

----------


## hellouser

> Regrowth in some cases, new follicle unfortunately no. Well I think it will be like fun but a little bit better because it will halt your hair forever while fin for few years. Only my opinion


 New follicles will never happen though... and you dont need to. The follicles are always there, just miniaturized. You just need to figure out what they need in order for them to come back to normal size... and we more or less know what that is.

----------


## Parsia

> New follicles will never happen though... and you dont need to. The follicles are always there, just miniaturized. You just need to figure out what they need in order for them to come back to normal size... and we more or less know what that is.


 
we More or less know what that is ? 

and by that do You mean increasing PGE2 and Decreasing PGD2 + Attach other genes in Cotsarelis studies?

----------


## TJT

> New follicles will never happen though... and you dont need to. The follicles are always there, just miniaturized. You just need to figure out what they need in order for them to come back to normal size... and we more or less know what that is.


 Has it been confirmed that they never atrophy beyond repair or become damaged by scar tissue though? I thought that was the worry about bringing them back in the case of a high NW patient.

----------


## unbalding

> Has it been confirmed that they never atrophy beyond repair or become damaged by scar tissue though? I thought that was the worry about bringing them back in the case of a high NW patient.


 If they can graft bald human skin on a mouse and make it grow hair again then fibrosis isn't the roadblock everyone thinks it is.

----------


## CurlyBird

> I just received this mail for seti and the prices look not too bad!
> 
> I'm currently on OC + ru but want to try seti instead. which one you guys think will work better? And how to prepare the mix? I was used to dissolve Seti in K&B solution. can we do the same with seti? I read on other forum you can dissolve 2-3% in neogenic, is this true?
> 
> 
> the mail:
> "
> Dear friends,
> 
> ...


 http://koutingchina.com/xddetailpro.php?id=3123

It says there that the price is $150/10g, but up above it says $100/10g. Which is right? It also says the product is out of stock.

----------


## buck

Hellouser, any updates?

----------


## CurlyBird

I received a reply via their website inquiry thing. 




> Thanks for your contact.
> We can offer Setipiprant.
> Will send u details in company email.


 I replied and asked when to expect this "company email" and they have not replied.

----------


## mowingdown

> New follicles will never happen though... and you dont need to. The follicles are always there, just miniaturized. You just need to figure out what they need in order for them to come back to normal size... and we more or less know what that is.


 Can you provide an update on your Set use? Any luck?

----------


## Adolf

Are you taking part in the Setipiprant trials?
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02781311

----------


## Adolf

Are you taking part in the Setipiprant trials?
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02781311

----------


## richardbell

I got the basic understanding after reading the posts in this forum stick merge

----------

