Home | News | Find a Doctor | Ask a Question | Free

Impact of Gefitinib and Cyclo


#1

Does anyone know enough about the body’s reaction to Gefitinib to quantify the potential risk of taking this drug with cyclosporin? Also, are there any side effects from taking tannic as a safer replacement?


#2

» Does anyone know enough about the body’s reaction to Gefitinib to quantify
» the potential risk of taking this drug with cyclosporin? Also, are there
» any side effects from taking tannic as a safer replacement?

My personal opinion is that I would not touch gefitinib or cyclo. As for tannic acid, topical concentrations up to 5% are deemed safe. Just a word to the wise…pure tannic acid applied to the skin is toxic and can cause organ damage and failure. But there are commercial preparations for acne and exceesive sweating that use concentrations up to 5%. Hope this helps m8.


#3

» » Does anyone know enough about the body’s reaction to Gefitinib to
» quantify
» » the potential risk of taking this drug with cyclosporin? Also, are
» there
» » any side effects from taking tannic as a safer replacement?
»
» My personal opinion is that I would not touch gefitinib or cyclo. As for
» tannic acid, topical concentrations up to 5% are deemed safe. Just a word
» to the wise…pure tannic acid applied to the skin is toxic and can cause
» organ damage and failure. But there are commercial preparations for acne
» and exceesive sweating that use concentrations up to 5%. Hope this helps
» m8.

Is Gefitinib a more powerful EGF inhibitor than tannic acid? If so, by what degree?


#4

»» Is Gefitinib a more powerful EGF inhibitor than tannic acid? If so, by
» what degree?

We don’t know relative strengths of inhibition. Indeed, tannic acid has only been found to be a potent EGF inhibitor IN VIVO. We’re only assuming that it would have an inhibitory effect in humans from that data.


#5

Taking oral cyclosporine is suppressing the immune system throughout your body. This is dangerous. It’s not good in the short term, and it’s VERY dangerous for any length of time.

Please realize that when I say dangerous, I’m not just talking about the “Finasteride made my nuts and nipples ache” kind of dangerous.

We’re potentially talking about “I ended up in the E.R. with a weird infection and I couldn’t go back to work for 3 weeks, but I’m happy because another guy DIED over it” kind of dangerous.


#6

» Taking oral cyclosporine is suppressing the immune system throughout your
» body. This is dangerous. It’s not good in the short term, and it’s VERY
» dangerous for any length of time.
»
»
» Please realize that when I say dangerous, I’m not just talking about the
» “Finasteride made my nuts and nipples ache” kind of dangerous.
»
» We’re potentially talking about “I ended up in the E.R. with a weird
» infection and I couldn’t go back to work for 3 weeks, but I’m happy because
» another guy DIED over it” kind of dangerous.

Ok, that’s unfortunate. It really seems like immunosuppression + wounding + EGF inhibition = new human hair. Not sure what “safe” options we have for weakening the body’s immune system. Per the results of the SCID mouse and 2 gefitinib cancer patients, all of the other Follica patent components are somewhat superfilous.

If we could just find a “safe” way to do this, testing this protocol is so easy. Just find a spot on your arm, stomach, etc., that is very close to a hairgrowth area. You could conceal the area with noone ever knowing.


#7

Yeah, that’s the deal with oral cyclo. Unfortunately when you hit it anywhere near hard as we’d probably need to, one of the potential side effects is death.

Honestly I gave a pretty bad-case scenario in that discription. The truth is, somebody on here might do a few days of it and be fine. But I’m just saying that hypothetical severe bad situation is a genuine possibility with this stuff. It’s not just some off-the-wall thing that happens to one guy per 100,000 patients. The stuff’s whole purpose is to basically WIPE OUT your immune system functioning. That’s what it’s designed to do, that’s what it does, and that’s what we would be taking it to accomplish. It’s not something to phuck around with unnecessarily.

The only way I’d start saying it’s a decent option is if we figured out that the necessary degree of immune system suppression is pretty low (unlikely) and if we’d hit a brick wall on the topical methods (which we haven’t really even begun trying yet).