Yeah I've read that also, but big gap between clinical trials and approval. Also know firsthand how laborious and long patent applications can be.
Djen is right though, hopefully someone will experiment before then and it sounds relatively safe even compared to MT
"
"
It certainly does. The crazy thing about it as well, is that you won't need UV exposure. It will stimulate the tanning response without having to actually expose yourself to UV therefore completely eliminating cancer concerns and the need for sun beds etc.
Almost sounds too good to be true, but preliminary tests on culture human skin samples seem to be really promising. Only concern from me, is that Zalfa Abdel Malek and co have been working on this for 8+ years so it might be a while still before it's commercially available.
"
She has said that she's hoping it will be in clinical trials within 2-3 years. http://healthnews.uc.edu/news/?/24818/
"
"
Yeah I've read that also, but big gap between clinical trials and approval. Also know firsthand how laborious and long patent applications can be.
Djen is right though, hopefully someone will experiment before then and it sounds relatively safe even compared to MT
"
"
It certainly does. The crazy thing about it as well, is that you won't need UV exposure. It will stimulate the tanning response without having to actually expose yourself to UV therefore completely eliminating cancer concerns and the need for sun beds etc.
Almost sounds too good to be true, but preliminary tests on culture human skin samples seem to be really promising. Only concern from me, is that Zalfa Abdel Malek and co have been working on this for 8+ years so it might be a while still before it's commercially available.
"
She has said that she's hoping it will be in clinical trials within 2-3 years. http://healthnews.uc.edu/news/?/24818/
"
"
If they just applied for the patent (2 months ago), and clinical trial start in 2 years, would it be the trials or the patent that would hold it up?
Also, would clinical trials for something like this be short, at least relative to a lot of medication? You can assess if it works within weeks or a few months by observing tan skin. And I assume a topical cream wouldn't have to go through the same rigor for long-term safety as a pill/injection. The only part I could see taking a while is proving that it actually prevents melanoma.
If it works, it won't be a cure for melanoma, it will just exhibit properties that can work to repair UVA and UVB damage. It won't be a one stop fix for skin cancer though, it will just help high risk people reduce their risk to that of a higher Fitzpatrick skin type individual, I think.*
Clinical trials, unless I'm majorly mistaken follow the same course irrespective of the type of medicine. It would be phase 1 (animal) phase 2 (small group human) and phase 3 (large group human), I think if there were no major issues trials should take a year or two. Patents can take anywhere from 1 year to 10, but average around 2. I believe the patent for this was filed in September 2013 so if it is in line with averages it should be cleared (or rejected) around this time next year. Hopefully given the eventual benefits this product could give, and the government backing it has received it will be a quicker process than usual but it is impossible to say really.
I think it would be cool if someone here had it made up in a lab now, before the patent clears as it seems to be a relatively simple analog and due to it's size shouldn't be tricky like MT or Forskolin to find ways for it to permeate skin, any carrier should work really.
"
If it works, it won't be a cure for melanoma, it will just exhibit properties that can work to repair UVA and UVB damage. It won't be a one stop fix for skin cancer though, it will just help high risk people reduce their risk to that of a higher Fitzpatrick skin type individual, I think.*
Clinical trials, unless I'm majorly mistaken follow the same course irrespective of the type of medicine. It would be phase 1 (animal) phase 2 (small group human) and phase 3 (large group human), I think if there were no major issues trials should take a year or two. Patents can take anywhere from 1 year to 10, but average around 2. I believe the patent for this was filed in September 2013 so if it is in line with averages it should be cleared (or rejected) around this time next year. Hopefully given the eventual benefits this product could give, and the government backing it has received it will be a quicker process than usual but it is impossible to say really.
I think it would be cool if someone here had it made up in a lab now, before the patent clears as it seems to be a relatively simple analog and due to it's size shouldn't be tricky like MT or Forskolin to find ways for it to permeate skin, any carrier should work really.
"
It definitely won't cure it once it's there, but the level of prevention is unclear to me. Some of the articles I read made it sound like it can repair UV damage after the fact, which would be huge for prevention. Either way, being more tan would still be good for prevention. You'd have to monitor people for years to prove how well it prevents melanoma, though.
Animal testing is considered pre-clinical trials (it's currently in that). Phase 1 is very small group for safety I believe. Phase 2 is somewhat larger and helps determine dose also I think. Phase 3 is large and for determining how effective it is.
I believe you're right about the carrier. This was designed to be very effective and it should penetrate easily. I have no idea how feasible it is to make something like this though.
Yep reading the studies it seems to have a positive effect on UV damage after the fact, but like you say it's difficult to discern how effective the repair is and to what extent that repair would prevent cancer.*
Thanks for clearing that up re clinical trials! To be honest, I doubt it would be particularly difficult to create, given my experience with friends who have made all manner of weird and wonderful research chemicals, steroids and hormones if you had a trustworthy lab I'm sure it would be easily synthesized for a relatively low price. I may email one of my chemist friends this week to see what they think.
"
"
If it works, it won't be a cure for melanoma, it will just exhibit properties that can work to repair UVA and UVB damage. It won't be a one stop fix for skin cancer though, it will just help high risk people reduce their risk to that of a higher Fitzpatrick skin type individual, I think.*
Clinical trials, unless I'm majorly mistaken follow the same course irrespective of the type of medicine. It would be phase 1 (animal) phase 2 (small group human) and phase 3 (large group human), I think if there were no major issues trials should take a year or two. Patents can take anywhere from 1 year to 10, but average around 2. I believe the patent for this was filed in September 2013 so if it is in line with averages it should be cleared (or rejected) around this time next year. Hopefully given the eventual benefits this product could give, and the government backing it has received it will be a quicker process than usual but it is impossible to say really.
I think it would be cool if someone here had it made up in a lab now, before the patent clears as it seems to be a relatively simple analog and due to it's size shouldn't be tricky like MT or Forskolin to find ways for it to permeate skin, any carrier should work really.
"
It definitely won't cure it once it's there, but the level of prevention is unclear to me. Some of the articles I read made it sound like it can repair UV damage after the fact, which would be huge for prevention. Either way, being more tan would still be good for prevention. You'd have to monitor people for years to prove how well it prevents melanoma, though.
Animal testing is considered pre-clinical trials (it's currently in that). Phase 1 is very small group for safety I believe. Phase 2 is somewhat larger and helps determine dose also I think. Phase 3 is large and for determining how effective it is.
I believe you're right about the carrier. This was designed to be very effective and it should penetrate easily. I have no idea how feasible it is to make something like this though.
"
"
Yep reading the studies it seems to have a positive effect on UV damage after the fact, but like you say it's difficult to discern how effective the repair is and to what extent that repair would prevent cancer.*
Thanks for clearing that up re clinical trials! To be honest, I doubt it would be particularly difficult to create, given my experience with friends who have made all manner of weird and wonderful research chemicals, steroids and hormones if you had a trustworthy lab I'm sure it would be easily synthesized for a relatively low price. I may email one of my chemist friends this week to see what they think.
"
You seem to have some good friends then, hopefully they will respond with good news if you do email them.
There are two more things I'm wondering about]
Second, is the articles say that their lab discovered that alpha-MSH repairs pre-cancerous damage. That seems to imply that Melanotan would also repair the DNA since it affects alpha-MSH also.
I just searched again actually, it seems to be highly selective which implies that it wouldn't have a lot of side effects. "Currently we have tetrapeptide analogs that are more potent the ?-MSH, as well as active tripeptide analogs, all of which mimic ?-MSH in modulating the UV response of cultures melanocytes. These analogs have the unique feature of being highly selective for the MC1R. - See more at: http://med.uc.edu/dermatology/contact/directory/profile.aspx?epersonID=abdelmza#sthash.j6OIK4ed.dpuf
Not really, it seems to stimulate tanning quite differently from MT so wouldn't assume that claims made about this are applicable to MT. For starters this wouldn't even require UV exposure, it's stimulating the tanning response without need for UV.
But yeah, from what I've read side effects would be much less as it's highly selective and would only target the receptors specific to tanning, unlike mt2 that has an effect on several indiscriminately
By the way, can't find anyone who will synthesize this stuff, if anybody has any contacts would be interested to know
"
"
Yep reading the studies it seems to have a positive effect on UV damage after the fact, but like you say it's difficult to discern how effective the repair is and to what extent that repair would prevent cancer.*
Thanks for clearing that up re clinical trials! To be honest, I doubt it would be particularly difficult to create, given my experience with friends who have made all manner of weird and wonderful research chemicals, steroids and hormones if you had a trustworthy lab I'm sure it would be easily synthesized for a relatively low price. I may email one of my chemist friends this week to see what they think.
"
You seem to have some good friends then, hopefully they will respond with good news if you do email them.
There are two more things I'm wondering about]
Second, is the articles say that their lab discovered that alpha-MSH repairs pre-cancerous damage. That seems to imply that Melanotan would also repair the DNA since it affects alpha-MSH also.
I just searched again actually, it seems to be highly selective which implies that it wouldn't have a lot of side effects. "Currently we have tetrapeptide analogs that are more potent the ?-MSH, as well as active tripeptide analogs, all of which mimic ?-MSH in modulating the UV response of cultures melanocytes. These analogs have the unique feature of being highly selective for the MC1R. - See more at]"
I just found out the other day about another topical in development. I can't believe I didn't know about it earlier, since it's being developed by Clinuvel (the makers of the implantable MT-1/Afamelanotide/Scenesse or whatever you want to call it). It's called CUV9900, and they plan to start clinical trials of it after "the commercialization of their lead product". Their "lead product" might be approved later this month by the EMA for use in EPP.
They are pretty vague when talking about it, but if you Google you can find a little bit about it. I think the patent says it is a peptide chain of 6 amino acids, as compared to the Cincinnati researcher's 4 amino acids. So it would probably not penetrate quite as well, but it is still a lot smaller than the original 13 amino acid chain of alpha-msh.
http://www.clinuvel.com/en/investors/news-publications/announcements/2014-announcements/clinuvel-enters-a-joint-venture-with-biotech-lab-singapore
Since it's topical, Afamelanotide might be approved soon and has undergone numerous trials already, perhaps this could get approved in Asia relatively quickly. That would be awesome.
@darkhorse: in the forskolin topic I posted a formula using oils and people seemed to have results with it.
Hopefully the 20 percent coleus forskohlii is sufficient so it's affordable.
Thank you very much. Let's elaborate on this so I can make my own forskolin topical.
The original formula came from a bodybuilding forum. Quite a lot of ingredients ( also a few softening ones for the alcohol). The question is]
http://anabolicminds.com/forum/transdermals/89916-forskolin-transdermal-fat.html
I also remember our forum member Cees had success on hair darkening with a solution that was already prepared.
Reply With Quote