8 votes
Posted 10 December 2014 - 07:12 PM
1) His wife represents an important datum in the very limited human trials of Dihexa, as the only user (to my knowledge) with a clinically documented neurodegenerative condition. Furthermore, jabowery's "log" is far more detailed than any other user's account.Well, with all due respect, this is a dihexa thread after all, some discussion on dihexa would be nice, not someone talking about his wife.
Posted 10 December 2014 - 07:57 PM
1) His wife represents an important datum in the very limited human trials of Dihexa, as the only user (to my knowledge) with a clinically documented neurodegenerative condition. Furthermore, jabowery's "log" is far more detailed than any other user's account.Well, with all due respect, this is a dihexa thread after all, some discussion on dihexa would be nice, not someone talking about his wife.
2) With all due respect, what exactly is your contribution to the thread?
ZING!
Posted 11 December 2014 - 08:26 AM
can someone plug this already i wanna see if it works or not
See my previous comments in this thread about why this isn't the best ROA and would not increase BA to the extent most people think. Injecting it would be the best way to increase BA.
Posted 11 December 2014 - 02:58 PM
I received my Dihexa 2 days ago and have to say that I am really impressed with the effects so far. I don't have time right now to post more details.
Well??? What's it doing for you? What are you noticing or perceiving and how much are you taking?
Posted 11 December 2014 - 03:56 PM
resveratrol_guy,
Doubt it's fair to be passing judgement on someone who is trying to helps someone who the medical community has thrown their hands in the air over and given up on. I haven't read the whole thread but it's easy to say things of that nature when this isn't your partner. Perhaps your concern with scientific excellency might differ too if you had something like that happen to you.
I don't see how that's relevant. This guy can take any substance he wants but resevertrol guy was just trying to make a point regarding the scientific question ability of this substance. People on this forum tend to have a very very strong selection bias. A study that supports a substance will be almost immediately accepted, but when a negative study is presented, the community feels the need to nit pick every small detail and reject it on that basis so the substance in question seems more promising. Science would normally consider a substance to be guilty until proven innocent, but this forum tends to think a substance is innocent until proven guilty.
More of the same distortion.
Look, if you're going to impugn my judgment with terms like "very very strong selection bias", then at least have the decency to show me one empirical result where rats did not show reduced cognitive deficit after Dihexa monotherapy. Otherwise, distance yourselves from commenting on my particular situation.
Quoting the most recent study"Dihexa has recently been shown to augment the cognitive abilities of aged and scopolamine treated rats as assessed using the Morris water maze task (McCoy et al., 2013)."There was nothing reported in that study that contradicted the prior study in this regard.Put up or shut up.
These are just a couple of entry studies involving a few dozen rats; it doesn't sufficiently reflect safety or efficacy in humans at all. Is it promising and worth future research? Yes. Is it shown to be safe for human consumption now? Absolutely not.
For example, I noticed Dihexa supposedly increases expression of HGF, but other studies have shown that "Overexpression of HGF and c-Met, at both protein and mRNA levels, was correlated with depth of invasion, lymph node metastases and overall AJCC stage."
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/22495710
And from the study you linked
"Results indicate that it is this ability to activate HGF that is responsible for both the
marked synaptogenic and pro-cognitive activities of these compounds."
It could possibly accelerate latent cancer or maybe even lead to it, but we won't know until human trials and proper blood analyses and statistics. I certainly wouldn't take a risk on some random substance based on a couple of rat studies, especially since it messes with growth. Or it might cause cancer a few months or years down the road. But rats don't necessarily live long enough for those kinds of effects to become visible
I mean it seems like you're desperate to take this substance though and that anyone who questions this substance is attacking you or something. No need to get so defensive over a molecule. It's not distortion, it's caution.
I see. So since you can't put up and you can't shut up you change the subject.
Genius.
So you're open to speculative studies involving only a couple dozen rodents, and yet you're ignoring the study which says that hgf is linked to cancerous metastases by making some ridiculous red herring about putting up when i just linked you a study indicating possible issues with activating hgf.
Again you're welcome to take whatever drug you'd like but this drug is certainly not safe and ready for consumption.
Sarcasm also doesn't help your argument at all. There's no need to get so defensive about an atomic configuration.
The guy who wrote the Dihexa FAQ and included, months ago, a link to cancer concerns about Dihexa is ignoring your links to cancer concerns about Dihexa? Not really.
Shoo, gnat.
Edited by jabowery, 11 December 2014 - 03:57 PM.
Posted 11 December 2014 - 08:51 PM
I received my Dihexa 2 days ago and have to say that I am really impressed with the effects so far. I don't have time right now to post more details.
Well??? What's it doing for you? What are you noticing or perceiving and how much are you taking?
Initially I just licked the residue off the ziplock bag it came in when I transferred it to a proper container. After about 45 minutes to an hour it was clear that I was feeling an effect. More focused is how I would describe it. I then waited another hour, and took approximately 10mg. I tried sublingual, but this stuff is pretty water insoluble. I held it under my tongue for at least an hour. Finally I chewed it up and swallowed it. It caused intense focus, almost like tunnel vision. I was totally "zoned out" reading some technical stuff to the point that I lost track of time. The next morning(yesterday) I took another 10mg and was feeling the same intense focus at work. Near the end of the day I felt like I had just taken a very challenging exam. The focused feeling has faded, but not disappeared. I have not taken any today and think I may only take 10mg twice a week. I think this stuff is pretty potent and I don't want to become manic. I will not be getting a blood panel, but I will be donating blood on Monday.
Posted 11 December 2014 - 09:40 PM
I received my Dihexa 2 days ago and have to say that I am really impressed with the effects so far. I don't have time right now to post more details.
Well??? What's it doing for you? What are you noticing or perceiving and how much are you taking?
Initially I just licked the residue off the ziplock bag it came in when I transferred it to a proper container. After about 45 minutes to an hour it was clear that I was feeling an effect. More focused is how I would describe it. I then waited another hour, and took approximately 10mg. I tried sublingual, but this stuff is pretty water insoluble. I held it under my tongue for at least an hour. Finally I chewed it up and swallowed it. It caused intense focus, almost like tunnel vision. I was totally "zoned out" reading some technical stuff to the point that I lost track of time. The next morning(yesterday) I took another 10mg and was feeling the same intense focus at work. Near the end of the day I felt like I had just taken a very challenging exam. The focused feeling has faded, but not disappeared. I have not taken any today and think I may only take 10mg twice a week. I think this stuff is pretty potent and I don't want to become manic. I will not be getting a blood panel, but I will be donating blood on Monday.
If you're a healthy human, I struggle with believing you. You're noticing intense focus from a single dose of 10mg? I took 40-50mg dihexa per day for approx. 20 days and didn't notice shit. According to xks, even he didn't really notice anything before dosing several hundred mgs. I think you're experiencing the well known placebo effect :P
Posted 11 December 2014 - 10:45 PM
I received my Dihexa 2 days ago and have to say that I am really impressed with the effects so far. I don't have time right now to post more details.
Well??? What's it doing for you? What are you noticing or perceiving and how much are you taking?
Initially I just licked the residue off the ziplock bag it came in when I transferred it to a proper container. After about 45 minutes to an hour it was clear that I was feeling an effect. More focused is how I would describe it. I then waited another hour, and took approximately 10mg. I tried sublingual, but this stuff is pretty water insoluble. I held it under my tongue for at least an hour. Finally I chewed it up and swallowed it. It caused intense focus, almost like tunnel vision. I was totally "zoned out" reading some technical stuff to the point that I lost track of time. The next morning(yesterday) I took another 10mg and was feeling the same intense focus at work. Near the end of the day I felt like I had just taken a very challenging exam. The focused feeling has faded, but not disappeared. I have not taken any today and think I may only take 10mg twice a week. I think this stuff is pretty potent and I don't want to become manic. I will not be getting a blood panel, but I will be donating blood on Monday.
If you're a healthy human, I struggle with believing you. You're noticing intense focus from a single dose of 10mg? I took 40-50mg dihexa per day for approx. 20 days and didn't notice shit. According to xks, even he didn't really notice anything before dosing several hundred mgs. I think you're experiencing the well known placebo effect :P
I think that if you looked at the posts that xks_201, myself and the user dhxa submitted after receiving samples from DHXA (not the Nyles run), I think that you'd find this user's experience to be rather similar to our own (initial experiences). I am curious because I have been wondering how this synth will compare in effect to the last synth. I'll let you know once I receive my sample of the N-synth as to what my perceptions are.
I have had approx 1.5 grams of dihexa in my personal effects from the last synth and although I haven't taken any for well over a month, I chose to take some today. The experience was similar to the above. The new batch should be arriving to me tomorrow.
Edited by sk_scientific, 11 December 2014 - 10:45 PM.
Posted 11 December 2014 - 11:16 PM
resveratrol_guy,
Doubt it's fair to be passing judgement on someone who is trying to helps someone who the medical community has thrown their hands in the air over and given up on. I haven't read the whole thread but it's easy to say things of that nature when this isn't your partner. Perhaps your concern with scientific excellency might differ too if you had something like that happen to you.
I don't see how that's relevant. This guy can take any substance he wants but resevertrol guy was just trying to make a point regarding the scientific question ability of this substance. People on this forum tend to have a very very strong selection bias. A study that supports a substance will be almost immediately accepted, but when a negative study is presented, the community feels the need to nit pick every small detail and reject it on that basis so the substance in question seems more promising. Science would normally consider a substance to be guilty until proven innocent, but this forum tends to think a substance is innocent until proven guilty.
More of the same distortion.
Look, if you're going to impugn my judgment with terms like "very very strong selection bias", then at least have the decency to show me one empirical result where rats did not show reduced cognitive deficit after Dihexa monotherapy. Otherwise, distance yourselves from commenting on my particular situation.
Quoting the most recent study"Dihexa has recently been shown to augment the cognitive abilities of aged and scopolamine treated rats as assessed using the Morris water maze task (McCoy et al., 2013)."There was nothing reported in that study that contradicted the prior study in this regard.Put up or shut up.
These are just a couple of entry studies involving a few dozen rats; it doesn't sufficiently reflect safety or efficacy in humans at all. Is it promising and worth future research? Yes. Is it shown to be safe for human consumption now? Absolutely not.
For example, I noticed Dihexa supposedly increases expression of HGF, but other studies have shown that "Overexpression of HGF and c-Met, at both protein and mRNA levels, was correlated with depth of invasion, lymph node metastases and overall AJCC stage."
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/22495710
And from the study you linked
"Results indicate that it is this ability to activate HGF that is responsible for both the
marked synaptogenic and pro-cognitive activities of these compounds."
It could possibly accelerate latent cancer or maybe even lead to it, but we won't know until human trials and proper blood analyses and statistics. I certainly wouldn't take a risk on some random substance based on a couple of rat studies, especially since it messes with growth. Or it might cause cancer a few months or years down the road. But rats don't necessarily live long enough for those kinds of effects to become visible
I mean it seems like you're desperate to take this substance though and that anyone who questions this substance is attacking you or something. No need to get so defensive over a molecule. It's not distortion, it's caution.
I see. So since you can't put up and you can't shut up you change the subject.
Genius.
So you're open to speculative studies involving only a couple dozen rodents, and yet you're ignoring the study which says that hgf is linked to cancerous metastases by making some ridiculous red herring about putting up when i just linked you a study indicating possible issues with activating hgf.
Again you're welcome to take whatever drug you'd like but this drug is certainly not safe and ready for consumption.
Sarcasm also doesn't help your argument at all. There's no need to get so defensive about an atomic configuration.
The guy who wrote the Dihexa FAQ and included, months ago, a link to cancer concerns about Dihexa is ignoring your links to cancer concerns about Dihexa? Not really.
Shoo, gnat.
So why are you so butthurt then about people claiming the scientific question ability of this substance? Clearly even you recognize it; that or your selection bias is blinding you.
First it was put up or shut up, which I did put up even though you apparently mentioned it earlier, and now it's an uncreative cliche. What's next?
Posted 13 December 2014 - 02:59 AM
Hepatocyte growth factor limits autoimmune neuroinflammation via glucocorticoid-induced leucine zipper expression in dendritic cells.
Abstract
Autoimmune neuroinflammation, including multiple sclerosis and its animal model, experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis (EAE), a prototype for T cell-mediated autoimmunity, is believed to result from immune tolerance dysfunction leading to demyelination and substantial neurodegeneration. We previously showed that CNS-restricted expression of hepatocyte growth factor (HGF), a potent neuroprotective factor, reduced CNS inflammation and clinical deficits associated with EAE. In this study, we demonstrate that systemic HGF treatment ameliorates EAE through the development of tolerogenic dendritic cells (DCs) with high expression levels of glucocorticoid-induced leucine zipper (GILZ), a transcriptional repressor of gene expression and a key endogenous regulator of the inflammatory response. RNA interference-directed neutralization of GILZ expression by DCs suppressed the induction of tolerance caused by HGF. Finally, adoptive transfer of HGF-treated DCs from wild-type but not GILZ gene-deficient mice potently mediated functional recovery in recipient mice with established EAE through effective modulation of autoaggressive T cell responses. Altogether, these results show that by inducing GILZ in DCs, HGF reproduces the mechanism of immune regulation induced by potent immunomodulatory factors such as IL-10, TGF-β1, and glucocorticoids and therefore that HGF therapy may have potential in the treatment of autoimmune dysfunctions.
Posted 13 December 2014 - 03:19 AM
Thymosin beta4 upregulates the expression of hepatocyte growth factor and downregulates the expression of PDGF-beta receptor in human hepatic stellate cells.
Spoiler
Insulin-Like Growth Factors Stimulate Expression of Hepatocyte Growth Factor But Not Transforming Growth Factor b1 in Cultured Hepatic Stellate Cells*
Spoiler
Thiazolidinediones as potent inducers of hepatocyte growth factor
Spoiler
Edited by StevesPetRat, 13 December 2014 - 03:28 AM.
Posted 13 December 2014 - 11:20 AM
wow cool, nice one.
I´ve posted a few months ago a herb that activates HGF/c-met in this thread
Plectranthus aegyptiacus
http://www.longecity...-20#entry659623
Although I dont know whether it crosses the Blood brain Barrier, nor where to obtain it.
Could please tell me someone from where to obtain it ?
Because I cant find them even on ali baba.
Here are the synonyms
http://www.theplantl...cord/kew-157870
Edited by Flex, 13 December 2014 - 11:30 AM.
Posted 13 December 2014 - 11:29 PM
How is everyone else receiving dihexa easily, and xks won't even reply to PMs or post on the order status? What is going on? xks you log in every day, and yet we're still in the dark.... I wouldn't mind it taking more time, but I do mind being ignored....
It's not like I harassed you either, a message every month or two. I think you could do me the courtesy of responding. Is that so much to ask? I gave you over 300 dollars, I'm beginning to want my money back, and you can just sell your dihexa to whoever eventually. Seems like I can get it from someone more reliable at this point.
Posted 14 December 2014 - 12:32 AM
resveratrol_guy,
Doubt it's fair to be passing judgement on someone who is trying to helps someone who the medical community has thrown their hands in the air over and given up on. I haven't read the whole thread but it's easy to say things of that nature when this isn't your partner. Perhaps your concern with scientific excellency might differ too if you had something like that happen to you.
I don't see how that's relevant. This guy can take any substance he wants but resevertrol guy was just trying to make a point regarding the scientific question ability of this substance. People on this forum tend to have a very very strong selection bias. A study that supports a substance will be almost immediately accepted, but when a negative study is presented, the community feels the need to nit pick every small detail and reject it on that basis so the substance in question seems more promising. Science would normally consider a substance to be guilty until proven innocent, but this forum tends to think a substance is innocent until proven guilty.
More of the same distortion.
Look, if you're going to impugn my judgment with terms like "very very strong selection bias", then at least have the decency to show me one empirical result where rats did not show reduced cognitive deficit after Dihexa monotherapy. Otherwise, distance yourselves from commenting on my particular situation.
Quoting the most recent study"Dihexa has recently been shown to augment the cognitive abilities of aged and scopolamine treated rats as assessed using the Morris water maze task (McCoy et al., 2013)."There was nothing reported in that study that contradicted the prior study in this regard.Put up or shut up.
These are just a couple of entry studies involving a few dozen rats; it doesn't sufficiently reflect safety or efficacy in humans at all. Is it promising and worth future research? Yes. Is it shown to be safe for human consumption now? Absolutely not.
For example, I noticed Dihexa supposedly increases expression of HGF, but other studies have shown that "Overexpression of HGF and c-Met, at both protein and mRNA levels, was correlated with depth of invasion, lymph node metastases and overall AJCC stage."
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/22495710
And from the study you linked
"Results indicate that it is this ability to activate HGF that is responsible for both the
marked synaptogenic and pro-cognitive activities of these compounds."
It could possibly accelerate latent cancer or maybe even lead to it, but we won't know until human trials and proper blood analyses and statistics. I certainly wouldn't take a risk on some random substance based on a couple of rat studies, especially since it messes with growth. Or it might cause cancer a few months or years down the road. But rats don't necessarily live long enough for those kinds of effects to become visible
I mean it seems like you're desperate to take this substance though and that anyone who questions this substance is attacking you or something. No need to get so defensive over a molecule. It's not distortion, it's caution.
I see. So since you can't put up and you can't shut up you change the subject.
Genius.
So you're open to speculative studies involving only a couple dozen rodents, and yet you're ignoring the study which says that hgf is linked to cancerous metastases by making some ridiculous red herring about putting up when i just linked you a study indicating possible issues with activating hgf.
Again you're welcome to take whatever drug you'd like but this drug is certainly not safe and ready for consumption.
Sarcasm also doesn't help your argument at all. There's no need to get so defensive about an atomic configuration.
The guy who wrote the Dihexa FAQ and included, months ago, a link to cancer concerns about Dihexa is ignoring your links to cancer concerns about Dihexa? Not really.
Shoo, gnat.
So why are you so butthurt then about people claiming the scientific question ability of this substance? Clearly even you recognize it; that or your selection bias is blinding you.
First it was put up or shut up, which I did put up even though you apparently mentioned it earlier, and now it's an uncreative cliche. What's next?
Both you and resveratrol_guy crossed a line that, in ordinary circumstances would be merely a breach of etiquette but given the real world in which we live -- a world where monstrous busybodies roam free to wreak havoc on the lives of innocent people given the mildest pretext -- is inexcusable. This line has nothing to do with the information on the limitations and dangers of Dihexa and everything to do with the imputation of defects of judgement in others. Only one example of the multiple times you and resveratrol_guy have done this is your (not resveratrol_guy's) imputation that I ignored or was somehow upset by your presentation of the dangers of cancer -- an imputation that is ridiculous on the face of it.
Look, if I'm short with you its not just because you are engaging in otherwise mild breaches of etiquette -- were it not for the real world in which we both live -- but also because I have to work my ass off 12 hours a day 7 days a week not only caring for an HD wife but trying to make ends meet in our household by doing remote programming work directly competing with Indian programmers living at home with their extended clans -- a lifestyle that is not a feature of the much more individualistic West.
Responses like this take TIME.
Posted 14 December 2014 - 06:35 AM
So you're open to speculative studies involving only a couple dozen rodents, and yet you're ignoring the study which says that hgf is linked to cancerous metastases by making some ridiculous red herring about putting up when i just linked you a study indicating possible issues with activating hgf.
I don't see how that's relevant. This guy can take any substance he wants but resevertrol guy was just trying to make a point regarding the scientific question ability of this substance. People on this forum tend to have a very very strong selection bias. A study that supports a substance will be almost immediately accepted, but when a negative study is presented, the community feels the need to nit pick every small detail and reject it on that basis so the substance in question seems more promising. Science would normally consider a substance to be guilty until proven innocent, but this forum tends to think a substance is innocent until proven guilty.
resveratrol_guy,
Doubt it's fair to be passing judgement on someone who is trying to helps someone who the medical community has thrown their hands in the air over and given up on. I haven't read the whole thread but it's easy to say things of that nature when this isn't your partner. Perhaps your concern with scientific excellency might differ too if you had something like that happen to you.
More of the same distortion.
Look, if you're going to impugn my judgment with terms like "very very strong selection bias", then at least have the decency to show me one empirical result where rats did not show reduced cognitive deficit after Dihexa monotherapy. Otherwise, distance yourselves from commenting on my particular situation.
Quoting the most recent study"Dihexa has recently been shown to augment the cognitive abilities of aged and scopolamine treated rats as assessed using the Morris water maze task (McCoy et al., 2013)."There was nothing reported in that study that contradicted the prior study in this regard.Put up or shut up.
These are just a couple of entry studies involving a few dozen rats; it doesn't sufficiently reflect safety or efficacy in humans at all. Is it promising and worth future research? Yes. Is it shown to be safe for human consumption now? Absolutely not.
For example, I noticed Dihexa supposedly increases expression of HGF, but other studies have shown that "Overexpression of HGF and c-Met, at both protein and mRNA levels, was correlated with depth of invasion, lymph node metastases and overall AJCC stage."
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/22495710
And from the study you linked
"Results indicate that it is this ability to activate HGF that is responsible for both the
marked synaptogenic and pro-cognitive activities of these compounds."
It could possibly accelerate latent cancer or maybe even lead to it, but we won't know until human trials and proper blood analyses and statistics. I certainly wouldn't take a risk on some random substance based on a couple of rat studies, especially since it messes with growth. Or it might cause cancer a few months or years down the road. But rats don't necessarily live long enough for those kinds of effects to become visible
I mean it seems like you're desperate to take this substance though and that anyone who questions this substance is attacking you or something. No need to get so defensive over a molecule. It's not distortion, it's caution.
I see. So since you can't put up and you can't shut up you change the subject.
Genius.
Again you're welcome to take whatever drug you'd like but this drug is certainly not safe and ready for consumption.
Sarcasm also doesn't help your argument at all. There's no need to get so defensive about an atomic configuration.
The guy who wrote the Dihexa FAQ and included, months ago, a link to cancer concerns about Dihexa is ignoring your links to cancer concerns about Dihexa? Not really.
Shoo, gnat.
So why are you so butthurt then about people claiming the scientific question ability of this substance? Clearly even you recognize it; that or your selection bias is blinding you.
First it was put up or shut up, which I did put up even though you apparently mentioned it earlier, and now it's an uncreative cliche. What's next?
Both you and resveratrol_guy crossed a line that, in ordinary circumstances would be merely a breach of etiquette but given the real world in which we live -- a world where monstrous busybodies roam free to wreak havoc on the lives of innocent people given the mildest pretext -- is inexcusable. This line has nothing to do with the information on the limitations and dangers of Dihexa and everything to do with the imputation of defects of judgement in others. Only one example of the multiple times you and resveratrol_guy have done this is your (not resveratrol_guy's) imputation that I ignored or was somehow upset by your presentation of the dangers of cancer -- an imputation that is ridiculous on the face of it.
Look, if I'm short with you its not just because you are engaging in otherwise mild breaches of etiquette -- were it not for the real world in which we both live -- but also because I have to work my ass off 12 hours a day 7 days a week not only caring for an HD wife but trying to make ends meet in our household by doing remote programming work directly competing with Indian programmers living at home with their extended clans -- a lifestyle that is not a feature of the much more individualistic West.
Responses like this take TIME.
Well I am sorry for difficulties and I hope dihexa turns out to be the safe and effective miracle drug you're looking for, but I fail to see how I breached etiquette, and then even if I did, how that could be considered inexcusable. That seems like a serious over exaggeration to me.
I assume, by judgement, you're referring to my comment about selection bias which you clearly did not take well. On this forum, it's very common for a person to see two entry level studies and conclude, therefore, that the drug must be safe and effective. Selection bias means--
"Selection bias refers to the selection of individuals, groups or data for analysis such that proper randomization is not achieved, thereby ensuring that the sample obtained is not representative of the population intended to be analyzed."
Two rat studies involving a couple dozen rats certainly does not achieve proper randomization, and therefore doesn't necessarily reflect the correct trend in the population intended to be analyzed, particularly since the studies addressed rats instead of humans. I mean it also seems weird that you're so opposed to judgments considering we both make judgments all the time; obviously you were making judgments about me as well such as making sarcastic, and condescending comments. I am not bothered by your judgments though.
Maybe I was wrong about you thinking that dihexa was safe and effective for rats and humans, but that's not an unreasonable assumption because of your comments throughout this thread, and the fact that many people on the forum do have selection bias. The goal of my posts wasn't to try and troll you or to make your already difficult life harder, or to insult you; we've all had selection biases at some points in our lives. Its a normal part of human nature. I have been guilty of selection bias occasionally as well.
Posted 14 December 2014 - 04:51 PM
sk_scientific wrote-
I think that if you looked at the posts that xks_201, myself and the user dhxa submitted after receiving samples from DHXA (not the Nyles run), I think that you'd find this user's experience to be rather similar to our own (initial experiences). I am curious because I have been wondering how this synth will compare in effect to the last synth. I'll let you know once I receive my sample of the N-synth as to what my perceptions are.
I have had approx 1.5 grams of dihexa in my personal effects from the last synth and although I haven't taken any for well over a month, I chose to take some today. The experience was similar to the above. The new batch should be arriving to me tomorrow.
Do you have a theory as to why your initial experience differed from subsequent experiences?
I am also taking(daily):
ALCAR-1000mg
SAMe-200mg
TMG-1000mg
Cytoflavin-2 tabs
Zoloft-100mg
Wellbutrin-150mg
Zinc-100mg
Max DHA-6.7g DHA 1.2g EPA
Vit C 6g
B complex-4 tabs
Vit D 4000IU
2 raw eggs
NSI-189- approx 20mg
Also (last month) finished 1 month cycle of Cerebrolysin 5ml/day x5 days/week
I am currently waiting for delivery of a cheap 1mg balance before I take any more Dihexa.
Posted 14 December 2014 - 06:45 PM
Well I am sorry for difficulties and I hope dihexa turns out to be the safe and effective miracle drug you're looking for, but I fail to see how I breached etiquette, and then even if I did, how that could be considered inexcusable. That seems like a serious over exaggeration to me.
... I mean it also seems weird that you're so opposed to judgments considering we both make judgments all the time; obviously you were making judgments about me as well such as making sarcastic, and condescending comments. I am not bothered by your judgments though...
First of all I'm not expecting dihexa to be "safe" but merely less dangerous than a deadly neurodegenerative disease in which death frequently comes suddenly and catastrophically in the form of suicide, choking or psychotic behavior.
Secondly, the difference between your judgemental attitude and mine is that yours is backed by the full power of an interventionist government that can and does incarcerate people for "bad judgement" for self-medication. So its not surprising you're not bothered. It isn't you that will be subject to this intervention. Add to this the fact that this same government intervention has, in combination with the capital market environment, resulted in a halt in the conventional progress to primate trials, in addition to a slowing of progress in clinical trials for things like gene silencing therapies for neurodegenerative diseases. These delays are causing untold morbidity and mortality.
Here's the reality in my situation:
I'm fully aware not only that drugs that show effectiveness in rodents are often found ineffective in humans, but also that even if Dihexa proves as effective in humans as in rodents it does not hold out nearly as much hope for improvement in people without neurodegenerative diseases and there is even some relatively weak empirical evidence that it may reduce cognitive performance in them. However, in all the cases of neurodegenerated rodents, Dihexa was reproducibly effective in increasing both cognitive and motor performance. Huntington's Disease victims suffer cognitive and motor degeneration. It is unclear to me exactly what statistical tests you are using to prove that it is irrational to invest in additional trials for remediation of neurodegeneration with Dihexa given the "small" N in the studies thus far, but 100% (or nearly so) remediation even with "small" N seems to be reasonable justification.
Posted 14 December 2014 - 08:33 PM
It seems to me, that nobody is going to agree on this Jabowery vs other people arguing with him issue. Can everyone involved move on please? Obviously nobody seems to be able to agree anymore, let him post what he wants/is able to from his perspective. Those that disagree, ignore him, those that have (constructive!) criticism, voice it. NEW discussions! Enough full page multi quotes, and messages that are just a rehash of each side calling the other names, or passive aggressively attempting to take the moral high ground. Not naming names, not placing blame here, so please do not attempt to pull me into this(not saying anyone will, just FYI), I will ignore it. We're all adults, let's just let it lie and move on shall we?
Posted 15 December 2014 - 05:15 AM
I just found out that xks has given at least 1 person Dihexa from that group buy. So being as others have not received it, and I know I have not either, does this mean we've been robbed? Does anyone know him, can they find out? I would seriously like an answer at this point.
Posted 15 December 2014 - 07:08 AM
I just found out that xks has given at least 1 person Dihexa from that group buy. So being as others have not received it, and I know I have not either, does this mean we've been robbed? Does anyone know him, can they find out? I would seriously like an answer at this point.
Posted 15 December 2014 - 09:52 AM
Well I am sorry for difficulties and I hope dihexa turns out to be the safe and effective miracle drug you're looking for, but I fail to see how I breached etiquette, and then even if I did, how that could be considered inexcusable. That seems like a serious over exaggeration to me.
... I mean it also seems weird that you're so opposed to judgments considering we both make judgments all the time; obviously you were making judgments about me as well such as making sarcastic, and condescending comments. I am not bothered by your judgments though...
First of all I'm not expecting dihexa to be "safe" but merely less dangerous than a deadly neurodegenerative disease in which death frequently comes suddenly and catastrophically in the form of suicide, choking or psychotic behavior.
Secondly, the difference between your judgemental attitude and mine is that yours is backed by the full power of an interventionist government that can and does incarcerate people for "bad judgement" for self-medication. So its not surprising you're not bothered. It isn't you that will be subject to this intervention. Add to this the fact that this same government intervention has, in combination with the capital market environment, resulted in a halt in the conventional progress to primate trials, in addition to a slowing of progress in clinical trials for things like gene silencing therapies for neurodegenerative diseases. These delays are causing untold morbidity and mortality.
Here's the reality in my situation:
I'm fully aware not only that drugs that show effectiveness in rodents are often found ineffective in humans, but also that even if Dihexa proves as effective in humans as in rodents it does not hold out nearly as much hope for improvement in people without neurodegenerative diseases and there is even some relatively weak empirical evidence that it may reduce cognitive performance in them. However, in all the cases of neurodegenerated rodents, Dihexa was reproducibly effective in increasing both cognitive and motor performance. Huntington's Disease victims suffer cognitive and motor degeneration. It is unclear to me exactly what statistical tests you are using to prove that it is irrational to invest in additional trials for remediation of neurodegeneration with Dihexa given the "small" N in the studies thus far, but 100% (or nearly so) remediation even with "small" N seems to be reasonable justification.
The thing is I wasn't making a political commentary; I was merely questioning the lack of proper scientific evidence . I don't think people with mild traumatic brain injury, or healthy people looking for nootropics should try this experimental drug because of relatively scant evidence.
WIth that being said, I am in complete agreement with the position that terminal patients or patients with a terrible quality of life should be able to take experimental drugs with a minimal amount of scientific study on the condition that they report the effects, provide blood panels, and have medical examinations etc in order to advance the progression of possible drugs for future patients; this would also give the pharmaceutical industry more incentive to pursue significantly more simultaneous drug research due to the fact that they wouldn't need to go through as many extremely expensive trials, and would be able to identify issues and side effects more rapidly--they would be able to catch a serious problem early in terminal volunteers before investing in hugely expensive phase 1, 2 trials, which will also give investors more confidence and biotech stocks a lower beta value (volatility). Ultimately it would result in capital being infused into the drug research sector, causing a positive feedback loop while creating more jobs and making investors a lot wealthier.
"t is unclear to me exactly what statistical tests you are using to prove that it is irrational to invest in additional trials for remediation of neurodegeneration with Dihexa given the "small" N in the studies thus far, but 100% (or nearly so) remediation even with "small" N seems to be reasonable justification."
Well its probably unclear because I never made such a claim. My position has always been that this drug looks promising, but needs a lot more studies to verify the safety and efficacy of this substance.
Posted 20 December 2014 - 04:50 PM
One other effect I noticed from the Dihexa was carb craving, very similar to what I experience when on a Cerebrolysin cycle. It really kicked in the days following my last dose of Dihexa. I have received my new mg balance, but have not taken any more Dihexa. For some reason I am apprehensive. Probably because the list of stuff I'm taking has given me pause.
Posted 23 December 2014 - 02:17 AM
Edited by xks201, 23 December 2014 - 02:18 AM.
Posted 02 January 2015 - 11:37 PM
Posted 02 January 2015 - 11:51 PM
For non-aqueous injections, fixed oils of vegetable origin are used as vehicles. That comes from the USP. I have read about a home-made prep of testosterone in oil on a BB site. I think Dihexa is pretty non-polar, hence the non-aqueous suggestion. I would try to find some solubility data on Dihexa, but I'm guessing its gonna be non-aqueous.
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
Community Forum Software by IP.Board
Licensed to: ImmInst.org
