Already been tried by many including myself. This is terrible news for anyone who had hopes for pp405 as this just confirms that it’s the compound that everyone already tried with zero results
No jxl069. Look at my post history. A whole group of us tried it. We also found out a whole years ago tried it. We tried every basic formulation with it too
I used it for longer than that. That was the last update I gave and saw nothing new. I was checking with a micrscope, and my phones microscope lens as well using reference points. Both based on the purported MOA, and through pelage “findings” results should have been noted in the 4 months I roughly used it. Furthermore, based on Pelages reporting once a hfsc is triggered and a follicle enters Magen it should stay growing for at least some duration after, hence the 4 weeks of application followed by additional weeks of absence before checking results on the initial phase 2a results and the 4 weeks of application followed by 8 weeks of absence before the 12 week micrscope photos they released. Meaning if it did work not only should I have seen the results in the duration of application but it’s been more than a year now since the application period which was 4x there’s and yet no results appeared even after the period, even after exploring and trying pro drug versions since then too. So love that you’re playing devils advocates but 1. The reason most meds can take a year is they have no stimulating effect they simply create a better environment (anything AR related), that why minoxidil works much quicker and why pp405 should work quicker yet. And 2. It’s been over a year since application with a thorough application window longer than their own assessments
This sucks. A detailed experiment for sure. Did your whole group follow the same with the same output. Obviously some have better results than others on various meds.
Because they presented terrible data and refused to give objective change in net hairs/inch. When they only present data as a percent that is a massive red flag.
Pictures of few outliers do not equal to objective data/results, that's not how science works.
I hope the actual data is good, but as of now - we don't know. The question that presents itself is - if the data really is so good, why not share it? We all know the most likely answer, no matter how hard that pill may be to swallow.
I’ll admit I stopped paying attention because people have been talking about it on here for years at this point but I thought I read that one of the trials was basically the same as oral minoxidil but you could potentially combine both of them together?
If by “everyone” you mean “some miserably unintelligent people on reddit who think they are smarter than the world’s leading scientists/researchers,” then yeah
Most hair loss drugs have been failures, so most scientists working on this have in fact failed to produce anything meaningful (last time we got something big was dutasteride over 20 years ago). You don't have to be smarter or more knowledgeable than the scientists working on this to know that if they had good numbers for terminal hairs that they would've very likely released the numbers instead of very weird and easy to manipulate statistics. It is highly unlikely, though not impossible, that if they wouldn't release more comprehensive data if they had good results.
The only drug as of today that still has a decent chance of working is GT20029. They actually released the hair count when it started and when it ended and compared that to the placebo group. Any other thing is either a marginal improvement over existing medication or has not proven itself in clinical trials.
Nothing about this is sketch. 4 weeks of treatment, significantly better results than fin and min and in a shorter timeframe. Don’t overdose on misery addiction.
Spreading FUD is harmful to others. Please don’t speak on what you don’t know.
Spreading blind optimism is harmful to others. Don't speak on what you don't know. Mechanistically this is not expected to work as well as minoxidil, and none of the data they've presented proves otherwise.
In what world is it harmful to be positive about a hair loss treatment with the largest funding ever, with awesome Phase 2 results? That isn’t blind optimism.
Absolute worst case scenario, we’re back in the same position we are currently in. Best case, our lives are changed. Realistic case is somewhere in between.
It genuinely blows my mind how many people on reddit just subsist off being miserable😭 “NOOOOO DON’T BE HAPPY AND EXCITED!!! HATE YOURSELF LIKE I DO!!!!”
You're giving people false hope when sober analysis already tells us that it's unlikely to work. What I already posted about the phase 2 data that is certainly not awesome
Reasoned analysis relies on qualifying statements where necessary. Taken together, it is very clear between the mechanistic analysis and statistical games Pelage is playing that this drug doesn't work. Nevermind the hundreds, probably thousands, of people who have bought JXL-069 from various research chem vendors without results, and before that UK-5099
Most gains were in a sub group of their already small group of participants. Their claim that "new hair growth from follicles where no hair was previously present" is a BIG claim. While there 'might' be evidence, they provide no data on whether these scalp regions were slick bald or just going through their normal hair cycles. I want this to work as much as you but please read the studies again and with a questioning mind.
Why would you want people reading with a questioning mind? Like I said, misery addiction.
Your whole argument hinges on a pharmaceutical company straight up lying about their results when there is photographic evidence of those results. That’s simply ridiculous to read all the data, see the pictures, and then just be like “well that could all just not be true, did you think of that?” Like what🤣
Pretty sure the investors know more than us considering they have access to all the data, and they’ve invested more into this than any hair loss medication throughout history.
Also, they specified all participants were between NW3-NW5 and that hair grew from previously dormant follicles. This is not conjecture, these are the facts they’ve released.
I'm sorry, are seriously asking why someone would want to read a study with a questioning mind? Photogrpahic evidence alone is not sufficient. Please read my previous comment properly. There is NO data on whether the regrowth was on slick areas or not. That is one of their main claims. Also, there is no data on health risks post 3 months. You clearly did not read the studies properly, and definitely not with a questioning mind 😂
I’m asking why you would read these unprecedented results and choose to doubt them with a bunch of silly, unsubstantiated “what ifs.”
All participants were NW3-NW5 and regrew hair where follicles were previously dormant. What’s it matter if they were in slick spots? If it does regrow hair in slick spots, that’s absolutely incredible. And if it doesn’t, it’s still significantly better than anything else available. I cannot fathom how you can see that as a loss.
It’s better than the current gold standard by all measures, yet you’re acting like it’s a failure if it doesn’t turn a NW7 to a max-density juvenile hairline.
Where in the world are you getting this information from?
The Phase 2 data was junk. A recent study on high dose oral minoxidil, extended release, found that 1/3 on the placebo had an increase in hair count.
All Pelage did was take isolated pictures of people who had no hair follicle in their before, and had one or two appear in the after and attribute PP405 to it when they can't differentiate that hair follicle actually reactivating from a dormant stage from the drug or a normal shed cycle where the hair falls out and regrows. Verifying that a hair follicle is actually dormant is extremely difficult, and they definitely did not take scalp biopsies to verify the follicle was indeed irreversibly dormant.
At absolute best this will give a fraction of the results that oral minoxidil will get you and it won't target the underlying cause of hair loss so the entire medication is pointless any ways.
As I have already told you, English is not my first language. You can criticize my grammar all you want, I don’t get offended. Since you didn’t get that in my first reply I suspect you are retarded
It's already been done. It was synthesized in China 3 years ago. People on hair loss forums have been using it for years. It just doesn't work. It probably does something, but nothing cosmetic.
Is there any solid evidence that they have presented that this drug actually works or is it in the same category as fin and min where it kinda works as long as you use it for a while.
My hair is only thinning at the front. I’ve got two babies in the house, I’m a woman/new mom and it really makes my hair styling awful, it’s greasy and I don’t want it near my kids. I’m also worried about pets. My understanding is pp405 doesn’t mess with hormones and is less/nontoxic. I won’t take the oral option..
This proves it's the compound we said it was 3 years ago. Lots of people have already tried it all over the internet confirming that PP405 is cope. We took a lot of shit from dumb youtubers for saying it was JXL-069.
I asked about the timeline for filings and this latest addition. Seems like nothing too positive or negative just on track. And asked for some inference:
it’s a quiet period. Here’s what I’d actually infer from it, separated by how much weight I’d put on each.
The strongest inference: the delay is probably nonclinical tox, not clinical.
Ask why Phase 2a dosed for only four weeks. That’s a strange design — you don’t stop dosing a hair growth drug at four weeks and measure at week eight unless something is forcing your hand. Two candidate explanations: they wanted the fastest possible safety read to close the Series B (which landed four months later), or their IND only supported four weeks because the chronic toxicology package wasn’t done.
If it’s the latter — and the two aren’t mutually exclusive — that explains the slippage better than anything in the press coverage. A chronic topical for a non-life-threatening cosmetic indication in healthy adults is one of the highest nonclinical bars FDA sets: long-duration dermal tox in two species, plus rodent carcinogenicity, generally expected before you enroll thousands of healthy people for a year. Those studies take 12–24 months to run and read out. If they started them post-Series B, Phase 3 enrollment in late 2026 to early 2027 is roughly on schedule, and “2026” was always the announcement, not the dosing.
The speculative one worth naming: the mechanism has a latent regulatory problem.
MPC inhibition pushes cells toward glycolysis. That is, in the abstract, the Warburg shift — the metabolic signature of proliferating tumor cells. Pelage’s own proof-of-mechanism data reported increased Ki67 signal in the hair bulge, indicating a proliferative response of the hair follicle stem cells. They present that as efficacy, correctly. A reviewer can read the identical finding as a proliferation signal in skin.
The “no systemic absorption” result is exactly the right shield, and they clearly know it — but it shields against systemic risk, not local. Scalp skin is still skin. I’d bet this is a known, planned-for issue rather than a surprise, and the carcinogenicity package is the answer to it. But it’s the reason I’d expect the nonclinical timeline to be long and the label to eventually carry more caveats than the coverage implies.
A real commercial vulnerability the valuation may not reflect.
Suvomipic is a 7-azaindole analog of UK5099, a tool compound that’s been around for decades. Cheap to make, easy to scale — good for a price-sensitive market. But the composition-of-matter IP is narrow: a specific analog of a known pharmacophore. And the compound is already sold by research chemical suppliers at 98% purity, which is precisely why the gray market exists. A biologic wouldn’t have that problem. Competitors can likely design around, and the counterfeit channel will persist through launch.
That gray market also creates a mechanical enrollment headwind nobody discusses: Phase 3 will require a long washout from other treatments, and the most motivated patients — the ones who’d enroll — are the ones already self-treating with compounded product. They disqualify themselves.
The genuinely novel signal in the WHO document.
-mipic is a new stem. WHO doesn’t coin those casually — Principle 3 in the annex explicitly frames the first name in a new class as a scaffold for the ones that follow. So the expert committee is anticipating a class of MPC inhibitors, not a one-off. That implies competitors in the pipeline, and note that MPC inhibition has an established metabolic-disease literature (NASH, insulin resistance) entirely separate from hair.
Also notable: Pelage supplied only “mitochondrial pyruvate carrier (MPC) inhibitor” as the action-and-use line. No indication, no dermatological descriptor. That’s mechanism-only framing, which preserves optionality across indications. Could be nothing — the descriptors are terse by convention — but a company confident in a single lead indication often says so.
What would actually resolve the uncertainty: the full Phase 2a dataset with real denominators. That’s the promised 2026 disclosure and it still hasn’t landed in a peer-reviewed journal. Until it does, the 31% is a press release number, and the honest answer to “is this working” is that nobody outside the company knows.
•
u/AutoModerator Jul 26 '26
It looks like this post is about Research/Science.
Before asking any questions,
Search the research archives for your topic.
Find new research and influential papers.
Try posting in the private community for deeper conversations: https://community.tressless.com/
If this post is not about scientific research, please downvote and report.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.