Transdermal offering 76% delivery?
- 06-17-2004, 04:26 PM
Transdermal offering 76% delivery?
Found this on http://www.universalkits.com/finaderm.htm ,was looking for some experienses or opinions. Any info would be great, thanks in advance. Also they have PEG 400 pretty cheap.
- 06-17-2004, 04:42 PM
don't think it would work.. we had this discussion a couple of months back I think..
- 06-17-2004, 08:22 PM
I am not sure of the claims of fina derm(not sure whats in it), but there are some guys that are making some real strides in topical delivery systems.Considering raw powders and molecular weights, you get about 50% delivery (give or take considering the MW).I've seen some posted lab tests and they looked good.50% absorbtion isn't bad considering you also must take into account the weight of the esters when injecting.
I am currently looking into getting a topical solution myself.
06-17-2004, 10:26 PM
50% delivery is a stretch, 76% is a tall tale and i say bull. Show some studies then i'll believe.
06-18-2004, 12:09 AM
I believe Sledge was talking about offering a kick ass transdermal delivery system that would require a lot less powder due to its high rate of absorption. I'm not sure when he was planning on marketing it.
06-18-2004, 07:22 AM
the studies were done on artificial skin, and then there are some blood work tests on some current users...I will try to get to them sometime soon.Originally Posted by sikdogg
06-18-2004, 02:44 PM
ive read an article from a phamacutical company, that the highiest rate of absorption can be achived from a mix of PLO gel, DMSO, Isopropyl alcohol and Isopropyl Myristate.
06-18-2004, 03:46 PM
Originally Posted by BigBadBootyDady
I urge you to try and find some feedback on the product. It has been available for months, but I am yet to read any feedback. If it truly was yielding 75% absorption then I would believe reviews would be common; they are not and I am skeptical. If you find some legitimate feedback, post it as I am sure many would like to read it.
06-18-2004, 04:09 PM
I have been chatting with Universal, he showed me some preliminary tests, and is supposed to post results tomorrow.Originally Posted by size
As for the other gentleman, he resides on another board and has product...he has tons of info, faqs ect ect...there are some posted results of of blood tests as far as test levels and they look good.The process and products are fairly new so there isn't alot out there yet.
I have been doing alot of research on the subject latley, and things are starting to look promising..I will gladly give a link with a PM so those that are interested can check it out.
I am seriously looking into doing a cycle this way, and am about 90% there.
06-18-2004, 04:25 PM
Originally Posted by willieman
The problem is that the guys providing feedback and information(to my knowledge) are the ones who have an interest in seeing the product be a success. They can make all the claims they want, but until actual users start posting feedback one should be very skeptical.
Post some links here.
06-18-2004, 05:38 PM
wasn't sure if posting another board info was proper, thanks Size.
the first 2 are basic facts, second is user result after 3 days of small dosing, and the person has low test levels to beging with and was doing therapy.
Still looking for more results too, like I said it still relativley new, but things do look promising.
06-18-2004, 06:29 PM
07-02-2004, 10:37 AM
Thanks for the links.
A few things to note about the manufacturers claims:
"The formula has been proven to have a delivery rate of up to 78% with molecules of a MW of 270< on synthetic silicon skin. "
This is an important distinction, b/c I'm pretty sure that none of us have silicone skin.
Secondly, the manufacturer claims that DMSO only rates a 4 (on a 1-10 scale) for , and a simple alcohol-only combination rates a 5. (And of course, TDS-288 rates a 10). There are no footnotes or links to studies--just claims.
Third, the numerous grammatical errors in the "write up" of TDS-288 really ruin the credibility. Anyone who publishes anything worthwhile has excellent control of the English language, or hires and editor who does. Just try and find a sentence like this in a Scientific journal:
"TDS-288 is a newly developed vicious solution that’s consisted of a unique combination of solvents and multiple organic delivery reagents that work in a two-phase colloidal system to create a very effective yet gentle delivery system through the skin."
My guess is that "TDS-288" is simply an alcohol-based formula with a PE added, and will work just like other transdermals work, but the marketing will allow them to charge a lot more. Ask yourself the logical question--If it was possible for big pharma to sell a transdermal that achieved near-injectable levels, how did the teams of research scientists miss out on the wonderous "TDS-288," which was uncovered by someone who can't even write/speak properly?
07-02-2004, 11:51 AM
Those links don't state facts... they are the manufacturer's marketing hype to convince you that his product is the best. Of cource he's gonna rate his product a 10 and everything else a 6 or less.Originally Posted by willieman
07-02-2004, 02:10 PM
yes , I wasn't pointing to them as fact(I worded it wrong), just points of discusion.The point is that there are some very realistic things happening with TDS, and it is a growing trend.Originally Posted by sikdogg
Heres another thread discusion with users ...I personally am going to give it a try, test TDS, with an EQ stick...
07-02-2004, 02:42 PM
Riiiiiight...these guys came up with something that researchers from major universities never thought of...and it's yours for just...$29.95.
I don't doubt it's effective...most good trandermals are. But the way you swallow the marketing hype, willie, makes you sound like you either had a hand in writing it, or someone you know (or work for) did.
And the only person talking about a "growing trend" is YOU--you post that on a few boards and then cross-link a couple times.
I'm surprised the rest of you don't question someone who posts studies based on penetration through "silicone skin" and molecules smaller than any PH we use.
07-02-2004, 05:34 PM
what ever smart-ass..I am not gonna get into any kind of discusion with the likes of you...your just too angry, if you you would really look around and talk to some people that have actually used a TDS product, whether they made there own or what ever there are some good results and the possibilities are looking good...Originally Posted by Brodus
07-02-2004, 05:45 PM
So you're saying being smart is a bad thing? Is that all you have to say to the members of A-minds who are curious about this revolutionary transdermal?
Care to explain what type of silicone skin I should be wearing before using TDS-288?
If I'm wrong about any of the things I pointed out, please explain...I am really curious, as I just contacted a professor at U of M that I used to work with to get some info on transdermals, and since you're an expert, maybe you could enlighten us on why this is better and why you seem to have a vested interest in promoting it?
You don't think that, perchance, the company marketing this is just using Nimni's original formula and then using a pseduo-scientific name for the product, do you? Or is that a quesiton we're not allowed to ask of you, as it might thwart the "growing trend" that only you seem to know about.
Better yet, care to post a reference for the nice homemade graphs that show the long-term absorption of particles suspended in "TS-288" vs. injectables?
I'll PM Chemo and see what he has to say...
07-02-2004, 05:49 PM
Ahh, I see you edited your post because you didn't want to appear like you were judging me based on what I look like, vs. what I said.
If you think I'm angry, you probably would have thought Ralph Nader was angry for insisting on safety belts in automobiles.
This is a forum, and if we can't raise legitimate scientific questions without someone getting offended, it doesn't work. If you're confident in your post, it will show.
I'm still trying to understand the relevance of silicone skin...that's about as useless a "study" as I have ever read, and what's more, it only refers to molecules smaller than 270, and that excludes all PHs, AND most commercially availble tren, unless you remove the acetate.
07-02-2004, 05:52 PM
your joking right?..I have no interest in the TDS on meso, I merely state TDS as a Transdermal delivery system(generically)...just like the t-gel that chemo sells...I am talking a general Transdermal delivery system...not a specific product, but as a topic of discusion..I also had a good conversation a while ago with BC about it...geez man lighten up...look around ..there are more people using a "transdermal delivery system"...than ever and having success...why are you so angry?Originally Posted by Brodus
PS yea I did edit...my persoanal comments were out of line and as a supporting member of this board, respectfully edited my statement.
07-06-2004, 10:29 PM
07-06-2004, 11:18 PM
Originally Posted by willieman
Is TDS a brand? if so link me to it or send me a pm please.
07-06-2004, 11:32 PM
07-07-2004, 01:06 PM
no TDS is an abbreviation of transdermal drug delivery system
07-07-2004, 02:05 PM
Originally Posted by acecombact1
08-06-2004, 10:29 PM
OK guys, I am a senior member at Meso and I must say that ES's TDS Test Base is good to go, there have been a lot of good reviews on it since he launched his new TDS products. I am starting a short Test base cycle next monday and will see for myself whether it works or not. Let's not be skeptical here I believe injections will become a thing of the past in the next 5 years.
Similar Forum Threads
- By Ageforce in forum Company PromotionsReplies: 28Last Post: 08-26-2011, 09:38 AM
- By rombusempire in forum AnabolicsReplies: 22Last Post: 09-08-2008, 08:45 AM
- By Mrs. Gimpy! in forum News and ArticlesReplies: 13Last Post: 04-21-2006, 06:52 PM
- By dosterschill in forum AnabolicsReplies: 1Last Post: 04-03-2005, 10:30 PM
- By neurotic in forum AnabolicsReplies: 3Last Post: 06-27-2003, 12:42 PM