aids
The game was rigged from the start.
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2024
- Posts
- 8,716
- Reputation
- 17,135
Hi all,
I want to preface, this is a quick thread I'm writing while on a plane. I don't have WiFi so unfortunately I'm not able to make explicit reference to any literature or sources, I'm writing this all from memory, as well as giving my interpretation of particular beliefs pertaining to the pharmaceuticals mentioned in this thread. Nevertheless, anything I write will be both accurate and verifiable unless otherwise stated.
Before I got into the air, I saw another thread where somebody was discussing the potentiality for melanoma with Melanotan-II (MT2) use, and I want to come on here and ease some of your concerns, as well as a brief protocol on how to effectively use Melanotan-I (MT1) or MT2. If you are not a retard, nor need to know how to use these pharmaceuticals effectively, you may kindly fuck off to read another thread now.
First, I want to highlight the nuance between MT1 and MT2, and why I personally, as well as many other users on here, see MT1 as the objectively-better alternative for tanning. To do that, we first need to briefly explain the difference.
MT1 was initially developed as a treatment for individuals with extreme photosensitivity, given as an implant that consistently secretes the peptide into the body (due to the otherwise high injection frequency necessary for it to be effective). The way this works is via melanocortin 1 receptor (MC1R) agonism. Agonism of the MC1R will upregulate the process of melanogenesis, however, many people are of the belief that it is not necessary to actually be exposed to ultraviolet (UV) light for non-negligible tanning of the skin to occur.
Although melanogenesis can and does occur without the exposure to ultraviolet light, it is actually not possible for you to noticeably tan with absolutely zero UV exposure through solely MT1/MT2 use.
You might now be asking: "aids, why do I get moles/darker moles when I use mt1/mt2 then even if I don't really get exposed to much uv bro?". The answer to your question is that, IIRC, there is a significantly higher MC1R count in moles, one to two orders of magnitude higher than that of the rest of the skin i.e., 10 to 100 times more of them, not two or three times.
The fact that moles get darker post-MT1/MT2 use demonstrates to us that it is not necessary for you to be exposed to UV for the skin to darken, however, it is extremely negligible, given the MC1R density in the skin (what we actually want to get darker). Hence, it can be concluded that if you want to use MT1/MT2, you absolutely must be exposed to UV light, otherwise you're both wasting your money, and potentially, unnecessarily introducing yourself to some unpleasant side effects... albeit mild.
Now, there is likely more nuance to this than what even I understand, but I am not familiar and unfortunately don't have the ability to extrapolate on any of my claims right now with the present inability to research further, so this should be taken with a grain of salt; you should acknowledge that there may be more to the process.
To any user that posts an anecdote shared in the replies to this thread along the lines of "I didn't get any uv exposure and I tanned", you either were exposed to UV, or you're wrong.
Now, let's delve into why MT1 is the better alternative to MT2 when it comes to purely a tanning application.
As I've shared in posts before, the difference between the two, is that MT1 has a lower affinity for the MC1R relative to that of MT2, however, it is far more selective. What this means, is that MT1 is not as strong as MT2, but it is not going to cause the acute side effects that people associate with MT2 use (i.e., those from the agonism of other melanocortin receptors, not the MC1R).
Given MT2 was never approved by the FDA nor any other authoritative body in the world (AFAIK), for human use, there is not really any literature on it, however, there is literature on MT1 being used in doses as high as 0.16mg/kg/day, administered once via subcutaneous injection (again, IIRC, please check this literature to verify or I will at a later date). For reference, that is a 8,000mcg injection in individuals that weigh 50kg; that is almost a single entire vial of MT1 (given most vials are 10mg). The side effects in this study were only mild despite the extremely high dose, far higher than any dose mentioned on this forum.
However, again, because MT2 was not approved for human use, it unfortunately does not have a dosage comparison to MT1 AFAIK, i.e., the relative strength/affinity of MT1 for the MC1R has not been quantified against the strength of MT2. Regardless, it is of my recommendation to taper up from a relatively-lower dose of MT1 to see how you tolerate it, though you may taper up far quicker/higher with MT1 than with MT2.
I theorise that the reason we are taught to taper the dose of MT2 is because the body (the other MCR) are quickly desensitised when agonised, leading to us being able to tolerate higher doses of MT1/MT2 after sustained use. However, it likely also means that the efficacy of MT1/MT2 drops off faster than what it otherwise would when taking higher doses given this desensitisation.
Now, about concerns with melanoma, such can only be caused by agonism of the MC1R, though I have no idea where this claim came from, my assumption is that the expedited darkening of moles, as well as increased melanocyte activity in such, may accelerate the progression of (pre-)canceorus moles/actinic keratoses. If you are a healthy individual, you need not worry, given you likely don't have any pre-cancerous or cancerous moles, especially if you are very young, but it's important to obviously consider that this is still a non-zero risk that you need to be aware of, and that you should be getting frequent skin checks regardless of if you notice any weird moles/blemishes developing.
The takeaway is that MT1/MT2 (or anything that agonises the MC1R) likely does not cause melanoma, however it may exacerbate it/accelerate its progression if you do have such aforementioned blemishes. Get your skin checked regardless, even if you're not using this shit!
When it comes to effectively minimising photoaging while still tanmaxing, I like to superdose MT immediately prior to my UV exposure, effectively minimising the time I need to be exposed to any UV light/maximising my tanning outcomes with as little UV exposure as possible, since it is UV light that contributes to photoaging, not MT use.
Then, given the half-life of MT and the fact it likely clears the system relatively quickly after MT ligands bind to the melanocortin receptors, I will use sunscreen at all other times, i.e., whenever I have not just injected MT, I will use sunscreen to mitigate photoaging, since the ROI in terms of the tanning outcome relative to the amount of time you're exposed to UV is far lower when you are not using MT.
My plane lands soon, this should suffice for any general queries people may've still had. I'll post this and then reply to any questions once I have internet on the ground.
I want to preface, this is a quick thread I'm writing while on a plane. I don't have WiFi so unfortunately I'm not able to make explicit reference to any literature or sources, I'm writing this all from memory, as well as giving my interpretation of particular beliefs pertaining to the pharmaceuticals mentioned in this thread. Nevertheless, anything I write will be both accurate and verifiable unless otherwise stated.
Before I got into the air, I saw another thread where somebody was discussing the potentiality for melanoma with Melanotan-II (MT2) use, and I want to come on here and ease some of your concerns, as well as a brief protocol on how to effectively use Melanotan-I (MT1) or MT2. If you are not a retard, nor need to know how to use these pharmaceuticals effectively, you may kindly fuck off to read another thread now.
First, I want to highlight the nuance between MT1 and MT2, and why I personally, as well as many other users on here, see MT1 as the objectively-better alternative for tanning. To do that, we first need to briefly explain the difference.
MT1 was initially developed as a treatment for individuals with extreme photosensitivity, given as an implant that consistently secretes the peptide into the body (due to the otherwise high injection frequency necessary for it to be effective). The way this works is via melanocortin 1 receptor (MC1R) agonism. Agonism of the MC1R will upregulate the process of melanogenesis, however, many people are of the belief that it is not necessary to actually be exposed to ultraviolet (UV) light for non-negligible tanning of the skin to occur.
Although melanogenesis can and does occur without the exposure to ultraviolet light, it is actually not possible for you to noticeably tan with absolutely zero UV exposure through solely MT1/MT2 use.
You might now be asking: "aids, why do I get moles/darker moles when I use mt1/mt2 then even if I don't really get exposed to much uv bro?". The answer to your question is that, IIRC, there is a significantly higher MC1R count in moles, one to two orders of magnitude higher than that of the rest of the skin i.e., 10 to 100 times more of them, not two or three times.
The fact that moles get darker post-MT1/MT2 use demonstrates to us that it is not necessary for you to be exposed to UV for the skin to darken, however, it is extremely negligible, given the MC1R density in the skin (what we actually want to get darker). Hence, it can be concluded that if you want to use MT1/MT2, you absolutely must be exposed to UV light, otherwise you're both wasting your money, and potentially, unnecessarily introducing yourself to some unpleasant side effects... albeit mild.
Now, there is likely more nuance to this than what even I understand, but I am not familiar and unfortunately don't have the ability to extrapolate on any of my claims right now with the present inability to research further, so this should be taken with a grain of salt; you should acknowledge that there may be more to the process.
To any user that posts an anecdote shared in the replies to this thread along the lines of "I didn't get any uv exposure and I tanned", you either were exposed to UV, or you're wrong.
Now, let's delve into why MT1 is the better alternative to MT2 when it comes to purely a tanning application.
As I've shared in posts before, the difference between the two, is that MT1 has a lower affinity for the MC1R relative to that of MT2, however, it is far more selective. What this means, is that MT1 is not as strong as MT2, but it is not going to cause the acute side effects that people associate with MT2 use (i.e., those from the agonism of other melanocortin receptors, not the MC1R).
Given MT2 was never approved by the FDA nor any other authoritative body in the world (AFAIK), for human use, there is not really any literature on it, however, there is literature on MT1 being used in doses as high as 0.16mg/kg/day, administered once via subcutaneous injection (again, IIRC, please check this literature to verify or I will at a later date). For reference, that is a 8,000mcg injection in individuals that weigh 50kg; that is almost a single entire vial of MT1 (given most vials are 10mg). The side effects in this study were only mild despite the extremely high dose, far higher than any dose mentioned on this forum.
However, again, because MT2 was not approved for human use, it unfortunately does not have a dosage comparison to MT1 AFAIK, i.e., the relative strength/affinity of MT1 for the MC1R has not been quantified against the strength of MT2. Regardless, it is of my recommendation to taper up from a relatively-lower dose of MT1 to see how you tolerate it, though you may taper up far quicker/higher with MT1 than with MT2.
I theorise that the reason we are taught to taper the dose of MT2 is because the body (the other MCR) are quickly desensitised when agonised, leading to us being able to tolerate higher doses of MT1/MT2 after sustained use. However, it likely also means that the efficacy of MT1/MT2 drops off faster than what it otherwise would when taking higher doses given this desensitisation.
Now, about concerns with melanoma, such can only be caused by agonism of the MC1R, though I have no idea where this claim came from, my assumption is that the expedited darkening of moles, as well as increased melanocyte activity in such, may accelerate the progression of (pre-)canceorus moles/actinic keratoses. If you are a healthy individual, you need not worry, given you likely don't have any pre-cancerous or cancerous moles, especially if you are very young, but it's important to obviously consider that this is still a non-zero risk that you need to be aware of, and that you should be getting frequent skin checks regardless of if you notice any weird moles/blemishes developing.
The takeaway is that MT1/MT2 (or anything that agonises the MC1R) likely does not cause melanoma, however it may exacerbate it/accelerate its progression if you do have such aforementioned blemishes. Get your skin checked regardless, even if you're not using this shit!
When it comes to effectively minimising photoaging while still tanmaxing, I like to superdose MT immediately prior to my UV exposure, effectively minimising the time I need to be exposed to any UV light/maximising my tanning outcomes with as little UV exposure as possible, since it is UV light that contributes to photoaging, not MT use.
Then, given the half-life of MT and the fact it likely clears the system relatively quickly after MT ligands bind to the melanocortin receptors, I will use sunscreen at all other times, i.e., whenever I have not just injected MT, I will use sunscreen to mitigate photoaging, since the ROI in terms of the tanning outcome relative to the amount of time you're exposed to UV is far lower when you are not using MT.
My plane lands soon, this should suffice for any general queries people may've still had. I'll post this and then reply to any questions once I have internet on the ground.
