I understood fully, my brain questions ignorant speech, or in this case text.
This is exactly why it is a blanket statement regardless of how it’s being defended. Saying “99% don’t need AI” is still a blanket claim because...
There is no datasetand there is no quantified population of AAS users worldwide, no controlled trials at 500 mg/week with daily pinning, and no data that can support a 99/1 split. Without measurable population data, any percentage claim is rhetorical, not factual. “99%” is not evidence it’s persuasion language. Saying 99% is not meant to be precise; it’s meant to imply near universality. That’s the textbook definition of a blanket statement...
“Almost everyone behaves this way, therefore you should too.”
Individual estrogen response is highly variable in aromatase activity differs widely due to genetics (polymorphisms), body fat, injection frequency helps stability but does not eliminate conversion, liver clearance, and SHBG differences.
You can have two people pinning daily at 500 mg with completely different E2 outcomes. That alone invalidates any “99%” claim. Again blanket. “Correct ancillaries” is vague and contradictory if the argument is...
“Have ancillaries ready”, but also “99% won’t need AI" then the AI is simultaneously unnecessary for almost everyone, necessary enough to prepare for however.
That contradiction exists because the claim isn’t evidence-based it’s ideology... and a demon in conversation. Daily pinning, estrogen immunity is also false to a large degree, is flat out wrong. Daily injections reduce peaks and troughs, not total aromatization. Estrogen production is still dose dependent. Frequency smooths levels it does not negate conversion