maybe the report itself was removed? But still good for posting that link however.
MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
Any feed back on SARMS?
- Thread starter Xlgx
- Start date
unforgivingconsumer
New Member
Guys I found the tox report standby I'm having trouble copying it.
unforgivingconsumer
New Member
@Demondosage
RAT CARCINOGENICITY STUDY WITH GW501516, A
PPAR DELTA AGONIST.
L. E. G
eiger
1
, W. S. Dunsford
2
, D. J. Lewis
2
, C. Brennan
3
, K. C. Liu
3
and S. J.
Newsholme
1
.
1
Safety Assessment, GlaxoSmithKline, King of Prussia, PA,
2
Safety
Assessment, GlaxoSmithKline, Ware, United Kingdom and
3
Huntingdon Life Sciences,
Huntingdon, United Kingdom.
GW501516, a non-genotoxic PPARδ agonist, was assessed for carcinogenic poten-
tial by daily administration (oral gavage) to Han Wistar rats for a period of 104
weeks. Males were given 0, 5, 15 or 30 mg/kg/day for the first 6 weeks of the study.
For the remainder of the study males were given 0, 5, 20 or 40 mg/kg/day. Females
were given 0, 3, 10 or 20 mg/kg/day for the entire study. GW501516 produced test
article-related neoplastic findings in multiple tissues at all doses. Increased mortal-
ity was seen with females given GW501516 at all doses and uterine endometrial
adenocarcinoma contributed to death in a high proportion of these animals.
Neoplasms considered test-article related occurred in the liver (hepatocellular ade-
noma at ≥10 mg/kg/day), urinary bladder (transitional cell carcinoma in males
given 20 and 40 mg/kg/day), thyroid (follicular cell adenoma at
≥3 mg/kg/day and carcinoma in males at ≥20 mg/kg/day), tongue (squamous cell papilloma in males at 5 mg/kg/day and 40 mg/kg/day), stomach (squamous cell papilloma in males at ≥5 mg/kg/day and a female at 20 mg/kg/day, and carcinoma in a male at 40 mg/kg/day and a female at 3 mg/kg/day), skin (inverted squamous cell papilloma in males at ≥5 mg/kg/day and females at 3 or 20 mg/kg/day), Harderian glands (ade-noma in males at ≥5 mg/kg/day and adenocarcinoma in a male at 40 mg/kg/day),
testes (interstitial cell adenoma at 40 mg/kg/day), ovary (Sertoli cell adenoma at
≥10 mg/kg/day) and uterus (polyp and endometrial adenocarcinoma at≥3
mg/kg/day). Some of the tumor types observed in this study have not been reported
with either PPARα or PPARγ agonists and may reflect tumor promotion mediated though
PPARδ agonism.
RAT CARCINOGENICITY STUDY WITH GW501516, A
PPAR DELTA AGONIST.
L. E. G
eiger
1
, W. S. Dunsford
2
, D. J. Lewis
2
, C. Brennan
3
, K. C. Liu
3
and S. J.
Newsholme
1
.
1
Safety Assessment, GlaxoSmithKline, King of Prussia, PA,
2
Safety
Assessment, GlaxoSmithKline, Ware, United Kingdom and
3
Huntingdon Life Sciences,
Huntingdon, United Kingdom.
GW501516, a non-genotoxic PPARδ agonist, was assessed for carcinogenic poten-
tial by daily administration (oral gavage) to Han Wistar rats for a period of 104
weeks. Males were given 0, 5, 15 or 30 mg/kg/day for the first 6 weeks of the study.
For the remainder of the study males were given 0, 5, 20 or 40 mg/kg/day. Females
were given 0, 3, 10 or 20 mg/kg/day for the entire study. GW501516 produced test
article-related neoplastic findings in multiple tissues at all doses. Increased mortal-
ity was seen with females given GW501516 at all doses and uterine endometrial
adenocarcinoma contributed to death in a high proportion of these animals.
Neoplasms considered test-article related occurred in the liver (hepatocellular ade-
noma at ≥10 mg/kg/day), urinary bladder (transitional cell carcinoma in males
given 20 and 40 mg/kg/day), thyroid (follicular cell adenoma at
≥3 mg/kg/day and carcinoma in males at ≥20 mg/kg/day), tongue (squamous cell papilloma in males at 5 mg/kg/day and 40 mg/kg/day), stomach (squamous cell papilloma in males at ≥5 mg/kg/day and a female at 20 mg/kg/day, and carcinoma in a male at 40 mg/kg/day and a female at 3 mg/kg/day), skin (inverted squamous cell papilloma in males at ≥5 mg/kg/day and females at 3 or 20 mg/kg/day), Harderian glands (ade-noma in males at ≥5 mg/kg/day and adenocarcinoma in a male at 40 mg/kg/day),
testes (interstitial cell adenoma at 40 mg/kg/day), ovary (Sertoli cell adenoma at
≥10 mg/kg/day) and uterus (polyp and endometrial adenocarcinoma at≥3
mg/kg/day). Some of the tumor types observed in this study have not been reported
with either PPARα or PPARγ agonists and may reflect tumor promotion mediated though
PPARδ agonism.
unforgivingconsumer
New Member
MOUSE CARCINOGENICITY STUDY WITH GW501516,
A PPAR DELTA AGONIST.
S. J. Newsholme
1
, W. S. Dunsford
2
, T. Brodie
2
, C. Brennan
3
, M. Brown
3
and L.
E. G
eiger
1
.
1
Safety Assessment, GlaxoSmithKline, King of Prussia, PA,
2
Safety
Assessment, GlaxoSmithKline, Ware, United Kingdom and
3
Huntingdon Life Sciences,
Huntingdon, United Kingdom.
GW501516, a non-genotoxic PPARδ agonist, was assessed for carcinogenic poten-
tial by daily administration (oral gavage) to CD1 mice for 104 weeks at doses of 0,
10, 30, 60 or 80 mg/kg/day. Survival was decreased at doses ≥30 mg/kg/day.
Neoplasms considered related to test article occurred in liver (hepatocellular carci-
noma at ≥30 mg/kg/day and adenoma at ≥10 mg/kg/day), stomach (squamous
cell carcinoma at all doses) and combined squamous cell tumours at all doses (squa-
mous cell papilloma and carcinoma, and keratoacanthoma). There have been con-
flicting reports in the literature regarding the effects of PPARδ on epithelial cell
proliferation. The results of this study demonstrate an increase in proliferation in
certain epithelial cell populations, but do not support a role for PPARδ in colon
carcinogenesis. The squamous cell tumors observed in this study have not been re-
ported with either PPARα or PPARγ agonists and may reflect tumor promotion
mediated through PPARδ agonism.
A PPAR DELTA AGONIST.
S. J. Newsholme
1
, W. S. Dunsford
2
, T. Brodie
2
, C. Brennan
3
, M. Brown
3
and L.
E. G
eiger
1
.
1
Safety Assessment, GlaxoSmithKline, King of Prussia, PA,
2
Safety
Assessment, GlaxoSmithKline, Ware, United Kingdom and
3
Huntingdon Life Sciences,
Huntingdon, United Kingdom.
GW501516, a non-genotoxic PPARδ agonist, was assessed for carcinogenic poten-
tial by daily administration (oral gavage) to CD1 mice for 104 weeks at doses of 0,
10, 30, 60 or 80 mg/kg/day. Survival was decreased at doses ≥30 mg/kg/day.
Neoplasms considered related to test article occurred in liver (hepatocellular carci-
noma at ≥30 mg/kg/day and adenoma at ≥10 mg/kg/day), stomach (squamous
cell carcinoma at all doses) and combined squamous cell tumours at all doses (squa-
mous cell papilloma and carcinoma, and keratoacanthoma). There have been con-
flicting reports in the literature regarding the effects of PPARδ on epithelial cell
proliferation. The results of this study demonstrate an increase in proliferation in
certain epithelial cell populations, but do not support a role for PPARδ in colon
carcinogenesis. The squamous cell tumors observed in this study have not been re-
ported with either PPARα or PPARγ agonists and may reflect tumor promotion
mediated through PPARδ agonism.
shreddn1
New Member
Appreciate all the feedback guys looks like I should say fuck them sarms, just wanted some extra info, osta and gw has worked good for me but after seeing all this I'll take all yallz advice, on the other hand anyone try this new oral go mk677 I pin peps 3 times a day and it get old
As long as you've done your research then OK, but there's so much nasty shit getting slung out there by dumbass quacks like Dylan Gemelli and his merry pack of fools.
unforgivingconsumer
New Member
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21067829
It works for sure. Have used it and the peps. The portion in the study that indicates the MK-0677 has an unfavorable safety profile is similar to AAS in that it typically causes heart problems in the elderly.
For a healthy man I say for it.
shreddn1
New Member
Oh god don't get me started on gymeli what a fucking con and ripoff sarms1 is, these raw's are soooo fucking cheap I've brewed with a guy and we bought raws, yall know its bs
So this mk-0677 has a lot of promise?
shreddn1
New Member
Mk-677 havnt tried it yet be here geo's is gtg from several peeps, and I take ghrp2 and cjc no dac and have been for a good while but can't stand pinning that often, I'm sure soon they'll come out with long lasting ester ghrps like dac and igflr3
unforgivingconsumer
New Member
Yes and you'll get similar or identical to what you would see from an Ipamorelin/CJC 1295 no DAC dosing scheme. Only issue I have heard is GH bleed, which is NOT what you want. That is anecdotally, I have no proof of that.
One more thing. MK-0677 is not a fucking SARM. Just wanted to get that off my chest. For some reason it is sold as one, which just contributes to the general misunderstanding the majority of these compounds have.
What is gh bleed?
shreddn1
New Member
Oh I know it's not a sarm, and a gh bleed if you're pituitary glad continuously bleeding gh not good, and when you come of you'll be shut down gh wise
A couple of things wrong with this thread, do Sarms work yes, do real Sarms have shut down No, do some real Sarms have suppression yes. Do real Sarms have any real nasty side effects, NO.
Most people who have sideffects run a Powder form of Sarms, spiked with Pro Hormones that give you the side effects that you guys are complaining about, its not the Sarm doing that its the Pro Hormone its spiked with.
For Sarms to be fully effective they must be in suspension, bottom line no ifs and buts about it. This is not even debatable and is the only way Pharmas do their testing of Sarms. Sarms loose about 70% of their effectiveness when not in suspension. Most of the Sarms people buy are complete and utter garbage and in cap form.
Sarms 1, is underdosed crap and their LGD isn't even real LGD, bottom line their are a few reputable companies out there that sell the real deal and there effective and way saffer then AAS. Like any new market we have tons of scammers out there, we have the dried Pro Hormone market and the scumbags who run that hopped onto Sarms, bought some low grade crap Sarms put it into there Caps with left over Pro Hormones.
Most people who have sideffects run a Powder form of Sarms, spiked with Pro Hormones that give you the side effects that you guys are complaining about, its not the Sarm doing that its the Pro Hormone its spiked with.
For Sarms to be fully effective they must be in suspension, bottom line no ifs and buts about it. This is not even debatable and is the only way Pharmas do their testing of Sarms. Sarms loose about 70% of their effectiveness when not in suspension. Most of the Sarms people buy are complete and utter garbage and in cap form.
Sarms 1, is underdosed crap and their LGD isn't even real LGD, bottom line their are a few reputable companies out there that sell the real deal and there effective and way saffer then AAS. Like any new market we have tons of scammers out there, we have the dried Pro Hormone market and the scumbags who run that hopped onto Sarms, bought some low grade crap Sarms put it into there Caps with left over Pro Hormones.
Do you have any proof of anything you just said or is that all just something you "figured out"?
I have worked with Sarms in clinical studies in Germany. I'm telling you Sarms is the future. We would never test a Sarm in powder form, the properties are conducive to liquid suspension. Think of it this way, does Test have anabolic properties in powder form? Yes it does, is it much better and more anabolic in Suspension Hell yes. Its the same with Sarms.
Are the Sarms that are available right now as powerful as AAS, nope. But Sarms are the runner up when it comes to Anabolic return.
As I said the problem with Sarms is finding a good source, there are a few out there, just like their is a huge amount of good sources out their with AAS, but they also have a bunch of bunk crap.
Lets look at this way with powder formed Sarms, pretty straight forward on this one. Look at the companies that are pushing powdered Sarms, every single one of them pushed Pro Hormones. New law takes effect, your money maker gone, have tons of product left over. Buy some cheap Sarms and mix it with left over stock. Bam profit, get caught a little fine from the FDA. Also these companies where supplement companies now all of a sudden their research companies. There putting the middle finger up at the FDA, they market it like a supplement hell most of them are so ballsy that they don't even put For reseach purposes only on the bottle.
Ok so i recently was prowling a couple forums! I joined a couple also.... Sarms is definitely being pushed hard to the point that i cannot believe what any of them are saying! When you want real unbiast advice where can you go!????
Are there any forums that do not push sarms to benefit their own pockets! Soo frustrating! Its pretty obvious too...they have a team of people telling you to take these stacks and its like $ 75 a pop wayy more expensive than steroids! Id rather have the real stuff and get real unbiased advice on that.
Are there any forums that do not push sarms to benefit their own pockets! Soo frustrating! Its pretty obvious too...they have a team of people telling you to take these stacks and its like $ 75 a pop wayy more expensive than steroids! Id rather have the real stuff and get real unbiased advice on that.
You're in luck...no ones gonna push SARMS on you here. You have found the forum you were looking for.
The problem with SARMs is they suppress HPTA like AAS but are unable to deliver the anabolic returns of most AAS. So the question is WHY?
Don't buy SARMs. They act on AR like AAS and have some of same side effects without the same results. For all intents and purposes, SARMs is just a politically correct name used to market drugs that act like AAS only the SARMs currently available suck in comparison to the commercially available AAS.You're in luck...no ones gonna push SARMS on you here. You have found the forum you were looking for.
