ChrisBchicken
Member
What do you guys use for a liver support while a cycle with orals? I use to take milk thistle but heard it's not all that great. Just bought some Tudca. I heard Liv52 is good too.
MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
Liver support
- Thread starter ChrisBchicken
- Start date
I've tried liv52 and Milk thistle. Milk thistle was giving me splitting headaches so I stopped taking it. Months later I had a skin and blood allergy test by my doc. I discovered I was allergic to rag weed. Lesson learned don't take milk thistle if you're allergic or sensitive to daisies and rag weed. Shit even states it on the bottle.
As far as effectiveness my liver values have recovered to baseline after cycling with orals.
As far as effectiveness my liver values have recovered to baseline after cycling with orals.
Quite simply it's an ABSOLUTE WASTE OF MONEY!
I've come to agree with this on cycle. But
even taking after a harsh oral cycle to help recover? Still worthless in your opinion?
NIMO, bc discontinuing the cause (the suspect drug or drugs) is the only established treatment for AAS related hepatic "toxicity".
Now of course the manufacturers of Liv52 would love for you to believe the PED forum hype, lol!
Most mates have no idea how RARE significant AAS associated hepatic toxicity really is.
By significant, I mean someone who required hospitalization and/or goal directed therapy.
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT PERHAPS 100 patients, based on case reports alone.
Obviously then most are NOT reported so let's say 1000 patients out of hundred of thousands (or millions) of BB/LIFTERS/AAS USERS.
Heck proving AAS ALONE are responsible for hepatic toxicity is a difficult project in and of itself.
Now of course the manufacturers of Liv52 would love for you to believe the PED forum hype, lol!
Most mates have no idea how RARE significant AAS associated hepatic toxicity really is.
By significant, I mean someone who required hospitalization and/or goal directed therapy.
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT PERHAPS 100 patients, based on case reports alone.
Obviously then most are NOT reported so let's say 1000 patients out of hundred of thousands (or millions) of BB/LIFTERS/AAS USERS.
Heck proving AAS ALONE are responsible for hepatic toxicity is a difficult project in and of itself.
Last edited:
blazinshotguns
New Member
Took oral tren with NAC and my liver enzymes didn't even come close to elavating . Bilirubin was high, not sure what that means . Took winstrol without liver protection and liver was elevated .
Yea and drinking as little as 2-3 BEERS can have a similar impact on hepatic enzymes but we don't take NAC (a specific antidote for APAP toxicity) or Liv-52 (a specific antidote for impoverished supplement manufacturers) for that yet "recovery" is essentially guaranteed.
blazinshotguns
New Member
Would you say recovery and elevation varies by individual
B Easy
New Member
I'm by no means a doctor, but I found this with 10 seconds of searching on Google using the academic search filter, and at the very least it provides reasonable doubt to the claim that liv52 is useless.
PubMed
US National Library of MedicineNational Institutes of Health
Phytomedicine. 2005 Sep;12(9):619-24.
The efficacy of Liv-52 on liver cirrhotic patients: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled first approach.
Huseini HF1, Alavian SM, Heshmat R, Heydari MR, Abolmaali K.
Author information
Abstract
Cirrhosis is the irreversible sequel of various disorders that damage liver cells permanently over time. Presently, the use of herbal medicines for prevention and control of chronic liver diseases is in the focus of attention for both the physicians and the patients; the reasons for such shift toward the use of herbals include the expensive cost of conventional drugs, adverse drug reactions, and their inefficacy. In the present study, the efficacy of herbal medicine Liv-52 (consisting of Mandur basma, Tamarix gallica and herbal extracts of Capparis spinosa, Cichorium intybus, Solanum nigrum, Terminalia arjuna and Achillea millefolium) on liver cirrhosis outcomes was compared with the placebo for 6 months in 36 cirrhotic patients referred to Tehran Hepatic Center. The outcome measures included child-pugh score, ascites, serum alanine aminotransferase (ALT), aspartate aminotransferase (AST), total billirubin, albumin, prothrombin time, platelet and white blood cells counts. The indices were recorded in all patients before and after 6 months of drug or placebo treatment. The results demonstrated that the patients treated with Liv-52 for 6 months had significantly better child-pugh score, decreased ascites, decreased serum ALT and AST. In placebo administered patients all the clinical parameters recorded at beginning of the study were not significantly different than after 6 months. We conclude that Liv-52 possess hepatoprotective effect in cirrhotic patients. This protective effect of Liv-52 can be attributed to the diuretic, anti-inflammatory, anti-oxidative, and immunomodulating properties of the component herbs.
PMID: 16194047 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Similar articles
[The effect of Cpd 861 on chronic hepatitis B related fibrosis and early cirrhosis: a randomized, double blind, placebo controlled clinical trial].[Zhonghua Gan Zang Bing Za Zhi....][Evaluation of non-invasive indices for liver histology in patients with chronic hepatitis B].[Di Yi Jun Yi Da Xue Xue Bao. 2...]Liv.52 in alcoholic liver disease: a prospective, controlled trial.[J Ethnopharmacol. 2003]Review Herbal medicines for liver diseases.[Dig Dis Sci. 2005]Review Use of herbal supplements for chronic liver disease.[Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2004]See reviews...See all...
Cited by 7 PubMed Central articles
The efficacy of Liv-52 on liver cirrhotic patients: a randomized, double-blind, ...
PubMed
Effects of androgenic-anabolic steroids on apolipoproteins and lipoprotein (a).
National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine8600 Rockville Pike, Bethesda MD, 20894 USA
PubMed
US National Library of MedicineNational Institutes of Health
Phytomedicine. 2005 Sep;12(9):619-24.
The efficacy of Liv-52 on liver cirrhotic patients: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled first approach.
Huseini HF1, Alavian SM, Heshmat R, Heydari MR, Abolmaali K.
Author information
Abstract
Cirrhosis is the irreversible sequel of various disorders that damage liver cells permanently over time. Presently, the use of herbal medicines for prevention and control of chronic liver diseases is in the focus of attention for both the physicians and the patients; the reasons for such shift toward the use of herbals include the expensive cost of conventional drugs, adverse drug reactions, and their inefficacy. In the present study, the efficacy of herbal medicine Liv-52 (consisting of Mandur basma, Tamarix gallica and herbal extracts of Capparis spinosa, Cichorium intybus, Solanum nigrum, Terminalia arjuna and Achillea millefolium) on liver cirrhosis outcomes was compared with the placebo for 6 months in 36 cirrhotic patients referred to Tehran Hepatic Center. The outcome measures included child-pugh score, ascites, serum alanine aminotransferase (ALT), aspartate aminotransferase (AST), total billirubin, albumin, prothrombin time, platelet and white blood cells counts. The indices were recorded in all patients before and after 6 months of drug or placebo treatment. The results demonstrated that the patients treated with Liv-52 for 6 months had significantly better child-pugh score, decreased ascites, decreased serum ALT and AST. In placebo administered patients all the clinical parameters recorded at beginning of the study were not significantly different than after 6 months. We conclude that Liv-52 possess hepatoprotective effect in cirrhotic patients. This protective effect of Liv-52 can be attributed to the diuretic, anti-inflammatory, anti-oxidative, and immunomodulating properties of the component herbs.
PMID: 16194047 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Similar articles
[The effect of Cpd 861 on chronic hepatitis B related fibrosis and early cirrhosis: a randomized, double blind, placebo controlled clinical trial].[Zhonghua Gan Zang Bing Za Zhi....][Evaluation of non-invasive indices for liver histology in patients with chronic hepatitis B].[Di Yi Jun Yi Da Xue Xue Bao. 2...]Liv.52 in alcoholic liver disease: a prospective, controlled trial.[J Ethnopharmacol. 2003]Review Herbal medicines for liver diseases.[Dig Dis Sci. 2005]Review Use of herbal supplements for chronic liver disease.[Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2004]See reviews...See all...
Cited by 7 PubMed Central articles
The efficacy of Liv-52 on liver cirrhotic patients: a randomized, double-blind, ...
PubMed
Effects of androgenic-anabolic steroids on apolipoproteins and lipoprotein (a).
National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine8600 Rockville Pike, Bethesda MD, 20894 USA
Golly dude do you already have cirrhosis? I certainly hope not but do try to understand there's a HUGE difference between disease PREVENTION, thru the use of prophylactic substances, and that of disease THERAPY.
For instance why do you believe the supplement manufacturers selected "cirrhotic patients" as study subjects.
Maybe it's bc once that diagnosis is made NO THERAPY reverses the pathological state yet a variety of "treatments" can alter these patients LFTs such as; dietary protein, many drugs, passage of time.
So what parameters are relevant in cirrhotic patients who are being used to determine the efficacy of A DRUG like Liv-52?
The overall mortality and morbidity of the study subjects.
Now I wonder why that was NOT commented upon, DUH!
Wanna KNOW the TRUTH ask yourself why NONE of these Liver supplements are a component of any hepatic medical protocol!
Bottom line, as of a medline search I conducted last year last year, there is no evidence these supplements serve any purpose (especially as prophylactic agents for drug induced hepatic injury) but to line the pockets of their producers.
What's even MORE IMPORTANT, bc significant AAS associated hepatic toxicity is so damn rare, heck one would likely have to treat ten-thousand patients to confirm or refute whether these substances made any difference from a medical perspective.
It's for these reasons I opine these "drugs" are a waster of money especially as prophylactic therapy for those using oral anabolic agents.
And if anyone can post any legitimate evidence to the contrary I'm on Meso almost every day, so post up
(Oh and please no "studies on PBC, Pregnancy induced liver failure, Hepatitis patients etc) Why, been there done that!
For instance why do you believe the supplement manufacturers selected "cirrhotic patients" as study subjects.
Maybe it's bc once that diagnosis is made NO THERAPY reverses the pathological state yet a variety of "treatments" can alter these patients LFTs such as; dietary protein, many drugs, passage of time.
So what parameters are relevant in cirrhotic patients who are being used to determine the efficacy of A DRUG like Liv-52?
The overall mortality and morbidity of the study subjects.
Now I wonder why that was NOT commented upon, DUH!
Wanna KNOW the TRUTH ask yourself why NONE of these Liver supplements are a component of any hepatic medical protocol!
Bottom line, as of a medline search I conducted last year last year, there is no evidence these supplements serve any purpose (especially as prophylactic agents for drug induced hepatic injury) but to line the pockets of their producers.
What's even MORE IMPORTANT, bc significant AAS associated hepatic toxicity is so damn rare, heck one would likely have to treat ten-thousand patients to confirm or refute whether these substances made any difference from a medical perspective.
It's for these reasons I opine these "drugs" are a waster of money especially as prophylactic therapy for those using oral anabolic agents.
And if anyone can post any legitimate evidence to the contrary I'm on Meso almost every day, so post up
(Oh and please no "studies on PBC, Pregnancy induced liver failure, Hepatitis patients etc) Why, been there done that!
B Easy
New Member
I thought the overuse of capital letters was frowned upon in the M.D. community, but apparently its totally appropriate to use capital letters to "rant" at me. Your so obnoxious that you actually try to yell at someone through text. I didn't mean to challenge your authority in the medical field, but now that you bring it up I suppose I can clarify something for you. #1). Your not the only doctor in the world. You know who else are doctors? The four fucking doctors that conducted the study , as well as the academic "peer reviewers" who oversaw and publishes the study...during this time you spend hours a day bullying people on a message board. What are you office hours doc? #2) it states prett clearly that it has been shown to improve the health of the liver through its diuretic, anfi-inflamitory, anti-oxadative, Immunomodulating propreties. Is it your assertion that such effects will only improve the quality of tissue in "cirosis diagnosed" patients. Your logic is full of holes. Does eating protein rich diets only help people who are malnourished? Of course not. If something improves the quality of the liver, it improved the quality of the liver. Cirossis or any other adverse condition would respond to the properties listed above. #3) I never said that liv52 was necessarily beneficial anyways. You took a firm stand that is had no benefits whatsoever, and that it is all a marketing ploy. I said that my article - which proves that liv52 specifically has multiple benefits - raised a reasonable doubt, which it obviously did, which is why your panties got in a bunch and you had to swing your Dr. Dick around in my face. You misrepresented, misunderstood, and misinterpreted all in the same post. Congratulations Dr. #4) you ask for someone to produce a study contradicting your statements, i guess because yoyr implying the study is not valid eh? The study was peer reviewed a nd published by the National Institutes of Health's medical journal. Your fucking kidding right? Thats one of the most highly respected research organization in the world. Id be happy to flood this thread with evididenve that contradicts your assertions, but the fact remains that i already produced one after literally ten seconds of my time. Frankly your view in thid really no differenc to me, im posting for everyone else who could be reading this, and may gain more knowedge about something beyond your own misguided notions about reality. #5) your just a complete douche.
Instead of thanking me, I suggest you just take a moment next time to carefully read and think critically before you start typing away. Really make sure that what you write makes some sense, and then maybe we can have a better conversation.
Instead of thanking me, I suggest you just take a moment next time to carefully read and think critically before you start typing away. Really make sure that what you write makes some sense, and then maybe we can have a better conversation.
Last edited:
B Easy
New Member
Sorry, your just too idiotic to pass up pointing out a couple more things...
OK, so just to clear things up. The good doctor is claiming that doing an oral teen cycle and/or a an oral Winny cycle not only does not warrant liver protection, but that it is compatible to a couple beers. Thanks doctor for clearing that up. God I'm hoping that all the people reading this are smart enough to realize your a quack, and that they need to protect themeelves with scientifically verifiable measures, such as liv52, NAC, TUDCA and other forms of treatment. Let's just hope a bunch of poor kids don't destroy their bodies because they though because you out a "Dr." In your name when you made your account , that this somehow gives you ultimate authority on all things medicine related, even though you obviously fail to grasp even the faintest idea of the concept of ethical responsibility as it pertains to offering professional advice , which by nature is any advice you give considering the professional title in your name, and the social capital you enjoy as a result of it. Another thing...
First, apparently you can't read, or you assume no one else can, or perhaps both, but the National Institutes of Health funded and oversaw, and published the study, not any "supplement company", so there goes your whole argument out the window in the first few sentences.
Secondly , if you are gonna reference a study you have "conducted", you need to back it up in some way in order to gain any sort of merit. Was the study peer reviewed and published? How was it funded and by whom? I assume you will hide behind anonymity so you can't be compelled to produce a copy of the "study", which makes it impossible to verify the validity of the study, and equally impossible to verify the validity of your claim. Just stop trying so hard to impress, its honestly kind of pathetic and worse yet, your poor advice could get some people very sick. Telling people that liver protection is just a scam is irresponsible, unfounded, and downright immoral I feel. Even worse, you try to attack anyone who who offers advice on ways to protect your organs while on oral aas - thereby disagreeing with you - in order to maintain what you feel is your position within the social hierarchy of this message board.
OK, so just to clear things up. The good doctor is claiming that doing an oral teen cycle and/or a an oral Winny cycle not only does not warrant liver protection, but that it is compatible to a couple beers. Thanks doctor for clearing that up. God I'm hoping that all the people reading this are smart enough to realize your a quack, and that they need to protect themeelves with scientifically verifiable measures, such as liv52, NAC, TUDCA and other forms of treatment. Let's just hope a bunch of poor kids don't destroy their bodies because they though because you out a "Dr." In your name when you made your account , that this somehow gives you ultimate authority on all things medicine related, even though you obviously fail to grasp even the faintest idea of the concept of ethical responsibility as it pertains to offering professional advice , which by nature is any advice you give considering the professional title in your name, and the social capital you enjoy as a result of it. Another thing...
Golly dude do you already have cirrhosis? I certainly hope not but do try to understand there's a HUGE difference between disease PREVENTION, thru the use of prophylactic substances, and that of disease THERAPY.
For instance why do you believe the supplement manufacturers selected "cirrhotic patients" as study subjects....
Bottom line, as of a medline search I conducted last year last year, there is no evidence these supplements serve any purpose.
First, apparently you can't read, or you assume no one else can, or perhaps both, but the National Institutes of Health funded and oversaw, and published the study, not any "supplement company", so there goes your whole argument out the window in the first few sentences.
Secondly , if you are gonna reference a study you have "conducted", you need to back it up in some way in order to gain any sort of merit. Was the study peer reviewed and published? How was it funded and by whom? I assume you will hide behind anonymity so you can't be compelled to produce a copy of the "study", which makes it impossible to verify the validity of the study, and equally impossible to verify the validity of your claim. Just stop trying so hard to impress, its honestly kind of pathetic and worse yet, your poor advice could get some people very sick. Telling people that liver protection is just a scam is irresponsible, unfounded, and downright immoral I feel. Even worse, you try to attack anyone who who offers advice on ways to protect your organs while on oral aas - thereby disagreeing with you - in order to maintain what you feel is your position within the social hierarchy of this message board.
Last edited:
I really could care less how "you feel" support the nonsense your spewing and post all the evidence that shows this crap "saves lives", when used in a PROPHYLACTIC manner, LMAO!
Oh and I suspect you were NOT aware a few drinks CAN bump LFTS and the responsible mechanism is the SAME as AAS cholestasis. Yea it's obvious you are NO DOCTOR!
Oh and I suspect you were NOT aware a few drinks CAN bump LFTS and the responsible mechanism is the SAME as AAS cholestasis. Yea it's obvious you are NO DOCTOR!
Last edited:
B Easy
New Member
Lol is that really your only response Mr. Capitals? I guess you aren't capable of refuting any of the many accusations I threw at you in the previous two posts, so I guess you are conceding on those issues, mercifully might I add. Thanks for playing, but before I go , one more quick note because your just too much fun...
How I "feel"? No, so far I have produced a peer reviewed and publushed study to back up what I have said. You have not. The only person talking about how they "feel" is you.
No one said that the stuff "saves lives", once again you are committing the straw man fallacy, and arguing erroneously , which I suspect is the only way you can appear thoughtful. Liv52 has been proven to be beneficial to liver values. Period. If you want to disprove the findings of the study, you can do what real doctors do and conduct a literature review, submit your findings, apply for a grant, conduct a research study, then attempt to get your results published once your able to produce knowledge that builds upon the fields understanding of whatever phenomenon you are examining. Oh, that's right I forgot, you don't do that silly "sciency" stuff, you just complain and whine on message boards like a menatrual teenager and throw superfluous vocabulary around like it is supposed to impress someone.
Anyways, congratulations on misunderstanding yet again. Your lack or critical thinking and communication skills are alarming, and it is becoming painfully obvious that you are most likely a nurse at a retirement community, and not a doctor in any capacity. I've already spent enough time in this thread, and anyone reading it will at least feel compelled to do a bit of research on their own regarding liver support so my job is done. Feel free to continue acting childish if you like, by all means, because your responses have been the most amusing reading for me this week, and my colleagues who practice medicine have gotten a good laugh out of you as well.
Last edited:
Dude are you for real? The National Institutes of Health medical journal, WTF are you referring to PUB MED.
PubMed is a medical DATABASE that is funded by the NIH, However the citations listed on PubMed are in no way "reviewed" by that US based organization!
A peer reviewed journal is one that is scanned by those considered experts in a particular field, but in no way do these experts necessarily agree with the authors conclusions!
You continue to advance the notion treatment of established disease is the same as disease prevention.
AAS users are using liver supplements to PREVENT liver disease yet ALL of the "evidence" you posted involved citations in which the subjects had WELL ESTABLISHED disease such as cirrhosis, hepatitis and alcoholic liver disease.
Heck if you Google even more you might discover the use of the "supplements" in patients with Primary Biliary Cirrhosis, Pregnancy Induced LD, Mushroom related Hepatic Toxicity to name a few.
But what do these ailments have to do with PREVENTING AAS related hepatic toxicity through the use of "hepatic protectors"? Not a damn thing!
Your comments are the type of extrapolation and scare tactics cited by many "experienced" users on AAS forums.
Post an article, and misappropriate the conclusion to comply with your agenda, which in this case is clear; fellow BB/lifters and weekend warriors (much like BCPS prevent pregnancy) should you choose to cycle an oral AAS, your a fool if you don't "protect yourself" with a liver supplement!
Finally as I've stated previously the best means of protecting your liver are the following;
1) limit oral cycles to no more than SIX and preferably FOUR weeks
2) only cycle ONE oral agent simultaneously
3) allow a recovery of at least 6 weeks between any oral cycle
4) obtain LFTS periodically if you use oral agents on a regular basis
PubMed is a medical DATABASE that is funded by the NIH, However the citations listed on PubMed are in no way "reviewed" by that US based organization!
A peer reviewed journal is one that is scanned by those considered experts in a particular field, but in no way do these experts necessarily agree with the authors conclusions!
You continue to advance the notion treatment of established disease is the same as disease prevention.
AAS users are using liver supplements to PREVENT liver disease yet ALL of the "evidence" you posted involved citations in which the subjects had WELL ESTABLISHED disease such as cirrhosis, hepatitis and alcoholic liver disease.
Heck if you Google even more you might discover the use of the "supplements" in patients with Primary Biliary Cirrhosis, Pregnancy Induced LD, Mushroom related Hepatic Toxicity to name a few.
But what do these ailments have to do with PREVENTING AAS related hepatic toxicity through the use of "hepatic protectors"? Not a damn thing!
Your comments are the type of extrapolation and scare tactics cited by many "experienced" users on AAS forums.
Post an article, and misappropriate the conclusion to comply with your agenda, which in this case is clear; fellow BB/lifters and weekend warriors (much like BCPS prevent pregnancy) should you choose to cycle an oral AAS, your a fool if you don't "protect yourself" with a liver supplement!
Finally as I've stated previously the best means of protecting your liver are the following;
1) limit oral cycles to no more than SIX and preferably FOUR weeks
2) only cycle ONE oral agent simultaneously
3) allow a recovery of at least 6 weeks between any oral cycle
4) obtain LFTS periodically if you use oral agents on a regular basis
B Easy
New Member
B Easy
New Member
OK now your starting to misrepresent the purpose of a peer review? Wow this is stuping pretty low, even for you. The two primary functions of a peer review (which I'm amazed you don't understand, seeing as your a "doctor" and all) is to ensure that the study/article does not "produce" already established knowledge; it needs to further the fields understanding in some way and contribute, not just reiterate. The other function is to ensure that the findings are VALID. There a difference between "not agreeing" with something, and not being able to prove something. Once again your "feelings" are getting involved lol. No one cares if the peer reviewers "agree" with the study you dunce. The only thing they care about (in any peer review, but most certainly in the medical field) is making sure the evidence is valid and the study was carried out appropriately, which is something that the NIH takes very seriously, as they have a well established reputation to protect.
Congratulations once again "doctor", now you've decided to challenge the integrity of not only the NIH ( one of the most respected research organizations in the world), but the process of peer reviewing in general. Your on a real crusade for feelings over reason it seems. Don't believe scientifically verifiable evidence! Don't trust team of doctors that spent years planning and executing a highly controlled double-blind long term study! Don't trust the team of doctors that reviewed their research and found that it was beneficial to the scientific community and decided to publish it in a highly esteemed medical journal! Instead, just believe "Dr. Jim" on a steroids and bodybuilding online forum, who may or may not be a delusional man-child who collects fingernail clippings in his free time! Hes the expert with all the right "feelings" that can argue even the most well established scientific facts with a mere brush of his keyboard! Amazing...
Congratulations once again "doctor", now you've decided to challenge the integrity of not only the NIH ( one of the most respected research organizations in the world), but the process of peer reviewing in general. Your on a real crusade for feelings over reason it seems. Don't believe scientifically verifiable evidence! Don't trust team of doctors that spent years planning and executing a highly controlled double-blind long term study! Don't trust the team of doctors that reviewed their research and found that it was beneficial to the scientific community and decided to publish it in a highly esteemed medical journal! Instead, just believe "Dr. Jim" on a steroids and bodybuilding online forum, who may or may not be a delusional man-child who collects fingernail clippings in his free time! Hes the expert with all the right "feelings" that can argue even the most well established scientific facts with a mere brush of his keyboard! Amazing...
Last edited:
Oh enough already with your semantic deflections that have nothing to do with the subject matter.
And the notion the "herbal journal" Phytomedicine is even remotely connected to the NIH is ABSURD!
This study was conducted in INDIA bozo and was NOT funded by the NIH as you have stated but rather listed as one of millions of scientific related articles on PUBMED an NIH funded database.
Post your evidence the supplements your touting PREVENT AAS related hepatic toxicity or just admit your FOS!
And the notion the "herbal journal" Phytomedicine is even remotely connected to the NIH is ABSURD!
This study was conducted in INDIA bozo and was NOT funded by the NIH as you have stated but rather listed as one of millions of scientific related articles on PUBMED an NIH funded database.
Post your evidence the supplements your touting PREVENT AAS related hepatic toxicity or just admit your FOS!
Last edited:
B Easy
New Member
Again, the purpose of my initial post ( and the subsequent ones as well) was to provide reasonable doubt regarding your un-backed, un-cited claims that liver support products are useless. Since you are the one attempting to speak in absolutes, I believe the burden of proof falls upon you to substantiate the claims, unless you decide to concede that you lack evidence to support your claim. I merely produced a study which refutes your assertion, not one designed to be absolute proof of anything beyond the specific merit of the study. How bout this, since I produced one, you can produce one too. It took me 10 seconds, so I don't expect it to take someone like you (with your vast knowledge and research skills, not to mention access to specialized medical databases) very long to find a study to support your claim. Find a study that supports your side, and then we can call this dispute a draw. If its just "not worth your time" to do so, I can only assume one of two things to be true. Either you assume that it will take you longer to find support for your claims than it did for me in under a minute without the use of any of my academic databases, which doesn't bode well for your case; or, you know that you are wrong, will not be able to find a peer reviewed study that shows that either oral aas use has only negligable adverse effects on liver values, or that the implimentation of supplementary liver protection protocols are unable to mitigate the harmful effects of unbalanced liver values...which equally bodes poorly for your case. If you are able to produce such a study, I will gladly concede to my initial point, which is that my study produces reasonable doubt to your claim that liver protection is a "waste of money", and useless, which it will continue to effectively due even in the presence of a hundred such studies produced to support your claim.
B Easy
New Member
Its good to know that you didn't study a map at any time during your undergraduate studies, because the study was conducted in Tehran, which isnt a city in India, genius lol. I can see how little details like countries and facts can slip past even the most keen mind...With you the laughs just don't stop, please, keep going.
