Liver support

[B Easy]

Accept victory? For what, writing the longest post without paragraphs? You win that one, no question about it.

As far as proving your case, you've got a long way to go, young fella. And so far, you're losing that argument.

Oh I didn't use paragraph structure? You pointing that out shows that although you have nothing meaningful to contribute to the conversation, you don't want that to stop you from taking an opportunity to look like a pretentious douche. Here ya go, can you follow my words now?...

Secondly lol, as has been states multiple times, the purpose of my initial post and the subsequent ones were simply to raise reasonable doubt to the "doctors" claims that liver suplementation protocols are useless, not to prove that liver supplementation can cure liver disease. Saying they have no positive benefits is ridiculous when their are countless studies that have proved otherwise. If you really wanna play in this sandbox, why don't you make yourself useful and find the study that the "doctor" hasn't been able to find, that validates his claim that liv52, NAC, and/or TUDCA have zero benefits...until then, just keep it down over there in the peanut gallery.

 

[CensoredBoardsSuck]

If you really wanna play in this sandbox, why don't you make yourself useful and find the study that the "doctor" hasn't been able to find, that validates his claim that liv52, NAC, and/or TUDCA have zero benefits...until then, just keep it down over there in the peanut gallery.

Nope, not my responsibility and not Dr Jim's either. You're the one that claimed liver supps protect the liver from the harm of 17-AA AAS use so the burden of proof is yours and yours alone. Your loquacious, meth-fueled diatribes, though amusing, have been unsuccessful in disguising the fact that you have failed to prove your case.

Perhaps some time spent educating yourself on logic would benefit you more than trying to argue a case on a subject you CLEARLY don't understand.

 

[B Easy]

Nope, not my responsibility and not Dr Jim's either. You're the one that claimed liver supps protect the liver from the harm of 17-AA AAS use so the burden of proof is yours and yours alone

How quaint, another moron who is incapable of basic reading comprehension. Be my guest and read back through to the beginning of the discussion. See the arrows at the bottom of the page? Ya, go ahead and hit the one that points left. Good, you still with me? Oops, maybe its time for another paragraph marker to make sure you don't get lost?

Ok, you back? Good. This conversation started because "doctor" Jim made the claim that liver support supplementation was useless. You see, that's what is called an "assertion", and that usually requires evidence that supports it. No evidence has yet been offered to support that claim. Nothing. New paragraph..

Still there? Ok good. I can slow down if you want. I provided a peer reviewed study which showed that liv52 had been clinically proven to increase oxidation, immunomodularity, anti-inflamitory, and diuretic properties which improved diseased liver values. Now, if you are claiming that such properties are not beneficial, then I guess you can consider yourself the heavyweight champion of thick headed blow hards, with the close runner up being the good "doctor". Now, so far not a single study has been produced by the person who made the initial assertions, yet your claiming that the burden of proof falls upon me, even though I have already provided evidence that rebukes the initial claims, as well as the fact that I am still the only one to offer any scientifically verified evidence that is in any way related to the question at hand. New paragraph for ya..

I never claimed that liv52 or any other supplement protected the liver from aas use, i merely have argued ( with supporting, scientifically verified evidence) that all liver protection supplementation is not useless. Those are two very different things entirely. I am not asserting anything beyond simply challenging the assertion of the doctor, which I used scientific evidence to successfully accomplish. The "doctor" is making the (un-backed, unverified) assertions , hence the burden of proof is on him, and apparently you since you seem to have his dick so far up your ass you have to open your mouth every time he has to take a piss.

I raised reasonable doubt to his claims ( as I have painstakingly repeated over and over again as both you and the "doctor" seem to lose track of the already laid out structure of this argument), and neither he or you have done anything to resolve the integrity of his initial claims.

 

[CensoredBoardsSuck]

Ok, you back? Good. This conversation started because "doctor" Jim made the claim that liver support supplementation was useless. You see, that's what is called an "assertion", and that usually requires evidence that supports it. No evidence has yet been offered to support that claim. Nothing. New paragraph..

What you're asking Dr Jim to prove is unjustifiable. It's unjustifiable because it's a negative. Logic and reason can only be applied to that which exists, not to that which doesn't exist. Therefore, you cannot prove a negative.

Like I said in my previous post, you would be further ahead by learning simple logic rather than mindlessly arguing a topic you don't understand.

I raised reasonable doubt to his claims ( as I have painstakingly repeated over and over again as both you and the "doctor" seem to lose track of the already laid out structure of this argument), and neither he or you have done anything to resolve the integrity of his initial claims.

You raised doubt about what? The efficacy of Liv52 in patients with cirrhosis? Good for you. Too bad that's not what this discussion is about. Dr Jim's comments were in regards to oral AAS and you know it. Your deflection wasn't just weak, it was lame.

I never claimed that liv52 or any other supplement protected the liver from aas use, i merely have argued ( with supporting, scientifically verified evidence) that all liver protection supplementation is not useless.

Oh yes you did. You said in the quote below that you hope "all the people reading this are smart enough to realize your a quack, and that they need to protect themselves with scientifically verifiable measures, such as liv52, NAC, TUDCA and other forms of treatment" is absolutely claiming Liv52 protects the liver from aas use. And you took it a step further by claiming its efficacy in AAS users is "scientifically verified."

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.

Still there? Ok good. I can slow down if you want. I provided a peer reviewed study which showed that liv52 had been clinically proven to increase oxidation, immunomodularity, anti-inflamitory, and diuretic properties which improved diseased liver values.

So what? Your study was on cirrhosis of the liver. Do you even know how 17-AA AAS adversely affect the liver? Don't worry, the question was rhetorical. You've already proven you don't know shit. Maybe you should put down the meth pipe and sleep it off.

 

[B Easy]

...repeating myself is getting boring. You can't prove a negative? Oh well great then, I guess you just made my case that the "doctors" initial claim that liver protection supplements are useless is improvable based on your logic. You can't prove a negative right? Thanks for the help in making my case. New paragraph ...

Now, the importance of my study is not in the fact that the patients had cirrhosis; the importance is in the fact that liv52 was proven to increase oxidation, anti-inflamitory, immunomodulating, and diuretic properties in the liver (man this is the 4th time I'm having to point this out). Anyone can understand that these properties woild benefit not only any liver, but virtually all major organs in the body, whether they are healthy, diseased, or anywhere in between. The rest I'm just too busy to go into and again its tiresome pointing all the mistakes that are either deliberately or accidentally being made on your side. Just keep it simple and it will help everyone out of you both want to continue moving forward:

Liv52 ( as evinced by the study i provided) enhances the liver qualoties in the above mentioned mentioned ways; these properties would benefit any liver, diseased or not.

You two seem to be arguing that liv52 (as well as all other liver supplementation including NAC and TUDCA) has zero beneficial qualities to a liver.

The "doctor" also argued earlier that any hepatoxicity after an oral aas cycle is negligable, and similar to the effects of "2-3 beers".

Zero studies have been produced to support either claims, while I have produced a peer reviewed study which proved the above mentioned positive effects of liv52 (arguably as effective as other supplements which the "doctor" claims are also "bunk") in severely damaged livers.

Cut and paste all you want; rant and rave all you want and do everything you can to avoid confronting the simple and clear fact that neither of you have produced any information to support the ridiculous claim that liver protection supplementation protocols have zero benefits to liver values. Have a nice day.

 

[Dr JIM]

I NEVER quantified the amount of ETOH required to raise LFT's beyond a specific range bc such quantification is NOT possible for a variety of reasons, none of which your familiar with.

Iv'e ONLY stated ETOH can raise LFTs in a manner similar to AAS and the the responsible mechanism is CHOLESTASIS, but the point of such commentary is beyond your understanding bc of your BLIND SUPPORT for SUPPLEMENTS!

The degree of AAS/ LFT changes are highly variable and to that end it's apparent you didn't even read the final study I posted!

It's obvious your a waste of time since you will only deny the importance or relevance of any study i post.

BELIEVE what you want, my opinions have been supported sufficiently and reinforce the original advice I posted on this topic.

Regarding the use of "liver rotators" as a prophylactic treatment for those cycling oral AAS; THEY ARE WORTHLESS AND A WASTE OF MONEY!

 

[Dr JIM]

Now, the importance of my study is not in the fact that the patients had cirrhosis

1) the importance is in the fact that liv52 was proven to increase oxidation, anti-inflamitory, immunomodulating, and diuretic properties in the liver (man this is the 4th time I'm having to point this out).

2) Liv52 ( as evinced by the study i provided) enhances the liver qualoties in the above mentioned mentioned ways; these properties would benefit any liver, diseased or not.

3) You two seem to be arguing that liv52 (as well as all other liver supplementation including NAC and TUDCA) has zero beneficial qualities to a liver.

4) The "doctor" also argued earlier that any hepatoxicity after an oral aas cycle is negligable, and similar to the effects of "2-3 beers".

5) Zero studies have been produced to support either claims, while I have produced a peer reviewed study which proved the above mentioned positive effects of liv52 (arguably as effective as other supplements which the "doctor" claims are also "bunk") in severely damaged livers.
[/QUOTE]

1) and the goldstandard evidence needed to PROVE all of these are sorely lacking..... but your inept medical knowledge makes it clear you haven't the faintest idea what I'm referring to!

2) Well if that was true then therapy would effect cirrhotic patient prognosis and it DOES NOT!

3) Right that analogous to suggesting patients with aplastic anemia can "benefit" from blood transfusions, why of course they may "benefit" but such therapy does not treat the underlying cause to the extent required to effect OUTOCME

4) LIAR I've NEVER made such a comment period! But the fact is very few oral AAS users develop significant hepatic toxicity ! Why don't you cease the scare tactics as a means to an ends, convincing mates they NEED to use your BUNK!

5) Ive posted many more studies that support my opinion than that single study you located in some Herbal Medicine journal. I find it telling NO OTHER researchers have been able to reproduce the results of "your study", not that distilled witches piss could not have yielded similar results, lol!

 

[CensoredBoardsSuck]

Now, the importance of my study is not in the fact that the patients had cirrhosis; the importance is in the fact that liv52 was proven to increase oxidation, anti-inflamitory, immunomodulating, and diuretic properties in the liver (man this is the 4th time I'm having to point this out). Anyone can understand that these properties woild benefit not only any liver, but virtually all major organs in the body, whether they are healthy, diseased, or anywhere in between.

Now you're changing your argument and introducing a straw man (there's that faulty logic again).

Creating healthy conditions in the body doesn't just benefit organs, it benefits the whole body. So what? Eating a healthy, balanced diet will do the same thing. So will regular exercise. None of this will prevent hepatic injury from oral AAS use. Your argument is absurd.

You two seem to be arguing that liv52 (as well as all other liver supplementation including NAC and TUDCA) has zero beneficial qualities to a liver.

Straw man.

Cut and paste all you want; rant and rave all you want and do everything you can to avoid confronting the simple and clear fact that neither of you have produced any information to support the ridiculous claim that liver protection supplementation protocols have zero benefits to liver values. Have a nice day.

Once again, you change your argument. Perhaps you're finally coming down from the meth high and your thinking is even more fuzzy than normal, but your original argument was that people "need to protect themselves with scientifically verifiable measures, such as liv52, NAC, TUDCA and other forms of treatment." You've provided no scientifically verifiable evidence that Liv52, TUDCA, hocus pokus or any other snake oil concoction prevents hepatic injury from AAS use.

You also conveniently ignored the citations Dr Jim posted - or perhaps you didn't understand their significance. Whatever the reason, I'll post the abstract here. Read it and weep, numbnuts:

Herbal medicines for liver diseases.
Dhiman RK1, Chawla YK.

Abstract
Herbal medicines have been used in the treatment of liver diseases for a long time. A number of herbal preparations are available in the market. This article reviews four commonly used herbal preparations: (1) Phyllanthus, (2) Silybum marianum (milk thistle), (3) glycyrrhizin (licorice root extract), and (4) Liv 52 (mixture of herbs). Phyllanthus has a positive effect on clearance of HBV markers and there are no major adverse effects; there are no data from randomized controlled trials on clinically relevant outcomes, such as progression of chronic hepatitis to cirrhosis and/or liver cancer, and on survival. Silymarin does not reduce mortality and does not improve biochemistry and histology among patients with chronic liver disease; however, it appears to be safe and well tolerated. Stronger neominophagen C (SNMC) is a Japanese preparation that contains 0.2% glycyrrhizin, 0.1% cysteine, and 2% glyceine. SNMC does not have antiviral properties; it primarily acts as an anti-inflammatory or cytoprotective drug. It improves mortality in patients with subacute liver failure and improves liver functions in patients with subacute hepatic failure, chronic hepatitis, and cirrhosis with activity. SNMC does not reduce mortality among patients with cirrhosis with activity. SNMC may prevent the development of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with chronic hepatitis C, however, prospective data are lacking. Liv 52, an Ayurvedic hepatoprotective agent, is not useful in the management of alcohol-induced liver disease. Standardization of herbal medicines has been a problem and prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials are lacking to support their efficacy. The methodological qualities of clinical trials of treatment with herbal preparations are poor. The efficacy of these herbal preparations need to be evaluated in rigorously designed, larger randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled multicenter trials.

Oops! LMFAO

 

[Dr JIM]

FDA approved DRUGS such as the very effective APAP antidote NAC and the cholestatic agents TUDCA, and UDCA are not considered SUPPLEMENTS, mr not so easy.

FOCUS on the topic at hand SUPPLEMENTS if your capable, which I sincerely doubt!

 

[B Easy]

Now you're changing your argument and introducing a straw man (there's that faulty logic again).

Creating healthy conditions in the body doesn't just benefit organs, it benefits the whole body. So what? Eating a healthy, balanced diet will do the same thing. So will regular exercise. None of this will prevent hepatic injury from oral AAS use. Your argument is absurd.



Straw man.



Once again, you change your argument. Perhaps you're finally coming down from the meth high and your thinking is even more fuzzy than normal, but your original argument was that people "need to protect themselves with scientifically verifiable measures, such as liv52, NAC, TUDCA and other forms of treatment." You've provided no scientifically verifiable evidence that Liv52, TUDCA, hocus pokus or any other snake oil concoction prevents hepatic injury from AAS use.

You also conveniently ignored the citations Dr Jim posted - or perhaps you didn't understand their significance. Whatever the reason, I'll post the abstract here. Read it and weep, numbnuts:

Herbal medicines for liver diseases.
Dhiman RK1, Chawla YK.

Abstract
Herbal medicines have been used in the treatment of liver diseases for a long time. A number of herbal preparations are available in the market. This article reviews four commonly used herbal preparations: (1) Phyllanthus, (2) Silybum marianum (milk thistle), (3) glycyrrhizin (licorice root extract), and (4) Liv 52 (mixture of herbs). Phyllanthus has a positive effect on clearance of HBV markers and there are no major adverse effects; there are no data from randomized controlled trials on clinically relevant outcomes, such as progression of chronic hepatitis to cirrhosis and/or liver cancer, and on survival. Silymarin does not reduce mortality and does not improve biochemistry and histology among patients with chronic liver disease; however, it appears to be safe and well tolerated. Stronger neominophagen C (SNMC) is a Japanese preparation that contains 0.2% glycyrrhizin, 0.1% cysteine, and 2% glyceine. SNMC does not have antiviral properties; it primarily acts as an anti-inflammatory or cytoprotective drug. It improves mortality in patients with subacute liver failure and improves liver functions in patients with subacute hepatic failure, chronic hepatitis, and cirrhosis with activity. SNMC does not reduce mortality among patients with cirrhosis with activity. SNMC may prevent the development of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with chronic hepatitis C, however, prospective data are lacking. Liv 52, an Ayurvedic hepatoprotective agent, is not useful in the management of alcohol-induced liver disease. Standardization of herbal medicines has been a problem and prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials are lacking to support their efficacy. The methodological qualities of clinical trials of treatment with herbal preparations are poor. The efficacy of these herbal preparations need to be evaluated in rigorously designed, larger randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled multicenter trials.

Oops! LMFAO

Your like a child who wanders into the middle of a conversation and wants to get involved. The problem is, you have no idea what your talking about and you obviously haven't read through the thread lol. The "straw man" as you call it is what the argument is about in the first place. Over the course of the conversation things have gotten a bit more convoluted, but my last post is completely valid, and once again your attempt to jump into the mix is a failed attempt , and again, you just look desperate for attention.

Produced a study that indicates that liv52 can't prevent alcohol induced liver disease? Ummm, are you retarded or something? We are talking about aas induced hepatoxicity. I guess I have to take my hat off to you for at least spending the time to do some research, even if it has nothing to do with the subject at hand. Alcohol is one of the most harmful "drugs" on the human body , and alcohol alone accounts for over half of all the death and disability worldwide (by all means feel free to fact check this). By your logic Tylenol would be shown to be useless in the treatment of pain, because patients suffering from severe physical trauma found no noticeable cessation of pain symptoms.

No one is saying that liv52 can heal an alcoholic liver, but congratulations because it looks like if anyone ever decides to do so you'll be prepared. You are the one using the straw man argument it seems, which also indicates that perhaps you are projecting (as they say in clinical psychology). You'd make a horrible poler player I imagine...even online lol.

Please re-read my previous posts and find a study that provides evidence that liv52, NAC, and TUDCA are useless and/or unable to improve adverse liver values. This is now the 5th request yet unfulfilled. Pretty soon I'm gonna have to resort to just pasting my previous posts in order to save myself some time trying to spell things out for you two.

 

[Dr JIM]

Now you're changing your argument and introducing a straw man (there's that faulty logic again).

Creating healthy conditions in the body doesn't just benefit organs, it benefits the whole body. So what? Eating a healthy, balanced diet will do the same thing. So will regular exercise. None of this will prevent hepatic injury from oral AAS use. Your argument is absurd.



Straw man.



Once again, you change your argument. Perhaps you're finally coming down from the meth high and your thinking is even more fuzzy than normal, but your original argument was that people "need to protect themselves with scientifically verifiable measures, such as liv52, NAC, TUDCA and other forms of treatment." You've provided no scientifically verifiable evidence that Liv52, TUDCA, hocus pokus or any other snake oil concoction prevents hepatic injury from AAS use.

You also conveniently ignored the citations Dr Jim posted - or perhaps you didn't understand their significance. Whatever the reason, I'll post the abstract here. Read it and weep, numbnuts:

Herbal medicines for liver diseases.
Dhiman RK1, Chawla YK.

Abstract
Herbal medicines have been used in the treatment of liver diseases for a long time. A number of herbal preparations are available in the market. This article reviews four commonly used herbal preparations: (1) Phyllanthus, (2) Silybum marianum (milk thistle), (3) glycyrrhizin (licorice root extract), and (4) Liv 52 (mixture of herbs). Phyllanthus has a positive effect on clearance of HBV markers and there are no major adverse effects; there are no data from randomized controlled trials on clinically relevant outcomes, such as progression of chronic hepatitis to cirrhosis and/or liver cancer, and on survival. Silymarin does not reduce mortality and does not improve biochemistry and histology among patients with chronic liver disease; however, it appears to be safe and well tolerated. Stronger neominophagen C (SNMC) is a Japanese preparation that contains 0.2% glycyrrhizin, 0.1% cysteine, and 2% glyceine. SNMC does not have antiviral properties; it primarily acts as an anti-inflammatory or cytoprotective drug. It improves mortality in patients with subacute liver failure and improves liver functions in patients with subacute hepatic failure, chronic hepatitis, and cirrhosis with activity. SNMC does not reduce mortality among patients with cirrhosis with activity. SNMC may prevent the development of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with chronic hepatitis C, however, prospective data are lacking. Liv 52, an Ayurvedic hepatoprotective agent, is not useful in the management of alcohol-induced liver disease. Standardization of herbal medicines has been a problem and prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials are lacking to support their efficacy. The methodological qualities of clinical trials of treatment with herbal preparations are poor. The efficacy of these herbal preparations need to be evaluated in rigorously designed, larger randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled multicenter trials.

Oops! LMFAO

Big Easy's next attempt to "prove" this BUNK could be effective, the inclusion/exclusion argument!

Such as; but wait CBS sir, bc these therapies were "well tolerated" and not harmful, and since the study did not involve ALL potential users, prove they are NOT beneficial in those patients NOT studied!!

OOPS haha got cha
LMFAO

 

[B Easy]

FDA approved DRUGS such as the very effective APAP antidote NAC and the cholestatic agents TUDCA, and UDCA are not considered SUPPLEMENTS, mr not so easy.

FOCUS on the topic at hand SUPPLEMENTS if your capable, which I sincerely doubt!

When you say "supplements", your ONLy talking about liv52? If this is true then we can end the discussion right now. The study I produced involved liv52 certainly, but I was arguing the efficacy of "liver protection supplementation protocols" with a much wider scope than just one fucking product. Here is the OP post , please read closer than you have been...

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.

Ok, then now here is what started this whole debate...

Quite simply it's an ABSOLUTE WASTE OF MONEY!

Then you said this also...

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.

So the notion that we were ever JUST talking about liv52 is rediculous. Now you look stupid, and now YOU are trying to change the subject not me,presumably because you realized you have no case.

 

[B Easy]

You two are really adorable.

 

[Dr JIM]

Your like a child who wanders into the middle of a conversation and wants to get involved. The problem is, you have no idea what your talking about and you obviously haven't read through the thread lol. The "straw man" as you call it is what the argument is about in the first place. Over the course of the conversation things have gotten a bit more convoluted, but my last post is completely valid, and once again your attempt to jump into the mix is a failed attempt , and again, you just look desperate for attention.

Produced a study that indicates that liv52 can't prevent alcohol induced liver disease? Ummm, are you retarded or something? We are talking about aas induced hepatoxicity. I guess I have to take my hat off to you for at least spending the time to do some research, even if it has nothing to do with the subject at hand. Alcohol is one of the most harmful "drugs" on the human body , and alcohol alone accounts for over half of all the death and disability worldwide (by all means feel free to fact check this). By your logic Tylenol would be shown to be useless in the treatment of pain, because patients suffering from severe physical trauma found no noticeable cessation of pain symptoms.

No one is saying that liv52 can heal an alcoholic liver, but congratulations because it looks like if anyone ever decides to do so you'll be prepared. You are the one using the straw man argument it seems, which also indicates that perhaps you are projecting (as they say in clinical psychology). You'd make a horrible poler player I imagine...even online lol.

Please re-read my previous posts and find a study that provides evidence that liv52, NAC, and TUDCA are useless and/or unable to improve adverse liver values. This is now the 5th request yet unfulfilled. Pretty soon I'm gonna have to resort to just pasting my previous posts in order to save myself some time trying to spell things out for you two.

Fella FOR THE SIXTH TIME you really don't seem to get it do you! Using LFT's as the sole criterion of therapeutic efficacy is more of the same garbage you have been spewing. Such assays are not only nonspecific but insensitive markers for hepatic injury especially in patients with multisystem dysfunction, the latter being an fact of portal hypertension.

It's not surprising since your swirling the proverbial drain grasping at damn near anything in some lame attempt to convince others you know WTF your talking about, when it's obvious you DO NOT!

 

[CensoredBoardsSuck]

Big Easy's next attempt to "prove" this BUNK could be effective, the inclusion/exclusion argument!

 

[B Easy]

Feel free to apologize for accusing me of changing the subject, when clearly it is you who has continually tried to do so throughout this argument. Keeping things in between the lines has been a challenge for me, and you have proven to be frankly, a little lacking in the substance department. This message board is probably a lot more important to you than it is to me, judging from not only your post count but your attempt to gain authority by naming yourself "Dr.". That's mighty big of you Jim, I wonder why I didn't include my profession in my name. Maybe I could have gotten some cheap respect out of it had I, but alas its too late for that now. Your clearly a little I upset at this point , and that was not my intention from the start. Its safe to say that we have both made our cases and its unlikely that you will ever produce a study that shows liv52,,NAC, or TUDCA is useless at improving liver values ( quite frankly, because if you could have you would have already done so). Lets just agree that we had a healthy sparring session, got some entertainment out of the discussion, and if nothing else provided polarized perspectives on liver supplementation protocols, and board members can read through and come to their own conclusions without spelling out an absolute answer. At this point I think its turning into a pissing match, and i don't want to see our debate become diluted into petty squabbling. You can feel free to provide more support for your side if you wish , and by all means feel free to pm me if you find a study that proves your case. If you find such a study, I will be the first to thank you for saving me money in the future. I don't care about being right or wrong, i care about the truth, so if you can enlighten us then by all means do so.

As far as the other clown is concerned he can go back to eating dicks now.

 

[CensoredBoardsSuck]

Your like a child who wanders into the middle of a conversation and wants to get involved. The problem is, you have no idea what your talking about and you obviously haven't read through the thread lol. The "straw man" as you call it is what the argument is about in the first place. Over the course of the conversation things have gotten a bit more convoluted, but my last post is completely valid, and once again your attempt to jump into the mix is a failed attempt , and again, you just look desperate for attention.

Produced a study that indicates that liv52 can't prevent alcohol induced liver disease? Ummm, are you retarded or something? We are talking about aas induced hepatoxicity. I guess I have to take my hat off to you for at least spending the time to do some research, even if it has nothing to do with the subject at hand. Alcohol is one of the most harmful "drugs" on the human body , and alcohol alone accounts for over half of all the death and disability worldwide (by all means feel free to fact check this). By your logic Tylenol would be shown to be useless in the treatment of pain, because patients suffering from severe physical trauma found no noticeable cessation of pain symptoms.

No one is saying that liv52 can heal an alcoholic liver, but congratulations because it looks like if anyone ever decides to do so you'll be prepared. You are the one using the straw man argument it seems, which also indicates that perhaps you are projecting (as they say in clinical psychology). You'd make a horrible poler player I imagine...even online lol.

Please re-read my previous posts and find a study that provides evidence that liv52, NAC, and TUDCA are useless and/or unable to improve adverse liver values. This is now the 5th request yet unfulfilled. Pretty soon I'm gonna have to resort to just pasting my previous posts in order to save myself some time trying to spell things out for you two.

That avatar suits you. I'm sure that is your everyday facial expression. LMFAO

 

[Dr JIM]

A pissing match that's not true at all. But rather you now realize it's best to bow out now from that "critical analysis" you wanted so desperately earlier!

The fact is even you now realize your limited understanding of, and the inability to apply, the required concepts of physiology, pathology, biochemistry, and medical therapeutics negates such a critical analysis.

Your entire discussion has been one of deflection, confusion , confabulation from beginning to end.

I gotta give you credit for proving one point however! You have unequivocally prven your are FOS!

 

[B Easy]

...if you have anything else to say, say it after you produce a study that proves liv52, NAC, and TUDCA has zero benefits to liver values, as you have states implicitly and explicitly throughout the duration of this conversation. Anything else is just an attempt by you to save some dignity by either critizing or making fun of me. Feel free to do both if you wish, but it only serves to prove your inability to offer meaningful evidence to support your erroneous claims.

 

[B Easy]

Oh ya and tell the other guy to eat a dick.