Masteron SERM Myth

[Rido]

@Type-IIx were you talking about these?

Drostanolone and norethisterone in disseminated breast cancer - ProQuest

Explore millions of resources from scholarly journals, books, newspapers, videos and more, on the ProQuest Platform.

www.proquest.com

here is a 1969 snippit from a book discussing what it was made for.(Doesn't mean it worked as intended)

Effect of drostanolone propionate on the binding of oestradiol and dihydrotestosterone by normal and malignant target tissues

The influence of drostanolone propionate, an anticancer agent, was tested on the binding of 17 β-oestradiol and dihydrotestosterone to specific recept…

www.sciencedirect.com

Here is a study from 1977


the abstract discusses about why it failed as a breast cancer drug because it didn't compete with the estrogen receptor in breast cancer and it was connected with the androgen receptor. But it did work in healthy breast tissue, granted it was a calf. It still shows of the reason it was manufactured was to compete for estrogenic receptors in breast cancer, even though these studies showed it was ineffective.

as we do not have breast cancer and we do have healthy breast tissue(Gyno). IT still shows it can affect that particular tissue.

here is another interesting end to it as well.

 

[Type-IIx]

@Type-IIx were you talking about these?

Drostanolone and norethisterone in disseminated breast cancer - ProQuest

Explore millions of resources from scholarly journals, books, newspapers, videos and more, on the ProQuest Platform.

www.proquest.com

here is a 1969 snippit from a book discussing what it was made for.(Doesn't mean it worked as intended)

Effect of drostanolone propionate on the binding of oestradiol and dihydrotestosterone by normal and malignant target tissues

The influence of drostanolone propionate, an anticancer agent, was tested on the binding of 17 β-oestradiol and dihydrotestosterone to specific recept…

www.sciencedirect.com

Here is a study from 1977

View attachment 160895
the abstract discusses about why it failed as a breast cancer drug because it didn't compete with the estrogen receptor in breast cancer and it was connected with the androgen receptor. But it did work in healthy breast tissue, granted it was a calf. It still shows of the reason it was manufactured was to compete for estrogenic receptors in breast cancer, even though these studies showed it was ineffective.

as we do not have breast cancer and we do have healthy breast tissue(Gyno). IT still shows it can affect that particular tissue.

here is another interesting end to it as well.
View attachment 160896

Yes, correct.

 

[hometeam]

@Type-IIx were you talking about these?

Drostanolone and norethisterone in disseminated breast cancer - ProQuest

Explore millions of resources from scholarly journals, books, newspapers, videos and more, on the ProQuest Platform.

www.proquest.com

here is a 1969 snippit from a book discussing what it was made for.(Doesn't mean it worked as intended)

Effect of drostanolone propionate on the binding of oestradiol and dihydrotestosterone by normal and malignant target tissues

The influence of drostanolone propionate, an anticancer agent, was tested on the binding of 17 β-oestradiol and dihydrotestosterone to specific recept…

www.sciencedirect.com

Here is a study from 1977

View attachment 160895
the abstract discusses about why it failed as a breast cancer drug because it didn't compete with the estrogen receptor in breast cancer and it was connected with the androgen receptor. But it did work in healthy breast tissue, granted it was a calf. It still shows of the reason it was manufactured was to compete for estrogenic receptors in breast cancer, even though these studies showed it was ineffective.

as we do not have breast cancer and we do have healthy breast tissue(Gyno). IT still shows it can affect that particular tissue.

here is another interesting end to it as well.
View attachment 160896

Thanks for the deep search. It gives me more info to look into and a better understanding.

 

[Drexyl]

Yeah I saw that video too and that's one thing that disappointed me about the anabolic doc. He perpetuated a bro science myth here instead of spending 20 minutes on google and pubmed. Same goes for the Anavar being metabolized solely by the kidneys myth if you watch his video on that.

I would post some links but it's not hard to find this for yourself and I'm a bit tired after working a night shift.

Sorry if you think I'm talking shit. Take a chill pill.

I’m definitely late to the party, but wanted to confirm a few things and this thread caught my eye. I’m not looking for an argument, but did you just knock a physician that went to school, internship, and residency, then specializing in hormonal therapy because he didn’t do a 20min google search? I did read what you typed correctly right? I’m just trying to understand why he paid 400k for his education when there’s Google.

 

[hometeam]

I’m definitely late to the party, but wanted to confirm a few things and this thread caught my eye. I’m not looking for an argument, but did you just knock a physician that went to school, internship, and residency, then specializing in hormonal therapy because he didn’t do a 20min google search? I did read what you typed correctly right? I’m just trying to understand why he paid 400k for his education when there’s Google.

Lol you're preaching to the choir. I work in the medical field too, in critical care, and I've worked with thousands of doctors... respect the hell out of them. But in this case the anabolic doc latched onto commonly repeated bro science instead of doing his homework.

And, he's not an oncologist. He's not expected to know about how androgen therapy for breast cancer works, especially since we don't use it much anymore. In his video he kind of shows admitted confusion about it, showing he's not sure why they do what they do, saying why use an androgen that doesn't block estrogen? It's because the androgen receptor works on shrinking some breast tumors but he's not expected to know that. You can't do a google search or pubmed search on every single small topic in medicine no matter how much schooling and residency you did, and I'm a specialist who is not a doctor but regularly corrects doctors in my line of work.

 

[Drexyl]

I’m definitely late to the party, but wanted to confirm a few things and this thread caught my eye. I’m not looking for an argument, but did you just knock a physician that went to school, internship, and residency, then specializing in hormonal therapy because he didn’t do a 20min google search? I did read what you typed correctly right? I’m just trying to understand why he paid 400k for his education when there’s Google.

Lol you're preaching to the choir. I work in the medical field too, in critical care, and I've worked with thousands of doctors... respect the hell out of them. But in this case the anabolic doc latched onto commonly repeated bro science instead of doing his homework.

And, he's not an oncologist. He's not expected to know about how androgen therapy for breast cancer works, especially since we don't use it much anymore. In his video he kind of shows admitted confusion about it, showing he's not sure why they do what they do, saying why use an androgen that doesn't block estrogen? It's because the androgen receptor works on shrinking some breast tumors but he's not expected to know that. You can't do a google search or pubmed search on every single small topic in medicine no matter how much schooling and residency you did, and I'm a specialist who is not a doctor but regularly corrects doctors in my line of work.

Thanks for the reply my friend, well said and to the point. Appreciate that.