Nolvadex Question - Cycle Ancillary - Doctors Please

[Conciliator]

I figured that this review was probably an excellent discussion about the research on estrogen and prostate cancer, so I obtained the full text. If anyone is interested in reading all about estrogen and prostate cancer (e.g. bigbench, BBC3), here's a link: [ame="http://rapidshare.com/files/222228004/Estrogen_and_prostate_cancer_-_An_eclipsed_truth_in_an_androgen-dominated_scenario.pdf"]Estrogen and prostate cancer: an eclipsed truth in an androgen-dominated scenario[/ame].

 

[bigbench]

I believe you. I'm not trying to call you out. I'd just like to read the actual study. If you can find it, please post it.

Nah, I figured you were like me and liked to read anything and everything to fully understand all sides of each process in the body. Hell, I wish I got my PHD since I spent probably just as much time studying the human body and what not. Although, i will say it sounds like you went to school for medical reasons . And I will keep looking for it. No worries bro

 

[TZTARZAN2000]

[)] im glad you guys read that shit so guys like me can benifit from it. i love learning i just have A.D.D. when itt comes to reading some of that research stuff! the great debate is also always entertaining to say the laest! [)]

 

[Conciliator]

I figured that this review was probably an excellent discussion about the research on estrogen and prostate cancer, so I obtained the full text. If anyone is interested in reading all about estrogen and prostate cancer (e.g. bigbench, BBC3), here's a link: http://rapidshare.com/files/222228004/Estrogen_and_prostate_cancer_-_An_eclipsed_truth_in_an_androgen-dominated_scenario.pdf.

This paper makes it clear that the estrogen receptor subtype alpha (ERa) is thought to promote postate cancer while the estrogen receptor subtype beta (ERb) is thought to protect against prostate cancer. They find that in prostate cells that become cancerous, there is a shift in receptor disitribution, with more ERa and fewer ERb. The review only mentions SERMS once, saying:

Recently, selective ERa and ERb ligands, whose agonist or antagonist activity depends specifically on cellular context and promoter sequences of regulated genes, have been identified for each receptor and designated as selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs). SERMs, along with synthetic estrogens and antagonists have recently emerged as promising agents in both prevention and treatment of human prostate cancer [Ho, 2004].

 

[Conciliator]

You can see in the quote above they end with a reference to a paper by Ho. I've uploaded [ame="http://rapidshare.com/files/222246982/Estrogens_and_anti-estrogens_-_Key_mediators_of_prostate_carcinogenesis_and_new_therapeutic_candidat"]the full text of that paper[/ame] as well for anyone who's interested. It talks much more about SERMS. It says that "selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) ... have emerged as promising PCa [prostate cancer] preventive and treatment agents." As the previous paper explained, "some SERMs are known to bind ER-b with higher affinities than to ER-a."

What about tamoxifen, though? The paper says "A few clinical trials have found that the first generation of anti-estrogens/SERMs, such as tamoxifen and toremifene ... are not effective therapies [Bergan et al., 1999; Stein et al., 2001]." It continues saying, "Despite these early set-backs, the likelihood of developing more effective and less toxic SERMs/estrogen-like compounds to treat PCa treatment has improved substantially, coincident with our growing knowledge on the differential expression of ER subtypes and differential action of estrogen/anti-estrogen/SERM in normal and malignant prostatic epithelial cells."

The abstract explains that "A variety of new estrogenic/anti-estrogenic/selective estrogen receptor modulator (SERM)-like compounds, including 2-methoxyestradiol, genistein, resveratrol, licochalcone, Raloxifene, ICI 182,780, and estramustine are being evaluated for their potential in the next generation of PCa therapies."

Basically, these two papers talk about the potential for SERMS as a treatment for prostate cancer, though taxmifen and toremifene have failed to be effective in clinical trials. In contrast, the more recent studies that bigbench and I posted found that very high dose tamoxifen treatment might provide a minor benefit from the effects of tamoxifen on PKC (effects that are independant of its action as a SERM).

 

[jasthace]

You can see in the quote above they end with a reference to a paper by Ho. I've uploaded http://rapidshare.com/files/222246982/Estrogens_and_anti-estrogens_-_Key_mediators_of_prostate_carcinogenesis_and_new_therapeutic_candidat as well for anyone who's interested. It talks much more about SERMS. It says that "selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) ... have emerged as promising PCa [prostate cancer] preventive and treatment agents." As the previous paper explained, "some SERMs are known to bind ER-b with higher affinities than to ER-a."

What about tamoxifen, though? The paper says "A few clinical trials have found that the first generation of anti-estrogens/SERMs, such as tamoxifen and toremifene ... are not effective therapies [Bergan et al., 1999; Stein et al., 2001]." It continues saying, "Despite these early set-backs, the likelihood of developing more effective and less toxic SERMs/estrogen-like compounds to treat PCa treatment has improved substantially, coincident with our growing knowledge on the differential expression of ER subtypes and differential action of estrogen/anti-estrogen/SERM in normal and malignant prostatic epithelial cells."

The abstract explains that "A variety of new estrogenic/anti-estrogenic/selective estrogen receptor modulator (SERM)-like compounds, including 2-methoxyestradiol, genistein, resveratrol, licochalcone, Raloxifene, ICI 182,780, and estramustine are being evaluated for their potential in the next generation of PCa therapies."

Basically, these two papers talk about the potential for SERMS as a treatment for prostate cancer, though taxmifen and toremifene have failed to be effective in clinical trials. In contrast, the more recent studies that bigbench and I posted found that very high dose tamoxifen treatment might provide a minor benefit from the effects of tamoxifen on PKC (effects that are independant of its action as a SERM).

Thats good to know, thanks for breaking it down for us.

 

[BBC3]

Again, I am pretty sure the prostate is "saturated" with androgens, if not comprised of them.

Shippen's work is all about supporting the prostate with androgens before it has a chance to get sick. hence his patients live longer without prostate cancer.

You dont think the prostate "thrives" on androgens.? give me a break. The more the merrier the bigger the better, the proof is in the pudin.. Big has no relation to cancer.

Yes they support cancer and well as support the prostate. thats is why they make a sick prostate grown so crazy...

SHippen is proving everyday that supporting the prostate with test is a way to nuture it's health.

I know you get my point. You are simply arguing from a logical standpoint of the documentation you have experienced. WHile this a VERY CORRECT and proper way to handle business (Conciliator is obviously in a field where he must C.Y.A., and he is good at it). You say I am only feeding that tiny little cancer seed that I may have even been born with. You base this on the position of Documentation you have experienced, WHICH also happens to be the AMA and all the other foundations of US medicine that are. This is a safe way to play it. I am betting on the other horse. I say that if I support the prostate with a good level of test, it will never get sick and run away with andorgen dependent cancer. I am not planning to juice my brains out forever. I am merely running experiments to determine how the body feels and responds to as many scenarios as I can before I get serious about health. AND its kinda fun. I'm going with Shippen for now. Regarding my research documentation. I listen a lot. Try to get as many different stories as possible. Weigh and balance, etc. While your medical "Correctness" may be prudent for many situations, I have many problems with them. FOR eexample, it is our medical system that would like to see us all dead at age 65. This is why insurance does not cover a lot of diagnostic testing and individual tweeking for health. The actuaries have already based their premium calculations of this fact. BECAUSE it cost them less. So you see . When you have that patient that you are thinking "hmm, i should probably test this guy for this, but ya know, I might piss BLUE CROSS off and then they will take me off their provider list because I would not play ball. God forbit a Dr. try to take a proactive approach to medicine. Of course, it is this downfall that also alots for out incredibly advanced medical knowledge (that they hoard in a closet, and do not allow to practice). BUT if you got the money you are in the right place in the US. BACK to my point. The whole priciple of an AAS site is experimental to say the least!! You are either a subversive sent here to destroy this AAS community, or simply a Dr. with some other interest and this place serves you. Maybe you are just the devil's advocate here, and I of all people need that , SO thank you......

You want to hear conspiracy. Try this one on for size. WHY IS IT that you never find studies that will demonstrate the effectiveness of pre-emption and proactive early correction. It is the same reason I mentioned about. I will challenge you to find (1) LEGITIMATE document covering how prostate cancer has related to AGE, What their detailed blood work was on diagnosis, throughout treatment, and at final death stage. You will not find out how it relates to where they lived, what their job was, what they may have been exposed to. And you sure as hell wont find any study on the effect of TRT in preventing prostate cancer BECAUSE our business/Government does not want you to know!!!!!! They dont want society to think test is a good thing because then it just may become mainstream and readily available. You ask, what is the problem with this? I will tell you. Testosterone brings aggressive behavior, abused it brings bank robberies and murders, it is a beautiful pandoras box not to be opened in this world. They might have to create a new bible or something telling you not only will you burn in hell, you will hang by nails thru your tetsicles for eternity. Come on, society cant handle it !! Sound like I am just preaching pro testosterone. Then Try this one. How is it that our society can dose our women with nasty forms of estrogen LIKE CATTLE? I'll tell you it keeps down population and desease. The poor and ignorant are hoped and encouraged to use it. IT IS KILLING THEM. Talk about reaking havoc on an HPTA!!! YOU ALSO WONT FIND ANY STUDIES DOCUMENTING THE MISCARRIAGE RATE POST BIRTH CONTROL !!! They are only just now allowing OB's to dose "high Risk" women with Progesterone to cut down to odds of that miscarriage? But guess what, its only there if you go on a hunt. and it does work to mitigate the damage caused by birth control use as it relates to successfull pregnancy and baby. THIS IS THE MEDICAL PROTOCAL YOU BELIEVE IN.... People such as yourself may be smart enough to look, have the money to pay, etc Amazingly not even money can overcome this wool that is being pulled every day! So there, do you really think you can put all that much stock in "our medical society's" practices and beliefs?? Hell no. Hypocracy is our middle name.

FINALLY, I have said it many times before. WE ARE LIVING IN LOGAN'S RUN.. Only the diamond in your hand doesn't change from greed to red until you are 65 in this one. This just happens to be the age that you are not longer a productive member of society. The best part is that it is so easy for society to fool everyone on this one as time dilutes every sane and logical thought on these matters. Funny though, how in the movie, everyone knew their hand would glow red at the age of thirty and that they would have to then step into that evaporator chamber where they were incinerated alive and healthy, BUT Still they were all so shocked when it happen. I am not planning on winding up with that look on my face. Which leads me to the greatest part of all about living here in these times. If you got the brains, you can find the way, because it IS available here. You just have to look long and be lucky enough to find a true pioneer like SHippen......

What studies? Seriously. He has only one published study. It has nothing to do with prostate cancer, but endometriosis in women. See for yourself.
The purpose of hormonal therapy is not to cure prostate cancer. It's to slow or halt growth of the cancer, as the cancer depends on androgens for growth.
Your reading comprehension is very poor. I said that prostate CANCER is androgen dependant. I've never seen, heard, or said anything about the prostate itself "thriving" on androgens or being more healthy because of androgens.
Something that you probably don't comprehend is that correlation does not imply causation. The fact that the risk of heart disease and prostate cancer is higher in men with low testosterone does not entail that a lack of testosterone is what is causing it. It's definitely possible, but we won't know until studies on TRT directly examine the effect of testosterone replacement on prostate cancer rates, when compared to a control group.
I never said that androgens cause cancer. I agree with you, however, that they support it.
Wrong. That absolutely is not proof. As I said before, correlation does not imply causation. Look that up and try to understand what it means. It's important if you want to be able to look at this logically. As it stands now, you're making illogical conclusions.
I am trying to work with you. The problem is that you're slow to learn. Let me try to put this simply:

Low testosterone appears to correleate with prostate cancer (and cardiovascular disease). That does not mean that restoring testosterone levels to normal will prevent these. It's possible that a third variable (like a poor diet) is the cause of both. Second, even if low testosterone was the cause, it does not mean that the more testosterone the better. Often times, there is a U-shaped response curve. For example, research has shown that low testosterone increases insulin resistance. As you increase the level of testosterone, insulin resistance drops to a minimum, but as testosterone levels increase even higher than the normal range, insulin resistance increases again. So insulin resistance goes from high to low to high, as the testosterone dose increases. It's shaped like the letter U. This could also be the case with testosterone and prostate cancer, which means more is not always better.

My point is that when you're taking doses of steroids that are higher than found naturally, you're possibly increasing your risk for prostate cancer. And even if you're not increasing your risk, you still have a high risk because it runs in your family. So if you do develop it, it will spread more rapidly because of the high levels of androgens in your body.

 

[Conciliator]

BBC3,

As usual, you have piss-poor reading comprehension, you're unable to think logically, and you seem content knowing hardly anything about the subject you're going on about.

I try to help you, but you don't listen. You're unable to interpret problems, evaluate evidence, and learn new things. You're the worst kind of fool. I'm done wasting my time trying to help you.

 

[BBC3]

BBC3,

As usual, you have piss-poor reading comprehension, you're unable to think logically, and you seem content knowing hardly anything about the subject you're going on about.

I try to help you, but you don't listen. You're unable to interpret problems, evaluate evidence, and learn new things. You're the worst kind of fool. I'm done wasting my time trying to help you.

Regarding reading comprehension. I am reading you fine. It is you who is no understanding my points. This is not all your fault as I can sometimes type to a different drummer. However, I do consider myself a layman, and I do feel that you may be HIGHLY introverted. Given this (if correct) you will NEVER hear a word I have to say. You simply can't understand me. This is not my fault. It is yours. The subject that "I know nothing about" is catagorically libraried in my brain. My library is comprised of information from you, articles, research, real world example, and self experience. I have heard you and it is duely noted. You can not hear me.

You are awfully quick to always translate my posts into a perspective that serves you yourself. This is another trait of the American Medical Asscn. Very quick dismiss any valid points I may have so that you can go on justifying the propagando yo live by. You are the one who is as closed minded as the most ignorant physician I have ever met. You are the EPhitamy of a highly intraverted individual with zero creativity or imagination that can only cling on to the things that he can read in a book. You are the furthest thing from artisitic I have seen yet on this forum. You do however, show hope with evidence of incredible stubborness which is not totally common with your type.

Conciliator, I appreciate all of your information and help. However, it is you who fail (REFUSE) to admit any validity to any of my arguments. You "Skip" by anything that you don't understand, or refuse to acknowledge if it does not fall into your library of "proof". This is ok, however, i emplore you to see past the text and use it as a "tool" to start with. Open yourself up some and you will be much stronger. Your last reponse is typical of your profile. I value your thoughts so please dont cut me off. I have received some good data from this thread. I will let you go on this one for now as I do not wish to totally alienate you.

Finally I am still curious. What is your goal around here. You seem to function as a Library. WHich is great. The only thing is that I would like to know about your real world experience to help me to understand your logic train. (1) Do you even have any personal experience with AAS? (2) Anciliaries? (3) Do you physically train daily? (4) what do you really know about how this stuff affects you? I am getting the feeling that you are a medical student on a thesis mission. Everything here is an experiment to say the least. That is what it is about. No offense, you CLEARLY do not fit the profile here, and you are light years from a Marciano. So whats the deal? Are you here as a rep from the anti-steroid assn of the US? There is no one here that seems so singular in their thought train. (vets) Bench, Jas, Role Model, even Jasup who is a CPRN Newbies here like dizaster, etc neither. They are all here to juice up and live. My concern is that you are SO ADIMATELY opposed to my thoughts. These are the same thoughts that other have around here. I am merely speaking for many of them (i know). If you are here to workout, you cant be maximizing the effect with a thought set like that. If you are here to learn and theoricise you might want to open up a hare more. Whats the deal?

Props to da peeps baby.....

 

[TZTARZAN2000]

you tell em!

 

[Conciliator]

You are awfully quick to always translate my posts into a perspective that serves you yourself. This is another trait of the American Medical Asscn.

I have nothing to do with the American Medical Association. I am not a doctor and my profession has nothing to do with medicine. I'm not translating your posts into anything. I attack them the way they are. Do you need examples?

Very quick dismiss any valid points I may have so that you can go on justifying the propagando yo live by.

And this is the delusion you live in. You do NOT have any valid points. You have zero evidence, zero references, zero quotes. What I have seen are illogical arguments with conclusions that do not follow from the premises. In contrast, I do not have propaganda, I have facts that I've carefully referenced, outlined, linked to, and explained.

You do however, show hope with evidence of incredible stubborness which is not totally common with your type.

Stubborness? I gladly accept new information. The problem is that you have failed to present any new information. No links. No quotes. No research. No references. All you share are hunches, unsupported dogma, and ill-reasoned arguments. You are the stubborn one. If that's not clear, go read some of the actual arguments found in the examples above.

 

[Conciliator]

Conciliator, I appreciate all of your information and help. However, it is you who fail (REFUSE) to admit any validity to any of my arguments. You "Skip" by anything that you don't understand, or refuse to acknowledge if it does not fall into your library of "proof". This is ok, however, i emplore you to see past the text and use it as a "tool" to start with. Open yourself up some and you will be much stronger. Your last reponse is typical of your profile. I value your thoughts so please dont cut me off. I have received some good data from this thread. I will let you go on this one for now as I do not wish to totally alienate you.

What arguments have you presented that are valid? Seriously, tell me. Is it when you said you are "CONVIINCED that Estrogen is the cause of prostate cancer", with just your conviction and without a single reference? Is it your illogical argument that "if your fathers before you were low T, or out of balance T to E ratios, then you have noting to loose" by taking unnaturally high doses of test? Is it your claim that "There is a lot of 'chicken or egg' research out there supporting the idea that DHT is a saint in comparison to estrogens," though you're unable to list even one of those studies? Is it when you told me to "See some of Dr. Eugene Shippen's studies" even though he only has one published study, and it has nothing to do with prostate cancer? Is it when you twisted what I said about prostate CANCER being androgen-dependant into the argument that "The prostate thrives on androgens as you stated." Is it your illogical argument that low testosterone in older men "is only proof that their prostate died due to lack of proper androgen support", even though the correlation does not imply causation? Is it your silly contention that the "prostate is 'saturated' with androgens, if not comprised of them" (hint: the prostate is comprised of prostate stromal and epithelial cells. Androgens in the prostate make up a miniscule part of it.) Or is it your argument that "the prostate 'thrives' on androgens", even though you can offer no evidence for that (except illogcal arguments for why it must be the case)?

This is the kind of stuff that comes out of your mouth: unsupported, unreferenced, unsubstantiated ideas. And you pretend they're actually "valid arguments" and that all the evidence-based statements that I make is "propaganda." That's some strong idiocy.

Do you want to know what's closed-mind and dogmatic? You. You claiming that nolva is outrageously dangerous. You claiming that clomid is found naturally in the body. You claiming that SERMS are not selective, but pure antagonists. You claiming that PCT has nothing to do with blocking estrogen at the hypothalamus or pituitary. And now, your argument that the prostate thrives on androgens, "the more the merrier the bigger the better." Can you not look back at your mistakes and realize that right now there's a damn good chance that you're just as wrong as you were all those other times? Are you capable of that?

 

[Conciliator]

Finally I am still curious. What is your goal around here. You seem to function as a Library. WHich is great. The only thing is that I would like to know about your real world experience to help me to understand your logic train. (1) Do you even have any personal experience with AAS? (2) Anciliaries? (3) Do you physically train daily? (4) what do you really know about how this stuff affects you? I am getting the feeling that you are a medical student on a thesis mission. Everything here is an experiment to say the least. That is what it is about. No offense, you CLEARLY do not fit the profile here, and you are light years from a Marciano. So whats the deal? Are you here as a rep from the anti-steroid assn of the US? There is no one here that seems so singular in their thought train. (vets) Bench, Jas, Role Model, even Jasup who is a CPRN Newbies here like dizaster, etc neither. They are all here to juice up and live. My concern is that you are SO ADIMATELY opposed to my thoughts. These are the same thoughts that other have around here. I am merely speaking for many of them (i know). If you are here to workout, you cant be maximizing the effect with a thought set like that. If you are here to learn and theoricise you might want to open up a hare more. Whats the deal?

Props to da peeps baby.....

My goal around here is to share solid information and to help people understand how things work, with logical arguments and plenty of links to research and quotes from experts.

I've been a bodybuilder for over 5 years. I use AAS and have done several cycles over the last 3 years. I use ancillaries. Much of my bodybuilding knowledge and research is concentrated on drugs on supplements. I'm writing a book on DNP, which is something I've done massive amounts of research on. I also study training theory and nutrition. I lift weights 3-5 times a week. I started lifting weights at a measly 140 lbs at 5'11. I grew to 195 naturally over two years before deciding I wanted to use gear. I'm now in 220-230's in the off season and in the 200's when cut for summer. I own a pair of weightlifting shoes and I bring chalk for heavy deadlifts. I'm a freelance personal trainer. Research has always been consistent with my real world experiences and results. Assuming there's no contradiction, I always take well controlled research over unsubstantated gym-lore. I back up what I say with references. I'm not a medical student. I'm preparing for law school. I have a degree in philosophy and a minor in logic. Everything I know about medicine, physiology, biology, supplements, drugs, nutrition, and exercise science I have learned on my own, mosting through academic peer-reviewed journals, but also through other like-minded people on no-BS forums like bodyrecomposition.com. I study these things because I'm passionate about the topics and passionate about evidence-based learning. I am not "a rep from the anti-steroid assn of the US." I think androgens are great when used responsibly by adult men. Though they have risks, I don't think they're particularly dangerous. I've explained why they were banned and I think it's been a ridiculous failure.

The reason I seem "SO ADIMATELY opposed to your thoughts" is because your thoughts are so often wrong. Not only do you fail to have evidence supporting your thoughts, you tend to completely ignore the solid references that are provided to you. You do not think clearly or intelligently. You can never back up what you say with a link to research, with the quote of an expert, with anything. All you usually have are empty ideas. That's why I'm so adamantly opposed to them, especially when they fly in the face of the evidence that actually exists.

 

[BBC3]

My goal around here is to blow as many people as I can by the end of the day. I love the taste of semen as it oozes down my throat!! The only thing I would like more is to taste BBC's sweet load.!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I've been a bodybuilder for over 5 years. I use AAS and have done several cycles over the last 3 years. I use ancillaries. Much of my bodybuilding knowledge and research is concentrated on drugs on supplements. I'm writing a book on DNP, which is something I've done massive amounts of research on. I also study training theory and nutrition. I lift weights 3-5 times a week. I started lifting weights at a measly 140 lbs at 5'11. I grew to 195 naturally over two years before deciding I wanted to use gear. I'm now in 220-230's in the off season and in the 200's when cut for summer. I own a pair of weightlifting shoes and I bring chalk for heavy deadlifts. I'm a freelance personal trainer. Research has always been consistent with my real world experiences and results. Assuming there's no contradiction, I always take well controlled research over unsubstantated gym-lore. I back up what I say with references. I'm not a medical student. I'm preparing for law school. I have a degree in philosophy and a minor in logic. Everything I know about medicine, physiology, biology, supplements, drugs, nutrition, and exercise science I have learned on my own, mosting through academic peer-reviewed journals, but also through other like-minded people on no-BS forums like bodyrecomposition.com. I study these things because I'm passionate about the topics and passionate about evidence-based learning. I am not "a rep from the anti-steroid assn of the US." I think androgens are great when used responsibly by adult men. Though they have risks, I don't think they're particularly dangerous. I've explained why they were banned and I think it's been a ridiculous failure.

The reason I seem "SO ADIMATELY opposed to your thoughts" is because your thoughts are so often wrong. Not only do you fail to have evidence supporting your thoughts, you tend to completely ignore the solid references that are provided to you. You do not think clearly or intelligently. You can never back up what you say with a link to research, with the quote of an expert, with anything. All you usually have are empty ideas. That's why I'm so adamantly opposed to them, especially when they fly in the face of the evidence that actually exists.

Evidence smevidence. Look mr AMA. The fact that you would state that I would be so ludicrous as to state that "nolva occurs naturally in the body" is about as ludicrus as the top of your copied post looks. Read it up there. That is how insane you are. Clearly these concepts did not originate from me. I am not sure which text you can copy or contort from who knows where. Even you yourself would know by now that these are not my thoughts. It there was ever a placed something came accross like that, you can be assured I was merely typing at a discounted rate whilst dunbfounded by your simple love of comics. You go on reading your journals and live. Peace fool. I hope you practice what you preach. Cause if you do you will make sure your girlfriend is eating plenty of cancer causing estrogens as you are most certain as anal as you are sure of yourself. AND FYI. NO STEROID CYCLE IS HEALTHY CONSIDERING THE BELIEF SYSTEM YOU LIVE BY. I hope your prostate will fair as well as I plan to see mine!

By the By. Degrees in Both Logic and Philosophy = onecrazyfuck. That just dont add up. The two dont go together. You are nothing more than an introverted little fellow maxed on his puny little frame. Your mental state clearly reflects internal conflict and about as much baggage as Continental Air lost last year. What?? Do you get your philosophical release from the uss of AAS and then come here to persicute us here with 20 lashings on the wrist for YOUR sins.?? The only thing that adds up about you is that you are CLEARLY A YOUNG AND NAIVE FOOL. This is a qualilty afforded someone of your profile and that time of your life. YOU ARE ALSO AN IDIALISTIC FOOL. This is another virtue of a young college student who thinks he has it all figured out. AHH, I remember those days like yesterday. You like drinking and arguing idotic banther that may not even serve you if your victim appears weaker and is dumb enough to believe you. AND FINALLY, I can not help wondering if you are just as toxic as informative here. You are not offering advice. You are rendering judgements when you have about enough life experience to barely scratch your tiny little sack without racking yourself. I now have enough information compiled to render my own personal judgement on you with 99% surety. If this thread has done anything for me it has pulled the curtain back on your simple wizzardry. Why dont you grow up and have a few more life experiences then come back and talk to us. How dare you tell someone how to handle matters of this magnetude when all you are is a shitass little college boy just off daddy's teet. I have met enough "personal Trainers" to know you as well. They are ALL NARCACISTIC self enfatuated assholes that live to impart their beliefs on others. THIS IS WHO YOU ARE.

Conciliator, Baad little conciliator. You are a witch burning creaton that belongs somewhere in your own pages. Stay off mine. You don't fool me again you little maggot. Its been fun but I have better things to do now. LIKE PICK MY ASS.

Further:
conciliate
One entry found.




Main Entry: conciliate
Pronunciation: \k?n-?si-l?-??t\
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): conciliated; conciliating
Etymology: Latin conciliatus, past participle of conciliare to assemble, unite, win over, from concilium assembly, council — more at council
Date: 1545
transitive verb
1 : to gain (as goodwill) by pleasing acts
2 : to make compatible : reconcile
3 : appease
intransitive verb
: to become friendly or agreeable
synonyms see pacify
— conciliation \-?si-l?-??-sh?n\ noun
— conciliative \-?si-l?-??-tiv\ adjective
— conciliator \-??-t?r\ noun
— conciliatory \-?sil-y?-?to?r-?, -?si-l?-?-\ adjective


You are far from. If you want to be arnold so bad then try these. Masturbator, Bookworm-in-ator, stubborn idiotin-a-tor, or HE WHO HAS NO INDEPENDENT THOUGHT-IN-A-TOR. And stop shaming arnold's likeness. I realize that he is probably an idot of your caliber, BUT PLEASE, you are Killing him for me. Oh well, Either Lou or Lee could have whipped his ass anyway......

 

[TZTARZAN2000]

DRAMA ON FRIDAY NIGHT!

 

[Conciliator]

DRAMA ON FRIDAY NIGHT!

Yeah, you know the argument is over when all that someone has left is several paragraphs of name calling, lol.

By the way, BBC3, I can see that you still haven't downloaded either of the big reviews on estrogens and prostate cancer that I posted here and here. Apparently it's not very high on your priority list to actually learn anything on the topic. You'd rather just state your opinions as fact and call me names for posting research that you don't like.

 

[TZTARZAN2000]

i have to be honest, i didnt read them either. for one im not that interested in. i just have one hing to say about the whole thing and that is if estrogen had anything to do with prostate cancer why does it seem to be mostly a problem with men and not women. i could be wrong and im not looking to drag this out or read anything more about the subject. just an observation.

 

[TZTARZAN2000]

OOPS! before anyone calls me an idiot let me remove my own foot from my big mouth. women dont have a prostate! SORRY!

 

[BBC3]

Yeah, you know the argument is over when all that someone has left is several paragraphs of name calling, lol.

By the way, BBC3, I can see that you still haven't downloaded either of the big reviews on estrogens and prostate cancer that I posted here and here. Apparently it's not very high on your priority list to actually learn anything on the topic. You'd rather just state your opinions as fact and call me names for posting research that you don't like.

Your articles have been noted for review. How in the hell can you claim to tell whether I downloaded them or not. maybe I did it twice.

Besides, maybe I simply prefer to argue - LIKE YOU..........................

 

[Conciliator]

How in the hell can you claim to tell whether I downloaded them or not.

Because rapidshare says how many people have downloaded each file. They're both at zero, so nobody downloaded them.