Nolvadex Question - Cycle Ancillary - Doctors Please

[BBC3]

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

Hmmm, you are a fairly astute young arguer are you not? You are raising security issues in my mind.....

 

[Conciliator]

Hmmm, you are a fairly astute young arguer are you not? You are raising security issues in my mind.....

Raising security issues? What is that supposed to mean?

 

[BBC3]

I dont know. All this arguing is fun. But I am starting to wonder if having such a loud profile is a good thing these days. The indictments of the bodybuilders in Oklahoma is raising my paranoia to another degree. WIth Biden in office this can only be his doing. How long is it before they chalk up all these name and mail letters? Which leads me to my new signature. Like thats gonna help. If he wants it, he'll take it.

 

[BBC3]

One last one conciliator. I think this should just about do it for you. Some of the guys over in TRT had this on the burner. This is the info I am referring to. And just for you. It happens to have all the references listed.
http://www.primordial_performance.c...l-articles/357-clomid-nolvadex-dark-side.html (take out the underscore)

Sorry mods if I am breaking a rule but the info is just too good. I am assuming I may be since the link would not copy without the addition of the underscore...

 

[Conciliator]

One last one conciliator. I think this should just about do it for you. Some of the guys over in TRT had this on the burner. This is the info I am referring to. And just for you. It happens to have all the references listed.
http://www.primordial_performance.c...l-articles/357-clomid-nolvadex-dark-side.html (take out the underscore)

Sorry mods if I am breaking a rule but the info is just too good. I am assuming I may be since the link would not copy without the addition of the underscore...

Ok, the drugs have risks. No shit. All drugs have risks.

You should be aware that some of what the article says is very misleading. Take, for example, the section talking about "Increased susceptibility to gyno". It claims that tamoxifen upregulates of the progesterone receptor and states matter of fact that "This can dramatically increase the chances of developming gyno in future cycles." Yet when you look at the references, they're ALL looking at the endometirum of women.

The progesterone receptor is synthesized in response to estrogen, so in tissues where tamoxifen exerts a weak estrogenic effect, upregulation of the progesterone receptor would be expected. That includes the endometrium, which is a tissue that's highly sensitive to estrogen. It's no surprise that several studies have found that tamoxifen upregulates the progesterone receptor in the endometrium.

But what about in mammary glands? There, tamoxifen has the opposite effect and is an estrogen receptor antagonist. When tamoxifen is administered to treat breast cancer, there is not upregulation, but a downregulation of both the estrogen and progesterone receptors (at least for a good while until the cancers become resistant).

Basically, the paper goes way too far, taking information about the progeseterone receptor in the endometirum of women and saying that tamoxifen will do the same thing in the breast tissue of men. Not only that, it just assumes (without evidence) that the effect would 1) persist after taking tamoxifen and 2) be to sufficient degree that it "can dramatically increase the chances of developming gyno in future cycles." That's hardly supported by the evidence.

That's what you get when you're reading an attack by someone who sells a competing product.

 

[BBC3]

The guy is an apparent enodocrinologist. I Merely pointed this out because you asked "what do I base my statements on". He has pretty much summed up everything I have said as this is the documentation that I have in the metal file cabinet. I am only demostrating that whereas I may not quote articles and sources on a daily basis, my statements have legitimate foundation. The article is the same type data that is the foundation of everything that I have said and believe about Nolvadex. This would be where I was referring to Nolva as "poison". I do believe that he has stated that the research has undoubtedly determined that Tamoxofin is a CARCINOGEN. AND even when used to combat breast cancer, IT IS AT BEST, the lesser of two evils. Again it also states the coroloation between the biological makeup of prostate tissue and those exactly negatively affected by this drug. For all those following this thread, he also provided a mile long list of recource for basis information.

On another note. I did have a long talk with the Urologist the other day. He did state that there is some evidence that Nolvadex may actually prevent prostate cancer. Go Figure. Either way, he stated that this drug is light years away from being really considered for approval for this.

Ok, the drugs have risks. No shit. All drugs have risks.

You should be aware that some of what the article says is very misleading. Take, for example, the section talking about "Increased susceptibility to gyno". It claims that tamoxifen upregulates of the progesterone receptor and states matter of fact that "This can dramatically increase the chances of developming gyno in future cycles." Yet when you look at the references, they're ALL looking at the endometirum of women.

The progesterone receptor is synthesized in response to estrogen, so in tissues where tamoxifen exerts a weak estrogenic effect, upregulation of the progesterone receptor would be expected. That includes the endometrium, which is a tissue that's highly sensitive to estrogen. It's no surprise that several studies have found that tamoxifen upregulates the progesterone receptor in the endometrium.

But what about in mammary glands? There, tamoxifen has the opposite effect and is an estrogen receptor antagonist. When tamoxifen is administered to treat breast cancer, there is not upregulation, but a downregulation of both the estrogen and progesterone receptors (at least for a good while until the cancers become resistant).

Basically, the paper goes way too far, taking information about the progeseterone receptor in the endometirum of women and saying that tamoxifen will do the same thing in the breast tissue of men. Not only that, it just assumes (without evidence) that the effect would 1) persist after taking tamoxifen and 2) be to sufficient degree that it "can dramatically increase the chances of developming gyno in future cycles." That's hardly supported by the evidence.

That's what you get when you're reading an attack by someone who sells a competing product.

 

[Conciliator]

The guy is an apparent enodocrinologist.

No, he is not an endocrinologist. He is not a doctor. He is someone who likes studying endocrinology, just like me and a lot of other lay people. Above all, he is the president of a supplement company who is writing an article about why alternatives to his products are bad for you. And when you look at the references, you see he sometimes makes statements that are unsupported.

I Merely pointed this out because you asked "what do I base my statements on". He has pretty much summed up everything I have said as this is the documentation that I have in the metal file cabinet. I am only demostrating that whereas I may not quote articles and sources on a daily basis, my statements have legitimate foundation. The article is the same type data that is the foundation of everything that I have said and believe about Nolvadex. This would be where I was referring to Nolva as "poison".

If you want to use that article as evidence that tamoxifen is a "poison", then you're going to have to say that most drugs are poisons. All drugs have side effects in at least some people. The fact is, tamoxifen is a relatively safe drug. The way in which you attacked it a couple of months ago was unwarranted. I hope you're aware that clomid, the drug you were recommending instead, has it's own long list of potential side effects.

I do believe that he has stated that the research has undoubtedly determined that Tamoxofin is a CARCINOGEN. AND even when used to combat breast cancer, IT IS AT BEST, the lesser of two evils.

Are you aware that estrogen itself is classified as a carcinogen? If you were, you probably wouldn't be surprised to hear that tamoxifen, a drug that has estrogenic effects in estrogen-sensitive tissues like the endometrium, can cause a small increase in the risk of endometrial cancer.

Again it also states the coroloation between the biological makeup of prostate tissue and those exactly negatively affected by this drug.

All he's doing is speculating. He's lying when he says "In fact, there is no reason to assume that tamoxifen would not initiate the same the same cancerous growth in the prostate." He ignores the research showing that high doses of tamoxifen might actually be an effective treatment for prostate cancer. If estrogen promoted prostate cancer and tamoxifen had a significant estrogenic effect in the prostate, you wouldn't expect things to get much worse, not better.

For all those following this thread, he also provided a mile long list of recource for basis information.

Yes, and when you actually look them up, they don't completely support what he says in some places. Overall, I'd say it's a nice review of risks of tamoxifen, but he goes too far when he starts talking about gyno, the prostate, etc.

 

[BBC3]

OK, I'll give you a little touch`e on that one.....

No, he is not an endocrinologist. He is not a doctor. He is someone who likes studying endocrinology, just like me and a lot of other lay people. Above all, he is the president of a supplement company who is writing an article about why alternatives to his products are bad for you. And when you look at the references, you see he sometimes makes statements that are unsupported.
If you want to use that article as evidence that tamoxifen is a "poison", then you're going to have to say that most drugs are poisons. All drugs have side effects in at least some people. The fact is, tamoxifen is a relatively safe drug. The way in which you attacked it a couple of months ago was unwarranted. I hope you're aware that clomid, the drug you were recommending instead, has it's own long list of potential side effects.
Are you aware that estrogen itself is classified as a carcinogen? If you were, you probably wouldn't be surprised to hear that tamoxifen, a drug that has estrogenic effects in estrogen-sensitive tissues like the endometrium, can cause a small increase in the risk of endometrial cancer.
All he's doing is speculating. He's lying when he says "In fact, there is no reason to assume that tamoxifen would not initiate the same the same cancerous growth in the prostate." He ignores the research showing that high doses of tamoxifen might actually be an effective treatment for prostate cancer. If estrogen promoted prostate cancer and tamoxifen had a significant estrogenic effect in the prostate, you wouldn't expect things to get much worse, not better.
Yes, and when you actually look them up, they don't completely support what he says in some places. Overall, I'd say it's a nice review of risks of tamoxifen, but he goes too far when he starts talking about gyno, the prostate, etc.