Qingdao Sigma Chemical Co., Ltd (International, US, EU, Canada and Australia domestic

[Ghoul]

a

First, my sincere condolences.

I have read that, were Tylenol a new drug, it’s likely it would not pass the FDA’s safety threshold to be approved for OTC sales today. This is due to the “safety therapeutic index” being rather low. It’s approximately 10-15 for humans, and represents the ratio of LD50 to ED50 (lethal dose for 50% of population / minimum effective dose for 50% of population). Course, that’s about the same value assigned to…ethanol.

The “protective index” is even smaller, if one is trying to keep one’s liver healthy and giving one all the support one needs.

Whereas ivermectin appears to have a (computed) safety therapeutic index of 200. Higher is better.

This is all, of course, related to acute toxicity. I haven’t looked at the data for regular ivermectin use wrt any deleterious effects with long term usage, but did see some potential neurotoxicity listed in search results.

TTA

For the rare folks with a compromised blood brain barrier, yes. However, it's unlikely you'd be unaware of this.

Other effects are primarily from the toxins released by mass die off of parasites for those severely infested.

Other than that, problems are extremely rare.

I don't see any utility in more than one course a year, some situations every 6 months, so regular use would be unusual.

 

[trytryagain]

Everyone is good until caught..

FDA Inspection Finds Cat Hair and Pest Contamination at Major Drug Manufacturing Facility - GeneOnline News

A recent inspection by the U.S. Food and Drug Administr […]

www.geneonline.com

View attachment 342292

“Plant, once owned by Catalent…”



TTA

 

[Middus]

First, my sincere condolences.

I have read that, were Tylenol a new drug, it’s likely it would not pass the FDA’s safety threshold to be approved for OTC sales today. This is due to the “safety therapeutic index” being rather low. It’s approximately 10-15 for humans, and represents the ratio of LD50 to ED50 (lethal dose for 50% of population / minimum effective dose for 50% of population). Course, that’s about the same value assigned to…ethanol.

The “protective index” is even smaller, if one is trying to keep one’s liver healthy and giving one all the support one needs.

Whereas ivermectin appears to have a (computed) safety therapeutic index of 200. Higher is better.

This is all, of course, related to acute toxicity. I haven’t looked at the data for regular ivermectin use wrt any deleterious effects with long term usage, but did see some potential neurotoxicity listed in search results.

TTA

Neurotoxicity I have first hand experience of witnessing. Was just dismissed as Malaria..
Many things back then were dismissed as Typhoid or Malaria..
It's not typical in western populations... then again, western populations weren't regularly dosing it.

 

[TheDieselZ]

Doesn’t matter. Point is Tracy pops up out of no where saying QSC was investigated. Now he’s selling at a huge markup. Tariffs supposedly going to increase next month on China and US customs going to crackdown on China.

Well… that’s just, like, your opinion, man.

 

[poolshockguy]

Check out PCT24x7’s price list.

View attachment 342314

Damn

 

[bigforyouben]

That horse artist new what he was doing with that hind leg

The hind leg doesn't need to be suggestive when the horse cock is right there in the illustration

 

[verylargeshoes]

The hind leg doesn't need to be suggestive when the horse cock is right there in the illustration

Man I had a really uncomfortable feeling something wasn’t right about that unicorn…

 

[MrTexas2]

One theory is that Covid spread prevention practices were more effective at curbing flu than they were at curbing covid.

Absolutely....and colds too. I sanitize my hands constantly at the gym more out of fear for colds/flu than for Covid. Although I have gotten Covid 3 times.

 

[MrTexas2]

No. But what we know is that when IGF is kept at 1.3x or lower of the Upper Limit of Normal for your age, cancer rates are no higher than non rHGH users.

There may be a safety margin above that, like 1.5x for a few years. but the longer you intend to stay on the smaller that margin of safety is. At 2x acromegaly is likely to start changing your appearance around year 2.

Risk = Time x Exposure

Thats what the literature seems to say, However I like to keep my IGF-1 levels right at the upper limit, not much higher, just to be safe.

 

[sionnach]

The hind leg doesn't need to be suggestive when the horse cock is right there in the illustration

Ahhhhh...almost had me bro. I ain't zooming in on horse cock.

 

[explodingHeart]

No. But what we know is that when IGF is kept at 1.3x or lower of the Upper Limit of Normal for your age, cancer rates are no higher than non rHGH users.

There may be a safety margin above that, like 1.5x for a few years. but the longer you intend to stay on the smaller that margin of safety is. At 2x acromegaly is likely to start changing your appearance around year 2.

Risk = Time x Exposure

You've pretty much scared me off from GH.

And AI says it will blow my kidneys if I go over 2-3 IU. Probably not true, but using GH does increase my cystatin c by at least .1.



Are all these bodybuilders doing 8iu+ for 10 years fucking themselves over?

 

[sionnach]

Are all these bodybuilders doing 8iu+ for 10 years fucking themselves over?

Yes

 

[eery]

You've pretty much scared me off from GH.

And AI says it will blow my kidneys if I go over 2-3 IU. Probably not true, but using GH does increase my cystatin c by at least .1.



Are all these bodybuilders doing 8iu+ for 10 years fucking themselves over?

isnt that indirectly by increaseing your blood pressure from the water retentive effects of hgh?

if you control for BP and see what you can do to hold less water, maybe you wouldnt see that increase in cytastatin, what do you think?

 

[explodingHeart]

isnt that indirectly by increaseing your blood pressure from the water retentive effects of hgh?

if you control for BP and see what you can do to hold less water, maybe you wouldnt see that increase in cytastatin, what do you think?

my BP rarely went above 120/80. Can't really control the water.

 

[Middus]

You've pretty much scared me off from GH.

And AI says it will blow my kidneys if I go over 2-3 IU. Probably not true, but using GH does increase my cystatin c by at least .1.



Are all these bodybuilders doing 8iu+ for 10 years fucking themselves over?

When people say Acromegaly, they're usually referring to the skeletal facial changes, which ironically is the slowest danger in acromegaly. Guaranteed 8IUs for 10 yrs will cause organomegaly, diabetes, muscular dysfunction and probably some tumor growth before the jaws start looking funny. .

 

[Ghoul]

isnt that indirectly by increaseing your blood pressure from the water retentive effects of hgh?

if you control for BP and see what you can do to hold less water, maybe you wouldnt see that increase in cytastatin, what do you think?

That and GH increases eGFR filtration rate. So pressure increases inside the kidney.

Here's where I plug Cilnidipine again, which opens up tubules, on both the intake and outflow side, protecting them from being "stretched" under increased pressure, preventing damage.

 

[Ghoul]

When people say Acromegaly, they're usually referring to the skeletal facial changes, which ironically is the slowest danger in acromegaly. Guaranteed 8IUs for 10 yrs will cause organomegaly, diabetes, muscular dysfunction and probably some tumor growth before the jaws start looking funny. .

Also the continuous growth of intestines, which, as a soft tissue, starts pretty fast after high dose GH is initiated. That might even be good for digestive health, but Palumboism sure isn't attractive.

 

[Bigoldguy]

Also the continuous growth of intestines, which, as a soft tissue, starts pretty fast after high dose GH is initiated. That might even be good for digestive health, but Palumboism sure isn't attractive.

So what is considered a high dose long term or short term?

 

[Ghoul]

So what is considered a high dose long term or short term?

Short term isn't long enough to really cause excess growth, so high doses for a couple of months, whatever that may be aren't really as much of concern (other than immediate side effects) as what you run for a year+.

You have to monitor IGF-1 to gauge your risk. It's not IUs that determine it.

In general, from the very thin evidence we have, below 1.3x upper limit of normal IGF-1 doesn't cause issues for many years, and may be able to run indefinitely. 2x and above has caused acromegalic features to become initially noticeable in 2 years, and strongly developed by 5. So if you're going above 1.3x upper limit IGF-1 for your age, but below 2x, you might be ok, or you might be on borrowed time depending on how long you stay at that elevated level.

After stopping, bone changes don't reverse. Connective tissue can partially reverse. Soft tissue may fully reverse.

Probably best to take a pic of your face every 3-6 months to monitor for changes. because it's so slow and subtle. People who get pituitary tumors and become acromegalic often have a delayed diagnosis for 5 years or more since they didn't notice their face changing. (often someone else has to point it out).

 

[verylargeshoes]

Also the continuous growth of intestines, which, as a soft tissue, starts pretty fast after high dose GH is initiated.

Well, that's concerning. I already have a tortuous/redundant colon and am so overstuffed I've popped two hernias with two more that were developing. If I add one more goddamn millimeter of intestine I'm gonna pop like one of those prank snakes-in-a-can.