MitchFit
New Member
So this thread has veered pretty far off-topic. Is that a notion that this OP is a gear shill and a fraud?
MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
Waiting on these fantastic results
- Thread starter Bill Bixcer
- Start date
Was kind of expecting the OP to either come back and state that he had bloodwork done or re-state his case.
Sort of correct lol? Please enlighten us oh wise one.... And I'm serious, Im in need of a good laugh.
You have abso-fucking-lutely no idea what you're talking about. You are literally talking out of your ass trying to get yourself out of the hole you dug and it's wildly entertaining.
The reference ranges are set by testing healthy people who don't have the disease or medical condition being tested for. So by using common sense and a dash of logic, don't hurt yourself trying to understand this, the total testosterone reference ranges are determined by testing people who don't suffer from hypogonadism or its symptoms. Scary I know....
The funny part is, if someone texted at a TT level of 200ng/dl you'd be the first to tell him he's hypogonadal and conversely, if someone texted at 1100ng/DL you'd be the first to tell him his levels are great. BUT you dismiss the reference ranges now bc it doesn't suit your argument. You can't pick and choose to use something as evidence then discount it when it doesn't fit your preconceived bias. That's just retarded.
You truly have no clue. Here's a tip, just a tip, like what your boyfriend does to ya. The reference range is an average of people tested. So who has the total T tested? Healthy people with absolutely no fucking issues, or people who suspect, or their physician suspects a hormone imbalance?
About a bajillion surveys of the populace. Believe me, where there a doc or group of med students who thought "Hey, I can easily prove that baseline X is wrong!" they would sample up and do so, publish, and BAM! reputation made.
Instead, baseline studies tend to move the mean and limits very little if at all with the biggest changes coming from increases in testing fidelity rather than sudden discoveries that the hundreds of thousands of samples used in direct and meta-studies just weren't probative for "reasons".
Baselines aren't taken from the unhealthy treatment seeking populace man. This has already been pointed out prior to this post.
So has the baseline moved in the past xxxx years?
You're such a dumbass that I hope others are getting the same entertainment from you as I am.
Do you think the reference ranges were setup testing people who suffer from a disease or medical issue the assay is meant to value? If you truly believe this there is no hope for you or your genetic line. Eugenics should be in your future.
This guy seriously thinks that if person A goes into the doctor complaining of low T symptoms and the doctor suspects hypogonadism and refers him for blood work, that his blood work will be used to determine the reference range HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Yes, a few single digit points on the mean (drifting lower YoY just barely and somewhat debate-ably as to causation).
The top and bottom? Not so much. Now there may be an argument to be made that the medical profession in general could be a bit conservative in deciding what is low enough to be treated with positive results, but the ranges themselves are just math.
So when my doc wrote me a script because of my not-low-enough-to-be-hypogonadal TT levels similar to your own he wrote it as an anti-aging treatment.
His quote was: "Your TT levels are about average for your age, but it sucks to be your age, let's make your levels like you were 18 again!"
I love my doc, his enthusiasm, and his dedication to fighting the standard aging process in men and women, but it script doesn't mean I was actually abnormally low, just low enough normally to be aging.
Yes, exactly what I meant when I said this:
Cross-sectional age-independent drop was roughly 0.4% across the 17 years of the study totality.
Cause? Unknown.
This is the second thread this week in which a member has started attacking science, and the credibility of medical studies, as a means to strengthen their opinion, while trying to weaken traditionally accepted - and proven - facts.
@Robfromga these studies and reference ranges are compiled from tens of thousands (and sometimes more) of tested subjects. This is why it takes YEARS for, say, new drugs to receive approval to be introduced to market. The testing standards to establish baselines and accepted reference ranges are rigorous, and very exhaustive.
I understand that by this point, it seems to be personal more than anything between you and Docd. But arguing how reliable reference ranges are is coming across as the equivalent of Bill Clinton arguing "what is "IS"?".
Not taking sides, man, just an observation by a fellow member trying to figure out where you're going with this.
@Robfromga these studies and reference ranges are compiled from tens of thousands (and sometimes more) of tested subjects. This is why it takes YEARS for, say, new drugs to receive approval to be introduced to market. The testing standards to establish baselines and accepted reference ranges are rigorous, and very exhaustive.
I understand that by this point, it seems to be personal more than anything between you and Docd. But arguing how reliable reference ranges are is coming across as the equivalent of Bill Clinton arguing "what is "IS"?".
Not taking sides, man, just an observation by a fellow member trying to figure out where you're going with this.
It's ok to be wrong sometimes. I find the older i get the more it happens. Or, maybe, I'm willing to admit my being wrong more?
It doesn't bother me that much these days. I'm not lacking any amount of ego, either.
It doesn't bother me that much these days. I'm not lacking any amount of ego, either.
Or so I'm told about the ego thing. Hey, we all have something we specialize in..sometimes more than one thing but if that's the case, they seem to be related.
Over the years my specialty seems to be finding and obtaining difficult to find items that are in demand. I'd travel to different countries at a moments notice or walk into the most desperate and dirty hotel rooms or darkest alleys with a soft smile and gentle voice to get these things and almost always make it back unscathed.(The 18 staples in my head in a botched robbery was the 1 time things went south in 20 plus yrs.) I have a way with most folks thats puts them at ease. I believe its a steady gaze into the eyes and a smile I've perfected over the years.
My father was a Russian grocer and i went to work with him and bagged groceries and ran a cash register before the age of 10. A people person.
Now, @Docd187123 is a very intelligent guy. He knows his stuff. He doesn't rely on google as I've read some guys say. Educated...self or by institutions..probably both.
Some things can't be taught in any classroom. Many of us have the knowledge that only experience can bring.
There i go taking a thread off topic to talk about myself, again. Seems to happen quite often.
MitchFit
New Member
Bump.
So can we put this thread to rest and disavow OP as a shill looking to score free gear? OP hasn't been seen in 5 days. Looks like OP gave up and abandoned thread when his "ALL MY GEAR WAS BUNK" claim didn't get pharacom to send him free replacements.
So can we put this thread to rest and disavow OP as a shill looking to score free gear? OP hasn't been seen in 5 days. Looks like OP gave up and abandoned thread when his "ALL MY GEAR WAS BUNK" claim didn't get pharacom to send him free replacements.
So this reverse shill low life just skated on this thread. @Bill Bixcer care to explain yourself. Are you seriously that much of a broke piece of shit?
How did everyone let this scumbag skate after 8 pages of whining blulshit?
