IMPORTANT: Studies are False and Misleading!

[Mr.X]

Virtually ALL scientific studies are, at best, misleading. The majority is just fraud, deception and lies - the rest are bias and fake.

A lot of "study parrots" copy and paste studies and pretend to know what they are talking about; they are just guys who don't have enough experience to back up what they say. You'll see people on the forums posting study after study, yet most of the studies posted are fasle, misleading and bias. Full of lies created by the pharmaceutical industry and the food companies.

Think about it, if you released Drug A to the market, wouldn't you want studies which are "independent" (secretly funded by your company) to say this product is GREAT?

Isn't it interesting how a "safe" product like Vioxx, that had a lot of studies to back up it's use, became one of the worst drug company disasters. Many people died from using Vioxx and many others were hurt, but the studies done on Vioxx made it the next wonder drug. Now you see? Studies are pure garbage, don't believe them for 1 second.

A good example:

http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060501/full/nj7089-122a.html
"DeNino had uncovered one of the most serious cases of scientific misconduct reported in recent years. His boss, obesity expert Eric Poehlman, had committed scientific fraud for more than 12 years in numerous publications and grant proposals1. Now debarred from receiving federal research funding for life, Poehlman must repay $180,000 and is one of only two researchers ever charged in a US criminal court for misconduct."

http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2006/01/10/a_look_at_other_scientific_frauds?mode=PF

--Last March, Dr. Gary Kammer, a Wake Forest University rheumatology professor and leading lupus expert, was found to have made up two families and their medical conditions in federal grant applications. He resigned from the university and was suspended from receiving federal grants for three years.

--In 2004, federal officials found that Dr. Ali Sultan, then an award-winning malaria researcher at the Harvard School of Public Health, had plagiarized text and figures, and falsified his data -- substituting results from one type of malaria for another -- on a grant application for federal funds to study malaria drugs. Sultan resigned.

--As a researcher at Bell Labs, Jan Hendrik Schon made up or altered data in electronics experiments at least 16 times between 1998 and 2001, an investigation concluded. He was fired in 2002.

--The Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory said in 2002 that its reported discovery of two chemical elements in 1999 was based on bogus research. The results were retracted in 2001.

--Stephen Breuning, a well-known research psychologist, pleaded guilty in 1988 to falsifying research data on drug therapies for mentally retarded children while working for the University of Pittsburgh.

--In 1981, Dr. John Darsee, a Harvard cardiologist and medical researcher, was found to have faked data in an experiment on heart attacks in dogs. He was later found to have made up much of his data in more than 100 papers published over 14 years while he worked at Harvard and Emory University. Darsee was dismissed and cut off from federal research funds for 10 years.

--In 1974, Dr. William Summerlin resigned from Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York after admitting he had forged an experiment on the immune system's reaction to foreign tissue. He used a dark, felt-tipped pen on a white mouse and made it appear that tissue had been grafted successfully from a black mouse

 

[Computer]

So your few examples should prove that "Virtually ALL scientific studies are, at best, misleading".....hmmmm.

 

[*Bunny*]

Did you just post links to 'study-like' studies, saying that studies are 'False and Misleading'?

Sorry I couldn't help myself (guess that nap did my brain NO GOOD)



X ... yes, I have been saying this for sometime, along with mah boys in diet... I do agree that "...Virtually ALL scientific studies are, at best, misleading. The majority is just fraud, deception and lies - the rest are bias and fake."

As well as "...most of the studies posted are false, misleading and bias. Full of lies created by the pharmaceutical industry and the food companies."

I try to use myself as my best case study ... works pretty darn well thus far

 

[Mr.X]

So your few examples should prove that "Virtually ALL scientific studies are, at best, misleading".....hmmmm.

It's hard to find fraud because the pharmaceutical companies and food companies have billions of dollars in some of these products - they can black-ball a lot of news.

These are obvious examples of FRAUD and fake studies. I personally saw - many years ago - guys making up data and lying about the experiments. I've seen guys adding 10% to everything just to get Grant money!

 

[macrophage69alpha]

its important to understand the mr.x posted this in an effort to "protect" nolva from the recently posted unfavorable study. Showing its negative impact on libido among other things

 

[Mr.X]

its important to understand the mr.x posted this in an effort to "protect" nolva from the recently posted unfavorable study. Showing its negative impact on libido among other things

LOL, Macro with his pubmed keys. I could care less about a study you found staying up all night on Medline or pudmed - wouldn't change anything for me because all those studies are full of lies.

http://www.elitefitness.com/forum/showpost.php?p=6199990&postcount=26
That's over a week ago.

I've been saying that studies are false, misleading and full of fraud for a long time. Quit trying to mislead people and lie to them.

 

[macrophage69alpha]

oh.. see thats where you tried to use the same argument to defend your reccomendations of letrozole.

though you are more than willing to use studies, when someone supplies them to you, to support your position.

 

[Mr.X]

Although I have studies for letrozole, Letrozole doesn't need studies - it speaks for itself. Especially, seeing as how studies are false, I don't use them to make empty recommendations like others do. Check out the users posting that their gyno was gone within weeks of using Letrozole. I have clients who have had the same experience with letrozole. Experience is what counts...studies are, at best, misleading.

here's an example:
http://www.elitefitness.com/forum/showpost.php?p=6221534&postcount=4

Let's not get off topic, the facts remain the same - scientific studies are full of fraud, lies and misleading information.

 

[macrophage69alpha]

you can post this all you like. Most research is independant and valid. there will always be cases where someone will make up data or stories (as the case may be) to support thier position.

like say someone that talks about their experiences with various compounds and yet has never tried them. Someone that claims to be an expert when not even able to understand the basic underlying metabolic concepts of the drugs in question. Thats the kind of scumbag that you should concern yourself with....

 

[Mr.X]

Most research is full of lies, bias information and misleading information. There are many cases where pharmaceutical companies and food companies cover up the fraud, and it never gets to the public.

What I'm worried about are idiots on this forum using studies to make false claims. Instead of using real world experience, these guys sit behind a computer search pubmed for a study on a mouse or rat and try to pass it off as legitimate information.

I want EF members to understand how much fraud goes behind the scenes with these studies, and how this false information being presented to them by individuals who try to pass off as "gurus" because they have read 1000 pubmed studies. These scumbags who spend more time reading studies then working out are my favorite type of "gurus".

 

[lanky]

you can post this all you like. Most research is independant and valid. there will always be cases where someone will make up data or stories (as the case may be) to support thier position.

like say someone that talks about their experiences with various compounds and yet has never tried them. Someone that claims to be an expert when not even able to understand the basic underlying metabolic concepts of the drugs in question. Thats the kind of scumbag that you should concern yourself with....

my thoughts exactly..i would have been a little more therpeutic about it..lol

 

[Mr.X]

my thoughts exactly..i would have been a little more therpeutic about it..lol

Of course you would, your latest post is nothing but a study.

http://www.elitefitness.com/forum/showthread.php?p=6232643

http://www.elitefitness.com/forum/showpost.php?p=6208600&postcount=1

http://www.elitefitness.com/forum/showthread.php?t=484000

 

[macrophage69alpha]

without casting dispersions, will state that have used all these compounds extensively (with the exception of nolva) and have been training consistently for about 19 years. So if you were intending those references in this direction, they would be innacurate.

 

[tbolking]

LOts of testosterone here!!

 

[Mr.X]

LOts of testosterone here!!

Can't disagree with that

 

[lanky]

709 ng/dl total testosterone,,,but i am still a twig

 

[NYBodyguard]

lol so fuckin true

I responded in that thread "oh god" simply because I didnt know what else to write anymore

this is total nuts already

 

[used2juice]

Don't lie Mr. X, you just started this because the DaVinci Code movie was coming out and you needed something to promote your theory that the templar knights are infact responsible for the worldwide pharmaceutical conspiracy.

 

[macrophage69alpha]

interesting theory... well amusing at least

 

[basskiller]

My take on studies.

What happens is Company A hires another research lab independent of them to test the product on their target. This could be any number of things. Now, here is where the crap really pisses me off. Because Company A is funding the research at the independent research lab, they control if and when that study becomes public. If it ever does, Yea that’s right, they have the option of not submitting that study if the findings do not work for the benefit of the product.

Here is the really sad part. Hundreds of study could be performed by legitimate unbiased labs and 99% of them could have the findings that the drug in question is bad for you. Only one of the studies having some benefit of said product. Because Company A funded those studies, they own the rights to them. Those 99% will never see the light of day nor does Company A have the obligation to even tell you about them. No one in the public eye will ever see them.

All you hear about is that one study. Now this doesn't make the study false by any means. What it means is that Company A has dropped a ton of money on this product and has to try and recoup it somehow. This comes at your expense because you haven’t a clue about the other studies. Company A will most likely have a disclaimer on the bottle. This may cause this that or the other. When I the possibility could be 1 in 100 people will suffer from one of the serious side effects listed. If the company were to let you know that, you would not chance taking it. So you get a watered down disclaimer.

Sorry for taking this a bit further I may sound a bit jaded in this post. I just think you have to look for more than just studies
And this has absolutely no bearing on any study posted Just some thoughts of a rambling old man

 

[Mr.X]

Don't lie Mr. X, you just started this because the DaVinci Code movie was coming out and you needed something to promote your theory that the templar knights are infact responsible for the worldwide pharmaceutical conspiracy.

It's the daughter of the food industry, that's the holy grail lol

 

[Guvna]

My take on studies.

What happens is Company A hires another research lab independent of them to test the product on their target. This could be any number of things. Now, here is where the crap really pisses me off. Because Company A is funding the research at the independent research lab, they control if and when that study becomes public. If it ever does, Yea that’s right, they have the option of not submitting that study if the findings do not work for the benefit of the product.

Here is the really sad part. Hundreds of study could be performed by legitimate unbiased labs and 99% of them could have the findings that the drug in question is bad for you. Only one of the studies having some benefit of said product. Because Company A funded those studies, they own the rights to them. Those 99% will never see the light of day nor does Company A have the obligation to even tell you about them. No one in the public eye will ever see them.

All you hear about is that one study. Now this doesn't make the study false by any means. What it means is that Company A has dropped a ton of money on this product and has to try and recoup it somehow. This comes at your expense because you haven’t a clue about the other studies. Company A will most likely have a disclaimer on the bottle. This may cause this that or the other. When I the possibility could be 1 in 100 people will suffer from one of the serious side effects listed. If the company were to let you know that, you would not chance taking it. So you get a watered down disclaimer.

Sorry for taking this a bit further I may sound a bit jaded in this post. I just think you have to look for more than just studies
And this has absolutely no bearing on any study posted Just some thoughts of a rambling old man

+1

Also,

Corruption and bribes are in every facet of life. There are lies in everything, but that does not mean everything is a lie. Take them with a grain of salt, but studies can be very useful.

 

[lanky]

+1

Also,

Corruption and bribes are in every facet of life. There are lies in everything, but that does not mean everything is a lie. Take them with a grain of salt, but studies can be very useful.

a valid statement...but that is just my opinion

 

[justinjones1963]

There is a huge problem in academia concerning publications - people write articles simply for the sake of gettting something published - not for the sake of research. This is endemic not only in medicine but also in business and other academic circles. 90% of the much I am forced to read is total BS.

Another problem is that people have political agendas. You can throw objectivity out the window in many cases. Both problems combined lead to 90% of the BS out there as being worthless.

 

[lanky]

There is a huge problem in academia concerning publications - people write articles simply for the sake of gettting something published - not for the sake of research. This is endemic not only in medicine but also in business and other academic circles. 90% of the much I am forced to read is total BS.

Another problem is that people have political agendas. You can throw objectivity out the window in many cases. Both problems combined lead to 90% of the BS out there as being worthless.

90% BS,,,you must be refering to political science publications..lol,,just kidding...couldnt help myself on that one.

 

[Mr.X]

There is a huge problem in academia concerning publications - people write articles simply for the sake of gettting something published - not for the sake of research. This is endemic not only in medicine but also in business and other academic circles. 90% of the much I am forced to read is total BS..

A lot of BS out there. I'm hoping EF members read and learn on their own - the best tool is experience, not some pubmed study.

 

[GymIntensity]

I see 3 main things going on with this macro/X debate/debacle.

1. Mr. X loooovvvvesssss him some Letro

2. MAC loooovvvveeessss him some AIFM, as well as AIFM sales ;-)

3. Arimidex is just getting shit on and being left out. Where does it add in?!??!?1


LOL........

 

[Anthony Roberts]

Sometimes studies can start you on the road to figuring something out, or they can confirm a theory- but you're not going to really know shit until you put the theory into practice.

My PCT article was good, in theory; but I didn't publish it until I tested it out on 2 dudes, both of whom loved it and thought it was the best PCT they ever ran. Then I wrote the article. Studies are nothing, compared to actual results.

 

[used2juice]

Studies are nothing, compared to actual results.

That pretty much sums it up.

 

[Outtlaw]

The worst thing is when people break out those fucking little graphs they made with their scientific calculators to use as scientific reasearch to show how drugs act while inside the human body.

 

[macrophage69alpha]

well actual USER results indicate that nolva has a super long half life (supported by research), that it can cause libido problems (supported by research), that is can cause post cycle depression (supported by research) and that is it not suitable for treating progestin related gyno (supported by research).

this does not mean that nolva should not be used, merely that these are potential side effects that need to be taken into account when making gyno/PCT/etc type decisions.

 

[Mr.X]

The worst thing is when people break out those fucking little graphs they made with their scientific calculators to use as scientific reasearch to show how drugs act while inside the human body.

hey, those scientific calculators are expensive - they must be smart because they use them lol I have to double check that on PubMed first

 

[lanky]

I wish i could chime in on this conversation but letro, nolva, aromasn, is not in my area of knowledge.

 

[Mr.X]

I wish i could chime in on this conversation but letro, nolva, aromasn, is not in my area of knowledge.

it's alright I'll post some good profiles you can read.

 

[gjohnson5]

Wow !!!

I would say that there may be biases in certain studies. Some commercial companies want the results to pan out a certain way because they make $$$ of the results. To say that all studies are full of lies is beneath you. Infact it's hard to read this considering that you yourself have posted have posted some studies

 

[Mr.X]

Wow !!!

I would say that there may be biases in certain studies. Some commercial companies want the results to pan out a certain way because they make $$$ of the results. To say that all studies are full of lies is beneath you. Infact it's hard to read this considering that you yourself have posted have posted some studies

I have posted studies in the past, no question. gjohnson5, you'll see that a majority of the studies that are not full of fraud and made up information are full of misleading and bias statements. I've seen guys make up data just to get grant money, now that's something that stays with you for life.

I'm trying to get EF members to understand that a study done on a rat with some 'creative' data, is not going to help them in their bodybuilding. The concept here is that real world experience is going to be a lot more beneficial then some pubmed study that's full of fake information. Too many guys on EF are reading these rat studies like gospel; instead, they should be researching and trying things out for themselves. It's hands on experiences that will ultimately pay off.

 

[fortunatesun]

It's the daughter of the food industry, that's the holy grail lol

All politicking aside, I have to agree with Mr. X on this one. Having spent some time in a dairy state, you can't help but notice these things. And it's not just industry. University professors need to get their research grants from someplace. For them it's literally publish or perish. They needn't falsify information, just phrase the question on which they base their scientific inquiry in such as way as to not step on any toes.
Your own experience is the way to go for sure.

 

[fortunatesun]

I'm trying to get EF members to understand that a study done on a rat with some 'creative' data, is not going to help them in their bodybuilding.

I think your going to have trouble convincing certain (former) members such as Chase152 and S*tchb*gie of that one.

 

[OMEGA]

Mr.X is a good bro

 

[bigrand]

The fraud in which Mr X is talking about is almost always the the benefit of the drug. The drug companies sponser studies and publish the info that shines a good light on their product. Nolva is a very old product and studies have been done that are funded by non-interest groups who wont benefit from only positive results. Studies with NEGATIVE results are rarely fake or biased, nobody would gain from negative results (accept maybe the producers of an AI in this case).

Not all medical studies are bogus X, a blanket statement like that is just false. I agree, many can be missleading, but there are also a lot of studies that are true and not biased.
Problem in many cases is the 4-6 weeks done in a FDA trial on humans isnt sufficient enough to find all the sides (especially long term).

there have been times when the researchers published info with negative light on a drug when the company ordered (threatened to sue) the researchers not to submit it....synthroid is one that comes to mind. The company ended up not suing.....they would look like they were covering up shit and they would have been worse off.

 

[x_muscle]

i dont have time to respond in lenght, but i have read my fare share of primary studies. saying that all of them are misleading is misleading by itself.

 

[motar]

Anyone else think it is ironic that Mr. X is trying to state that most studies are false based on a few bad studies, on a steroid site that tries to tell people not to judge the majority of steroid users based on a few idiots who misuse it?

 

[UA_Iron]

Suckers, I was planning my cycles out of obscure biblical passages anyway.

 

[Mr.X]

Anyone else think it is ironic that Mr. X is trying to state that most studies are false based on a few bad studies, on a steroid site that tries to tell people not to judge the majority of steroid users based on a few idiots who misuse it?

It's not based on a few bad studies, it's based on many studies out there full of fraud and lies. The end user shouldn't take any of these studies as gospel or any type of truth. Most of studies are funded by the drug and food companies; we'll have 99 bad studies and 1 good study about a drug, then you have the pharmaceutical companies using the 1 good study and shutting out all the 99 bad ones from being published.

If you had sat in a room and watched guys make up #s for studies to get grant money (same studies that were published a week later), you'd know what I'm talking about.

 

[Mr.X]

Suckers, I was planning my cycles out of obscure biblical passages anyway.

lol...I hope you have a scientific calculator to work the numbers

 

[Mr.X]

Nolva is a very old product and studies have been done that are funded by non-interest groups who wont benefit from only positive results. Studies with NEGATIVE results are rarely fake or biased, nobody would gain from negative results

First, you're pigeonholing yourself into this "nolva" issue, this post is about virtually all studies - not nolva. In fact, it has nothing to do with nolva. There was an attempt to steer it that way, but it's an obvious failure.

Second, studies with "negative" results are just as fake as any other studies. There were "negative" studies done by the drug companies on royal jelly, saying it's not going to help with headaches or anything else - keep taking your tylenol! When in fact, royal jelly has a lot of benefical uses as a natural remedy. Studies with "negative" information are just as fraudulent, bias and misleading as studies with positive information. Do you realize how many studies the drug and food companies cut out from publishing...many independent studies cannot and will not be published due to the political and financial pull of the food and drug co. You'll see the editors of scientific journals driving in a brand new S500 before they publish a study saying a certain drug can kill you; maybe like the fact that acetaminophen (tylenol and most pain killers) causes liver damage.

 

[Anthony Roberts]

Studies can be useful, where they give us concrete numbers to go off. For example, Arimidex lowers estrogen by around 50% regardless of using 1mg or .5mgs...but that was basically a side note in a study I read, and not the focus of it.

Recently, I have been developing an ariticle on Winstrol Oral Vs/ Injectable, and it's becoming apparent that because of passing Winstrol through the liver on a first pass, as opposed to injecting it, there is a more profound effect on reducing SHBG.

In fact, when injectable progesterone was compared to oral, there were totally disparate effects on elevating SHBG. This kind of thing is useful to me, in helping give evidence for women being better off using Injectable Winny vs/ oral, since the oral most likely lowers SHBG more than the injectable.

Studies are a difficult beast to really work with, and I wouldn't have even looked into it, had I not heard women claiming to get worse sides from oral vs/ injectable.

This also gives me reason to think that Aromasin wouldn't be nearly as effective as an injectable, or transdermal, since it may lose a large portion of it's ability to lower SHBG and free up testosterone.

I mean...I can use studies in this manner, sometimes...but on the whole, scientists have produced some big rodents, and larger cattle, but have done fuck-all for producing a larger bodybuilder.

 

[Mr.X]

I mean...I can use studies in this manner, sometimes...but on the whole, scientists have produced some big rodents, and larger cattle, but have done fuck-all for producing a larger bodybuilder.

Amen bro

 

[Mr.X]

All politicking aside, I have to agree with Mr. X on this one. Having spent some time in a dairy state, you can't help but notice these things. And it's not just industry. University professors need to get their research grants from someplace. For them it's literally publish or perish. They needn't falsify information, just phrase the question on which they base their scientific inquiry in such as way as to not step on any toes.
Your own experience is the way to go for sure.

Guys sit in their office or lab and make up data as the project doesn't turn out the way they wanted it - then you have guys on the forums believing the data.

 

[bigrand]

First, you're pigeonholing yourself into this "nolva" issue, this post is about virtually all studies - not nolva. In fact, it has nothing to do with nolva. There was an attempt to steer it that way, but it's an obvious failure.

Second, studies with "negative" results are just as fake as any other studies. There were "negative" studies done by the drug companies on royal jelly, saying it's not going to help with headaches or anything else - keep taking your tylenol! When in fact, royal jelly has a lot of benefical uses as a natural remedy. Studies with "negative" information are just as fraudulent, bias and misleading as studies with positive information. Do you realize how many studies the drug and food companies cut out from publishing...many independent studies cannot and will not be published due to the political and financial pull of the food and drug co. You'll see the editors of scientific journals driving in a brand new S500 before they publish a study saying a certain drug can kill you; maybe like the fact that acetaminophen (tylenol and most pain killers) causes liver damage.

I talked about the nolva issue because it is a good example of a study done right, not by pharm companies.......bad thing is that these all occur years after the drug has lost its patent and other groups test the drugs in an unbiased manner.
I get your point X, ive taken classes where we go indepth into this specific issue.....however, there are a number of good companies with good drugs that publish relativly good reports (peer reviewed are good one, but not exempt to what you are speaking of).

There is fraud, but to say it is all fraud is nonsense. Its like saying the placebo affect is just as good as the drug (another thing weve discussed at lenght). The truth is, drugs are released that work, some have studies done on them that hide the effectiveness or toxicity, but its deffenitly not all of them.....

 

[Mr.X]

I talked about the nolva issue because it is a good example of a study done right, not by pharm companies.......bad thing is that these all occur years after the drug has lost its patent and other groups test the drugs in an unbiased manner.
I get your point X, ive taken classes where we go indepth into this specific issue.....however, there are a number of good companies with good drugs that publish relativly good reports (peer reviewed are good one, but not exempt to what you are speaking of).

There is fraud, but to say it is all fraud is nonsense. Its like saying the placebo affect is just as good as the drug (another thing weve discussed at lenght). The truth is, drugs are released that work, some have studies done on them that hide the effectiveness or toxicity, but its deffenitly not all of them.....

Let me ask you this, you said you've taken "classes" where you go indepth about the issue, can you tell me who funds research studies done by most universities? Also, I'd like you to look up Stanford university and Genentech, and find out how much influence a pharmaceutical company like Genentech has on the information that comes out of Stanford. You'd be surprised how many studies are black-balled and shut down because they say anything negative about a pharmaceutical or food company's products.

Also, look up how many pharmaceutical and food company lobbies are out there, to pressure/bribe the FDA and FTC. I don't believe for 1 second that there is truly independent data out there, the minority that's semi-independent is going to be bias or misleading in one way or another. After all, someone has to fund these experiments and studies, and it's not going to be someone with no innate interest in the subject at hand.

 

[galaxy]

Just because nolva may cause a decrease in libido doesnt mean your hpta isnt recovering so isnt it all moot. As long as you recover is the important thing and its only 3 weeks your running the nolva alone..Anyway carry one.

 

[boxerjake]

Nothing new here ...

 

[bigrand]

Let me ask you this, you said you've taken "classes" where you go indepth about the issue, can you tell me who funds research studies done by most universities? Also, I'd like you to look up Stanford university and Genentech, and find out how much influence a pharmaceutical company like Genentech has on the information that comes out of Stanford. You'd be surprised how many studies are black-balled and shut down because they say anything negative about a pharmaceutical or food company's products.

Also, look up how many pharmaceutical and food company lobbies are out there, to pressure/bribe the FDA and FTC. I don't believe for 1 second that there is truly independent data out there, the minority that's semi-independent is going to be bias or misleading in one way or another. After all, someone has to fund these experiments and studies, and it's not going to be someone with no innate interest in the subject at hand.

I will most likely be working for genentech when i graduate in a couple weeks, so ill let you know then!!!

Again....i know that there are tons of studies that are dropped cuz they show the drug in a bad light.....i just dont agree that ALL studies are bad. I guess ill have to go do some looking, dont have the info on-hand!

My psychopharm teacher is just like you, totally negative about the pharm industry, but even he knows not all are bad news~!

 

[SgtSlaughter]

lots of good bros in here, I didn't bother reading the whole thing after it became a semi-warish thread


Lots-o-Test flyin' around that's for sure.

Moral of the story, don't believe everything you read... and read everything you can to formulate your own opinion

annnnnnd, I'm spent

 

[Mr.X]

Moral of the story, don't believe everything you read... and read everything you can to formulate your own opinion

annnnnnd, I'm spent

exactly

 

[Wrongun]

Just because nolva may cause a decrease in libido doesnt mean your hpta isnt recovering so isnt it all moot. As long as you recover is the important thing and its only 3 weeks your running the nolva alone..Anyway carry one.

Thats my view as well

Wrongun!

 

[deezknuckles]

Wow. Alot of misinformation in this post.

I'm not going to be naive and say that fraud does not occur, that publication bias does not occur (publish good results, do not publish bad results)., and that some studies are designed based upon flawed or misleading questions.

BUT... to basically say that the 30+ billion $$$ of pharmaceutical research and development plus the hundreds of thousands of academics scientists (who spend their lifetime and stake their reps on pursuit of science) are frauds is absolute horseshit. This sounds like a looney liberal Michael Moore conspiracy. And to imply that the EVIL drug industry can "blackball" negative media attention is a good one too. The New York Times is more than happy to publish juicy stories that protray the drug industry in a bad light or to expose fraud, and almost all major papers/broadcatss follow thier lead.

The drug industry is the 2nd most highly regulated industry in the country (next to nuclear). Drugs are approved in the US based upon randomized controlled clinical studies with pre-defined criteria that are set for comparison based upon a scientifically validated statistical criteria in which drug A is compared to Drug B. The doctors and the patients are usually blinded as to which drug they are getting to eliminate any bias. The FDA has full and open access to the hospital study sites and the company research facilities and audits the shit out of them. We have the most stringent system in the world.

Drug research is not perfect and there are dishonest people out there, there are unimaginative scientists out there, and there are flaws to the system but to imply that a bunch of dudes relaying their subjectives experiences on an internet chatroom is a more scientifically valid manner in which to determine safety and efficacy of drug than a properly statistically-powered, randomized, controlled clinical study is horseshit. Pure science does not lie, pure science does not have an agenda, people do.

 

[OMEGA]

I'll be sticking with Adex and Nolva

 

[needtogetaas]

lots of good bros in here, I didn't bother reading the whole thing after it became a semi-warish thread


Lots-o-Test flyin' around that's for sure.

Moral of the story, don't believe everything you read... and read everything you can to formulate your own opinion

annnnnnd, I'm spent

good post.