IMPORTANT: Studies are False and Misleading!

[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.