IMPORTANT: Studies are False and Misleading!

[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.....