GW501516 and cancer?

[bighulksmash]

What if I tried GW on my hamster? Do you think his balls would fall off? I still honestly don't believe that there was enough evidence on human studies to pull this off the market, people have been using this for 7 years government private entities private labs some of the best Olympic athletes in the world before wa da even found out what it was so that leads me to think this is just an overdrawn accusation. Just my $0.03


No human has been diagnosed with cancer or lymphoma from the use of GW

 

[IronMind]

RAT CARCINOGENICITY STUDY WITH GW501516, A
PPAR DELTA AGONIST.
L. E. G
eiger
1
, W. S. Dunsford
2
, D. J. Lewis
2
, C. Brennan
3
, K. C. Liu
3
and S. J.
Newsholme
1
.
1
Safety Assessment, GlaxoSmithKline, King of Prussia, PA,
2
Safety
Assessment, GlaxoSmithKline, Ware, United Kingdom and
3
Huntingdon Life Sciences,
Huntingdon, United Kingdom.
GW501516, a non-genotoxic PPARδ agonist, was assessed for carcinogenic poten-
tial by daily administration (oral gavage) to Han Wistar rats for a period of 104
weeks. Males were given 0, 5, 15 or 30 mg/kg/day for the first 6 weeks of the study.
For the remainder of the study males were given 0, 5, 20 or 40 mg/kg/day. Females
were given 0, 3, 10 or 20 mg/kg/day for the entire study. GW501516 produced test
article-related neoplastic findings in multiple tissues at all doses. Increased mortal-
ity was seen with females given GW501516 at all doses and uterine endometrial
adenocarcinoma contributed to death in a high proportion of these animals.
Neoplasms considered test-article related occurred in the liver (hepatocellular ade-
noma at ≥10 mg/kg/day), urinary bladder (transitional cell carcinoma in males
given 20 and 40 mg/kg/day), thyroid (follicular cell adenoma at
≥3 mg/kg/day and carcinoma in males at ≥20 mg/kg/day), tongue (squamous cell papilloma in males at 5 mg/kg/day and 40 mg/kg/day), stomach (squamous cell papilloma in males at ≥5 mg/kg/day and a female at 20 mg/kg/day, and carcinoma in a male at 40 mg/kg/day and a female at 3 mg/kg/day), skin (inverted squamous cell papilloma in males at ≥5 mg/kg/day and females at 3 or 20 mg/kg/day), Harderian glands (ade-noma in males at ≥5 mg/kg/day and adenocarcinoma in a male at 40 mg/kg/day),
testes (interstitial cell adenoma at 40 mg/kg/day), ovary (Sertoli cell adenoma at
≥10 mg/kg/day) and uterus (polyp and endometrial adenocarcinoma at≥3
mg/kg/day). Some of the tumor types observed in this study have not been reported
with either PPARα or PPARγ agonists and may reflect tumor promotion mediated though
PPARδ agonism.

 

[IronMind]

MOUSE CARCINOGENICITY STUDY WITH GW501516,
A PPAR DELTA AGONIST.
S. J. Newsholme
1
, W. S. Dunsford
2
, T. Brodie
2
, C. Brennan
3
, M. Brown
3
and L.
E. G
eiger
1
.
1
Safety Assessment, GlaxoSmithKline, King of Prussia, PA,
2
Safety
Assessment, GlaxoSmithKline, Ware, United Kingdom and
3
Huntingdon Life Sciences,
Huntingdon, United Kingdom.
GW501516, a non-genotoxic PPARδ agonist, was assessed for carcinogenic poten-
tial by daily administration (oral gavage) to CD1 mice for 104 weeks at doses of 0,
10, 30, 60 or 80 mg/kg/day. Survival was decreased at doses ≥30 mg/kg/day.
Neoplasms considered related to test article occurred in liver (hepatocellular carci-
noma at ≥30 mg/kg/day and adenoma at ≥10 mg/kg/day), stomach (squamous
cell carcinoma at all doses) and combined squamous cell tumours at all doses (squa-
mous cell papilloma and carcinoma, and keratoacanthoma). There have been con-
flicting reports in the literature regarding the effects of PPARδ on epithelial cell
proliferation. The results of this study demonstrate an increase in proliferation in
certain epithelial cell populations, but do not support a role for PPARδ in colon
carcinogenesis. The squamous cell tumors observed in this study have not been re-
ported with either PPARα or PPARγ agonists and may reflect tumor promotion
mediated through PPARδ agonism.

 

[DoubleM101]

And about MK677, theres any concern?

Since it increases HGH and we know HGH may linked to Cancer, i think it should be a concern too, no?

 

[bighulksmash]

And about MK677, theres any concern?

Since it increases HGH and we know HGH may linked to Cancer, i think it should be a concern too, no?

Not to shabby

 

[IronMind]

And about MK677, theres any concern?

Since it increases HGH and we know HGH may linked to Cancer, i think it should be a concern too, no?

If you want to talk about it. Let's start a new thread? We're focused on GW here.

 

[bighulksmash]

And about MK677, theres any concern?

Since it increases HGH and we know HGH may linked to Cancer, i think it should be a concern too, no?

I haven't seen any infact thats been out since 2002 jist recently hit the market.

 

[IronMind]

Cigarette smoking has been out for what? at least 100 years? Let's continue smoking it because of how long it has been around.

 

[yates84]

Sounds good to me. I will not get into a pissing contest with anyone. All I do know is that Stanley certainly knows his stuff, you cannot deny that and calling him a google ninja was pretty funny and inaccurate but that is between the 2 of you I suppose. Have a good weekend, I plan on it!

Yeah, no one is going to win. Opinions are opinions at this point. I will definitely have a good weekend as well!

 

[Chrisko]

Because of the possible risks of cancer I know that I will not be taking this substance. If others do or don't I really don't give a ****.

When members do promote a substance in the forum they should also make mention of the possible known side effects as well. There are a lot of times where some stupid kid will look at one of the posts in many of the forums see that a member claims it does "xyz" and jump on it without doing any further research. It seems to me that it is almost down right irresponsible for both the user(kid) and the forum member(or possibly rep). It does seem that reps(not all) will at often times not disclose the very ugly in any product, and I understand why they do what they do(money, promotion of the company or product, ect.) it doesn't mean I agree with it. Pharmaceutical companies do it but only because of the legal ramifications and the possibilities of lawsuits. It is also done because I believe they are required to put disclaimers out there by the government. Do I think they would list the ugly side effects about a drug if they didn't have to? Of course not. Like I said before they are all about making money. Supplements do not have to do that because they are not as regulated as much. It is the same with research chemicals, black and grey market drugs, ect. It is obviously wrong in so many ways.

 

[Parad0x]

Look at the following:

I rest my case LOL.
Say what you want, being a rep DOES compromise your integrity. You cannot say you think a product that for example OL sells sucks being a rep for them even if it does. Even if you dont share anything about a product you dont like that is essentially compromising your integrity by omission. Say what you want but what I am saying is 100% true and everyone knows it. The fact that you arent honest enough to admit it simply bolsters my position. I would respect the rep that came out and said your right, sometimes I do compromise my integrity as I have a responsibility I took on to rep a company so sometimes I cannot be honest about how I feel. THAT would be integrity. So far all your are doing is making my case for me.
Thats all I have to say.

Being a rep changes your opinion on compounds about as much as me being an american changes my opinions on religions.

 

[berazzled]

Because of the possible risks of cancer I know that I will not be taking this substance. If others do or don't I really don't give a ****.

When members do promote a substance in the forum they should also make mention of the possible known side effects as well. There are a lot of times where some stupid kid will look at one of the posts in many of the forums see that a member claims it does "xyz" and jump on it without doing any further research. It seems to me that it is almost down right irresponsible for both the user(kid) and the forum member(or possibly rep). It does seem that reps(not all) will at often times not disclose the very ugly in any product, and I understand why they do what they do(money, promotion of the company or product, ect.) it doesn't mean I agree with it. Pharmaceutical companies do it but only because of the legal ramifications and the possibilities of lawsuits. It is also done because I believe they are required to put disclaimers out there by the government. Do I think they would list the ugly side effects about a drug if they didn't have to? Of course not. Like I said before they are all about making money. Supplements do not have to do that because they are not as regulated as much. It is the same with research chemicals, black and grey market drugs, ect. It is obviously wrong in so many ways.

Cancer is not a side effect,no known human has gotten cancer from gw.

 

[yates84]

Because of the possible risks of cancer I know that I will not be taking this substance. If others do or don't I really don't give a ****.

When members do promote a substance in the forum they should also make mention of the possible known side effects as well. There are a lot of times where some stupid kid will look at one of the posts in many of the forums see that a member claims it does "xyz" and jump on it without doing any further research. It seems to me that it is almost down right irresponsible for both the user(kid) and the forum member(or possibly rep). It does seem that reps(not all) will at often times not disclose the very ugly in any product, and I understand why they do what they do(money, promotion of the company or product, ect.) it doesn't mean I agree with it. Pharmaceutical companies do it but only because of the legal ramifications and the possibilities of lawsuits. It is also done because I believe they are required to put disclaimers out there by the government. Do I think they would list the ugly side effects about a drug if they didn't have to? Of course not. Like I said before they are all about making money. Supplements do not have to do that because they are not as regulated as much. It is the same with research chemicals, black and grey market drugs, ect. It is obviously wrong in so many ways.

Uhhh....we discussed all of these possible side effects at great lengths in multiple threads on this forum.

 

[bighulksmash]

Uhhh....we discussed all of these possible side effects at great lengths in multiple threads on this forum.

I dont rep for OL but i agree the sides have been gone over . This has been out since 2008 secretly tested on humans as well . None of the humans subjected to these test developed any side effects at all . Some developed a enhanced feeling of i can do it while training for endurance. It must be noted that the cancer was found in mice at dose 100 to 200 times what we would consider a normal dose . It you popped 200 asprin you wouldn't live to tell us about how it effected you . If you pop 2 asprin for a headache or similar pain you would be fine , am I right or am I right ?

 

[StanleyG]

I dont rep for OL but i agree the sides have been gone over . This has been out since 2008 secretly tested on humans as well . None of the humans subjected to these test developed any side effects at all . Some developed a enhanced feeling of i can do it while training for endurance. It must be noted that the cancer was found in mice at dose 100 to 200 times what we would consider a normal dose . It you popped 200 asprin you wouldn't live to tell us about how it effected you . If you pop 2 asprin for a headache or similar pain you would be fine , am I right or am I right ?

Please stop with the HED nonsense. So far everything that has been posted that says the the HED is super high was not accurately calculated using the BSA method. Using that method the doses are exactly equivalent to what we would use. Please do not perpetrate misinformation. If you are going to debate do so using accurate factual information.

 

[jbryand101b]

I have Stan on ignore using the ignore user settings, though I still involuntarily see his post when it's quoted.

I am a Google ninja. I get my information from the Internet. It's the fastest, and most easily accessible.
I guess others go to the library an read books and magazines?

I unfortunately don't remember everything I read and frequently have to find it, and post the resource for others to make their own opinion.
If you make a statement, post where you learned this, easy as that.

A lot if things may or may not give you cancer.

 

[StanleyG]

Yes some people possess true knowledge and know how to accurately apply it.
Whereas a google ninja googles things and because of their ignorance they regularly inaccurately apply the information they find on google to suit their incorrect contentions. That pretty much describes jb above to a T. Along with others in this thread and ironically most of them rep for the same company.
Makes you wonder if a group of people all repping for the same company have to rely on the google ninja method I mention above to sell & support their products one can only wonder....why and what does this say about the products they are selling.
It is simply a matter of ethics or lack thereof. It IS possible to rep for a company ethically, unfortunately none of the people I am speaking of have grasped what it takes to do so. Very sad and results in the perpetration of copious amounts of misinformation.

 

[T-Bone]

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21729103-400-anti-doping-agency-warns-athletes-of-black-market-drug/

Pay attention to this part,

But the company abandoned further development in 2006 after tests on rats showed that at all doses, the drug rapidly causes cancers in a multitude of organs, including the liver, bladder, stomach, skin, thyroid, tongue, testes, ovaries and womb.

 

[Parad0x]

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21729103-400-anti-doping-agency-warns-athletes-of-black-market-drug/

Pay attention to this part,

Sounds more like they were feeding the rats plutonium instead. Cancer is cellular mutation, and there's not much that can stimulate mutation on thaat level except being bombarded by gamma particles or by swallowing radioactive material

 

[StanleyG]

Sounds more like they were feeding the rats plutonium instead. Cancer is cellular mutation, and there's not much that can stimulate mutation on thaat level except being bombarded by gamma particles or by swallowing radioactive material

Why may I ask are you so set on arguing this point? It seems to me there must be some reason you are so set on doing so. When I view your post history almost all your posts have been in general discussion threads, almost like you are someone else that is looking to build a post count so you can then jump in and shill where necessary. I could be wrong but just an observation.
Anyway the facts are if you accurately calculate HED the doses that caused cancer in animals are equivalent to those we would use.
Then someone posts what was just posted and resort to the shadiest sales technique there is, the reduction to the ridiculous.
It is quite sad really. Why not just accept the fact that there are potential dangers with this substance and for many the risk is not worth it. It is quite simple yet you seem hell bent of resorting to slimy techniques to dismiss these accurate contentions people are using to support their own position. How about using some factual data like those people are to support your own contention instead of resorting to borderline mockery. It is simply a diversionary tactic that lends no credibility to you or your argument/position.

 

[zman86]

Please stop with the HED nonsense. So far everything that has been posted that says the the HED is super high was not accurately calculated using the BSA method. Using that method the doses are exactly equivalent to what we would use. Please do not perpetrate misinformation. If you are going to debate do so using accurate factual information.

You have sources to backup this statement?

 

[cmetrader]

It's an incredibly disingenuous argument, and again, a logical fallacy to just argue that since everything causes cancer who cares, I'll just take something anyway.



I'm not sure what you mean by this. Tamoxifen, an anti-estrogen SERM is going to take place of a pro-androgen SARM?

If your argument is that tamoxifen causes cancer - a substance typically prescribed to women recovering from breast cancer to lower overall estrogen, then I'm not sure your argument in favor of the inverse, namely SARMs, makes any sense.

No argument it was the Company's (GTx) intentions....go to their website where it is stated for you to peruse!

 

[Parad0x]

Why may I ask are you so set on arguing this point? It seems to me there must be some reason you are so set on doing so. When I view your post history almost all your posts have been in general discussion threads, almost like you are someone else that is looking to build a post count so you can then jump in and shill where necessary. I could be wrong but just an observation.
Anyway the facts are if you accurately calculate HED the doses that caused cancer in animals are equivalent to those we would use.
Then someone posts what was just posted and resort to the shadiest sales technique there is, the reduction to the ridiculous.
It is quite sad really. Why not just accept the fact that there are potential dangers with this substance and for many the risk is not worth it. It is quite simple yet you seem hell bent of resorting to slimy techniques to dismiss these accurate contentions people are using to support their own position. How about using some factual data like those people are to support your own contention instead of resorting to borderline mockery. It is simply a diversionary tactic that lends no credibility to you or your argument/position.

I was making a valid statement, whereas you're just being a little bitch. You ask for factual data? I work in a ****ing hospital. Have you provided a single source of evidence for anyone on here except for mice and lemmings to believe? No, you haven't. Before you try and tear into someone's statement and start an argument, you need to grow a pair of testes boy.

 

[bighulksmash]

SOUND OFF LIKE YOU GOT A PAIR - FULL METAL JACKET .

 

[StanleyG]

I was making a valid statement, whereas you're just being a little bitch. You ask for factual data? I work in a ****ing hospital. Have you provided a single source of evidence for anyone on here except for mice and lemmings to believe? No, you haven't. Before you try and tear into someone's statement and start an argument, you need to grow a pair of testes boy.

Yes typical, when you cant offer facts you resort to personal attacks and insults. Your statement was probably the most invalid one in this entire thread. What are you a janitor at the hospital? I dont care what you do for a living my post still holds 100% true re you and your so called "contribution" LOL

 

[yates84]

You have sources to backup this statement?

Bump StanleyG

 

[StanleyG]

You have sources to backup this statement?

No I have the intelligence and knowledge on how to accurately calculate HED using the BSA method. If you like you could probably google it yourself and do the calculations on your own. This is the best bet as then you will know for a fact it is true.

Oh I should also mention this was pointed out in a write up I read on GW at some point as well. Someone who wasnt looking to sell it that was honestly taking a look at the substance was addressing a video like someone posted earlier where somebody was perpetrating serious HED misinformation.

 

[Parad0x]

No I have the intelligence and knowledge on how to accurately calculate HED using the BSA method. If you like you could probably google it yourself and do the calculations on your own. This is the best bet as then you will know for a fact it is true.

You might want to restock; your so-called "intelligence" is in short supply, much like SARM companies in the US.

 

[yates84]

No I have the intelligence and knowledge on how to accurately calculate HED using the BSA method. If you like you could probably google it yourself and do the calculations on your own. This is the best bet as then you will know for a fact it is true.

Oh I should also mention this was pointed out in a write up I read on GW at some point as well. Someone who wasnt looking to sell it that was honestly taking a look at the substance was addressing a video like someone posted earlier where somebody was perpetrating serious HED misinformation.

So we should "Google it"? Lol

 

[StanleyG]

You might want to restock; your so-called "intelligence" is in short supply, much like SARM companies in the US.

Yup keep up the insults. I am more than secure in my level of intelligence thank you. Based on contributions to the forum and the community as a whole, mine vs yours, mine is vastly superior to yours thank you very much.

 

[StanleyG]

So we should "Google it"? Lol

You should learn how to do it like I have. If you prefer the local library then fine. You see knowledge truly possessed in invaluable. Knowledge regurgitated without understanding is the biggest source of misinformation there is. It is rampant in this thread and much of it by reps for the company you rep for.

 

[Parad0x]

Yup keep up the insults. I am more than secure in my level of intelligence thank you. Based on contributions to the forum and the community as a whole, mine vs yours, mine is vastly superior to yours thank you very much.

Be secure in it all you want, doesn't make you any less of a moronic pest that everyone would be better off without. Superiority must be subjective and relative because you are about as relevant as a sociopath at a conference for feelings.

 

[yates84]

You should learn how to do it like I have. If you prefer the local library then fine. You see knowledge truly possessed in invaluable. Knowledge regurgitated without understanding is the biggest source of misinformation there is. It is rampant in this thread and much of it by reps for the company you rep for.

My posts are based on personal experience, not some stupid study that has 3 other studies disproving it. It's called the real word results, you should climb out from behind that computer every once in a while and get some of this real world data to repost

 

[zman86]

From the study posted in the previous pages, the researcher were using "mgs", in doses between 5-30 on male and female mices.... So there is a different international unit measurement for "milligrams" for lab animals??

 

[StanleyG]

.........

 

[Ari Gold]

Keep it civil everyone, or you're outta here.