Ya... you present some tough facts... I would think the letro and caber would have kept you safe... Areas to improve in would be that you have no no natural DHT... You need the DHT to help block and reverse the gyno... You need the Test to make DHT.... problem now is you been running some different stuff without Test while likely not making your own test and by not using your 5 alpha reductase system you have likely reduced your 5 alpha reductase capacity so that even when you take Test it will take a while to be able to make normal DHT -- cutting all test actually hurts you because you don't have natural DHT to help block/reverse the gyno -- I don't think the synthetic DHTs are doing you any good in this regard (i.e., the superdrol and proviron aren't blocking gyno like real in tissue DHT). So keep your test in there or make some with HCG/clomid if time for PCT for 10-30 days so that you can have natural DHT -- like that. So ONE - More real DHT!
You would think its not estrogen because your taking all the letro... unless you have just built so much aromatase that even letro is doing you no good... its theoretically possible... that you can't competitively bind all the aromotase because there is just soo soo much and your cycles frankly look like the type that could do it... I mean your obviously fearlessly doing tren n superdrol and going for it... So, ya, your body is just made so much aromatase to combat and your aren't eliminating your just tying up a consistent same amount all the time and allowing it to build... I'd bet you have so much aromatase that maybe letro can't even do it. I'd take a suicide inhibitor instead to be sure and be sure that your estrogen is sufficiently low -- go exemenstane and be sure and then blood test just estrodiol to be sure. So TWO Suicide AI!
Finally, I think you need to block at the receptors in the breast tissue with toremefine. I know people say that you shouldn't take nolva with tren/deca stacks and that's probably why it isn't in your set (fear of the progesterone receptor upregulation theory, which I think all must admit is partially true and though I can take nolva with tren most people can because the upregulation is temporary (2 weeks before back to normal and then maybe down regulates....), you probably shouldn't since your prone to gyno and next time you could take nolva with test 2 weeks prior to starting the tren and then avoid the upregulation issue while continuing the superior nolva (nolva is better then torem for HPTA) - and your gyno prone so it makes sense that you would subtract nolva out of your set described above though you haven't said so explicitly, but I think it's a mistake because you need those estrogen receptors blocked and the the progesterone receptor upregulate theory is not supported in the literature as the upregulation described down regulates within 2 weeks as described in this thread actually by Seth I think and though Eric disagrees, I think Seth is right, the upregulation is minor and temporary at most -- but you are very prone to Gyno at this point so then at least take the toremefine citrate to block estrogen receptors in the breast, though nolva is better for HPTA protection improvement which is the secondary benefit of these SERMS, though both are likely equal on gyno based on the study posted below). Ya... add... Toremefine for sure and next time do Nolva a few weeks prior to starting the tren and then keep on the nolva throughout... So THREE Toremefine!
Ya, GH and IGF can contribute but those clear your system fast in like 3 days so pull em and that's all you can do and save for careful experimentation during PCT after you have control of the gyno.
Article:
Toremifene versus tamoxifen for advanced breast cancer.
Source
Division of Epidemiology, School of Public Health and Primary Care, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:
Toremifene (TOR) and tamoxifen (TAM) can both be used as treatments for advanced breast cancer.
OBJECTIVES:
To compare the efficacy and safety of TOR with TAM in patients with advanced breast cancer.
SEARCH METHODS:
The Cochrane Breast Cancer Group's Specialised Register was searched (1 July 2011) using the codes for "toremifene", "fareston", "tamoxifen, "nolvadex, and "breast cancer". We also searched MEDLINE (via PubMed) (from inception to 1 July 2011), EMBASE (via Ovid) (from inception to 1 July 2011), The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, Issue 7, 2011), and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform search portal (1 July 2011). In addition, we screened the reference lists of relevant trials or reviews.
SELECTION CRITERIA:
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the efficacy and safety, or both of TOR with TAM in women with advanced breast cancer. Trials that provided sufficient data on one of the following items: objective response rate (ORR), time to progression (TTP), overall survival (OS), and adverse events, were considered eligible for inclusion.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:
Studies were assessed for eligibility and quality. Two review authors independently extracted the following details: first author, publication year, country, years of follow-up, treatment arms, intention-to-treat (ITT) population size, menopausal status of patients, hormone receptor status, response criteria, efficacy and safety outcomes of TOR and TAM arms. Hazard ratios (HR) were derived for time-to-event outcomes, where possible, and response and adverse events were analysed as dichotomous variables. We used a fixed-effect model for meta-analysis unless there was significant between-study heterogeneity.
MAIN RESULTS:
A total of 2061 patients from seven RCTs were included for final analysis, with 1226 patients in the TOR group and 835 patients in the TAM group. The ORR for the TOR group was 25.8% (316/1226) whereas, the ORR for the TAM group was 26.9% (225/835). The pooled risk ratio (RR) suggested that the ORRs were not statistically different between the two groups (RR 1.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88 to 1.18, P = 0.83). The median TTP was 6.1 months for the TOR group and 5.8 months for the TAM group. The median OS was 27.8 months for the TOR group and 27.6 months for the TAM group. There were no significant differences in TTP and OS between the two therapeutic groups (for TTP: HR 1.08, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.24; for OS: HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.20). The frequencies of most adverse events were also similar in the two groups, while headache seemed to occur less in the TOR group than in the TAM group (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.74, P = 0.02). There was no significant heterogeneity between studies in most of the above meta-analyses. Sensitivity analysis did not alter the results.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:
TOR and TAM are equally effective and the safety profile of the former is at least not worse than the latter in the first-line treatment of patients with advanced breast cancer. Thus, TOR may serve as a reasonable alternative to TAM when anti-oestrogens are applicable but TAM is not the preferred choice for some reason.
