Does this make any sense?
04-14-2007 08:07 PM
Does this make any sense?
04-15-2007 09:13 AM
I'm not a chemist or biologist so can't really say whether it's true or not.
But, the thing with epistane, as with all the other desighner steroids we take, is it is a bit of an unknown quantity. That is, no long term studies done on it's health effects etc.
More and more i'm leaning toward the idea of switching over to the darkside. for the sake of my health. ironic really.
04-15-2007 01:44 PM
Can you quote it over here?
04-15-2007 09:59 PM
Originally Posted by jmh80
the doc has 10k posts and is a super moderator on that site.
Originally Posted by the doc
04-15-2007 10:11 PM
Long term on a lot of these are very unknown and are only , to my knowledge, able to be looked at long term by what 'should' happen based off their structure. You can look outside of the designer ph/as market and see this too. As with all things in life; we have to educate ourselves as much as possible and let the rest go to hope and a prayer. The alternate is reducing the unknown by putting as little of these types of things in our body as possible...Only to die of lung cancer without ever smoking a cigarette or getting hit by a drunk driver.
04-15-2007 10:49 PM
I sure as sh*t don't see an epoxide on the molecule on the front of my Epi bottle.
Originally Posted by CryingEmo
Epoxide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
An epoxide is a cyclic ether with only three ring atoms. This ring approximately is an equilateral triangle, i.e. its bond angles are about 60°, which makes it highly strained. The strained ring makes epoxides more reactive than other ethers, especially towards nucleophiles. Simple epoxides are named from the parent compound ethylene oxide or oxirane, such as in chloromethyloxirane. As a functional group epoxides obtain the epoxy prefix such as in the compound 1,2-epoxycycloheptane which can also be called cycloheptene epoxide.
There is nothing that looks like C-O-C (The carbon's are also bonded to themselves to make a triangle.)
Epoxides don't last long as mentioned. They are HIGHLY strained as far as bond angle goes.
Unless there is a reaction in the body that takes Epi to an epoxide - this guy (no matter how many posts) is full of sh*t.
04-15-2007 11:13 PM
Tinkering with one's body chemistry should never be done lightly. It always has the potential to cause all sorts of biological mischief.
However, given that the parent compound for epi is used as a cancer treatment in Japan, I'm doubting that it has any serious carcinogenic/mutagenic problems.
People coming out of the woodwork to slag off this product. I've never seen anything like it.
04-15-2007 11:44 PM
LOL, no wonder he has 10,000 posts, looks like he talks a lot of hot air! This is an episulfide, not an epoxide. Remember that epoxides are more polar that episulfides, and lots of drugs have this function in them too. You see a lot of lactones in nature also and they are excreted unchanged in many cases (no metabolism or danger of cell oxidation.) This guy was just a bit confused it seems.
04-16-2007 04:50 AM
A lot of us stay confused It's like global warming to a point. You can seem to find an argument for whatever stance you take on it. One side imho, has more for it than the other but it's still there. I'll echo what YR said though. Seems Epi/Havoc et al has seen more crap come out of nowhere.
04-16-2007 09:50 AM
Thanks for clearing that up guys.
Originally Posted by Jayhawkk
04-16-2007 11:51 AM
To add to the discussion, there has not been a single peer-reviewed, double-blind study published to my knowledge (20+ years worth) that either demonstrated a correlation and certainly not a causal relationship between **any** AAS and cellular mutation.
Now, I do understand where he may be going with this suggestion. There is some correlation, again not a causal relationship, in the research literature that suggests administration of AAS can accelerate cellular mutation when the subject in question is already predisposed to such.
Simply, if you are prone to a type of cancer, and may develop it over the course of, say, the next 30 years of your life, it is plausible that administration AAS may accelerate the rate of development. (i.e. you may express symptoms sooner than you may have without AAS).
04-16-2007 12:34 PM
Speaking of which, I think the inverse argument could be made as well. It stands to reason that administration of a specific compound today may delay or eliminate the latency for some otherwise inevitable pre-disposed condition too. Smokers are less likely to manifest Alzheimer's, for example, and show a later onset by ~6yrs over the general pop. (though they are more likely to die of lung cancer) so couldn't proactive, strategic steroid use today yield predicable benefits tomorrow, just as blind use of them may yield problem later? Blanket statement like "mutation" are a weak justification and only serve as fear propaganda. I agree with you about the last few decades of conventional studies.
Originally Posted by Dr_C2
04-16-2007 12:54 PM
Well stated and you are absolutely correct! As well, your comment is very timely. We live in a "sound-byte society" that willing extrapolates far beyond the scope plausibility of conclusions in published research simply to propel an agenda, particularly when the agenda is one of a negative position or posture.
Originally Posted by DR.D
There is one in my in box now! The study reported a rare case of hepatic adenomas (HA), in a 20-year-old Japanese girl treated for 6 years with 30 mg of oxymetholone for aplastic anemia.
Biopsied specimens from the liver tumor showed HA. According to the chiropractor who sent this to me the article is “irrefutable prove of the detrimental effect of steroid use.”
I do not have enough time in a week, to explain to folks like that the erroneous and ill-informed opinions with which they pollute our ranks.
04-16-2007 12:56 PM
While I think fear propaganda or any propaganda for that matter is a problem, I also think total disregard isn't the answer either. In the end I still think it's the consumers duty to search for the information and make a judgement of the same based off their perceived risk/reward. Cause in 20-30 years I doubt any of these people citing one study or another will still be around.
04-16-2007 12:57 PM
Nolvadex is traditionally used to combat breast cancer isn't it? I have also read that tamoxifen is a carcinogen in itself.
04-16-2007 12:59 PM
Duration of use, current illnesses/conditions and dose can take a cure and turn it into a disease. Which is why it's so hard to get anything concrete in regards to these drugs/supplements in either direction. So many variables and not enough money invested in studying them.
04-16-2007 01:09 PM
Originally Posted by Jayhawkk
Right and there is no prospect of long-term, rigorous studies due to the overwhelming number of exogenous variables for which we as researchers cannot exert an ability to control (or even account).
Make no mistake - I am not advocating use (although some of my peers would disagree with that ) and I deplore anyone who abuses these substances.
However, there are folks on both sides of this argument that are making ill-information statements and worse yet others are making ill-informed choices.
As you implied, education is the opportunity one has to alleviate ignorance and make an informed decision – in either direction.
Similar Forum Threads
By Gutterpump in forum Male Anti-Aging Medicine
Last Post: 10-23-2009, 10:08 PM
By glennwethere in forum Weight Loss
Last Post: 03-11-2009, 06:17 PM
By EasyEJL in forum Exercise Science
Last Post: 11-25-2008, 07:55 AM
By thomastobird in forum Male Anti-Aging Medicine
Last Post: 06-02-2007, 11:10 PM
By Emiran in forum Weight Loss
Last Post: 10-31-2006, 03:19 PM