Toremifene for PCT? Good idea?

[Rabidpanda25]

So I've been looking at some of the research chemicals, and came across some pretty rave reviews for Toremifene. Quite a few posts on this board too about how strong it is for gyno, and how quickly it works for pct. I already have nolva on hand, but I keep reading how much more effective and less harsh on liver and lipid values this research chemical is.

From what I see its 60mg/ml and its 60 ml. What would an average PCT be? It's pretty pricey, so I would think one package would last 2 cycles. What does the packaging look like? Kinda medicinal or is it in a gatorade bottle?

 

[Rabidpanda25]

Also, acne is a huge problem for me. I am smooth as silk during my cycles, but PCT seems to cause flare ups. Clomid did a huge number on my back and face, which is why I've never used it again. Any experiences with toremifene?

 

[futurepilot]

Torems got a bad health profile


First # is (torem) at 60 2nd (tamoxifen) at 20. the () are percentage. The # is incidence out of a 592 person study.

Cardiac Failure 2 (1) 1 (<1) -
Myocardial Infarction 2 (1) 3 (1.5)
Arrhythmia 3 (1.5) 1 (<1)
Angina Pectoris 1 (<1) 2 (1)
Ocular *
Cataracts 22 (10) 16 (7.5)
Dry Eyes 20 (9) 16 (7.5)
Abnorma Visual Fields 8 (4) 10 (5)
Corneal Keratopathy 4 (2) 2 (1)
Glaucoma 3 (1.5) 2 (1)
Abnormal Vision/Diplopia (only torem) 3 (1.5) -
Thromboembolic
Pulmonary Embolism 4 (2) 2 (1)
Thrombophlebitis - 2 (1) 1 (<1)
Thrombosis - 1 (<1) 1 (<1)
CVA/TIA 4 (2) 4 (2)
Elevated Liver Tests **
SGOT 11 (5) 4 (2)
Alkaline Phosphatase 41 (19) 24 (11)
Bilirubin 3 (1.5) 4 (2)
Hypercalcemia 6 (3) 6 (3)

* Most of the ocular abnormalities were observed in the North American Study in which on-study and biannual ophthalmic examinations were performed. No cases of retinopathy were observed in any arm.

** Elevated defined as follows: North American Study: SGOT >100 IU/L; alkaline phosphatase >200 IU/L; bilirubin >2 mg/dL. Eastern European and Nordic studies: SGOT, alkaline phosphatase, and bilirubin - WHO Grade 1 (1.25 times the upper limit of normal).

 

[DrakeC]

Torems got a bad health profile


First # is (torem) at 60 2nd (tamoxifen) at 20. the () are percentage. The # is incidence out of a 592 person study.

Cardiac Failure 2 (1) 1 (<1) -
Myocardial Infarction 2 (1) 3 (1.5)
Arrhythmia 3 (1.5) 1 (<1)
Angina Pectoris 1 (<1) 2 (1)
Ocular *
Cataracts 22 (10) 16 (7.5)
Dry Eyes 20 (9) 16 (7.5)
Abnorma Visual Fields 8 (4) 10 (5)
Corneal Keratopathy 4 (2) 2 (1)
Glaucoma 3 (1.5) 2 (1)
Abnormal Vision/Diplopia (only torem) 3 (1.5) -
Thromboembolic
Pulmonary Embolism 4 (2) 2 (1)
Thrombophlebitis - 2 (1) 1 (<1)
Thrombosis - 1 (<1) 1 (<1)
CVA/TIA 4 (2) 4 (2)
Elevated Liver Tests **
SGOT 11 (5) 4 (2)
Alkaline Phosphatase 41 (19) 24 (11)
Bilirubin 3 (1.5) 4 (2)
Hypercalcemia 6 (3) 6 (3)

* Most of the ocular abnormalities were observed in the North American Study in which on-study and biannual ophthalmic examinations were performed. No cases of retinopathy were observed in any arm.

** Elevated defined as follows: North American Study: SGOT >100 IU/L; alkaline phosphatase >200 IU/L; bilirubin >2 mg/dL. Eastern European and Nordic studies: SGOT, alkaline phosphatase, and bilirubin - WHO Grade 1 (1.25 times the upper limit of normal).

Wow i thought Torem was supposed to be less liver toxic then nolva.

How long was this study run?

 

[futurepilot]

How long was this study run?

I couldnt find any length of time.
You can check it out.

http://www.rxlist.com/cgi/generic/toremifene_ad.htm

 

[tnick7]

Wow i thought Torem was supposed to be less liver toxic then nolva.

How long was this study run?

x2 O thought the whole thing that torem was taking over nolva was based on torem be less toxic. Interesting

 

[Rabidpanda25]

Torems got a bad health profile


First # is (torem) at 60 2nd (tamoxifen) at 20. the () are percentage. The # is incidence out of a 592 person study.

Cardiac Failure 2 (1) 1 (<1) -
Myocardial Infarction 2 (1) 3 (1.5)
Arrhythmia 3 (1.5) 1 (<1)
Angina Pectoris 1 (<1) 2 (1)
Ocular *
Cataracts 22 (10) 16 (7.5)
Dry Eyes 20 (9) 16 (7.5)
Abnorma Visual Fields 8 (4) 10 (5)
Corneal Keratopathy 4 (2) 2 (1)
Glaucoma 3 (1.5) 2 (1)
Abnormal Vision/Diplopia (only torem) 3 (1.5) -
Thromboembolic
Pulmonary Embolism 4 (2) 2 (1)
Thrombophlebitis - 2 (1) 1 (<1)
Thrombosis - 1 (<1) 1 (<1)
CVA/TIA 4 (2) 4 (2)
Elevated Liver Tests **
SGOT 11 (5) 4 (2)
Alkaline Phosphatase 41 (19) 24 (11)
Bilirubin 3 (1.5) 4 (2)
Hypercalcemia 6 (3) 6 (3)

* Most of the ocular abnormalities were observed in the North American Study in which on-study and biannual ophthalmic examinations were performed. No cases of retinopathy were observed in any arm.

** Elevated defined as follows: North American Study: SGOT >100 IU/L; alkaline phosphatase >200 IU/L; bilirubin >2 mg/dL. Eastern European and Nordic studies: SGOT, alkaline phosphatase, and bilirubin - WHO Grade 1 (1.25 times the upper limit of normal).

Definitely some food for thought. For the most part it seems from this study only slightly more prone to side effects with a few incidents that nearly doubled. But those still seem pretty managable, and from user reviews, this product is very effective at what it's used for.

 

[Ziquor]

These results show 'serious adverse effects' in less than 1% of the cases, and these #'s are from women who used Torem every day for 1-2 years for breast cancer. Any SERM can be somewhat toxic but the SERM(s) would be roughly 1/20th as toxic as whichever methyl PH/PS your're recovering from.

 

[Grazer]

if you are clear of all gear (use the ester calculator), the tormefine works very quick. i did it for 10 days and was fine. a bottle will def be good for 2 pcts

 

[Rabidpanda25]

I just ordered one a few minutes ago. I'm definitely very excited to give it a try at the end of this cycle. If it works as quickly as it has for some, and doesn't give me mad acne, I'll be in love.

 

[futurepilot]

For the most part it seems from this study only slightly more prone to side effects with a few incidents that nearly doubled.

Specifically the liver enzymes were much more elevated in the torem group.

 

[ecu19]

From what I see its 60mg/ml and its 60 ml. What would an average PCT be? It's pretty pricey, so I would think one package would last 2 cycles. What does the packaging look like? Kinda medicinal or is it in a gatorade bottle?

To answer your other question, i'm pretty sure I know where you are ordering from. The packaging should be a dropper bottle with a squeeze dropper twist top, sealed with a plastic wraparound. It should have a generic text label indicating the company name, what it is, the dosage, and that it's not for human consumption.

 

[dkkon1]

Specifically the liver enzymes were much more elevated in the torem group.

Thats why i still use Nolva

 

[Rabidpanda25]

To answer your other question, i'm pretty sure I know where you are ordering from. The packaging should be a dropper bottle with a squeeze dropper twist top, sealed with a plastic wraparound. It should have a generic text label indicating the company name, what it is, the dosage, and that it's not for human consumption.

Thanks bro, thats exactly what I was looking for. And I think the place I ordered from is the place you re thinking of.

 

[Ziquor]

In some lab tests Tamoxifen was shown to cause severe liver problems, namely liver cancer whereas Toremifene did not. Another big advantage Torem has, is that it has a much more positive effect on cholesterol and it seems to induce faster recovery after a cycle than any other SERM thus far.

Initiating activity of the anti-estrogen tamoxifen, but not toremifene in rat liver.

Williams GM, Iatropoulos MJ, Karlsson S.

American Health Foundation, Valhalla, New York, USA.

A striking difference between two structurally related anti-estrogen medicines is that tamoxifen is strongly hepatocarcinogenic in the rat, whereas toremifene lacks such activity. To study the basis for this difference, the initiating potential of tamoxifen and toremifene were studied by measurement of rapid induction of hepatocellular altered foci (HAF) that express placental-type glutathione S-transferase in the livers of female Sprague-Dawley (S-D) rats and female Fischer 344 (F344) rats. Both agents were administered by gavage at equimolar doses up to a dose that produced marked weight gain suppression. In rats given the high dose of 40 mg/kg per day tamoxifen continuously for 36 weeks, 75% of S-D rats developed liver neoplasms, in contrast to only 10% of F344 rats. In the S-D strain, tamoxifen produced a tendency to increased HAF at 2 weeks at the dose of 40 mg/kg per day and by 12 weeks, a dose-related increase was evident. In contrast, toremifene induced no HAF even at the equimolar high dose of 42.4 mg/kg per day for 12 weeks. The induction of HAF by tamoxifen was less in the F344 rats. Neither agent elicited increases in hepatocellular proliferation in S-D or F344 rats. When phenobarbital was administered for 24 weeks as a promoting agent after the anti-estrogens, S-D rats given tamoxifen at 20 mg/kg per day for 12 weeks, developed liver neoplasms, but not F344 rats or rats of either strain given even a higher dose (42.4 mg/kg) of toremifene. Thus, tamoxifen has initiating activity in these rat strains whereas toremifene does not.

PMID: 9395228 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

 

[ecu19]

Initiating activity of the anti-estrogen tamoxifen, but not toremifene in rat liver.

Williams GM, Iatropoulos MJ, Karlsson S.

American Health Foundation, Valhalla, New York, USA.

A striking difference between two structurally related anti-estrogen medicines is that tamoxifen is strongly hepatocarcinogenic in the rat, whereas toremifene lacks such activity. To study the basis for this difference, the initiating potential of tamoxifen and toremifene were studied by measurement of rapid induction of hepatocellular altered foci (HAF) that express placental-type glutathione S-transferase in the livers of female Sprague-Dawley (S-D) rats and female Fischer 344 (F344) rats. Both agents were administered by gavage at equimolar doses up to a dose that produced marked weight gain suppression. In rats given the high dose of 40 mg/kg per day tamoxifen continuously for 36 weeks, 75% of S-D rats developed liver neoplasms, in contrast to only 10% of F344 rats. In the S-D strain, tamoxifen produced a tendency to increased HAF at 2 weeks at the dose of 40 mg/kg per day and by 12 weeks, a dose-related increase was evident. In contrast, toremifene induced no HAF even at the equimolar high dose of 42.4 mg/kg per day for 12 weeks. The induction of HAF by tamoxifen was less in the F344 rats. Neither agent elicited increases in hepatocellular proliferation in S-D or F344 rats. When phenobarbital was administered for 24 weeks as a promoting agent after the anti-estrogens, S-D rats given tamoxifen at 20 mg/kg per day for 12 weeks, developed liver neoplasms, but not F344 rats or rats of either strain given even a higher dose (42.4 mg/kg) of toremifene. Thus, tamoxifen has initiating activity in these rat strains whereas toremifene does not.

PMID: 9395228 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

There are two things that caught my eye.

1. If humans were to take 40mg/kg of tamoxifen for 36 weeks ED, then you would have to injest about 3.628grams for a 200 pound person. That is every day! Most people take less than 40mg per DAY (even though it is effective at lesser dosages, but i digress), and at 4-5 weeks.

2. Toremifine is known to be required to dose higher than tamoxifen. Not too much, but still more (1.5-2x more for some people)

Just some things that came to my attention. I wouldn't be too worried about it since it's on the overly excessive to crazy spectrum. It's would be like research saying that advil will cause heart attacks more than tylenol when both are given 300mg/kg for 6 months continuously. I think i'll be alright .

 

[Ziquor]

There are two things that caught my eye.

1. If humans were to take 40mg/kg of tamoxifen for 36 weeks ED, then you would have to injest about 3.628grams for a 200 pound person. That is every day! Most people take less than 40mg per DAY (even though it is effective at lesser dosages, but i digress), and at 4-5 weeks.

2. Toremifine is known to be required to dose higher than tamoxifen. Not too much, but still more (1.5-2x more for some people)

Just some things that came to my attention. I wouldn't be too worried about it since it's on the overly excessive to crazy spectrum. It's would be like research saying that advil will cause heart attacks more than tylenol when both are given 300mg/kg for 6 months continuously. I think i'll be alright .

I agree, to my point earlier. Almost anything ingested will have some level of liver hepatoxicity. Toxicity of SERMs is nowhere near oral AAS, and if someone's willing to take oral AAS, they doubtfully will mind the lower toxicity of SERMs which benefits greatly outweigh the risk. Though with a benefit to side effect ratio I'd rate SERMs:

(1) Toremifene (Fareston)
(2) Tamoxifen (Nolvadex)
(3) Clomiphene (Clomid)

I haven't seen enough studies, or use in males of Raloxifene (Evista) yet. There's a transdermal gel form of Tamoxifen in the works too. This would reduce the needed dose, theoretically lowering toxicity and increasing half life.

 

[Rabidpanda25]

I agree, to my point earlier. Almost anything ingested will have some level of liver hepatoxicity. Toxicity of SERMs is nowhere near oral AAS, and if someone's willing to take oral AAS, they doubtfully will mind the lower toxicity of SERMs which benefits greatly outweigh the risk. Though with a benefit to side effect ratio I'd rate SERMs:

(1) Toremifene (Fareston)
(2) Tamoxifen (Nolvadex)
(3) Clomiphene (Clomid)

I haven't seen enough studies, or use in males of Raloxifene (Evista) yet. There's a transdermal gel form of Tamoxifen in the works too. This would reduce the needed dose, theoretically lowering toxicity and increasing half life.

Thats how I view it too. And I think it was brought up that most of these studies were much longer term than the duration and purpose we use them for. But there is a nagging question that has been bugging me since I found out about "research chemicals". How is it even possible for them to be sold? Why not slap the name research chemical on everything else, and sell injectables as well? It just seems kinda crazy that it's possible. Not that I'm complaining at all, but I know good things like this won't last.

 

[ecu19]

(1) Toremifene (Fareston)
(2) Tamoxifen (Nolvadex)
(3) Clomiphene (Clomid)

agreed. But theoretically when tamoxifen is cheaper than any of the three (sometimes 20+ dollars cheaper), most people will continue to chose that.

 

[ecu19]

Thats how I view it too. And I think it was brought up that most of these studies were much longer term than the duration and purpose we use them for. But there is a nagging question that has been bugging me since I found out about "research chemicals". How is it even possible for them to be sold? Why not slap the name research chemical on everything else, and sell injectables as well? It just seems kinda crazy that it's possible. Not that I'm complaining at all, but I know good things like this won't last.

First off, the reason they are able to be sold is because this is in a grey area, known as research chems. Research chems can be sold for research purposes only. That however is up to the integrity of the research chemical company, as they are suppose to verify the research status of the purchaser. Again, a grey area.

The second question is about slapping research chemicals on everything. I am going to answer this on the assumption that you mean anabolic steroids. There is a difference between the chemicals sold by research companies and the chemicals used in anabolic steroids. Anabolic steroids are on a higher controlled schedule list, and require a DEA license in order to order and "use" it in a research setting. SERMs and such do not. Selling AAS on a research site without contacting and looking up DEA research licenses is about the quickest way to get FCUKED by DEA and the federal govt.

Hope that answers your questions.

 

[Rabidpanda25]

First off, the reason they are able to be sold is because this is in a grey area, known as research chems. Research chems can be sold for research purposes only. That however is up to the integrity of the research chemical company, as they are suppose to verify the research status of the purchaser. Again, a grey area.

The second question is about slapping research chemicals on everything. I am going to answer this on the assumption that you mean anabolic steroids. There is a difference between the chemicals sold by research companies and the chemicals used in anabolic steroids. Anabolic steroids are on a higher controlled schedule list, and require a DEA license in order to order and "use" it in a research setting. SERMs and such do not. Selling AAS on a research site without contacting and looking up DEA research licenses is about the quickest way to get FCUKED by DEA and the federal govt.

Hope that answers your questions.

Yeah, I see what you re saying. It just seems like those operations are not really being very subtle about what they're really doing. I was under the impression most prescription substances were schedule 3, which are substances that have valid medical purposes and can be prescribed but are illegal to sell or possess without a prescription. Even so, I can see how an anti-estrogen wouldn't really send off that many red flags. I'm still pretty astounded at what is considered otc at this point in time. 8 years ago, I would never even have imagined the marketplace would look like this. Everything was quiet, underground, and much more subtle.

 

[futurepilot]

In some lab tests Tamoxifen was shown to cause severe liver problems, namely liver cancer whereas Toremifene did not. Another big advantage Torem has, is that it has a much more positive effect on cholesterol and it seems to induce faster recovery after a cycle than any other SERM thus far.

Im not aware of the positive effects on cholesterol that torem has, but im willing to take your word on it.

As far as liver toxicity, the above study that i posted is done with humans, while this study is rats. That is not too say that rat studies aren't useful in discerning general toxicity information, but i feel more comfortable basing my decisions on a human based study.

I will concede though that nolva is NOT risk free, if im not mistaken we debated this point to some degree in another thread i started.

 

[futurepilot]

I haven't seen enough studies, or use in males of Raloxifene (Evista) yet. .

Beneficial effects of raloxifene and tamoxifen in the treatment of pubertal gynecomastia.
Lawrence SE, Faught KA, Vethamuthu J, Lawson ML.
Department of Pediatrics, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

[email protected]

OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy of the anti-estrogens tamoxifen and raloxifene in the medical management of persistent pubertal gynecomastia.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective chart review of 38 consecutive patients with persistent pubertal gynecomastia who presented to a pediatric endocrinology clinic. Patients received reassurance alone or a 3- to 9-month course of an estrogen receptor modifier (tamoxifen or raloxifene).

RESULTS: Mean (SD) age of treated subjects was 14.6 (1.5) years with gynecomastia duration of 28.3 (16.4) months. Mean reduction in breast nodule diameter was 2.1 cm (95% CI 1.7, 2.7, P <.0001) after treatment with tamoxifen and 2.5 cm (95% CI 1.7, 3.3, P <.0001) with raloxifene. Some improvement was seen in 86% of patients receiving tamoxifen and in 91% receiving raloxifene, but a greater proportion had a significant decrease (>50%) with raloxifene (86%) than tamoxifen (41%). No side effects were seen in any patients.

CONCLUSION: Inhibition of estrogen receptor action in the breast appears to be safe and effective in reducing persistent pubertal gynecomastia, with a better response to raloxifene than to tamoxifen. Further study is required to determine that this is truly a treatment effect.

 

[Ziquor]

Im not aware of the positive effects on cholesterol that torem has, but im willing to take your word on it.

As far as liver toxicity, the above study that i posted is done with humans, while this study is rats. That is not too say that rat studies aren't useful in discerning general toxicity information, but i feel more comfortable basing my decisions on a human based study.

I will concede though that nolva is NOT risk free, if im not mistaken we debated this point to some degree in another thread i started.

I agree tests on healthy men would be best, opposed to rats or women dying from cancer. As for toxicity I don't feel any SERM has relevant toxicity in a few week long healthy males PCT.

But that said, and also to my points above - Tamoxifen has been show to be more toxic than Toremifene. Doses of Toremifene at around 200mg were shown to be about the same level of toxicity as Tamoxifen at 20mg. This is actually the reason why Toremifene was originally created. Toremifene was originally made from Tamoxifen as a less toxic substitute.

The originators wanted an effective SERM like Tamoxifen with less toxicity & less sides so they took Tamoxifen and made a chloronated version, Toremifene. Obviously both work great for hormonal PCTs but Torem seems to have many advantages - from faster recovery, to less toxicity/sides, and a more positive effect on blood lipids. The only drawback is its cost.