I'm not biased towards PH/AS I just know they come with a degree of health implications and if you disagree so be it but correlation between those that cycle and TRT is enough for me to be weary. Suppressing our bodies own hormone production regardless of cycle supports is in no way healthy. I have nothing against them it is your body but when you work for a company selling new age PH's that we know little about and are on the flip side worried about an ayurvedic herb that is well tolerated, been used for centures, and has safe health profile is ironic. Sorry if that is over your head and maybe studies will come out in the future showing all of these DHEA metabolites like the 1, 4, Nor, etc to be safe but as of now that is speculation unlike cissus.
As I said, PH especially the old ones before the bans, were relatively safe WHEN USED AS DIRECTED. What part of this is so hard to understand? Tylenol is safe when used as directed, if you abuse them, yeah, could cause issues. Same with Advil, NyQuil, etc.
Also, I've mentioned it AT LEAST 3 times now, yes there are dubious companies out there selling PH which ARE dangerous but you can't just make a blanket statement that all PH are dangerous based off of that.
It appears that nothing in discussion here is over my head, however, it's quite obvious that this whole PH safety discussion is WAY over your head thrice over. The fact that you don't seem to understand that there are NO established studies on cissus safety nor has one ever been conducted to SHOW the safety of cissus (not claiming it's dangerous here, just pointing out how there's no clinical data to demonstrate safety of cissus supplementation) is ALSO way over your head.
Again, bottom line here is that YOU have effectively IGNORED actual clinical data out there for the main PH's (not counting the offshoot versions created to get around bans on certain compounds) and just essentially ASSUMED that PH is dangerous WITHOUT bothering to look into the matter. I mean, you didn't even bother to make correlations (which in itself is poor research and a poor basis for arguing a point) but instead are just ASSUMING the dangers.
Where is there a lack of bias in your arguments like you are claiming? Your arguments thus far about PH/AAS has been ENTIRELY based off of bias since your are ASSUMING that they are dangerous WITHOUT any data to back up your assumptions. As I've said MULTIPLE times already and as the data would support, WHEN USED AS DIRECTED, legit PH/AAS are relatively safe. If you go and abuse them, yeah, you might have health issues associated with that, but then again, you're also abusing them.
Lastly, how is it nothing OTHER than speculation that cissus is safe? Let me quote you:
"on the flip side worried about an ayurvedic herb that is well tolerated, been used for centures, and has safe health profile is ironic."
WHERE IS THE DATA TO SHOW THAT IT IS WELL TOLERATED AND HAS A SAFE HEALTH PROFILE? The ONLY data available is anecdotal, THAT IS IT. You claiming that it is well tolerated and has a safe health profile is NOTHING more than speculation and assumption IF we are to go by clinical data available (which there are none for the safety of cissus). Legitimate PH/AAS on the other hand, there's data to support their safety and to demonstrate relatively safe dosing for them. THERE'S DATA to demonstrate effects both positive and negative AS WELL AS ESTABLISHED dosing data. There's really none available for cissus at least in terms of safety for cissus (though again, IMO cissus is safe, but there is no data to really support this ASSUMPTION).
Basically, can't conclusively say that PH/AAS or cissus is safe due to the lack of data BUT there's actually FAR MORE data available for PH/AAS than there is for cissus. I'm just pointing that out, you on the other hand have your mind set on saying that PH/AAS are outright dangerous even though you 1) stated that you are not knowledgeable on the subject matter of PH/AAS and 2) obviously have no clinical data to support your assumptions (thus demonstrating clear bias even in the face of the actual available data which would suggest that your assumptions are more or less unfounded when PH/AAS are taken as directed and not aggressively abused).