Well I am not gonna perform a pharmaceutical test to supply you data Jizz. I do remember that a number of folks used it successfully and supplied bloods. But those threads or opinions would not matter cause its from the internet, right.
You can't even be half serious with this, right?
Blood tests don't even begin to confirm things. They are, at best, an arrow pointing in a direction. A clue. But far from proof or confirmation of anything.
You would need a statistically significant number of people coming off of steroids, etc. to take the drug and give half a placebo (which is risky in itself) and half the "supplement" and see if the numbers in both groups show any statistically significant differences. And that's just to see if it MAY work.
You'd have to be able to reproduce these differences.
You'd have to also study safety and that would mean more studies.
I mean, do you even have the budget to buy enough Viron or Novadex XT or whatever you want to test for 50-100 people for a month? How about for multiple studies? Oh, and don't forget you have to source the product and also confirm it is what it is supposed to be with a chemical analysis and pay doctors and scientists and for blood work. Just for a small study you'd be talking hundreds of thousands at least.
So, of course supplement companies don't do any of that. So the question is, why would you trust something that some random blood work suggests may have an impact when you can just use a SERM?
So, yeah, it falls on someone making a claim to prove it works. If you want to believe something works without proof, you are free to do so. You can believe that crushed almonds and salt will cure cancer if you like.
How about putting it like this:
You have low testosterone from using anabolic androgens. I have two products you can try to fix it:
Product A has 35 peer reviewed, double-blind, randomized studies of high quality and $500M behind its development. 30 of those 35 studies suggest the chemical will take even the most dramatic cases of low testosterone and bring them back to normal.
Product B has 0 studies, $50,000 in production costs, and 10 people on the internet who posted blood work. Just to give it the benefit of the doubt let's say 9 out of 10 of those people had normal blood tests after their run (in all likelihood it would be less than 9). Of course, there is no placebo group so we don't know if those people would have rebounded anyway, because we lack stats.
So, now you come to me and say you have low T and I give you those two options. Even if Product A will cost you 4X as much, which would you choose?