Another thread about cardarine and cancer.

Which by the way is a fact I discovered and brought up numerous times the very first time you and I argued over cardarine.
 
If memory serves correctly I believe it was Radon which was used to induce the cancer prior to the trial , which was listed as part of the preliminary data.
 
It’s written right there in black and white, every time I bring it up, you sidestep it.
 
Old Witch said:
Because you’re literally factually incorrect. If you go ahead and read some of the preliminaries on a bunch of these (all the ones I have read) they used rats who were INDUCED WITH CANCER.
Click to expand...
You qualified your statement TWICE. You said SOME of the preliminaries on a BUNCH of the studies. That means that only a PART of a PART induced cancer. That means others did not...
 
See, the difference between you and I, or myself and most others, is that you are just trying to regurgitate the abstract whereas I actually read the studies at length.
 
We treated Apcmin mice, which are predisposed to intestinal polyposis, with a selective synthetic agonist of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-δ (PPAR-δ). Exposure of Apcrnin mice to the PPAR-δ ligand GW501516 resulted in a significant increase in the number and size of intestinal polyps. The most prominent effect was on polyp size; mice treated with the PPAR-δ activator had a fivefold increase in the number of polyps larger than 2 mm. Our results implicate PPAR-δ in the regulation of intestinal adenoma growth.
Click to expand...
https://asu.pure.elsevier.com/en/p...r-hormone-receptor-peroxisome-proliferator-ac

PREDISPOSED, not induced.
 
Old Witch said:
See, the difference between you and I, or myself and most others, is that you are just trying to regurgitate the abstract whereas I actually read the studies at length.
Click to expand...
Invalid Link Removed
I literally just read the entire study I referenced you ignoramus. Don’t pretend you can comprehend the full text when you can’t even grasp the fundamental concepts presented in the abstract. Do you want me to take a picture of the PDF and circle the relevant parts in crayon for you?
 
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
I even highlighted it for you.

Key points:

-Mice were PREDISPOSED, not induced.
-Study was “only” 6 weeks
-HED of ~64mg/day for an 80kg human, or well under the safety factor of 10 typically recommended, even if you use 10mg, forget 20+.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
View attachment 177719
View attachment 177720
I even highlighted it for you.

Key points:

-Mice were PREDISPOSED, not induced.
-Study was “only” 6 weeks
-HED of ~64mg/day for an 80kg human, or well under the safety factor of 10 typically recommended, even if you use 10mg, forget 20+.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I was too busy reading relevant material

Invalid Link Removed

If you can’t find the link to the appropriate studies I can direct you,
 
“Collectively, since the present studies utilized the most objective measure of cell proliferation (Coulter counting), there is stronger evidence that neither GW0742 nor GW501516 causes an increase in cell proliferation in the cancer cell lines examined.”
 
Old Witch said:
Sorry, I was too busy reading relevant material

Invalid Link Removed

If you can’t find the link to the appropriate studies I can direct you,
Click to expand...
Holy s**t on a stick, you don’t even know the difference between in vitro and in vivo studies. If the crux of your argument, your smoking gun, is based on in vitro research, well, then I’m the real idiot for even thinking I could have a remotely intelligent “debate” with you in the first place. Peace out...
 
muscleupcrohn said:
Holy s**t on a stick, you don’t even know the difference between in vitro and in vivo studies. If the crux of your argument, your smoking gun, is based on in vitro research, well, then I’m the real idiot for even thinking I could have a remotely intelligent “debate” with you in the first place. Peace out...
Click to expand...

If you read the study presented, they talk about in vivo research proving their thesis. But hey, since you can’t ****ing read, whatever breh.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
Holy s**t on a stick, you don’t even know the difference between in vitro and in vivo studies. If the crux of your argument, your smoking gun, is based on in vitro research, well, then I’m the real idiot for even thinking I could have a remotely intelligent “debate” with you in the first place. Peace out...
Click to expand...

In fact the entire basis of that article was relating to the differing findings of the in vivo and in vitro research... you really don’t read beyond one paragraph. It is clear now.
 
Another thread, I was really trying hard not to jump in haha.

GW has never shown to cause cancer (fact)
GW could possible enhance cancer in mice which is not clarified
GW could possible slow down growth of cancer also not clarified (studies done in vitro)

Basically we do not know **** but given the studies in vitro was showing positive signs we got about as much proof it helps with cancer as it would be bad for it.

What we do know is that it's one of the best things one could take for cholesterol which is majorly important during steroid use. Cholesterol can make you have a stroke, stroke vs possible get cancer out of nowhere while on cardarine.. Hmm I'll take the chance on cancer lol. Jokes aside, to each their own
 
From the first paragraph of that article which Crohn didn’t actually read...

“Similarly, liver, colon and colon polyps from mice administered these PPARβ/δ ligands in vivo did not exhibit changes in these markers. Results from these studies demonstrate that serum withdrawal and/or differences in ligands do not underlie the disparity in responses reported in the literature. The quantitative nature of the present findings are inconsistent with the hypothesis that cancer cell lines respond differentially as compared with normal cells, and provide further evidence that PPARβ/δ ligands do not potentiate tumorigenesis.”
 
Old Witch said:
If you read the study presented, they talk about in vivo research proving their thesis. But hey, since you can’t ****ing read, whatever breh.
Click to expand...
I love how you still haven’t even addressed the last study I mentioned.

You said that studies all induced cancer, so I showed you one that didn’t.

It also wasn’t a life-long duration study like your video discussed.

It also used a daily moderate dose; well under a standard safety factor.

How is said study, as you said, not relevant?

Research on Cardarine is INCONCLUSIVE. This is what/all I’ve been saying. I’m not claiming it DOES/WILL give people cancer at a higher rate, only that it MAY, since we DON’T KNOW. It is inherently a RISK. Your video CONCLUDED that it IS SAFE for human consumption. The MOST anything presented so far can even come close to proving is that we CAN’T CONCLUSIVELY say that it is unsafe. That IN NO WAY means it IS safe. AT ALL.

Not to mention people running it at >2x the maximum studied dose AND running it with (multiple) steroids. That is ENTIRELY uncharted territory.

But I’m a hypocrite for keeping going back and forth every time this comes up, since there’s never anything been actually discussed, except new videos rehashing old research and ALWAYS getting something wrong. I’ll try to keep my mouth shut on this topic from now on, since it’s a waste of time. Anyone on these forums now has plenty of information to read and come to their own conclusions on.
 
Old Witch said:
Looks like right there in your quote it says they already had polyps.
Click to expand...
No, it does not. It says that they DEVELOPED them in both groups, due to being PREDISPOSED to develop them. The treatment group developed more of them, but they were not INDUCED.

Edit: read the picture I highlighted for you, not the abstract. And you accuse me of only reading abstracts? You must have an amazing view from that glass house of yours...
 
muscleupcrohn said:
No, it does not. It says that they DEVELOPED them in both groups, due to being PREDISPOSED to develop them. The treatment group developed more of them, but they were not INDUCED.
Click to expand...

No... it says increased in number and size. Not that they developed anew from nil.
 
And wherein does it say that these polyps are actually a malignant carcinoma?
 
You do (I hope) understand that intestinal polyps can be benign, in fact ofttimes they are.
 
Old Witch said:
No... it says increased in number and size. Not that they developed anew from nil.
Click to expand...
Yes, the treatment group had INCREASED growth rate relative to the control group. They both developed them due to their being predisposed to developing them, not due to them being experimentally induced as part of the study.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
Yes, the treatment group had INCREASED growth rate relative to the control group. They both developed them due to their being predisposed to developing them, not due to them being experimentally induced as part of the study.
Click to expand...

So, even in a study where no induction was present, they still needed polyps to get more polyps. And everyone had polyps regardless of treatment. Got it.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
So you concede that they were not induced but predisposed? Also, read the picture I posted for you. Read why the study was stopped at 6 weeks and get back to me.
Click to expand...

I concede that as I always said, cardarine may be a growth factor for already extant abnormal tissues much in the same way as GH.

You are aware the polyp growth were benign adenomas and not malignant adenocarcinomas, correct? Surely and absolutely without a doubt, if cardarine were a carcinogen those would have been adenocarcinomas.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
So you concede that they were not induced but predisposed? Also, read the picture I posted for you. Read why the study was stopped at 6 weeks and get back to me.
Click to expand...

And no, having them outright from the start is as good as induction.
 
Old Witch said:
I concede that as I always said, cardarine may be a growth factor for already extant abnormal tissues much in the same way as GH.

You are aware the polyp growth were benign adenomas and not malignant adenocarcinomas, correct? Surely and absolutely without a doubt, if cardarine were a carcinogen those would have been adenocarcinomas.
Click to expand...
So the development of rectal bleeding and anemia was benign, of course... how damn pedantic do you want to be?
 
We’re going in circles, and you incessantly change the topic to avoid giving a direct answer.

Enjoy the rest of your day/night. I don’t have the time or patience for this anymore.
 
How am I changing the subject? We’re talking about cancer. We’re talking also about whether or not animals tested already had abnormal growths.

So far, the only one dodging giving straight answers is you, I missed a single cue and rectified it.
 
Obviously the anemia is from the bleeding (that’s how internal bleeding tends to work) and the bleeding is from the polyps, which these rats would have had regardless. It’s a non issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top