Any Exhaustive Experts on Cardarine, Etc.?

[ucimigrate]

I keep researching Cardarine, and it gets produced legally here in China.

A few questions:

1. What is the most exhaustive source of information for Cardarine? It seems like a wonder drug, but how can we be so sure?

2. I understand that for mice, it was very carcinogenic. However, many humans have been using it but have not had the same problem. So, has it ever caused cancer in humans?

3. How does cancer work? Unlike something like poisonous chemicals, which would damage you now, and would have no effect ten years later, how can we be so sure that Cardarine will not cause damage now, but in 20 years?

4. Anything else to understand? I know most users love it, but is there any way to be sure?

 

[muscleupcrohn]

Surprisingly detailed summary:
https://www.tga.gov.au/book-page/12-cardarine

People haven’t been using it long at all. Cancer is typically not something that happens right away. People saying that cardarine is safe in humans because some people have used it for a few months/years is akin to saying smoking doesn’t cause cancer because some people can smoke for years without getting lung cancer.

 

[ManuR]

The cancer thing is a pretty confusing thing.
I researched it intensively the last week and decided today to start on 5mg daily for 8 weeks.
Not for fat loss or something like that but to improve lipids (i had bloodwork done on tuesday, will have again end of july to determine usefulnes).
i based my decision on some points:
- rat dosages were 10 times higher and they took it for 2/3 of their life which i wont do
- newer studies provide information that GW is anti-cancerous and destroys cancer cells (2 or 3 studies which i could fine, dated 2016-2017 on HUMAN cells)
- the rat study, which is the main cancer study, is a bit flawed because GW was given with a carcinogen. Given alone, it did not cause cancer to the rats!!
(carcinogen alone neither to be fair). just in combination

 

[ericos_bob]

It doesn't work at 20mg let alone 5mg. In any case if it lived up to the claims it'd be far more popular, cancer risk or no.

 

[Whisky]

Not a scientific answer but I’ve run a couple of bottles in pct a couple of times and noted improvements in feeing of well being and endurance (I run fasted most mornings).

I run it at 20 and only 8 weeks at a time.

 

[ManuR]

It doesn't work at 20mg let alone 5mg. In any case if it lived up to the claims it'd be far more popular, cancer risk or no.

says who?
enough ppl with blood work which prove lipid improvements on dosages as low as 5mg daily

 

[aovereem]

The cancer thing is a pretty confusing thing.
I researched it intensively the last week and decided today to start on 5mg daily for 8 weeks.
Not for fat loss or something like that but to improve lipids (i had bloodwork done on tuesday, will have again end of july to determine usefulnes).
i based my decision on some points:
- rat dosages were 10 times higher and they took it for 2/3 of their life which i wont do
- newer studies provide information that GW is anti-cancerous and destroys cancer cells (2 or 3 studies which i could fine, dated 2016-2017 on HUMAN cells)
- the rat study, which is the main cancer study, is a bit flawed because GW was given with a carcinogen. Given alone, it did not cause cancer to the rats!!
(carcinogen alone neither to be fair). just in combination

So you chose to play Russian Roulette just to improve your lipids, instead of just living a healthy lifestyle? The risk /reward ratio is pretty damn awful don't you think?

The ones pushing the talking points of "extreme rodent dosages" and GW being a "health drug" and what not are the ones making money from selling this ****. They don't give a rat's ass if their customers gets cancer s decade from now.

GSK abruptly abandoned a potential multi billion dollar drug... That should tell you something....

 

[ManuR]

i dont play russian roulette.
i have researched and made my mind ...
also, you clearly dont know big pharma industry... maybe there are other reasons the research of GSK was abandoned..

the newer studies with GW on HUMAN CELLS without another carcinogen convince me more than the one on the rats.
and my lifestyle is good, lipid issues run in my father sides family. Dont judge if you have no clue..
doing 40-50mins liss every ****en day, eating no processed foods etc..

 

[aovereem]

i dont play russian roulette.
i have researched and made my mind ...
also, you clearly dont know big pharma industry... maybe there are other reasons the research of GSK was abandoned..

the newer studies with GW on HUMAN CELLS without another carcinogen convince me more than the one on the rats.
and my lifestyle is good, lipid issues run in my father sides family. Dont judge if you have no clue..
doing 40-50mins liss every ****en day, eating no processed foods etc..

I'm sure you're the healthiest man on AM and you've made all this "research". It doesn't seem like the smartest move though to run some black market research drug, instead of a tested and approved medication, to overcome your genetically bad blood lipids.... But whatever, I don't give a ****. Enjoy your GW. I'm sure it'll be amazing...

Oh, and I'm fully aware how the big pharma industry works btw. That's a pretty big "maybe" though...

 

[ManuR]

you mean the very healthy statin drugs? LOLOL
guess we two wont be friends, hehe
no offense taken but everyone should do what they think is right for them..
smokers take a carcinogen without any benefit at all.. still i dont judge them.
never said i am the healthiest at AM, but i try my best to be healthy, thats correct

 

[muscleupcrohn]

The cancer thing is a pretty confusing thing.
I researched it intensively the last week and decided today to start on 5mg daily for 8 weeks.
Not for fat loss or something like that but to improve lipids (i had bloodwork done on tuesday, will have again end of july to determine usefulnes).
i based my decision on some points:
- rat dosages were 10 times higher and they took it for 2/3 of their life which i wont do
- newer studies provide information that GW is anti-cancerous and destroys cancer cells (2 or 3 studies which i could fine, dated 2016-2017 on HUMAN cells)
- the rat study, which is the main cancer study, is a bit flawed because GW was given with a carcinogen. Given alone, it did not cause cancer to the rats!!
(carcinogen alone neither to be fair). just in combination

There was more than one rodent study that was cause for concern though. I’d hardly say that we “know” it’s safe, or that the new in vitro studies are sufficient to demonstrate safety, but you do you; I can’t tell you how to determine your acceptable ratio of risk to reward. As for “big pharma conspiracies,” you sort of have to present a valid reason as to why you think they’d complexly abandon development (GSK and Ligand) on a drug that has been shown to be effective, and, according to your claims based solely on in vitro studies, not only doesn’t cause cancer but prevents it; it would be asinine to trash it, wasting not only a ton of money, but also scrapping what you described as nothing short of a miracle drug, a panacea even.

 

[ManuR]

There was more than one rodent study that was cause for concern though. I’d hardly say that we “know” it’s safe, or that the new in vitro studies are sufficient to demonstrate safety, but you do you; I can’t tell you how to determine your acceptable ratio of risk to reward. As for “big pharma conspiracies,” you sort of have to present a valid reason as to why you think they’d complexly abandon development (GSK and Ligand) on a drug that has been shown to be effective, and, according to your claims based solely on in vitro studies, not only doesn’t cause cancer but prevents it; it would be asinine to trash it, wasting not only a ton of money, but also scrapping what you described as nothing short of a miracle drug, a panacea even.

hi muscleupcrohn,
i did nowhere state its 100% safe. I said i, for myself, decided that i will use it in a low dosage for a limited timeframe based on the new findings.
those studies are out there on human cells, you will find them if you search..
there are still concerns, but there are concerns with everything in life. plastic bottles, passive smoking, every supplement we take that isnt really researched, even if clamed natural and so on.
you have to weight risk:reward for yourself like i did after doing some research.
Ill try it 8 weeks @ 5mg, do my blood work and check how it treated my lipids. after that, i can even better weight risks:rewards for me

 

[Whisky]

There was more than one rodent study that was cause for concern though. I’d hardly say that we “know” it’s safe, or that the new in vitro studies are sufficient to demonstrate safety, but you do you; I can’t tell you how to determine your acceptable ratio of risk to reward. As for “big pharma conspiracies,” you sort of have to present a valid reason as to why you think they’d complexly abandon development (GSK and Ligand) on a drug that has been shown to be effective, and, according to your claims based solely on in vitro studies, not only doesn’t cause cancer but prevents it; it would be asinine to trash it, wasting not only a ton of money, but also scrapping what you described as nothing short of a miracle drug, a panacea even.

Some interesting points above on this - I have no idea how big pharma works but if I was guessing (happy to be corrected) then even a 0.01% ratio of cancer to no issues at all would possibly be too high? That ratio might be one that an individual was ok with if they also believed the benefits were valid?

Honestly, given the ever changing situation regards many ‘safe’ drugs and many ‘bad for you’ things (remember there was a time when sat fat was widely accepted as bad for us) in my view with lots of this we simply don’t know.......until the evidence is overwhelming one way or another (like what happened with smoking) you can simply make the decision as you see it. Who’s right on this case, my view is no one can know for sure......

 

[muscleupcrohn]

hi muscleupcrohn,
i did nowhere state its 100% safe. I said i, for myself, decided that i will use it in a low dosage for a limited timeframe based on the new findings.
those studies are out there on human cells, you will find them if you search..
there are still concerns, but there are concerns with everything in life. plastic bottles, passive smoking, every supplement we take that isnt really researched, even if clamed natural and so on.
you have to weight risk:reward for yourself like i did after doing some research.
Ill try it 8 weeks @ 5mg, do my blood work and check how it treated my lipids. after that, i can even better weight risks:rewards for me

I’ve read the research. Human cells are in vitro, not in vivo; these studies are grounds for further research, but don’t disprove the rodent studies (there is more than one actually, if you look). I do think that low dose (5-10mg) for short term use is likely safer than 20+mg doses, but it’s still not really accurate to compare it to “every supplement we take.” Like I said, you can determine risk vs reward, but let’s not make inaccurate comparisons; the potential risks (we just don’t know) are admittedly higher than most “supplements,” but it’s a drug, not a supplement. You do you man, good luck.

 

[ManuR]

I’ve read the research. Human cells are in vitro, not in vivo; these studies are grounds for further research, but don’t disprove the rodent studies (there is more than one actually, if you look). I do think that low dose (5-10mg) for short term use is likely safer than 20+mg doses, but it’s still not really accurate to compare it to “every supplement we take.” Like I said, you can determine risk vs reward, but let’s not make inaccurate comparisons; the potential risks (we just don’t know) are admittedly higher than most “supplements,” but it’s a drug, not a supplement. You do you man, good luck.

hey bro,
yeah, you are correct, there were 2 studies done, but both of them used another substance in addition to GW which is a carcinogen to accelerate some processes (would have to reread to post exactly why the other substance was added)
but the newer studies seem promising and lets see what the future brings
as for supplements we take.. well, we simply dont know if any of those are dangerous long term because for 95% of them no studies exist.
just because something is natural doesnt mean it cant be dangerous (see betel nut or other stuff which was/is put in supps)
btw, thanks for the open and constructive discussion, thats how i like it :->

 

[justhere4comm]

You guys realize how much money big pharma makes from chemo drugs right?

 

[ManuR]

You guys realize how much money big pharma makes from chemo drugs right?

thats one of my points
and dont forget the statin drugs which are not cheap and are used.
GW would take away many other drugs existence if it was what it promised.. but lets see what the future brings

 

[muscleupcrohn]

You guys realize how much money big pharma makes from chemo drugs right?

So if GW not only helped with what it was designed to help with, but also prevented or reduced cancer, it would be the miracle drug of the century, not scrapped entirely after spending millions on development to move on to a new attempt at a similar drug with a better safety profile, which they’re doing. What exactly are you trying to get at man?

 

[AndroRage]

Yeah I’m not sure about you guys but here in the UK and people I talk to with cancer; there is abit of a consensus that cancer being “cured” isn’t really on the agenda of big Pharma and more driven by profit than safety...
But that’s a whole new can of worms which I won’t get into.

That’s what the other posters were referring I believe

 

[YoungThor]

It’s not a magic fat burner and it gives a mild endurance boost. That’s not worth the cancer risk to me. I ran it for a few weeks once until I came to my senses and threw the rest away.

 

[muscleupcrohn]

Yeah I’m not sure about you guys but here in the UK and people I talk to with cancer; there is abit of a consensus that cancer being “cured” isn’t really on the agenda of big Pharma and more driven by profit than safety...
But that’s a whole new can of worms which I won’t get into.

That’s what the other posters were referring I believe

If you're seriously implying that development of cardarine was (secretly) abandoned by GSK AND Ligand because it prevents/cures cancer, I don't even know what to say. How is it preferable to just give up on a drug that has been shown to be effective for its intended purposes after spending likely tens of millions of dollars than to bring a drug to the market that is not only effective, but also safe with other potential benefits? I get that "Big Pharma" is profit driven, but something like cardarine, which is their drug, would literally be the miracle-drug of the century if the "preventing/curing cancer" thing was true. I don't know how you think that there's no money to be made in a drug that cures cancer though. Yeah, maybe the companies that make chemo drugs and whatnot would lose money, but GSK/Ligand (the people that developed cardarine) would stand to make an insane amount of money if they had a drug that reversed/cured cancer, or even just slowed/stopped the development of cancer. I don't see why GSK/Ligand would care that other companies that make chemo drugs would be losing money as long as their drug is making money, which a literal cure for cancer would make a ton of.

Conspiracy theories are great and all, and I have a general distrust of "Big Pharma" and government too, but it's sort of silly to just claim that literally everything is some grand conspiracy. Cardarine was scrapped because of the concerning rodent safety studies. Do we know 100% that it will cause cancer in humans? No, we don't, but GSK and Ligand decided that there was enough to lead them to abandon development. If you think that they abandoned development because they found out it cured cancer, then I have a bridge to sell you, and some oceanfront property in Arizona.

 

[AndroRage]

If you're seriously implying that development of cardarine was (secretly) abandoned by GSK AND Ligand because it prevents/cures cancer, I don't even know what to say. How is it preferable to just give up on a drug that has been shown to be effective for its intended purposes after spending likely tens of millions of dollars than to bring a drug to the market that is not only effective, but also safe with other potential benefits? I get that "Big Pharma" is profit driven, but something like cardarine, which is their drug, would literally be the miracle-drug of the century if the "preventing/curing cancer" thing was true. I don't know how you think that there's no money to be made in a drug that cures cancer though. Yeah, maybe the companies that make chemo drugs and whatnot would lose money, but GSK/Ligand (the people that developed cardarine) would stand to make an insane amount of money if they had a drug that reversed/cured cancer, or even just slowed/stopped the development of cancer. I don't see why GSK/Ligand would care that other companies that make chemo drugs would be losing money as long as their drug is making money, which a literal cure for cancer would make a ton of.

Conspiracy theories are great and all, and I have a general distrust of "Big Pharma" and government too, but it's sort of silly to just claim that literally everything is some grand conspiracy. Cardarine was scrapped because of the concerning rodent safety studies. Do we know 100% that it will cause cancer in humans? No, we don't, but GSK and Ligand decided that there was enough to lead them to abandon development. If you think that they abandoned development because they found out it cured cancer, then I have a bridge to sell you, and some oceanfront property in Arizona.

It’s hard to tell by your tone if your angry or just elaborating on your points; I’ll assume it’s the latter.
You have great points and all valid. It’s not really the forum for the this topic but no I don’t think there is a massive conspiracy... however I do believe that there is money to be made curing cancer, huge amounts. But I just think there is more to be made in not do so, and in the end money talks. I’m sure you aware of what I’m referring to bribes corruption are all involved at high end business where large amounts are to be made or lost...

I’ll leave with this statement, Apprently worldwide $107 billion was spent worldwide in 2015 on cancer “medicines” and it’s projected to be $150 billion by 2020...

I think you mentioned “ten of millions” which is relatively small change in the grand scheme of things.
It’s all opinion really and I respect yours as much as everyone else’s, I just feel in the long term for Big Pharma it’s more profitable to find “medicines” which have positive effect/treat it, just not cure it.

Money is the route of all evil.

Thanks for reading my response, your an intelligent guy and I value you taking the time to respond, but as I say it’s just my opinion. My mum passed away after a long battle with Cancer and the best they can still come up with is Chemo!? That was 19 years ago. I have a friend at the gym was diagnosed with cancer and offered Chemo, refused it and was then told as a result he had 12 months at best to live... that was 38 months ago. He competed last year.

 

[muscleupcrohn]

It’s hard to tell by your tone if your angry or just elaborating on your points; I’ll assume it’s the latter.
You have great points and all valid. It’s not really the forum for the this topic but no I don’t think there is a massive conspiracy... however I do believe that there is money to be made curing cancer, huge amounts. But I just think there is more to be made in not do so, and in the end money talks. I’m sure you aware of what I’m referring to bribes corruption are all involved at high end business where large amounts are to be made or lost...

I’ll leave with this statement, Apprently worldwide $107 billion was spent worldwide in 2015 on cancer “medicines” and it’s projected to be $150 billion by 2020...

I think you mentioned “ten of millions” which is relatively small change in the grand scheme of things.
It’s all opinion really and I respect yours as much as everyone else’s, I just feel in the long term for Big Pharma it’s more profitable to find “medicines” which have positive effect/treat it, just not cure it.

Money is the route of all evil.

Thanks for reading my response, your an intelligent guy and I value you taking the time to respond, but as I say it’s just my opinion. My mum passed away after a long battle with Cancer and the best they can still come up with is Chemo!? That was 19 years ago. I have a friend at the gym was diagnosed with cancer and offered Chemo, refused it and was then told as a result he had 12 months at best to live... that was 38 months ago. He competed last year.

Not angry at all, just trying to elaborate.

To further elaborate, you have to look at this decision from the perspective of GSK and Ligand, the companies who developed cardarine, not from the perspective of the industry as a whole. GSK would only "lose money"' by finding a cure for cancer if the revenue they currently make from treating cancer is greater than what they'd make from selling a drug that prevented/cured it. This is certainly not the case; you can't compare the worldwide spending on cancer treatment with the investment of 2 companies, as the two companies are not, never have, and never will, be selling ALL of EVERY cancer treatment/drug/etc. in the WORLD. GSK and Ligand want to make money for themselves. Even if them finding the cure to cancer caused 100 other companies to go out of business, they'd still bring it to the market, because they'd make a killing on it. The big picture is much more nuanced than just "total money worldwide." Your numbers are only relevant if you assume that there is a single worldwide company that sells/makes/ect. every single cancer drug/treatment in the world, which is clearly not true.

I think it's also more accurate to say that it's not MONEY that is the root of all evil, but LOVE OF MONEY that is. Money itself is not good or bad; it's a thing, how can it be good or bad? It's what people do with it, and the lengths they go to obtain it that can be bad, just as the things people can do with it can also be good. Money is a tool, nothing more, nothing less. It can't be.

Think about vaccines; they completely prevent serious illnesses that could be treated, yet they're still produced and new ones are being developed every day. The companies that make them still make tons of money if they work; it's the other companies that make treatment drugs that would suffer, but the other businesses don't care about companies that may well be their competition.

 

[Nac]

I was actually one of the rats that got experimented on, so if you have any questions fire away.

 

[muscleupcrohn]

I was actually one of the rats that got experimented on, so if you have any questions fire away.

Were you one of the rats that was experimented on in an actual study, or one of the rats that experimented on itself? Genuinely curious.

 

[Nac]

Were you one of the rats that was experimented on in an actual study, or one of the rats that experimented on itself? Genuinely curious.

Good question, and one that certainly requires clarification. Most people dont give a rats arse.

I was a rat that was experimented on in the main study on rats.

 

[muscleupcrohn]

Good question, and one that certainly requires clarification. Most people dont give a rats arse.

I was a rat that was experimented on in the main study on rats.

I'm more confused after reading this than I was before. Were you a lab rat in a past life or something?

 

[BennyMagoo79]

So if GW not only helped with what it was designed to help with, but also prevented or reduced cancer, it would be the miracle drug of the century, not scrapped entirely after spending millions on development to move on to a new attempt at a similar drug with a better safety profile, which they’re doing. What exactly are you trying to get at man?

That's it. They would find some reason to scratch it since preventing or curing cancer really doesn't fit their business model.

 

[muscleupcrohn]

That's it. They would find some reason to scratch it since preventing or curing cancer really doesn't fit their business model.

According to who? You can argue that "Big Pharma" as a whole doesn't want to cure cancer, but why wouldn't GSK and Ligand want to? If they actually found a cure for cancer, they'd have a monopoly on the cancer treatment/prevention/cure market, and they'd make a s**t-ton of money and be viewed as the heroes of medicine and go down in history. A "cure" may not be good for the industry as a whole, but it would undoubtedly be good for the company that developed and sells it. Think about it; no one company makes EVERY cancer treatment for EVERY cancer in EVERY country, but if one company actually somehow developed a LITERAL CURE for cancer, it'd be used by EVERY cancer patient. Even if it's less money/time/etc per client, the insane amount of clients they'd be selling to would make them a plethora of money. Or, to make things even simpler, they could just not have ever mentioned that it "cured" cancer if it did; they could just have left it at "it's safe," which would be true if it actually cured cancer. This whole "conspiracy" is entirely unfounded, and the very idea of vaccines being a thing directly contradicts your entire argument and logic...

 

[BennyMagoo79]

It's based on the rationale that pharma companies are motivated to can drugs that may make their existing products obsolete, especially where their existing lineup has, in many cases, not yet recovered r&d costs.

 

[muscleupcrohn]

It's based on the rationale that pharma companies are motivated to can drugs that may make their existing products obsolete, especially where their existing lineup has, in many cases, not yet recovered r&d costs.

Then explain why vaccines are a thing? Using your logic, it'd be better to just develop and use drugs to treat these illnesses/diseases than to prevent them.

 

[muscleupcrohn]

Also, your solution to not recovering R&D costs on an existing drug is to let the R&D costs for the new drug go completely to waste without making even a single dollar?

 

[muscleupcrohn]

And yes, GSK does make vaccines, and some of them are for diseases that a lot of money can be made selling treatments for.
https://www.gsk.com/en-gb/about-us/what-we-do/vaccines/

Using your logic, GSK should never develop a vaccine to prevent a disease when they can just develop a drug to treat (but apparently not cure, according to your logic) it.

 

[BennyMagoo79]

Then explain why vaccines are a thing? Using your logic, it'd be better to just develop and use drugs to treat these illnesses/diseases than to prevent them.

Vaccines are viable for disease that cannot be treated for profit. According to the rationale of my conspiracy theory, things like polio, the flu, meningococcal, have no drug treatments that compete with the vaccine so there was always motive to develop it.

 

[muscleupcrohn]

Vaccines are viable for disease that cannot be treated for profit. According to the rationale of my conspiracy theory, things like polio, the flu, meningococcal, have no drug treatments that compete with the vaccine so there was always motive to develop it.

So there's no money to be made on hepatitis treatment? They're also working on a vaccine for HIV, but there's no money or profit to be made treating that, right? Please do some research before making these claims...

 

[Cgkone]

I was actually one of the rats that got experimented on, so if you have any questions fire away.

I love you!!! That's funny dog!! Hella funny!!

 

[BennyMagoo79]

So there's no money to be made on hepatitis treatment? They're also working on a vaccine for HIV, but there's no money or profit to be made treating that, right? Please do some research before making these claims...

Well it would be nice to see an HIV vaccine, and I guess the rationale for its development is strong since very few people have HIV and everybody would like to vaccinate against it.

Regarding Hepititis, I know there is no vaccine for hep c, but what drugs are used to treat a and b? I don't think anyone has come up with an effective treatment for hep beyond antivirals an analgesics?

 

[muscleupcrohn]

Well it would be nice to see an HIV vaccine, and I guess the rationale for its development is strong since very few people have HIV and everybody would like to vaccinate against it.

Regarding Hepititis, I know there is no vaccine for hep c, but what drugs are used to treat a and b? I don't think anyone has come up with an effective treatment for hep beyond antivirals an analgesics?

GSK apparently has vaccines for A and B:
https://www.gsksource.com/havrix
https://www.gsksource.com/engerix_b

I'm not 100% sure abut their efficacy and/or safety, but they're a thing, which means that there is a market for them.

It just proves that it's not quite so simple as "no one wants to cure it if they can make money treating it." Not always anyway.

 

[toddmuelheim]

Well it would be nice to see an HIV vaccine, and I guess the rationale for its development is strong since very few people have HIV and everybody would like to vaccinate against it.

Regarding Hepititis, I know there is no vaccine for hep c, but what drugs are used to treat a and b? I don't think anyone has come up with an effective treatment for hep beyond antivirals an analgesics?

There is a cure for hep c and vaccines for a and b.

 

[Cgkone]

I'm vaccinated for A and B
Interferon can bring hep c down to undetectable levels.

 

[Chados]

Me and muscleupchron had a long discussion about this and without saying who's right or wrong these are the facts.


The old cancer studies had rats with a lifespan of 2-3 years given cardarine and this study claimed they developed it faster. This study was rats that were given cancer by the scientists. Note that the rats develop cancer faster than us and we're given a low dose of cardarine

Other studies did show a decrease in tumours.

And some studies proved to have no such effects in humans at all.

My conclusion is that no rats ever developed cancer because of cardarine, at a certain dosage it seems to decrease tumours in rats and have no significant effect in humans in terms of cancer.

The energy you get from cardarine is extremly good while the farburning really isn't anything special. The cholesterol improvements are however significantly increased.

Now these might be the facts but just as stated before it hasn't been in human consumption long enough for us to say this dosage and this length of the cycle won't have side effects, it also doesn't show that it will.

The studies on rats doesn't always transfer to humans consumption.

 

[Chados]

I keep researching Cardarine, and it gets produced legally here in China.

A few questions:

1. What is the most exhaustive source of information for Cardarine? It seems like a wonder drug, but how can we be so sure?

2. I understand that for mice, it was very carcinogenic. However, many humans have been using it but have not had the same problem. So, has it ever caused cancer in humans?

3. How does cancer work? Unlike something like poisonous chemicals, which would damage you now, and would have no effect ten years later, how can we be so sure that Cardarine will not cause damage now, but in 20 years?

4. Anything else to understand? I know most users love it, but is there any way to be sure?

Cancer is a natural disease and that's why it's extremly hard to say this was the reason you got it. It can be caused by things like smoking but it can also be genetic or just come with age and that age can be anything from 1 year old to 110. The odds are higher with age and with say smoking but it doesn't mean one can't be unlucky and get it even if no parents had it and you had an healthy lifestyle.

It's easy to know smoking is a big reason for Cancer not just because of studies but also because millions of people have used it for 100s of years. We don't have this with cardarine.

 

[NoAddedHmones]

Me and muscleupchron had a long discussion about this and without saying who's right or wrong these are the facts.


The old cancer studies had rats with a lifespan of 2-3 years given cardarine and this study claimed they developed it faster. This study was rats that were given cancer by the scientists. Note that the rats develop cancer faster than us and we're given a low dose of cardarine

Other studies did show a decrease in tumours.

And some studies proved to have no such effects in humans at all.

My conclusion is that no rats ever developed cancer because of cardarine, at a certain dosage it seems to decrease tumours in rats and have no significant effect in humans in terms of cancer.

The energy you get from cardarine is extremly good while the farburning really isn't anything special. The cholesterol improvements are however significantly increased.

Now these might be the facts but just as stated before it hasn't been in human consumption long enough for us to say this dosage and this length of the cycle won't have side effects, it also doesn't show that it will.

The studies on rats doesn't always transfer to humans consumption.

Sigh ignorance is bliss.

Lets use smoking as you did in you next post as an analogy. Go back 120 years and be at a similar point to where gw501516 got to in terms of research.

With what we knew, we could say smoking is great, it gives me energy, suppresses my appetite and makes me feel nice.

Stop trying to potray your personal conclusions as fact to put your mind at ease lmao.

 

[Chados]

Sigh ignorance is bliss.

Lets use smoking as you did in you next post as an analogy. Go back 120 years and be at a similar point to where gw501516 got to in terms of research.

With what we knew, we could say smoking is great, it gives me energy, suppresses my appetite and makes me feel nice.

Stop trying to potray your personal conclusions as fact to put your mind at ease lmao.

I have absolutely 0 idea of what you're saying. I literally said exactly what you said and you're trying to correct me?

This is what I said but I'm gonna rephrase it so you get it.

Gw hasn't been around for long enough for us to know what it does. Smoking has been around for people to use it their whole lifetime.

Gw has studies on rats. Smoking has studies on humans.

Gw has no proof of giving cancer smoking does.

Gw gives energy and controls cholesterol cigarettes don't.


To add to this, coffee, amphetamine,ephedrine gives energy, one is healthy the others aren't. I think a already established there are things with positive effects being harmful.


Now what if cardarine didn't give energy and cigarettes did? What was the question again?

 

[NoAddedHmones]

I have absolutely 0 idea of what you're saying. I literally said exactly what you said and you're trying to correct me?

This is what I said but I'm gonna rephrase it so you get it.

Gw hasn't been around for long enough for us to know what it does. Smoking has been around for people to use it their whole lifetime.

Gw has studies on rats. Smoking has studies on humans.

Gw has no proof of giving cancer smoking does.

He gives energy and controls cholesterol cigarettes don't.

Now what it cardarine didn't give energy and cigarettes did? What was the question again?

There was no question, just merely pointing out how all over the shop you are with your posts. Which was further confirmed in this response.

Anyways im not going to back and forth with you, given MUC had no success lol

 

[Chados]

There was no question, just merely pointing out how all over the shop you are with your posts. Which was further confirmed in this response.

Anyways im not going to back and forth with you, given MUC had no success lol

You're just being stupid now and looking for an argument you don't wanna have when you realized what I actually said.

I said that we don't have enough studies on gw and it hasn't been around long enough for people to know, how is that ignorant?. And you say but what if smoking gave energy? We kinda know it doesn't. You have positive effects from gw and no real studies to (confirm) anything negative. This doesn't mean it (won't) be (negative) studies in the future. We do know what smoking does and to speculate if it was the opposite of what it is? What does that have to do with what I said?

 

[muscleupcrohn]

There was no question, just merely pointing out how all over the shop you are with your posts. Which was further confirmed in this response.

Anyways im not going to back and forth with you, given MUC had no success lol

Haha, it’s amazing how these conversations always end up going in circles. I’m done here, for now anyway. It’s amazing how some people claim to know more than GSK and Ligand though; more than the companies who developed and abandoned it. People are seriously saying that they abandoned development because it CURES CANCER; I kid you not.

 

[muscleupcrohn]

Me and muscleupchron had a long discussion about this and without saying who's right or wrong these are the facts.


The old cancer studies had rats with a lifespan of 2-3 years given cardarine and this study claimed they developed it faster. This study was rats that were given cancer by the scientists. Note that the rats develop cancer faster than us and we're given a low dose of cardarine

Other studies did show a decrease in tumours.

And some studies proved to have no such effects in humans at all.

My conclusion is that no rats ever developed cancer because of cardarine, at a certain dosage it seems to decrease tumours in rats and have no significant effect in humans in terms of cancer.

The energy you get from cardarine is extremly good while the farburning really isn't anything special. The cholesterol improvements are however significantly increased.

Now these might be the facts but just as stated before it hasn't been in human consumption long enough for us to say this dosage and this length of the cycle won't have side effects, it also doesn't show that it will.

The studies on rats doesn't always transfer to humans consumption.

You’re being disingenuous here. There was more than one study that showed increased cancer growth in rodents. Furthermore, even if it “only” potentiates other carcinogens and isn’t one itself, people here are using it with AAS; that’s quite risky. Also, the human studies were VERY short term, a few weeks/months. This in no way means that it’s safe. If they gave people cancer in a few weeks/months it’d pretty much be poison lol; don’t paint a false picture here.

 

[muscleupcrohn]

You're just being stupid now and looking for an argument you don't wanna have when you realized what I actually said.

I said that we don't have enough studies on gw and it hasn't been around long enough for people to know, how is that ignorant?. And you say but what if smoking gave energy? We kinda know it doesn't. You have positive effects from gw and no real studies to (confirm) anything negative. This doesn't mean it (won't) be (negative) studies in the future. We do know what smoking does and to speculate if it was the opposite of what it is? What does that have to do with what I said?

There likely won’t be too much research on cardarine in the future given that development was abandoned, and GSK/Ligand are already working on a newer alternative that they believe will have a better safety profile. The developers decided that the potential for adverse effects, quite serious ones, was too high; they aren’t going to pay for more research on it.

 

[Chados]

You’re being disingenuous here. There was more than one study that showed increased cancer growth in rodents. Furthermore, even if it “only” potentiates other carcinogens and isn’t one itself, people here are using it with AAS; that’s quite risky. Also, the human studies were VERY short term, a few weeks/months. This in no way means that they’re safe. If they gave people cancer in a few weeks/months it’d pretty much be poison lol; don’t paint a false picture here.

Did I mention any studies being correct? I mentioned a few studies with different outcomes and I think thats fair?. There was more than one study showing it didn't also. And as far as I can tell from the studies there isn't one study proving cardarine actually gave cancer only that it promotes accelerated growth to rats given cancer. This seems to have no effect in humans and one study actually shows a decrease in the growth of tumours.

You are only using the studies that show negative effects and saying that you don't know. I just mentioned a few different so no I'm not being anything. I'm being very open to the facts.