Enclomiphene Information

cylon357

cylon357

New member
Awards
1
  • First Up Vote
Note: I originally compiled this information elsewhere in late 2021. Some updates are coming. I also mentioned reposting here at some point... I never said when. :)

Enclomiphene – everything I could find and you didn’t know you wanted

Summary
All the good things about Clomid, none of the bad things.

You suffer from secondary hypogonadism and want to boost testosterone production AND maintain fertility AND feel like you are 22 again? Enclomiphene to the rescue!

That is generally how enclomiphene is discussed today. To be honest, on paper, it does look promising in the area of male AAS PCT and HRT. I’m going to share what I have found on this compound, though note that very little of this is actual “research”, more of a collection of information that I have acquired.


Audience
This information will be of interest to 3 groups of people.
1 – Those who cycle and PCT and don’t like Clomid
2 – Those who are using Clomid as HRT
3 – General lab rats


What is enclomiphene?
To answer this question, we need to take a closer look at Clomid. We all know what that is: a particularly useful SERM with regard to HPTA restart, but with some negatives. Let’s dive a little deeper into the drug, though.

Clomid is actually made of two drugs: enclomiphene and zuclomiphene. Enclomiphene is the SERM we are looking for: it blocks the estrogen receptors and thus encourages the release of LH. Zuclomiphene is an estrogenic compound. Some studies have found that it actually LOWERS testosterone in males. Clomid is 5/8ths enclomiphene and 3/8ths zuclomiphene. It doesn’t require a great leap to realize that we want more enclo and less (preferably no) zuclo. In fact, if we could isolate just the enclomiphene molecule, our overall dose could be less. Rather than taking 100mg of clomid, we could take roughly 60 to 65mg of enclomiphene. Same positive effects, with minimal to no negatives.

While this is a high-level summary, it should be sufficient to illustrate, at least within the context of this discussion, that:
Enclomiphene is the “good”
Zuclomiphene is the “bad”

I generally hate such simplistic tags, but they work here. If we were looking at these components in a different context (such as female fertility, one of the on-label uses of Clomid), then those terms wouldn’t work.


History
There has been a lot of chatter lately regarding enclomiphene. This might make us think that it is a new molecule, but that is false. As mentioned, it has been part of Clomid since Clomid was introduced. In addition, it has been in US FDA trials under the trade name “Androxal”. The few studies that have been conducted on it indicate that it is as effective at HPTA boosting as Clomid, minus any significant reported sides.

It should be mentioned that people will sometimes say “yeah, well, the FDA rejected one of the Androxal studies”. The goal with statements like this is to make us believe that Androxal is not safe. The evidence does not justify this conclusion. The study was rejected before it was implemented due to a technical issue with the methodology and reporting, NOT because of anything to do with the drug itself. I have yet to determine the specifics of this, but they do not seem particularly meaningful for our purposes.


Availability
Currently (late 2021) in the US, enclomiphene is only available as a research chemical or a compounded drug. Trials of Androxal seem to have stalled. There may be several reasons for this. Primarily, the drug has changed hands several times – the new owners may simply not be interested in pursuing it. In addition, and this is conjecture on my part, the ready availability of Testosterone as a “first choice” for male HRT may erode the perceived market value of enclomiphene.

Update Early 2023: Enclomiphene (subjectively overpriced) is now being sold as HRT for men by at least one major provider.


Outstanding concerns
Questions arise about the safety of long term SERM use in males. I can't speak to that. I do believe that many of the negatives of SERMs (particularly Clomid) are associated with the high doses frequently encountered in PCT, extended for longer periods of time.

Note that I can not as yet personally claim that enclomiphene works as indicated. That will require experimentation not covered here.


Disclaimer
I am not a doctor, research scientist, or even a chemistry student. I am also not affiliated in any way with any company producing, competing with, or marketing any of these compounds. Please do consider this information with those facts in mind.


References

https://www.drugs.com/history/androxal.html

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01386606

https://newyork.legalexaminer.com/he...osterone-drug/

https://www.fertstert.org/article/S0...521-3/fulltext

https://www.endocrineweb.com/profess...le-preserving-

https://www.forbes.com/sites/arlenew...h=89f4275c17dc
 

psmf

New member
Awards
0
Who has reputable enclomiphene in stock for research?
 
cylon357

cylon357

New member
Awards
1
  • First Up Vote
Who has reputable enclomiphene in stock for research?
I have a follow up post on that BUT am not sure what the policies are here for posting provider information. I tried a few, some were good, some were not. I'm going to see if I can determine what is OK to say regarding vendors and re-post that info as well, if allowed.
 
cylon357

cylon357

New member
Awards
1
  • First Up Vote
One side bar on studies: always follow the money and always check the data carefully. Companies have a financial interest in seeing their products to market, so they may fund studies that look for certain things while glossing over others. In addition, data can be presented in a way that gives us false impressions.

Let’s consider a made-up example with some entirely made up numbers.

Company XYZ releases a study indicating that drug A reduces the risk of heart attack in healthy individuals by 50%. This seems like a big deal. What they may not say is that the risk of heart attack in healthy individuals is only .02%. That is two one hundredths of one percent. The drug in question reduces that to .01%. Is that even meaningful? No, not really, because the risk was tiny to begin with. What difference does it make if you cut it in half? The company hasn’t lied, they have just used numbers to distort the data.

Additionally, Company XYZ may have spent millions, maybe 10s of millions or more, of dollars developing drug A. They have an economic interest in getting the drug to market so they can make some of that money back.

In other words, Big Pharma is driven by profit, not charity. That isn't a bad thing by itself, but does help illustrate why we need to keep a healthy level of concern and skepticism.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
PowerHouse555 Peptide/Research 40
Anabolics 18
Invulnerabledr Anabolics 63
Supplements 12
Jackedgnostic Peptide/Research 0

Similar threads


Top