Often times “information” on SARMS comes from websites/people selling it who aren’t always honest (not talking about MA here, as he’s not referencing studies that don’t exist), like the myriad of websites that don’t know what HED conversion is when talking about Cardarine, saying that the studies used astronomical doses when they didn’t (oh, wait, you posted one such article, and when NAH pointed out that the author didn’t do HED conversions, you said “but he’s an expert” as if that somehow trumps actual science and facts). But people just took those “facts” and ran with them, and they quickly became to prevalent, omnipresent, on the internet that whenever someone looked it up it came up saying that in so many places that it just became accepted as true without anyone bothering to verify it themselves. This may well be a similar case, with the only other option being they have access to studies unavailable to any of us, but don’t want to provide even the title of the study for us to try to find.
Also, nice fallacious logic; my use or not use has nothing to do with the validity of my statements. Hell, I’d bet 99% of the authors of the studies on it haven’t used it; clearly you must know more than them about it, right?
Anyway, enough beating this dead horse... if you admit, or say you’ve been saying all along, that we don’t know for sure if higher doses for shorter-term use will cause any level of suppression, then we’re cool. It’s pointless for me to argue semantics about what you actually said if it’s clarified now.
