Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-β/δ (PPARβ/δ) ligands do not potentiate gr
- Thread starter Old Witch
- Start date
bigbeaph
Well-known member
Old Witch
Well-known member
Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-β/δ (PPARβ/δ) ligands do not potentiate gr
Yup, me and Oxford University, both wrong as ****... damn that lobliner knowing everything and keeping it away from all of us so our “scientists” can only “guess” at their “concrete data”
That's not what Marc Lobliner said.....you must be wrong.....
Yup, me and Oxford University, both wrong as ****... damn that lobliner knowing everything and keeping it away from all of us so our “scientists” can only “guess” at their “concrete data”
AnabolicGuru
Well-known member
I like Marc, but he isn’t too knowledgeable when it comes to aas.
Smont
Legend
Ppl are stupid, i haven't checked your link but from what I've seen it's a amazing compound that should be in everyone's stash, especially if your running tren or heavy oral cycles
bigbeaph
Well-known member
It looks better all the time. Just picked some up myself.
BTW wasnt the "cancer study" a one off deal that was pretty flawed on its face? It's been a while since I looked it up but always found it strange as to some of the intelligent people that really grabbed onto it.
Old Witch
Well-known member
Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-β/δ (PPARβ/δ) ligands do not potentiate gr
A few studies that point to a probable link between Gw501516 and increased cancer cell growth, in mice and rats who are either predisposed or pre induced, and no study has ever concluded that it will act as an outright carcinogen (ever, period) especially in animals who did not already have abnormal tissue growth or other genetic defects.
A few studies that point to a probable link between Gw501516 and increased cancer cell growth, in mice and rats who are either predisposed or pre induced, and no study has ever concluded that it will act as an outright carcinogen (ever, period) especially in animals who did not already have abnormal tissue growth or other genetic defects.
muscleupcrohn
Legend
In human cells in vitro. Don’t be disingenuous and claim it has been shown to not cause cancer in actual humans.
That is all.
Old Witch
Well-known member
Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-β/δ (PPARβ/δ) ligands do not potentiate gr
But it has not shown to cause cancer in humans. That is to say, so far it has not caused cancer in humans.
Also, that actually proves quite a bit, as it shows that it DOES cause the cancer cell lines to activate and grow in rat tissue, but not in human tissue. That’s part of what the whole study was setting out to prove. Funny that.
In human cells in vitro. Don’t be disingenuous and claim it has been shown to not cause cancer in actual humans.
That is all.
But it has not shown to cause cancer in humans. That is to say, so far it has not caused cancer in humans.
Also, that actually proves quite a bit, as it shows that it DOES cause the cancer cell lines to activate and grow in rat tissue, but not in human tissue. That’s part of what the whole study was setting out to prove. Funny that.
solidsnake
Well-known member
Well I’ve got a full bottle of ol gw and I’m gonna use it on my next cycle of superdrol, anavar and Td test, to hell with the cancer scare sh1t, I mean it’s a fact smoking kills and I’ve been doing it for 30 years, I’m still here fit and healthy.. and wasn’t there a study that came out last year saying bbq meats were carcinogenic? Well Texas homies better watch out then ?
user567
Active member
The fact that a multi billion dollar drug company abandoned it speaks volumes. These companies are as sleazy as it gets and will do anything for $$$. Yet they folded up shop and also went out of their way to warn people not to use it.
Do people really need that much cardio to get ripped? if you do your doing it wrong!
Do people really need that much cardio to get ripped? if you do your doing it wrong!
Smont
Legend
It has amazing benifit to your lipids and other things. The added cardio is a bonus
Old Witch
Well-known member
It’s not about getting ripped, it’s about increased endurance, enhanced lipid profile, and favorable cardiac activity.
I honestly am thinking that these companies who are “as sleazy as it gets” and “will do anything for $$$” saw that cardarine will effectively replace all beta blockers, all statins, all know heart medications, and possibly even cancer therapies and realized there was no way they’d be able to upcharge because their chemical was leaked and their patent rendered basically useless by Chinese tech cloning. So they shelved it. Still not scrapped entirely (despite claims otherwise yada yada 2007 it’s bull****)
Because interestingly enough only when a non biased party gets involved does it suddenly seem to not cause tumors to increase size. Think about that.
bigbeaph
Well-known member
Unless this 1 drug does TOO much good! Why create 1 drug that can treat a multitude of issues when you can have someone purchase half a dozen meds every month instead. Now that it's too effective let's tell everyone its "dangerous"....could be
muscleupcrohn
Legend
But as User said, despite early human studies showing it benefited cardiovascular parameters very well, GSK still abandoned it. Claiming that it IS safe is claiming to KNOW that GSK is wrong and threw away many, many millions of dollars. We simply don’t know; to claim you know it’s safe is disingenuous, or ignorant. Pick which is better in your mind.
muscleupcrohn
Legend
Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-β/δ (PPARβ/δ) ligands do not potentiate gr
It’s one thing to argue that you think the research is inconclusive, or to claim you believe the research points to it being safe for humans, it’s another entirely to claim they GSK buried a literal panacea. That’s so stupid...
GSK has many vaccines in their catalogue. Why make vaccines instead or treat illnesses for decades? See, that’s bad logic man. Also, if GSK came up with a panacea, they’d make a killing. They’d essentially destroy every competing company, and have complete control. Something that fixes everything with no adverse effects? They’d have such a monopoly on literally the entire pharmaceutical industry that they could hire a literal army of lawyers to sue anyone who illegally manufactured or sold it into oblivion.
It’s one thing to argue that you think the research is inconclusive, or to claim you believe the research points to it being safe for humans, it’s another entirely to claim they GSK buried a literal panacea. That’s so stupid...
bigbeaph
Well-known member
Here's the deal....I'm not standing for 1 side or the other. I'm simply saying I'm not believing some big group of people just because they say something. Show me the data. Your argument of "well GSK abandoned it and said it was a bad drug" is no argument at all. As far as I've seen there is no conclusive evidence on either side. But until you can show me data that supports that it causes some disease I'm not buying it. If they know then we should have some conclusive evidence, no? I'm not up for taking anyone's word on much of anything....especially when theres potential for gain.
Just like invent a drug and call it "cancercure" ... tell me it cures cancer. I'm going to assume it does not if you cannot show me the evidence. And if such place says "we are a big successful company and take our word" without providing sufficient evidence then I'm REALLY not going to believe you.
In the end you may be right, shouldnt be so hard to show us the how and why if it's so clear cut though.
Smont
Legend
I'm kinda in your boat, altho studies don't always win me over. Anyone can swing the results to there wants and needs. I'm more of the show me the bodies type.
Smont
Legend
I just ate a brownie so maybe that's what's wrong with me, refer madness
bigbeaph
Well-known member
Absolutely, in my book that's where it gets hairy. Sometimes you read through a study and wonder how they can even claim it as such...other times you've got your double-blind placebo study that seems to be pretty concrete - and everywhere in between. That's the crappy part of the "study" system and the beautiful part of it too. Things can be shown different ways but theres just too much to gain from this industry. A lot of $$....power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely....
If you tell me this does that then show me the data
Old Witch
Well-known member
Obviously this heart medication is not a total panacea. It is good for ONE thing specifically.
Second, if your newest product will equal or outweigh hundreds of other products you make in sales but won’t be as profitable because of either production cost, intended price, patent issues (or all of the above in GSK’s case here) then it will definitely be scrapped.
bigbeaph
Well-known member
I dont know how this turned into calling it a panacea?!?!?? I should have just said....if a drug company can sell you 2 drugs instead of 1 it's more than likely more profitable to sell 2. So they will develop 2 separate income streams instead of squeezing it down to 1....shouldnt be too hard to believe
Old Witch
Well-known member
Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-β/δ (PPARβ/δ) ligands do not potentiate gr
Because crohn can’t have a conversation without being disingenuous and trying to make it seem as though someone has said some5ing which hasn’t been said. Much like many women do.
I try to ignore his comments as best I can, which I’d advise anyone reading to do as well. Read the actual facts and RELEVANT studies done on HUMANS and HUMAN TISSUE. I did.
CARDARINE DOES NOT CAUSE CANCER IN HUMANS.
Because crohn can’t have a conversation without being disingenuous and trying to make it seem as though someone has said some5ing which hasn’t been said. Much like many women do.
I try to ignore his comments as best I can, which I’d advise anyone reading to do as well. Read the actual facts and RELEVANT studies done on HUMANS and HUMAN TISSUE. I did.
CARDARINE DOES NOT CAUSE CANCER IN HUMANS.
muscleupcrohn
Legend
People are explicitly saying it was scrapped because they believe it does too many things well with no adverse effects. They claim that GSK scrapped it because it would render all their other products obsolete. That’s damn near a panacea. As for 2 in 1, isn’t Cialis prescribed for at least two things? Why not make more money selling two separate drugs, right? Right?
Old Witch
Well-known member
Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-β/δ (PPARβ/δ) ligands do not potentiate gr
Such a great sidestep. It renders their HEART medicines obsolete. You know, the biggest bread and butter in all of big Pharma. They’d rather sell you an ace inhibitor, a beta blocker and some statins. Which all have worse side effects...
Also, cialis interacts with other medicines, and there aren’t other options for ED relief than pde5 inhibitors, which can’t be taken with other heart medicines... so that’s why it’s used alone. If they could keep you on nitrates or ace inhibitors, beta blockers, they would. However, YOU are not going to let them not prescribe the pde5 inhibitor as a customer, so they have to find a legal way to fix your dick and avoid a lawsuit,. It just so happens that the very interaction that it causes also render the thing it interacts with obsolete in its presence. Obviously that avoids 100% of lawsuits in this case, nobody will die of a heart attack from not having their Bp meds cause they wanted wood. So for them it’s a Win/win scenario.
Cardarine is the opposite, there is no legal liability of drug interaction from anything normally prescribed for the heart, instead it replaces numerous profit streams AND got cloned by China before it could even be fully researched. There’s not any profit there. It’s lose /lose.
Is it all really that hard for you to understand? You seem to live in a fantasy world.
People are explicitly saying it was scrapped because they believe it does too many things well with no adverse effects. They claim that GSK scrapped it because it would render all their other products obsolete. That’s damn near a panacea. As for 2 in 1, isn’t Cialis prescribed for at least two things? Why not make more money selling two separate drugs, right? Right?
Such a great sidestep. It renders their HEART medicines obsolete. You know, the biggest bread and butter in all of big Pharma. They’d rather sell you an ace inhibitor, a beta blocker and some statins. Which all have worse side effects...
Also, cialis interacts with other medicines, and there aren’t other options for ED relief than pde5 inhibitors, which can’t be taken with other heart medicines... so that’s why it’s used alone. If they could keep you on nitrates or ace inhibitors, beta blockers, they would. However, YOU are not going to let them not prescribe the pde5 inhibitor as a customer, so they have to find a legal way to fix your dick and avoid a lawsuit,. It just so happens that the very interaction that it causes also render the thing it interacts with obsolete in its presence. Obviously that avoids 100% of lawsuits in this case, nobody will die of a heart attack from not having their Bp meds cause they wanted wood. So for them it’s a Win/win scenario.
Cardarine is the opposite, there is no legal liability of drug interaction from anything normally prescribed for the heart, instead it replaces numerous profit streams AND got cloned by China before it could even be fully researched. There’s not any profit there. It’s lose /lose.
Is it all really that hard for you to understand? You seem to live in a fantasy world.
muscleupcrohn
Legend
When you hear hoof beats, don’t think Zebra. That’s my last post on this conjecture.
bigbeaph
Well-known member
People are explicitly saying it was scrapped because they believe it does too many things well with no adverse effects. They claim that GSK scrapped it because it would render all their other products obsolete. That’s damn near a panacea. As for 2 in 1, isn’t Cialis prescribed for at least two things? Why not make more money selling two separate drugs, right? Right?
Note to AM:
"Too many" = "all"
-Make sure you hear the news that some drugs are prescribed for different things...
Just want to keep everyone up to date.
-And btw we are just pulling $hit out of the sky now to push our arguments.
-Your right Oldwitch ... very much like arguing with my wife....I've already had enough of that nonsense for a lifetime
Nac
Well-known member
Im not buying the "big evil pharma" conspiracy for a second. But thats not because I necessarily believe big pharma is looking out for our good, but because that whole line of argument is a red herring, a whole seperate argument of its own. It does nothing to further this particular debate or clarify the facts.
Old Witch
Well-known member
True but it makes a great case for why it was shelved, sold, abandoned, whatever word is trendy today among the non readers.
Also, here’s a thought, since those tests are super scary to little tikes like crohn (and others) that maybe they knew nobody would ever let that go despite tons of important evidence to the contrary? Much like crohn indeed...
“I made a drug and it’s a miracle, whoops, turns out any drug of that type is a rat carcinogen, now I have to prove it’s not a human carcinogen, ok that’s harder and more expensive... ok, did that... oh wait, everyone is still all fussy over the rats.”
Hats why it’s not profitable, among any number of other reasons you can think of.
Also, drug companies discontinue research on unprofitable drugs all the time and it isn’t considered a conspiracy. It’s just business.
Nac
Well-known member
Who funded the research up to the point of the drug being pulled?
Theres just as many Just So hypotheses as to why big pharma would love a drug like cardarine on its portfolio, as there are against it. So fukn what?
This line of debate gets us nowhere, its not based on fact but total conjecture and appealing to personal politics and preferences.
In other words, a red herring.
Theres just as many Just So hypotheses as to why big pharma would love a drug like cardarine on its portfolio, as there are against it. So fukn what?
This line of debate gets us nowhere, its not based on fact but total conjecture and appealing to personal politics and preferences.
In other words, a red herring.
Old Witch
Well-known member
For anyone who wants to know what’s the deal here: they thought at first that the ligand itself might be flawed and carcinogenic by nature as a chemical rather than by mechanism. Turns out that it is the mechanism of action which causes cancerous growth in rodents, which is also news in itself. This fully explains IN DEPTH actually why these rodents are even so predisposed to cancer to begin with: for these rats, ANY EXTRA CARDIO would cause the same growth is what this means.
Humans, obviously are not at all wired that way, chemically.
Cardarine DEFINITELY does not cause cancer in humans. Otherwise this study would have shown that it did, for sure, because of how it was conducted and the nature of the study itself. It is not a case of “oh but in vivo is different from in vitro” because that was part of the very nature of the study itself, to determine the mechanisms behind these differing results.
Now enough bro science, let’s take drugs and get swole.
Humans, obviously are not at all wired that way, chemically.
Cardarine DEFINITELY does not cause cancer in humans. Otherwise this study would have shown that it did, for sure, because of how it was conducted and the nature of the study itself. It is not a case of “oh but in vivo is different from in vitro” because that was part of the very nature of the study itself, to determine the mechanisms behind these differing results.
Now enough bro science, let’s take drugs and get swole.
muscleupcrohn
Legend
I literally just showed you they explicitly said, in two places, that the results SUGGEST that it isn’t due to differences between in vitro and in vivo, not that they definitively and irrefutably proved it isn’t.
You can say it’s likely or probable that it doesn’t increase the rate of cancer growth, but not that it’s irrefutably known.
Also, stop saying “cause cancer.” No ones been arguing that is CAUSES cancer for a long time. It’s a straw man.
Old Witch
Well-known member
Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-β/δ (PPARβ/δ) ligands do not potentiate gr
Good, you’re finally learning a little.
PPARb/d ligands do not potentiate growth in human cancer cell lines.
Do not. Not, “might not”
Sorry, but that is a conclusory statement.
Good, you’re finally learning a little.
PPARb/d ligands do not potentiate growth in human cancer cell lines.
Do not. Not, “might not”
Sorry, but that is a conclusory statement.
muscleupcrohn
Legend
Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-β/δ (PPARβ/δ) ligands do not potentiate gr
A “cell line” is BY DEFINITION in vitro.
Cell lines are in vitro. The study CONCLUDED it didn’t increase growth in vitro. It SUGGESTED that it doesn’t in vivo.
And you claim I can’t understand the studies?
You are so wrong.
A “cell line” is BY DEFINITION in vitro.
Cell lines are in vitro. The study CONCLUDED it didn’t increase growth in vitro. It SUGGESTED that it doesn’t in vivo.
And you claim I can’t understand the studies?
Old Witch
Well-known member
Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-β/δ (PPARβ/δ) ligands do not potentiate gr
What’s more, this study SUGGESTS that because it is not a flaw in the ligand, if it ever “caused cancer” “to grow” in humans, then all increased cardiovascular exercise would do as such. The ligand is not flawed, it properly activated the receptor without incident.
Basically, in a nutshell, this study shows (a better word than suggests) data correlating to the idea that if cardarine causes such growth, then cardio itself causes such growth.
What’s more, this study SUGGESTS that because it is not a flaw in the ligand, if it ever “caused cancer” “to grow” in humans, then all increased cardiovascular exercise would do as such. The ligand is not flawed, it properly activated the receptor without incident.
Basically, in a nutshell, this study shows (a better word than suggests) data correlating to the idea that if cardarine causes such growth, then cardio itself causes such growth.
Old Witch
Well-known member
Jesse Christ, you’re just going in circles. I already covered this you ****wit. I am beyond done.
muscleupcrohn
Legend
We both claim to be done, but we both keep posting. Time to call it a night?
Old Witch
Well-known member
People who aren’t you DO exist, and since this is a thread I posted, I’m going to add all my thoughts FOR THEM.
You cyclically and poorly attempting to refute just makes everything read much more slowly for them and prevents any thought from occurring in a new reader. Knock it the **** off.
muscleupcrohn
Legend
If you can repeat yourself ad nauseam in multiple threads, it’s only logical to expect other people to do the same. Good night man. Peace out.
Old Witch
Well-known member
It’s like this: you’re wrong. In fact you’re wrong so often it makes my head hurt every time I see you comment ANYWHERE.
So, no offense, but don’t try to debate me anymore, I don’t like you.
muscleupcrohn
Legend
You’re always right. Infallible. Beyond reproach. A God among men. There you go; I gave you what you wanted to hear.
Old Witch
Well-known member
Well, I do make it a point to know what’s going on BEFORE speaking or commenting... most of the time.
And, at least you understand the necessity of pullovers, we can agree on that for sure.
muscleupcrohn
Legend
Common ground! And I’m sorry for going overboard. I still disagree with a lot of your claims, but I (we both) engaged far past the point of beating a dead horse, and I sincerely apologize for that. I’ll honor your requests and not comment to you talking about Cardarine, as I’ve already made my points known. Note that this is in no way a concession, just my agreeing to not waste either of our time any more.
And I don’t dislike you by the way. I sometimes got frustrated with you, but I respect your willingness to take the time to defend your beliefs. Not many people do that. So even if I don’t agree with you, I respect you. You may not think the same of me, but that is out of my control, and therefore not of my concern.
Anyway, to Pullovers!