GW1515 is the BOMB!

[sillichilli]

Depending on how you calculate it, the human equivalent dose would be something like 0.5mg/kg/day (http://www.ergo-log.com/calculatethehumandosage.html). At that dose, the study shows tumor formation and increased mortality. But we don't know how much lower we'd have to go for that effect to go away. So we cannot conclude that dosages like 0.1-0.25 mg/kg/day are in fact safe. That being said, the risk of side effects is lower the less you take. Thus my recommendation that if you decide to take it, stick to low dosages to minimize the risk.

Thanks for that link. That helps me understand much better.

 

[1bigpapapump1]

Quite an interesting read to say the least. I'm definitely not jumping on the usage train yet after reading some of the info JEFF posted. I will continue reading and researching into this. The thought of cancer scares the hell outta me.

 

[mayan]

Very good discussion here. I'd like to hear Mike chime back in, I'm sure he has been over this topic ad nauseam.

 

[Mike Arnold]

I'll have to look into it the study again, this is news to me. But how do you explain that a pharmaceutical company makes such a fundamental error that potentially leads to the loss of millions in profit? Surely the folks at GSK are not incompetent, and these studies weren't performed by some grad student at a crappy third world university.

It's actually the exact opposite. Selling GW would have led to massive losses in profit, as it would have replaced multiple classes of drugs.

 

[Mike Arnold]

I wasn't able to find the paper itself, only the abstracts. If someone could send me the paper that would be much appreciated. But from what I read in the abstracts, I stand by my assessment.


https://web.archive.org/web/20150504013406/http://www.toxicology.org/AI/PUB/Tox/2009Tox.pdf


https://web.archive.org/web/20150504013406/http://www.toxicology.org/AI/PUB/Tox/2009Tox.pdf

Based on the above abstracts, GW501516 causes tumors to grow in several organs, probably mainly through increased proliferation of epithelial cells. The term 'test article-related' means 'related to the drug administered as part of the experiment'. So in this case due to the administration GW501516. The term does not mean that the tumors are a consequence of any method/tools used to check for the presence of tumors. Maybe this is where the confusion came from.

Regarding the claim that there is no in vitro evidence in human cell lines:


https://www.atsjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1165/rcmb.2007-0426OC


Activation of Peroxisome Proliferator-Activated Receptor ? Stimulates the Proliferation of Human Breast and Prostate Cancer Cell Lines | Cancer Research

The question is also if the activation of PPARdelta itself is the main problem, or if some off-target activity of GW501516 is causing the tumor growth. In fact, there's currently development of more specific PPARdelta agonists that have a better safety profile. The following study from 2017 also confirmed the toxicity of GW501516.


https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960894X17310818

You may not have done this intentionally, but cherry picking studies that you think support your position, particularly rat studies and/or ones that are inconclusive/assumptive, is not proof of anything. I've debated this topic numerous times in the past, so I am not going to re-state things I have already posted 20 times before. By your own admission you weren't even aware of all the studies showing that GW prevented cancer in human cell lines in numerous organ systems...until I told you a few days ago.

So, instead of looking for studies that you think support your original belief, maybe do some more unbiased research...and you will find that the general consensus, among the majority of those who have studied the drug, is that GW is more likely to be anti-cancerous in humans rather than cancerous, generally speaking. There is much we still don't know about this drug/class of drugs and there is certainly some concerning research out there, but all the positive research, especially when assessed in combination with the fact that we have not seen one single documented case of GW causing cancer in a human, leads me to believe that this drug is much safer than originally believed...and it may not even be dangerous at all. We don't know. However, we do know that the drug has been used by 10,000's of people over a decade without any known issues. We also know that it provides a plethora of health benefits ranging from improved blood sugar regulation to better cardiovascular health. These benefits are real and documented among a significant percentage of users.

 

[MyNameIsJeff]

You may not have done this intentionally, but cherry picking studies that you think support your position, particularly rat studies and/or ones that are inconclusive/assumptive, is not proof of anything. I've debated this topic numerous times in the past, so I am not going to re-state things I have already posted 20 times before. By your own admission you weren't even aware of all the studies showing that GW prevented cancer in human cell lines in numerous organ systems...until I told you a few days ago.

So, instead of looking for studies that you think support your original belief, maybe do some more unbiased research...and you will find that the general consensus, among the majority of those who have studied the drug, is that GW is more likely to be anti-cancerous in humans rather than cancerous, generally speaking. There is much we still don't know about this drug/class of drugs and there is certainly some concerning research out there, but all the positive research, especially when assessed in combination with the fact that we have not seen one single documented case of GW causing cancer in a human, leads me to believe that this drug is much safer than originally believed...and it may not even be dangerous at all. We don't know. However, we do know that the drug has been used by 10,000's of people over a decade without any known issues. We also know that it provides a plethora of health benefits ranging from improved blood sugar regulation to better cardiovascular health. These benefits are real and documented among a significant percentage of users.

I was actually aware of the in vitro studies in human cell lines. When I said that "this is news to me" I was referring to your claim that "the very substance the researchers used to test for the presence of cancer (in rat studies) actually shows up as cancer during testing", which I still believe is incorrect.

Also, as I have pointed out above there are in vitro studies on human cell lines which show either a pro- or anti cancer effect of GW. It's true that I cherry picked those studies, but the idea behind that was as counterevidence to the studies john posted before. So if anything people in this forum cherry picked the evidence and I simply presented the other side of the coin.

Now, with regard to the in vivo studies, which are much more useful, even if they are in rats and mice respectively (and since all in vivo studies point in the same direction, I'm not cherry picking here either): Both the original study as well as the recent one from 2017 i posted (which I don't know if you were aware of) clearly show the toxicity and carcinogenicity of GW. Furthermore, the 2017 study shows that other PPARdelta agonists do not have the same negative effects, therby indicating that some off target activity of GW is responsible for the negative effects. I would really have liked to hear some constructive criticism of the study from you. I get that you discussed this topic ad nauseum, but if new evidence is presented that should spark your interest. Especially someone who owns a research chem company should be interested in finding a safer compound than GW that has all its (admittedly) great effects.

The reason I chimed in here in the first place is that the consensus on this board seems to be that "GW is 100% harmless, all evidence to the contray is false". That's not true and it deprives people of important information they need to make an informed decision on whether they want take the risk. As you say "We don't know"if GW is safe. I may well be, but there is too much evidence to the contrary to make that claim. At the very least, the evidence should compel people to keep their dosage low.

BTW, I don't buy the story that GSK purposely fabricated evidence against their own drug to protect their product portfolio. They were not and are not the only ones researching this class of drug, and if the drug were really that revolutionary to make most of their other products obsolete (it's not), then there's no way some other (smaller) firm would come out with it. And low and behold the 2017 study I posted from some small biotech firms confirms the safety issues of GW and argues to have developed a better alternative. Why didn't evil big pharma suppress these results if in fact it jeopardizes half their profits?

 

[G.I.Bro]

I agree. I've taken gw and suspect the cancer concerns are overstated. But the evidence (studies) clearly demonstrate that it's not "harmless" as the board concensus says. There is a reason gsk and big pharma abandoned this. Make no mistake. I've bought Mike's gw before and he has an incentive here. I respect him and I'm not saying he's incorrect. But we can't throw all caution to the wind. The board concensus is misleading in that chronic high dose use could increase potential risk and one would walk away from this discussion thinking gw is proven harmless. We have legitimate studies showing otherwise in comparable models.

The theory gsk abandoned major investment here because it turned out to be "too good" and would hurt there other pharma business doesn't make sense. While I believe big pharma wants to "treat" for profit rather than cure, I don't think this is what happened here. This is because a smaller pharma would have picked it up. Someone would have licensed it and be selling it. This was supposed to be huge, revolutionary. The "exercise in a pill." All players in pharma abandoned following it up to market because the early studies showed it wasn't viable due to cancer risk. If it was that good and risk free, someone in pharma would be making money on it. It's been deemed too potentially carcinogenic by that whole market guys. We can't ignore that.

I'll likely use gw again... And definitely Mike's. But I can't sit here and say it has no risk. I'll use too much tren again too and we know that's not good for you. I applaud Jeff for going against the grain on this. But the counter point is important here.

 

[finephysique]

Interesting discussion pity it seems to have halted

 

[johnjuanb1]

Interesting discussion pity it seems to have halted

Everything is a risk. It’s hard to know the answer. I do think like Mike mentioned that after so many years of GW being available to gym rats that if it caused cancer people would have come forward and posted such. Still, only you can decide if the risk is worth it. Like mynameisjeff mentioned, if you are going to use GW then it’s a wise move to use a very low dose. I too would only use GW in a low dose to lessen the risk. 10mg per day was plenty to increase my endurance significantly.

 

[madmuscle25]

Anybody ran sr9009 that can share their results in comparison to GW? I no the oral doesn't absorb well, but I went with the transdermal version. Hoping it pans out.

 

[2elbows]

John been a lil busy but here is the update

I am now down to a lean 195 lbs down from 225 lbs.
It was not the GW alone the HCG and strict diet heped but I do like the GW it gave me the boost I needed.

Just a FYI.

 

[Mike Arnold]

Anybody ran sr9009 that can share their results in comparison to GW? I no the oral doesn't absorb well, but I went with the transdermal version. Hoping it pans out.

A sterile version of SR9009 (as a research chem) would be ideal.

 

[G.I.Bro]

A sterile version of SR9009 (as a research chem) would be ideal.

Talk to the Pure Oil guys. They did Trest, Desoxy T cyp, sr9009 and other stuff in sterile oil. Brand out, but your margin will suck.

**broken link removed**

I really should be in this business.... But the risk V. reward isn't there. Chasing wambulances won't get me raided by DEA either.

 

[Mike Arnold]

Talk to the Pure Oil guys. They did Trest, Desoxy T cyp, sr9009 and other stuff in sterile oil. Brand out, but your margin will suck.

**broken link removed**

I really should be in this business.... But the risk V. reward isn't there. Chasing wambulances won't get me raided by DEA either.

I saw that. It is a rip-off. 200 mg for $35? Really? I know SR9009 is expensive, but it's not that expensive.

Pure Oils is breaking the law by selling trest and desoxy as research chems, as they are both controlled substances now. They have been since the last ASC Act was passed. A steroid no longer has to be listed by name in order to be a scheduled drug. With the way the last ASC Act was worded, any drug with a steroidal molecular backbone is illegal.

 

[MyNameIsJeff]

I saw that. It is a rip-off. 200 mg for $35? Really? I know SR9009 is expensive, but it's not that expensive.

Pure Oils is breaking the law by selling trest and desoxy as research chems, as they are both controlled substances now. They have been since the last ASC Act was passed. A steroid no longer has to be listed by name in order to be a scheduled drug. With the way the last ASC Act was worded, any drug with a steroidal molecular backbone is illegal.

INB4 someone buys their trest and then sues them for the psychological suffering caused by his balls shrinking

 

[G.I.Bro]

I saw that. It is a rip-off. 200 mg for $35? Really? I know SR9009 is expensive, but it's not that expensive.

Pure Oils is breaking the law by selling trest and desoxy as research chems, as they are both controlled substances now. They have been since the last ASC Act was passed. A steroid no longer has to be listed by name in order to be a scheduled drug. With the way the last ASC Act was worded, any drug with a steroidal molecular backbone is illegal.

Then get your own sterile oil product to market? That was my point! [emoji16]

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[Mike Arnold]

Then get your own sterile oil product to market? That was my point! [emoji16]

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

I am!

 

[Mike Arnold]

INB4 someone buys their trest and then sues them for the psychological suffering caused by his balls shrinking

I am OK with taking some risks, but anyone who sells controlled substances through research sites is courting disaster.

 

[Titan. gel]

We are selling cardarine now as we think its a good addition to most fat burning stacks, I see very little risk with it.

 

[Auris]

Cardarine is a PPAR agonist that has been shown to have positive effects on muscle building, endurance, increased HDL (good) and decreased LDL (bad) cholesterol, and body recomposition. Cardarine currently has no human studies, but rodent studies have been very encouraging.

When combined with exercise, GW-501516 combined with four weeks of running increased running time by 68%; running distance by 70%, and doubled overall muscular endurance0. Along with exercise, GW-501516 increased mitochondrial growth by 50%. Additionally, GW-501516 on its own has been found to activate many of the genes that activate when an organism goes for a run or exercises.

Cardarine is not hormonal so it is not suppressive of endogenous testosterone.