• All new members please introduce your self here and welcome to the board:
    http://www.professionalmuscle.com/forums/showthread.php?t=259
Buy Needles And Syringes With No Prescription
M4B Store Banner
intex
Riptropin Store banner
Generation X Bodybuilding Forum
Buy Needles And Syringes With No Prescription
Buy Needles And Syringes With No Prescription
Mysupps Store Banner
IP Gear Store Banner
PM-Ace-Labs
Ganabol Store Banner
Spend $100 and get bonus needles free at sterile syringes
Professional Muscle Store open now
sunrise2
PHARMAHGH1
kinglab
ganabol2
Professional Muscle Store open now
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
azteca
granabolic1
napsgear-210x65
advertise1
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
ashp210
UGFREAK-banner-PM
esquel
YMSGIF210x65-Banner
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store

Parenabol/EQ and "Gurus"

To save time. Please send me over studies you want me to reveiw. I will get back with you asap.
I'm not discrediting transgenic murine models don't hold value. Replication in humans is far, far away from being a suitable mimic to fully extrapolate to humans.

Humanising the mouse genome piece by piece

Review Article Open Access Published: 23 April 2019

In modelling human disease in an age of personalised medicine, humanisation of a single allele will not be sufficient to address the great variability between individuals, including response to treatment and clinical trajectories. This remains a challenge for mouse modelling in general, not just for creating genomically humanised models. Furthermore, humanisation of a single gene may not be sufficient to understand biology or pathology—particularly when protein complexes or ligand–receptor interactions are involved. Thus, at a minimum, the between-species conservation of these interactions should be considered. Future approaches to humanised mouse models may lie in humanising entire networks or pathways.


----
 
I'm not discrediting transgenic murine models don't hold value. Replication in humans is far, far away from being a suitable mimic to fully extrapolate to humans.

Humanising the mouse genome piece by piece

Review Article Open Access Published: 23 April 2019




----

I agree with you that you cannot duplicate consistency in humans that was discovered in rodents. Discovery in rodents takes experiments in humans to confirm success. I also agree that some discoveries should be considered void that were discovered in rodents. However, I do believe that rodent testing has showed some value in medical history such as humanized monoclonal antibodies.

Research in a chimpanzee is most ideal. However, this is not as "humane" for society and economical for institutions.
 
What I dont understand is how Trenbolone is being offered up as being safer to take than EQ. To me that is just ludicrous.
Because it is the shit for people who can use it!!!
 
This is the part where I realize that my common sense is impeccable, but my scientific approach is limited. Great conversation and I always love to read these posts and let people who have more book smart educate me.

This is what I cling to the most is free knowledge that I can use. I have started multiple successful businesses with never stepping into one college. I hope people appreciate this forum like I do and all this education for free.
 
Maybe you would be enlightened to know that we are actively inserting human genes into rats and raising rat populations with human genes to better understand medicine. That means rats have value in human medicine. Granted there is more research done when research passes scientific studies in rats. To dismiss animal studies passing research "as only more research needs to be done" is ignorant.
It's not ignorant, and i'm not totally dismissing them either. They are a stepping block for further research to be done. Something that occurs in these models have shown almost dick when extrapolated to humans, as it pertains to a lot of what we are discussing. And no, i'm not saying it hasn't produced nothing. I don't really care about inserting human genes into rats, yes that's cool, but what has that proved as it relates to humans? I'm actually asking because i'm interested, i'm not a know it all. Having "value" is pretty broad, again I never said there was 'no' value, but how has "inserting genes into rats" helped with anything we are discussing. Animal models have susceptibilities to organ damage that isn't seen in humans, so you can't always extrapolate the data.

Sorry, I see you and Stewie discussing this....

Stewie just wrote:
I'm not discrediting transgenic murine models don't hold value. Replication in humans is far, far away from being a suitable mimic to fully extrapolate to humans.

You responded:
I agree with you that you cannot duplicate consistency in humans that was discovered in rodents. Discovery in rodents takes experiments in humans to confirm success. I also agree that some discoveries should be considered void that were discovered in rodents. However, I do believe that rodent testing has showed some value in medical history such as humanized monoclonal antibodies.

Maybe I didn't word it perfectly, but i'm pretty sure that was my point in this. I've never discounted ALL research in rodent/murine models, but how does something that occurs in animal models not warrant more research in humans....that is what I meant by there needing more research to be done. You even admitted in your response to Stewie above that duplicating consistency is an issue.

I'm pretty much certain we are all agreeing here. I will admit that I don't hold as much faith in animal/rodent studies, and you can still call me ignorant though.
 
This is the part where I realize that my common sense is impeccable, but my scientific approach is limited. Great conversation and I always love to read these posts and let people who have more book smart educate me.

This is what I cling to the most is free knowledge that I can use. I have started multiple successful businesses with never stepping into one college. I hope people appreciate this forum like I do and all this education for free.

These always end up being the best threads:)
 
Is Lats co-owner/founder? My bad if he is, that's cool. I thought BigA was the sole owner/founder.
 
It's not ignorant, and i'm not totally dismissing them either. They are a stepping block for further research to be done. Something that occurs in these models have shown almost dick when extrapolated to humans, as it pertains to a lot of what we are discussing. And no, i'm not saying it hasn't produced nothing. I don't really care about inserting human genes into rats, yes that's cool, but what has that proved as it relates to humans? I'm actually asking because i'm interested, i'm not a know it all. Having "value" is pretty broad, again I never said there was 'no' value, but how has "inserting genes into rats" helped with anything we are discussing. Animal models have susceptibilities to organ damage that isn't seen in humans, so you can't always extrapolate the data.

Sorry, I see you and Stewie discussing this....

Stewie just wrote:


You responded:


Maybe I didn't word it perfectly, but i'm pretty sure that was my point in this. I've never discounted ALL research in rodent/murine models, but how does something that occurs in animal models not warrant more research in humans....that is what I meant by there needing more research to be done. You even admitted in your response to Stewie above that duplicating consistency is an issue.

I'm pretty much certain we are all agreeing here. I will admit that I don't hold as much faith in animal/rodent studies, and you can still call me ignorant though.
I respond to you tomorrow as I am passing out. East coast time. Rodent discoveries always warrant more research in humans. However, we don't study AAS in humans.
 
I respond to you tomorrow as I am passing out. East coast time. Rodent discoveries always warrant more research in humans. However, we don't study AAS in humans.
No worries man, I thought I deleted my whole response to you and hadn't even proof read it, then I couldn't find it, and now it's past the time to correct anything. I'm afraid to look at it now...i'm tired too. lol.
 
The fact that we don’t currently study certain AAS in humans doesn’t mean that rats are evidence of what happens when humans take them. It simply means that the actual evidence we have is from blood work and experience from the HUMANS that have and do use them.
 
The fact that we don’t currently study certain AAS in humans doesn’t mean that rats are evidence of what happens when humans take them. It simply means that the actual evidence we have is from blood work and experience from the HUMANS that have and do use them.
Blood work is bullshit for EQ unless you already have kidney damage.

There are enough success stories that people are optimistic, but not everything that will work in the animals will work in people.
 
Because it is the shit for people who can use it!!!
Maybe Eq isn't safe for the kidneys, but it sure as hell is safer overall than trenbolone. Both are meant for animals only too. Trenbolone has to be one of the most dangerous injectable steroids. Terrible for the cardiovascular system in every way. To recommend that people take it is irresponsible.
 
Maybe Eq isn't safe for the kidneys, but it sure as hell is safer overall than trenbolone. Both are meant for animals only too. Trenbolone has to be one of the most dangerous injectable steroids. Terrible for the cardiovascular system in every way. To recommend that people take it is irresponsible.
To recommend any AAS is irresponsible
 
Maybe Eq isn't safe for the kidneys, but it sure as hell is safer overall than trenbolone. Both are meant for animals only too. Trenbolone has to be one of the most dangerous injectable steroids. Terrible for the cardiovascular system in every way. To recommend that people take it is irresponsible.
to be fair, in the materials I've read on his site, he recommends a 50-100 mg per week dosage of tren. Enough to see some of the unique benefits tren offers, but at a threshold below where problems starts.
 
The fact that we don’t currently study certain AAS in humans doesn’t mean that rats are evidence of what happens when humans take them. It simply means that the actual evidence we have is from blood work and experience from the HUMANS that have and do use them.
I worked in the labs for Sterling Winthrop in the 80s. There was an old guy there that worked with rodents and steroids. They studied them in rats and hamsters. He said those fuckers were mean as hell and would turn around and bite all the time. The hamsters were the worst because they have almost no neck so hard to hold and control the head and could reach around and bite real nasty. That must have been fun times watching over a bunch of angry jacked rodents. Kind of like managing a hardrore gym.
 
to be fair, in the materials I've read on his site, he recommends a 50-100 mg per week dosage of tren. Enough to see some of the unique benefits tren offers, but at a threshold below where problems starts.
I think Serge Nubret lived on the stuff, Tren Hex. He had a stroke in his 70s I think and he was still on.
 
I think Serge Nubret lived on the stuff, Tren Hex. He had a stroke in his 70s I think and he was still on.
Serge also loved thyroid cream I forget who was talking about it but they said he would lather it on. What was that stuff called
 
Maybe Eq isn't safe for the kidneys, but it sure as hell is safer overall than trenbolone. Both are meant for animals only too. Trenbolone has to be one of the most dangerous injectable steroids. Terrible for the cardiovascular system in every way. To recommend that people take it is irresponsible.
To not read the man's content and see what exactly he recommends is irresponsible! He recommends a dosage of 50-100mg per week. Typical bodybuilder and gym rat dosages are 75-100 mg EOD, he is recommending 25mg or less EOD...pretty big fucking difference!
 
To not read the man's content and see what exactly he recommends is irresponsible! He recommends a dosage of 50-100mg per week. Typical bodybuilder and gym rat dosages are 75-100 mg EOD, he is recommending 25mg or less EOD...pretty big fucking difference!
If that's the case, I didn't know that, then that is certainly a reasonable dosage. Low dose on other steroids is going to be safe too. 100 mg/ wk anything is ok in my book.
 
to be fair, in the materials I've read on his site, he recommends a 50-100 mg per week dosage of tren. Enough to see some of the unique benefits tren offers, but at a threshold below where problems starts.
I used 100 mg/ wk at one time and can attest personally to the fact that it had beneficial effects to muscle building.
 

Staff online

  • Big A
    IFBB PRO/NPC JUDGE/Administrator
  • pesty4077
    Moderator/ Featured Member / Kilo Klub

Forum statistics

Total page views
558,099,010
Threads
135,764
Messages
2,768,803
Members
160,344
Latest member
Punisher13420
NapsGear
HGH Power Store email banner
your-raws
Prowrist straps store banner
infinity
FLASHING-BOTTOM-BANNER-210x131
raws
Savage Labs Store email
Syntherol Site Enhancing Oil Synthol
aqpharma
yourmuscleshop210x131
hulabs
ezgif-com-resize-2-1
MA Research Chem store banner
MA Supps Store Banner
volartek
Keytech banner
musclechem
Godbullraw-bottom-banner
Injection Instructions for beginners
Knight Labs store email banner
3
ashp131
YMS-210x131-V02
Back
Top