LOL, damn bro. Let me preface my post by saying that It seems like you are taking my responses to these studies out of context or at least just taking them the wrong way all together. I was in NO WAY trying to say that this was blamed completely on test, or that tren was or was not a factor in this at all. I was never trying to prove you wrong at all. The main reason I posted these studies was out of sheer interest. I was researching the case that I am dealing with over Pubmed (since I am worried to shit with my situation right now and want to educate myself as much as possible on it) and these were some interesting studies that I felt some of the members may like to read. Now....on to your comments....
BrooklynBB said:
But the argument isn't whether or not any steroid could give you tumors in
the long run - I think this isn't the point. The point is which one is the most dangerous at the lowest dosages? And in the shortest amount of time. It seems that dose for dose tren is the strongest anabolic / androgenic out there and will cause the most problems with the lowest dose.
First of all, I did not know there was an argument here at all. I am hoping we are not arguing, because if we were, I was unaware of it
I agree with you about the tren being the strongest dose for dose. And yes, I believe it is probably the most dangerous... I, however, believe that these cases have more to do with estrogen than they do with androgens in the blood stream. I deduct this reasoning from the fact that adenomas in females have been linked mostly to oral contraceptives due to the amounts of estrogen they release into the bloodstream. Now, men and women are obviously COMPLETELY different, but if this is the case with females, I don't see why it wouldn't be a strong determining factor in males...at the very least.
BrooklynBB said:
True, but then you could find another person who took a few advil and developed a tumor because of an inherent sensitivity and your argument about androgens being the problem is moot. I prefer to look at studies with at least 50 participants or more, rather than doing a case study on a person-by-person basis, because this is how you can jump to conclusions without strong evidence.
I agree, I would rather look at studies with larger testing groups as well, but like I said these studies were posted out of sheer interest, nothing else. I though tsome of the studies may be interesting to read and help educate some members on the subject a little better. However, just because SOME of these journals were based on just ONE test subject, does not mean they should be entirely disregarded or not, at least, taken into some consideration.
Now, just so we are clear here.... I never had an argument. Everything I have been posting, and quite frankly, everything you have been posting is all speculation at this point. Neither of us are Ph.D's (at least i don't think) and neither of us are MD's (I don't think again). However, even if we were, I would still doubt that either of us would COMPLETELY know what was going on here. I base that last statement off the fact that most studies I have read even state that it is still unknown which factors may or may not contribute to the growth of these tumors. Sure, there is an idea, but they do not know why it happens in some, while others it doesn't nor do they know what special combination of any of the presumed culprits would be the FOR SURE equation for a cause such as this.
BrooklynBB said:
I feel you trying to reason out the Tren argument. I think it's pretty clear from your first statement that dose-for-dose tren is the most dangerous and obvious cause of liver problems. But you're using evidence that since one thing is anabolic / androgenic that somehow it's also a contributor. True, but that's not the same as saying tren is the worst.
No, you are completely wrong here. I am not trying to reason out the tren argument at all. Matter of fact, I do think tren is the worst. It is a VERY strong compound and has profound effects on the body it seems (from my personal experience and there experiences of others). But then again you have to think about this....many other people have used tren at doses WAYYY higher than myself and had no problems. This, at the same time, is also true if we are talking about the amounts of testosterone used by other bodybuilders (compared to the amounts used by myself). I am mainly just trying to find answeres for MY case in particular. Have you ever had something really bad happen to you and you don't know the reason why it happened? Or have you ever had no closure to something before? Yea, well this is what is going on with me. Not knowing why something happens, especially something bad, is very bothersome....at least to me.
BrooklynBB said:
I agree that it's not dose dependent: 75 - 150mg of tren is worse than 500mg testosterone. It's the substance that counts, not the amount of the dose in terms of mg.
I think you mis-interpreted what I wrote here. Actually I think you misinterpreted most of my posts on this thread based on your response LOL. The reason I said that it didn't seem to be dose dependent was for the fact that there are studies showing cases like this happening in people using VERY low dosages, and as well as cases with people using a higher dosing protocol. Therefore, prior susceptibility would seem to be an obvious cause. However, one thing that is common in all the studies is DURATION. All occurrences seemed to happen in people who were on for long periods of time....this includes myself and BN.
BrooklynBB said:
But I still think that your problems arose after the tren was added. You said 7 months after you stopped the tren you had issues, but prior to using tren you had no signs or issues whatsoever. So after a successful run of moderate dosing with no problems, in less than a year you're at risk for tumors? That's pointing to the tren in my opinion.
I think you are a little ignorant on this topic bro. For all I know, for all you know, or for all the doctors know, this thing could/probably has been growing inside me for quite some time. Baldnazi's doctor said to him that he suspected his lesion to be growing for years prior to it's rupture. The only reason I had issues 7 months AFTER using the tren was because this is when they were FOUND...BY CHANCE....no other reasons...not because of symtpoms/ "problems" or anything of that nature. If it weren't for the cat scan for my appendicitis I would still be clueless. Which leads me to believe that this thing started out very small and I seemed to have an increased susceptibility to it and it grew relatively fast over time.
Let me close this post by saying that it seems we are on different pages here. I understand this because the internet can be a very hard place to determine someones TONE when all you can do is READ their thoughts instead of actually hearing them speak them. I think you may have taken some of my posts the wrong way or thought that I was inferring something that I most certainly was not. This may even be the case with me, because based on the words I am reading that you have typed, I am sensing you to be a little argumentative or upset. If this is the case, then I would appreciate you explaining why, but if I am completely wrong here and am just mis-interpreting things (which is completely understandable given that this is the internet) then please just tell me and I will be fine with it. I would like to say though, that I agree with you on the tren!! lol