You've either taken the Evelyn Woodhead Speed Reading Course (if you're 41 yrs old, you'll know the ad's I'm referencing) or you could not have digested, much less read through all the "
CREDIBLE studies"
The Clinical Pharmacy Associates reviewed. They are
credible and are as legit as any studies go. It's amusing to consider the possibility they were reviewing Kindygarden classroom hypothizies? Please point us in the direction of other more "
CREDIBLE studies" which DO debunk the "
Clinical Pharmacy Associates" Drug Class Review. Where are they?
However to be blunt - I gave no "
opinion" sir. I merely referenced the
Clinical Pharmacy Associates summation. You have ignored
THEIR conclusion. Albeit thus far, you've danced around the fact, which by the way is common knowledge, that raised GH levels raises IGF-1 levels. This is science to which I'll no longer take the time pointing to the many other repeated and yes, "
CREDIBLE" studies declaring such.
Now I've narrowed you down to this -->> your rebut is that you do not believe that raised IGF-1 levels "
causes...sleep apnea" as their Review proclaimed. Right? This leaves you with actually reading the studies, once again either debunking them, perhaps because you think they're
uncredible (please show me which ones are and why) or you merely disagree for no factual reason whatsoever other than?? In other words, since you *feel* overproduction of IGF-1 does not "cause" sleep apnea, maybe it's time you explain why? I've explained why via their medical review it does,...now it's your turn.
You're kidding again, right? You believe because you (and not I) have a doctorate of Chiropractic makes you correct? Sorry, it doesn't work that way. However I'm 46 yrs. old and I've mentioned in other posts what I do full time:
Security cameras, CCTV cameras, Security camera, Surveillance camera
Yes it's unrelated to BB'ing, but again is not a requirement to spouting off "
credible" studies you seem to be ignorant of. Now if you're asking me what my I.Q. is? You don't want to know.
We keep saying the same things over and over again, so this is my last -- according to the Clinical Pharmacy Associates summation, it's not "theory",
it's their conclusion. NOT MINE.
Now this did bring a slight chuckle.
Anyone who knows me or my posts, like
DatBtrue, I'll always reference science and I'll always have data to back. The user which rebuts if left contesting
CREDIBLE STUDIES which I'm swamped/inundated with.
Good day.