Cardarine talk

[oxandrin]

Your argument is that the 3 clinical trials, whose durations were in terms of weeks, that did not measure any parameter of carcinogenicity as an outcome, are not only good evidence that cardarine is not carcinogenic in humans, but better than the standard that is actually used to determine that outcome?

Do you have evidence that the 2-year rodent carcinogenicity bioassays were susceptible to this theoretical genetic drift problem by actually sourcing from different breeders or colonies?

Have you considered the fact that if there was consensus that the carcinogenicity standard was not a good one; it wouldn't be used as a standard?

Im not sure what you mean by evidence and sourcing different breeders. If you repharase im happy to address that.

With regards to considering the standard, i was suggesting it could be reconsidered and evaluated by the scientific community. I dont have that answer, nor do I know how they could even approach looking at new candidates to use as subjects. I just think its worth exploring. Maybe even AI takes over at some point and we dont need the rodent subjects.

I did see someone else said that cardarine is "highly carcinogenic" . I wasnt aware of a table or scale which labels the level of carcinogenicity. I'm also looking at a bottle of protein powder as i type this reply and there is a prop warning from California stating the product is carcinogenic. Would consuming just one shake 3x per week lead to cancer? What about 3 scoops twice per day, or any other combination? Or is it just take it once and your looking at a probable cancer diagnosis later in life that can only be traced back to this protein. Nothing else contributed. Much like the smoking is carcinogenic argument, i do believe that other factors contribute to a drug going from carcinogenic to developing into cancer such as certain predispositions, genetic mutations, multiple factors, drugs, environmental exposures coinciding simultaneously with the use of the studied drug, administration, etc. It is impossible to evaluate all of these factors together at the same time therefore i dont see any possible way to say one way or another if a drug that has carcinogenic properties will lead to someone developing cancer because a rodent taking nothing but the said drug developed cancer. Its far too complicated for my mind to unpack.

 

[5Noles]

Your argument is that the 3 clinical trials, whose durations were in terms of weeks, that did not measure any parameter of carcinogenicity as an outcome, are not only good evidence that cardarine is not carcinogenic in humans, but better than the standard that is actually used to determine that outcome?

Do you have evidence that the 2-year rodent carcinogenicity bioassays were susceptible to this theoretical genetic drift problem by actually sourcing from different breeders or colonies?

Have you considered the fact that if there was consensus that the carcinogenicity standard was not a good one; it wouldn't be used as a standard?

Thx for the great information TypeII.

These guys don’t even read your articles. They get their information from the internet…….I mean real world experience. Lol

They can’t understand that it takes 50 years to research a compound for 50 years. And that no reasonable researcher would use humans.
Hell, when you sight an actual study done with humans over 30-50 years they immediately start in with well those subjects are blah blah blah.

 

[pickapeck]

You're saying in mice studies to determine carcinogenicity the universally accepted model is 100+ x's the human dosage?

That is not correct. See
Guidance for Industry Estimating the Maximum Safe Starting Dose in Initial Clinical Trials for Therapeutics in Adult Healthy Volunteers published by Center for Drug Evaluation and Research 2005 version Table 1. The general conversion to rat is 6.2 times human dose.

 

[Type-IIx]

Im not sure what you mean by evidence and sourcing different breeders. If you repharase im happy to address that.

With regards to considering the standard, i was suggesting it could be reconsidered and evaluated by the scientific community. I dont have that answer, nor do I know how they could even approach looking at new candidates to use as subjects. I just think its worth exploring. Maybe even AI takes over at some point and we dont need the rodent subjects.

I did see someone else said that cardarine is "highly carcinogenic" . I wasnt aware of a table or scale which labels the level of carcinogenicity. I'm also looking at a bottle of protein powder as i type this reply and there is a prop warning from California stating the product is carcinogenic. Would consuming just one shake 3x per week lead to cancer? What about 3 scoops twice per day, or any other combination? Or is it just take it once and your looking at a probable cancer diagnosis later in life that can only be traced back to this protein. Nothing else contributed. Much like the smoking is carcinogenic argument, i do believe that other factors contribute to a drug going from carcinogenic to developing into cancer such as certain predispositions, genetic mutations, multiple factors, drugs, environmental exposures coinciding simultaneously with the use of the studied drug, administration, etc. It is impossible to evaluate all of these factors together at the same time therefore i dont see any possible way to say one way or another if a drug that has carcinogenic properties will lead to someone developing cancer because a rodent taking nothing but the said drug developed cancer. Its far too complicated for my mind to unpack.

Sure, to rephrase, do you have evidence that the bioassay that GSK ran was actually affected by sourcing from different breeders/colonies?

 

[Type-IIx]

I’m with you on this topic, but let me take it from another angle…as an investor. I’m a big investor in small cap bios (not the GSK was a small cap). They could have made a ton of money off of this drug.

Statins came out in early 00’s (or maybe 05ish I don’t totally recall) and for me Cardarine works better than statins on my lipids. GSK could have potentially had the most impactful lipid modulator on the market + the impacts on insulin sensitivity.

From 2005 to now this could have been a $30-$50 billion drug during a time when this sort of drug was literally craved by the medical community.

Along with the info you posted, this is why I decided never to use it again.

It feels like as a bodybuilder community we are trying to convince ourselves it’s safe, but pharma companies don’t turn down billions revenue for nothing. And just as an fyi most pharma companies would agree that to make $50b they had to pay back $1-$6b down the road due to sides so there is an amount of risk many will take. This drug wasn’t even in the “borderline zone” for safety.

Yes, great point.

 

[Reno911]

That is not correct. See
Guidance for Industry Estimating the Maximum Safe Starting Dose in Initial Clinical Trials for Therapeutics in Adult Healthy Volunteers published by Center for Drug Evaluation and Research 2005 version Table 1. The general conversion to rat is 6.2 times human dose.

I did look up the table but it doesn't appear that the 6.2 is in regards to Cardarine. I'm not sure how 6.2x can be the same for all drugs/compounds across the board.

Another thing to remember is Cardarine is not known to cause cancer in monkeys or humans- only in rats.

 

[narta]

I’m with you on this topic, but let me take it from another angle…as an investor. I’m a big investor in small cap bios (not the GSK was a small cap). They could have made a ton of money off of this drug.

Statins came out in early 00’s (or maybe 05ish I don’t totally recall) and for me Cardarine works better than statins on my lipids. GSK could have potentially had the most impactful lipid modulator on the market + the impacts on insulin sensitivity.

From 2005 to now this could have been a $30-$50 billion drug during a time when this sort of drug was literally craved by the medical community.

Along with the info you posted, this is why I decided never to use it again.

It feels like as a bodybuilder community we are trying to convince ourselves it’s safe, but pharma companies don’t turn down billions revenue for nothing. And just as an fyi most pharma companies would agree that to make $50b they had to pay back $1-$6b down the road due to sides so there is an amount of risk many will take. This drug wasn’t even in the “borderline zone” for safety.

Exactly. Medical community and big pharma only care about revenue and not health. They are treating never curing -if they can. Statins are big business. When ALL stating patents expire then I am certain a new patented solution will appear.

This is not to say that cardarine is safe or non carcinogenic, but let's not kid ourselves that the medical community and big pharma give a flying f*** about health.

 

[oxandrin]

More importantly is the big leap so many of you are taking with respect to a carcinogen leading to cancer. See link below.

"Any substance that causes cancer is known as a carcinogen. But simply because a substance has been designated as a carcinogen does not mean that the substance will necessarily cause cancer"

Environmental Carcinogens and Cancer Risk

Factors are discussed that may influence whether a person exposed to a cancer-causing substance (carcinogen) will develop cancer.

www.cancer.gov

 

[Type-IIx]

More importantly is the big leap so many of you are taking with respect to a carcinogen leading to cancer. See link below.

"Any substance that causes cancer is known as a carcinogen. But simply because a substance has been designated as a carcinogen does not mean that the substance will necessarily cause cancer"

Environmental Carcinogens and Cancer Risk

Factors are discussed that may influence whether a person exposed to a cancer-causing substance (carcinogen) will develop cancer.

www.cancer.gov

Right.

Tobacco smoke contains 79 carcinogens.

Only a minority of those who smoke a pack daily over decades are ever diagnosed with lung cancer.

So, there is a huge leap of faith involved by discouraging tobacco use because of lung cancer risk, also, by this logic - because it does not assure or guarantee ("necessarily cause") cancer.

 

[cmryan]

Right.

Tobacco smoke contains 79 carcinogens.

Only a minority of those who smoke a pack daily over decades are ever diagnosed with lung cancer.

So, there is a huge leap of faith involved by discouraging tobacco use because of lung cancer risk, also, by this logic - because it does not assure or guarantee ("necessarily cause") cancer.

Beat me to it. Also stated better than I would have lol.

 

[b-boy]

I’m with you on this topic, but let me take it from another angle…as an investor. I’m a big investor in small cap bios (not the GSK was a small cap). They could have made a ton of money off of this drug.

Statins came out in early 00’s (or maybe 05ish I don’t totally recall) and for me Cardarine works better than statins on my lipids. GSK could have potentially had the most impactful lipid modulator on the market + the impacts on insulin sensitivity.

From 2005 to now this could have been a $30-$50 billion drug during a time when this sort of drug was literally craved by the medical community.

Along with the info you posted, this is why I decided never to use it again.

It feels like as a bodybuilder community we are trying to convince ourselves it’s safe, but pharma companies don’t turn down billions revenue for nothing. And just as an fyi most pharma companies would agree that to make $50b they had to pay back $1-$6b down the road due to sides so there is an amount of risk many will take. This drug wasn’t even in the “borderline zone” for safety.

 

[b-boy]

Right.

Tobacco smoke contains 79 carcinogens.

Only a minority of those who smoke a pack daily over decades are ever diagnosed with lung cancer.

So, there is a huge leap of faith involved by discouraging tobacco use because of lung cancer risk, also, by this logic - because it does not assure or guarantee ("necessarily cause") cancer.

My mother took that chance of smoking her entire life and died of LUNG CANCER. So I'm not too keen on taking cancer risks with cardarine

 

[iron lifter]

if you just want lipid boost and endurance is 10mg enough or need 20?

 

[jeroendebleser]

I’m with you on this topic, but let me take it from another angle…as an investor. I’m a big investor in small cap bios (not the GSK was a small cap). They could have made a ton of money off of this drug.

Statins came out in early 00’s (or maybe 05ish I don’t totally recall) and for me Cardarine works better than statins on my lipids. GSK could have potentially had the most impactful lipid modulator on the market + the impacts on insulin sensitivity.

From 2005 to now this could have been a $30-$50 billion drug during a time when this sort of drug was literally craved by the medical community.

Along with the info you posted, this is why I decided never to use it again.

It feels like as a bodybuilder community we are trying to convince ourselves it’s safe, but pharma companies don’t turn down billions revenue for nothing. And just as an fyi most pharma companies would agree that to make $50b they had to pay back $1-$6b down the road due to sides so there is an amount of risk many will take. This drug wasn’t even in the “borderline zone” for safety.

Exactly!

 

[jeroendebleser]

My mother took that chance of smoking her entire life and died of LUNG CANCER. So I'm not too keen on taking cancer risks with cardarine

My dad smoked for 50 years, quit 2 years ago and does now have lung cancer as well. I feel your pain

 

[Mufasa123]

My mother took that chance of smoking her entire life and died of LUNG CANCER. So I'm not too keen on taking cancer risks with cardarine

My mom's birthday was yesterday. Unfortunately she died of lung cancer as a lifetime smoker a year and a half ago.

I'm sitting on a decent amount of cardarine but once you understand that research... I too am not in any hurry to jump on it.

 

[jeroendebleser]

My mom's birthday was yesterday. Unfortunately she died of lung cancer as a lifetime smoker a year and a half ago.

I'm sitting on a decent amount of cardarine but once you understand that research... I too am not in any hurry to jump on it.

I wouldn't even consider it if I were you...

 

[5Noles]

My mother took that chance of smoking her entire life and died of LUNG CANCER. So I'm not too keen on taking cancer risks with cardarine

Sorry to hear about your mom! Apologies for jumping off topic, but every time I see someone post perfect blood work at the end of a blast, I can’t help but wonder what our mother’s blood work would have looked like after 8-16 weeks of smoking. Blood work is a useful tool but these things compound over time.

 

[pickapeck]

I did look up the table but it doesn't appear that the 6.2 is in regards to Cardarine. I'm not sure how 6.2x can be the same for all drugs/compounds across the board.

Another thing to remember is Cardarine is not known to cause cancer in monkeys or humans- only in rats.

These are general guidelines to the industry. Look to the actual studies for what was used and do the calculation for compound specific information.

 

[oxandrin]

It is so refreshing to see a thread with more back and forth without name calling and insults. We can actually get somewhere. Informed decisions must be behind strong convictions.