OK look...I'm not posting these threads for the sake of it. I'm definitely not doing it to to say 'I'm right. you're wrong'. I HAVE taken AAS, even though it was an accident. I experienced horrible bad side effects after only a few days.
Fortunately for me I had access (and still do) to pretty much every single academic journal in the world and I also have a couple of friends who are experts in biochemistry (one has PhD and was on the list for Nature's 'Top thirty scientists under thirty' and the other is a Reader in the field). As a result of having access to these resources I could quickly find out what I was actually taking and what the effects could be.
The reason that I'm posting this stuff is that without the access to resources that I had I might have stayed on M1T or even gone on to take full on AAS without appreciating what I was really doing. Very few people have access to the resources that I have and would not be able to make as informed decision as a result.
Sure, you could go on to a bodybuilding website and find 'info' on AAS and peptide hormones but you have to ask who's writing the info? Do they have a PhD in Biochemistry or similar? Or at least an MD who's an Endocrinologist? I doubt it. These sites will also be subject to something akin to 'survivors bias'. People who have been f**ked up by AAS are not going to be on these sites so all you will only hear from the people who didn't, or haven't, been f**ked by AAS so far.
I'm trying to provide a cautionary tale based on personal experience and academic research to explain my point. I'm not proud of taking M1T and can accept that I'm going to receive hate for it (fair enough I was young, dumb and nieve) but I feel quite strongly about this and will stick to my case. In order to argue my case I will revert to peer reviewed academic journals because that is the best source of reliable technical info available IMO. Yes, as someone finishing up a PhD and who has been published in academic journals I might be biased but I doubt you'd ever find any expert in a field who thinks that there is anything more reliable than a peer reviewed academic jouranl paper.
Back to Nolvadex as an anti-estorgen... its not... it actually increases estrogen in the bloodstream. I'm not entirely sure what the point you're making with the book link is but you need to understand that I'm not attacking you. I am an academic and the way we explain our points is through our own research which is inevitably related to other's research (so you reference them accordingly).
My point that estrogen is a SERM is still correct IMO. If you can find info from a credible resource that shows that I'm wrong I'll happily accept that and be grateful for you sharing your research/knowledge.Thats the way research should work.
