T Nation

Dbossa, Interviews About AIs?


I have a question for you. But first I’d like to thank you for all the effort you put into this forum and your YouTube channel! I respect your passion and desire to reveal the truth. If it weren’t for you, many of us would still be drinking warm lemon water with a splash of boron.

My question is regarding your YouTube channel. The doctors you interview and affiliate with are clearly against managing estrogen with an AI. However, it seems there’s a decent percentage of well respected doctors in the field who utilize AI’s.

Have these doctors not been encountered by you when setting up interviews? Do you intentionally avoid them considering your own stance? Or am I mistaken and they’re hard to find or don’t exist?

I acknowledge I could be wrong. I self medicate and don’t speak to doctors. However, I’m led to believe by the information I gather from several forums, that many well known doctors regularly include AIs in their protocols. If this is this case, I think it’d be of great value to interview/debate a couple of them on your YouTube channel.



Hey Mike,

Trust me when I say I’ve tried. One example was Dr Rand McLain. I added him as a friend on FB, which he accepted. Then asked if he might want to come on to discuss his stance on AI use, as he wants to keep everyone between 20-30. He read the message and immediately unfriended me. I’ve reached out to a few others who declined to be interviewed. I’m not quite sure why they would if they are so convinced of their position on this.

If you DO know of a doc that would like to be interviewed on this subject, then absolutely let them know that they are more than welcome.

Contrary to what some believe here, I don’t shy away from any subject and very much speak my mind when required. I just want to see the evidence and then you can change my mind. If I have a mountain of evidence demonstrating something in particular, needless to say your evidence will need to be extraordinary.

I am ALWAYS willing to change my mind as new info becomes available.

Thanks for the straight forward answer and logical explanation.

1 Like

I’ve always wondered if the whole change on e2/AI use puts them between a rock and a hard place.

Ie they either keep doing that they’re doing and keep adamantly saying it’s the best way to manage their e2 or they have to admit what they’ve been doing for years was wrong. Obviously it seems like that is what they should do, but I always wondered if it would open them up to malpractice suits, etc which is why they don’t want to be on YouTube being persuaded or being on the record on their views in case they are later used against them.

Or they just don’t like you, Danny. Haha.


That about sums it up, Dr. Rand MccLain probably thought it was too much risk. I don’t think Danny would use it against anyone in that manner, I think Danny just wants to start the decision about the dangers of AI usage.


Hi dbossa, I have watched a few of podcasts. I know you say you don’t even test for E2 levels anymore. I was wondering if any of the doctors in your group have said what they like to keep E2 at compared to Total T like percentage wise. At 50mg of TestC EOD my TT was 1577 123-813 ng/dl, FT was 35.5 5.1-41.5 pg/ml and E2 was 99.5 0-45 pg/ml. I have since reduced my dosage to 40mg EOD to try and bring the E2 down a little. But I think I was feeling better at 50 eod.

I’ve watched some videos and have seen Danny speak of the Tons of research… but I feel the research is anecdotal. I’d prefer published research that I can read instead of a doctor saying based on asking guys how they feel blah blah :unamused:.

1 Like

I guess you’re not in our Facebook group. If you were, you would have seen the files section. We have research and studies posted in that group several times a day. So, no, not just anecdotal. Actual literature backed up with what the physicians are seeing in practice.

Then go back up. The e2 isn’t an issue. Danny has to be tired of saying that, no offense to you in particular

1 Like

I am.

Not sure how much longer I’ll last here.

No, I’m not on your fb group. Post The research here.

Don’t forget to add That doctors that no longer prescribe ai used to either take an ai or prescribe it. Not all but enough to realize they weren’t anti ai all the way.

@mtman Regardless of what a doctor says we have to look at the information we have on estrogen. All the TRT studies are without an ai. We don’t have studies where it says “we found that men needed an ai with their therapy. Because it caused x y z”.

The guys who argue about using an ai are standing on shaky ground. They don’t have any literature form the medical community To back it up.

This is why the doctors won’t meet with danny. They use it because that’s all they have done. They don’t want to get into a debate on a subject they have zero evidence to help them.

Hope that helps you understand why and why and etc

When I started TRT I had a gut feeling that I should only take T and the body will do the rest. I was scared to crash e2 and eventually I found the guys talking about no ai needed. Since then I’ve never had a need for an ai. If anything I would want more for better libido erecting brain heart and nine health :slight_smile:


The real question is what research do you or the ai users have to back up their usage? Besides anecdotal evidence?

Honestly the amount of clarity of whether it’s needed is found when looking at TRT studies. The fact that they don’t use ai when running these studies is enough to realize the need isn’t there.

Estrogen is our friend and that’s what all the literature points to.

I just couldn’t find anything to convince me that ai are needed. Only shallow answers from guys on the internet and doctors never could tell me why. Pretty sad.

This is the tune ai debates always end up with. Show me evidence. Yet the guys defending ai use never have their own.

Weird right? Ever thought of it that way?

That actually doesn’t mean that, you wouldn’t use extra variables in a study. It makes it too hard to get conclusions. Not voicing a strong opinion either way, just saying that that is not a strong argument.
Just for fun, I’ll throw you this study:
anastrozole and hypercalcemia

1 Like

This study shows estrogen is a double edge sword, we see men with estrogen dominance all the time and some of them are affected by higher estrogen in relation to testosterone and this study is interesting to say the least.

Estradiol is an independent risk factor for organic erectile dysfunction in eugonadal young men.

Erectile dysfunction attributable to testosterone deficiency is less common in young males, and the effect of estradiol on erectile function in eugonadal young males is unclear. We analyzed data from 195 male participants, including 143 eugonadal patients with erectile dysfunction and 52 healthy men. To distinguish psychogenic and organic erectile dysfunction, penile rigidity was measured using the nocturnal penile tumescence rigidity test. Serum levels of sexual hormones were quantified by electrochemiluminescence, and penile vascular status was assessed by penile color Doppler ultrasound. Both serum estradiol levels and the ratio of estradiol to testosterone were higher in patients with organic erectile dysfunction than in patients with psychogenic erectile dysfunction or healthy controls. Organic erectile dysfunction was negatively associated with estradiol levels and the ratio of estradiol to testosterone, and estradiol was the only significant risk factor for organic erectile dysfunction (odds ratio: 1.094; 95% confidence interval: 1.042-1.149, P = 0.000). Moreover, serum estradiol levels were negatively correlated with penile rigidity. Serum estradiol levels were higher and penile rigidity was lower in patients with venous erectile dysfunction than in patients with nonvascular erectile dysfunction. We conclude that elevated serum estradiol levels may impair erectile function and may be involved in the pathogenesis of organic erectile dysfunction in eugonadal young men.


You would have a point if you worded your response differently. However, I don’t tell people they need an AI, nor do I use one as directed by my doc. And since I’m not suggesting the use of an AI, your argument is lost to me.

Danny and others scream about not needing an AI. Well show me the studies. I’d ask the same of anyone telling people to get on an AI. Had you worded your response to address that catch 22, I’d agree with you.

AFAIK, there is nothing research related to suggest the use or dis-use. Absent of any research either way, I’d lean towards no use. But Danny talks about tons of research, so I have every right to ask to see it versus taking his word that it exists.


Usually you’d want to see studies showing you need to take something before you take it. Taking something because you believe there isn’t literature saying you shouldn’t doesn’t make any sense.

To the OP many docs prescribe AI’s because the patients expect them. Otherwise they’ll go on reddit, see people get blasted for not taking them and get another doc thinking he isn’t in the know. My clinic told me that and they are all about the money honey. It’ll change eventually. When I first started reading this forum there were many pro AI vets but it’s changed dramatically in the past few years. It’ll eventually reverberate to the other forums as people try without them and feel better.

Lol! Do you have any idea how much of it there is? You want me to go through all the topics and extract everything just for your benefit? Any idea how long that would take me? No thanks. It’s all there. You can create a fake Facebook profile and go see it for yourself. I have zero interest in maintaining two separate repositories of research in two separate locations.

You’re missing the point, again.

This is really really simple.

Find a study in the past 80 years that demonstrates E2 needing to be blocked or controlled. There are none? Why? Because it is unnecessary.

If you can find me ONE, we can have a discussion. If you can’t, it means you are unable to provide evidence that it should be managed or controlled. Got it?

This is a man who is not on TRT with low levels of testosterone. We are referring to men ON TRT who have sufficient levels of androgens. Which I think I’ve repeated at least 500 times but you still can’t understand.

Is this the best you’ve got? The same study that we’ve already dismissed over and over for obvious reasons but you insist on continuing to post the same one?

@systemlord you really try to come across as intelligent and all knowing especially with the nickname you chose which the newbies find very misleading, but to the rest of us in the know the content is laughable at best. Again, you are demonstrating zero understanding as to how to interpret the literature. You’re seeing one sentence that states ‘estrogen is bad’ without having read the rest of it. They focused on estrogen as being the culprit with men than have an androgen deficiency which is USELESS.

Find me ONE where the men do NOT have an androgen deficiency (men on TRT). This is the topic. This is the discussion. This is what you are trying to debate and are failing miserably. You have NOTHING to support your argument here.

You guys are making the claim it needs to be blocked or controlled with men on TRT. I am stating there is zero evidence to support it. Until you can demonstrate this, which your can’t, your position is false.

Basic logic here guys. But now a low IQ guy who can’t grasp basic logic will state that I’m stupid or what I just wrote is stupid, or ask me to provide evidence when I’m not the one making a claim.

1 Like