I’ve thought off and on about this feedback. Thank you for suggesting it and sharing your perspective. I know others have participated in the TRT credentials thread. Since this is an anonymous forum (at least one is given the option to be that and given the material some would not engage in discussion unless it was anonymous), providing any sort of credentials when discussing such a complex topic would seem potentially deceptive to me (appeal to authority). I know of no experts on this topic (elevated Hct with TRT and risks after 1, 5, 10, 20 years). The folks who I gravitate towards freely admit we don’t understand all aspects of it as it is very much an active area of research.
I’ve spoken with many very well-respected board certified medical providers. Some have worked at institutions that start with the letter M if one likes to drop names. Heck I have a couple of men’s health doctors who freely text me since they think I am much more knowledgeable/up to date on the research than they are. It’s that combination of theoretical knowledge and clinical experience that is so valuable which I seek out.
Note to the interested reader, I’ve created a separate thread for discussion/debate/examination of the literature around hematocrit elevated via TRT, and the merit of the idea that high altitude erythrocytosis gives a blanket justification for running Hct above range with TRT:
I hope the theory/mechanistic information can be debated freely without names being dropped as justification for the stance/position. I know this idea of “double blind” anonymous (both author and reviewer) peer review is being hotly debated currently in the academic community since currently most journals still identify the author(s) during the peer review process.
Take care.