T Nation

Livestream Debate Between Danny Bossa and Viking Alternative Medicine

For anyone interested in the AI/No AI debate:

Saturday, November 21st, 2020 at 11am EST

Def gonna be watching this one!


It’s on now. Civil, so far

1 Like

Stayed civil the whole time. Very impressed

Watched it.

Danny need to be able to provide studies where they dont use AI dosages of 7mg of week (or similar) to convince anybody with an analytical mind.

Also comes off too biased and desperate to prove his point.

The argument of: “Lots is bad, so a little bit is a little bit bad” is not legitimate, as too much water will kill you, reasonable amount of absolutely needed.

If the doc had been, how do I say it, more “aggressive” he would have crushed Danny in this debate but it seemed like he was a nice one and didnt want them to end up on bad terms.

Again: This is not a question about 0mg of AI vs 7mg (which is a redicilous dosage for any guy on TRT), Its a question about: 0mg of AI vs 0.5 or 0.25 a week.

With that said: Danny repeated “Not a single one!”, “not a single study!”, “not a single person” numerous times, again: makes him come off as desperate.

Work on those, and try to place yourself in the mind of the person u are debating, and u will win more people over.

1 Like

But that’s the thing. There isn’t a single study out there that demonstrates this. How can I word that fact without sounding ‘desperate’ as you’re saying. There are none. What am I supposed to do about that? I have to bring it up, don’t I? Every study I have shows benefits. We see it in practice. In ever study that it is reduced, you lose those benefits. I had stacks of studies sitting on my desk and I knew I wouldn’t be able to go through them. When I asked him to provide just one study that showed a benefit he didn’t have one. You’d think that this would be the type of study he would have brought to the debate. The problem is: no such studies exist.

The toxicity studies had to do with women and they use higher dosages so I agreed to remove them from the discussion. ALL of the studies I had regarding estradiol were specifically for MEN. All of them showed benefits by raising estradiol. None showed benefits when lowering estradiol.

If you’d like, find a study where they gave an AI to men on TRT and it improved their health, regardless of dose, and post it.

Find a study where they lowered estradiol (regardless of the method) and it improved health.

You’re giving me advice as to how I could have better done the debate. Answer the two questions above by providing evidence to those. There aren’t any. That’s why I said, as you stated, “Not a single one!”, “not a single study!”, “not a single person” because that’s what the studies showed.

Also feel free to provide evidence to the benefit of taking even just 0.25mg a week of arimidex.

If you drive e2 to <5pg/mL, you’re going to lose benefits. The studies show that, but I don’t think that’s the real argument.

Is a little bit better than none at all, or vice versa? Hard to use studies to back that up, but real world experience can help

That is NOT what the studies are showing. We are not talking about crashing estradiol levels which brings obvious harm that all of us have encountered. The more we raise estradiol the more the health benefits improve. Every study shows the exact same thing. There are no studies that show health benefits by lowering estradiol by even the tiniest degree. If you believe there are, please provide just one.

Real world experience meaning blaming issues on estradiol instead of the things that are actually causing the issue? Then you’re making an assumption that is in direct contradiction with science.

Did you read the study Rouzier attached to that email you posted? Highest e2 in the non-AI group was 35pg/mL. Highest e2 in the AI group was <5pg/mL. It doesn’t take a whole study to know which group of guys is going to feel good and which aren’t.

I had about 200 papers on my desk during that livestream. So that one had extremely low levels, all good. In the other ones the more they raised E2 the more they improved. Neal gives tons of guys estradiol, has total T close around the 1500 mark for most patients and estradiol at least 100. Physicians around the world flock to him for a reason. He is, literally, the godfather of HRT.

Danny cherry picks his studies and discards the ones that he doesn’t like even when they refute his tired argument that the studies are all done on old fat guys with low T. For example this study controlled for T but still he dismisses it because it doesn’t line up with his guru’s views. It’s really much like a Jim Jones kool-aid situation.

Now granted Danny is a self-appointed expert himself and most of the people who are happily controlling estrogen have never even heard of the guy so it’s important to keep that in mind.

You think this dude from another board ever heard of Danny Bossa? LOL

Please send me the link to this study. I had over 100 studies on my desk during that livestream. That’s hardly cherry picking.

That’s wonderful for him. The confirmation bias is so strong he dismisses all evidence to the contrary. Tell him to keep taking that AI.

Here’s the problem with your study. It showed an association at baseline. Association does not prove causation. You haven’t learned how to interpret studies. What you need to do with those same men is either RAISE estradiol or LOWER estradiol (inverventional) to see what effect it has. In every study that they raised estradiol, the men improved. In every study where they lowered it, they got worse. In literally every single study.

So since you’re the new smart ass of T-Nation, I invite you to put your ass on the line here and provide me with a SINGLE STUDY… just ONE… I’m not asking for much, am I? Just ONE STUDY where they lowered estradiol in any man and it improved their health. Just one. This should be easy for you, right?

Can you do it? If you can’t, admit you’re a moron. Prove me wrong.

You just sent me another study of what they observed at baseline.

Your intellect is poorly equipped to understand what I’m saying. Please re-read my previous comment and learn the difference between an observation and an intervention.

In every single study where they raised estradiol, it demonstrated cancer protective properties.

Not only no but hell the fuck no. I’m not going to let you dismiss a study because it doesn’t meet your criteria of what a good study is. T was controlled and was not a factor. The only association between male breast cancer and anything else was the amount of estrogen. Period.

I knew you’d say that. Thank you for proving me right.

You can not let me do whatever you wish, but I’m dismissing it anyway for the following reasons:

In order to prove cancer, you would need to give estradiol to a man and it would demonstrate an increase in cancer. Since estradiol is cancer protective, that never happens, so you’ll never find a study demonstrating this. When we give it, it does the exact OPPOSITE of what your associative study observes at baseline.

There is a difference between what you can observe and what you can demonstrate through intervention. If you don’t get this, I feel bad for you.

No, it doesn’t meet my criteria because I know how to read studies. You clearly lack this ability.