[quote]pickapeck wrote:
bushidobadboy wrote:
pickapeck wrote:
Again your arrogance is astounding. You are certainly a self proclaimed expert.
Bullshit. How many times have people referred to me as ‘guru’ or whatever, only to have me ask them strongly not to do so?
You are just pissed because you don’t like my critisism of your crappy protocol. You didn’t much like it when I picked apart (nicely) your LH and FSH ideas for TRT. Those weren’t based in reality either as I recall. However you woulodn’t admit to me that you were off base, only later when someone provided some refs.
You still have yet to provide any theory or science behind your approach. I always try to provide some behind mine.
Even when I blatantly copy the work of a giant like Bill Roberts, I explain to people what my reasoning is for the choice of drugs, etc.
You took it upon yourself to distribute certain substances to a group of your followers in this very forum with your “brilliantly” contrived mixtures and protocols.
Again I say “Look who’s talking”. You are prattling on about your own ‘special blends’. Whose blends are more ‘special’ anyway? I don’t give a flying f**k to be honest. I do what I do, based upon science. You seem to want to do your thing, just to be different. Which one is potentially more dangerous?
Some of those “lab rats” did not fair so well as I recall.
That’s one of the dangers of experimentation, didn’t you know that? Probablty not, since you only ‘experiment’ with low doses and mild gains.
Who has “bastardized” short cycles?
You have.
…as if anyone could bastardize a bastard son of a science that AAS use is in the first place.
So you don’t think that AAS use and research is scientific? OK, you go with that. I’ll go with the knowledge I’ve picked up over the last 5 years. Scientific knowledge.
You are close minded to any ideas outside your own. You are confident beyond reason in those attitudes and actions. Your attitude and actions make you dangerous.
How can you say that I am not open to ideas outside my own, when I freely admitted that the short cycle idea belongs to Bill Roberts?
Jesus man, learn to think.
My attitudes make me dangerous? If the application of scientific reasoning is dangerous then I am guilty of that.
You have NO justification behind your protocol, and feel threatened when I criticise it. You are operating as a sham.
In fact, the only virtue that your ‘protocol’ has is that it is ‘low toxicity’, whatever that means when dealing with AAS. If you knew more about the body, perhaps you would be able to appreciate that there are way to safely negate the extra toxicity of non-testosterone steroids. Not that they are particularly ‘toxic’ anyway.
Bushy
-
In our LH, FSH TRT discussion: I was the one who provided the references. I referenced AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF CLINICAL ENDOCRINOLOGISTS MEDICAL GUIDELINES FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE FOR THE EVALUATION AND TREATMENT OF HYPOGONADISM IN ADULT MALE PATIENTS�??2002 UPDATE. In fact I admitted that there is no established protocol that uses LH and FSH levels as markers to adjust treatment. Remember that we were conversing about primary hypogonadism, also known as hypergonadotropic hypogonadism). Since FSH and LH are elevated in such condition (i.e. hypergonadotropic hypogonadism), added exogenous testosterone should in theory relieve the pressure on the hypothalamus and pituitary to �??over�?? produce GnRH and LH plus FSH respectively. As I recall you did agree with this in theory. However, I was the bigger man and admitted that no accepted protocol for such monitoring currently is widely practiced after I did due diligence and search the literature. However, I did note, in truth, that I have had a personal communication with a very good endogrinologist that uses this method.
-
Scientific basis for my method; All illicit AAS methods can only be based on extrapolation from legitimate peer reviewed scientific literature, which is woefully inadequate regarding the schemes used in bodybuilding and sport, and anechdotal evidence. I have already gone over most of the following. I use low doses of long and medium acting compounds and slightly higher doses of shorter acting compounds. The decay curves of these compounds predict that all dip below normal physiologic levels of androgens by day 17 of sensation of use in my schemes. This leaves plenty of time for a 2-3 week SERM PCT if I choose. As you should know, HPTA depression, or cavalierly and inaccurately referred to as �??shutdown�??, is not an on/off switch. Duration dosage and the compounds used all effect the severity and duration of HPTA depression. In general a user will recover more quickly from a shorter lower dose cycle than a longer higher dose cycle. My last blood work was very good and not open to your critique. My scheme provides 15 lbs of gain with 8 weeks total injection/oral dosing using low doses compared to most of today�??s standards. As I have already stated, I am no longer interested in use of high doses or large gains in mass for reasons that are none of your business. 210 �?? 220 lbs is plenty of mass to work with at 5�??9�??.
-
Who has bastardized AAS cycling;. Firstly, AAS use is not a science. If you are the student of science you claim to be you will realize that no University�??s Internal Review Board (IRB) would approve of a study calling for the use of high dose multiple compound dosing regimes that are in illicit use. There is no research that can adequately duplicate or come close to duplicating what is going on in gymnasiums and locker rooms today. There is no venue where controlled scientific study can ensue. Neither IRBs nor FDA would approve such studies. Therefore, we must rely on any related research be it in the HIV, hormone replacement, cancer, and/or other research areas. We are then forced to rely on anecdotal (stories) evidence, which is not scientifically derived information. Therefore, illicit AAS use and theory is a �??bastardized science�?? by definition illegitimate science. The theories can not be tested in a scientifically valid venue. So the answer is that all those that theorize and then practice AAS use are practicing illegitimate science. As a thinking man you should know this. My scheme is based on the same bastard science that yours is and it is logically based on these very inexact facts upon which we all rely in this.
-
Special blends and lab rats; My blends were made and used ONLY for my personal use. I have chosen to risk my health. It is highly irresponsible, dangerous and arrogant to prescribe drugs made outside GMP and regimes outside internal and external review of the necessary governing bodies. I would never do such a thing. It is one thing to risk one�??s health and yet quite another to risk the health of others. You state that these compounds are not that toxic when disparaging my personal cycling schemes. Did you consider the possibility of infection from your distributed home compounding experiment? Did you consider the possibility of hypersensitivity of your subjects? Did you consider anything beyond your own personal desires? As I recall some of your subjects did indicate signs of toxicity.
-
Special powers of the internet; You have a following on this board, which affords you certain powers. You have assumed an omnipotent role in this. You have managed to garner respect from many here. Yet, you have chosen to abuse this power by dictating your opinions as fact and leading the people to the beat of your drum. Moreover, you have demonstrated that you are dangerous in your actions in this role.
I am usually a mild mannered member willing to offer opinions and engage is civil debate. What you have engaged in over the past 2 days has not been civil nor is it debate. It has been dictatorial, authoritative and often without basis. While my scheme is not for everyone, there is no reason to treat anyone�??s ideas the way you have. Your attitude towards others is reprehensible as are your actions that go out from this board and touch others health.
[/quote]
Im not as scientifically inclined as either yourself or Bushy, so contributing too much to this will be immpossible really for me, the ‘science’ i have always worked with, in theory, is similar to yourself, im the lab rat - experience talks.
So, reguarding long esters for short cyles, no i do not agree, i wouldnt do it i wouldnt reccomend it, have i done it - Yes.
What i am struggling to find is any portion of Bushy’s original postings which fit any of your descriptions, dictatorial, authoritatve and without basis - i am not defending Bushy, i doubt he would even want anybody to do that, but those accusations are unfounded and stink of shit imho.
I also saw this in another thread a week or so ago, reguarding ‘Bushys Army’ or his ‘special powers’ that he uses to garner respect in his ‘omni potent role’, im afraid this also stinks of shit.
Again i am not defending him, but more the forum as a general rule because those statements are about as as justified as your Science.
Do not take this as an attack, you do not want to go to war with me and that is not my intention here.
I will continue to follow this thread as your approach has intrigued me, in the same way it intrigued Bushy and we are willing to learn, you picked the fight from nothing and for no reason, please continue to make posts on the subject in hand and educate us with your different approach, i am genuinely wanting to learn, just man up and stop the fight.
Reguards
Test
