WHat a wounderful drug gw-501516 is.

[elite7777]

WADA issues urgent warning about black market substance GW501516



WADA issues urgent warning about black market substance GW501516 | Bicycle News

 

[bigdeem]

Everyone's always recommending not to take clean cause of the heart issues... maybe we shouldn't be so quick to label this as so amazing because of the cancer issues. You know people are going to jump on this without doing any research because of how highly you guys praise it.

Sent from my Nexus S using EliteFitness

 

[Jack steel]

Everyone's always recommending not to take clean cause of the heart issues... maybe we shouldn't be so quick to label this as so amazing because of the cancer issues. You know people are going to jump on this without doing any research because of how highly you guys praise it.

Sent from my Nexus S using EliteFitness

Go back and read the whole thread and maybe you'll get the whole rundown. Cancer happened with outrageous doses and for VERY long periods of time.... in Rats. Your cell phone is probably giving you cancer as we speak. So is the flouride in your public water... it's a never ending list. Find me an FDA approved drug that can't cause death or horrible side effects, and i'll show you one that does.

 

[maddox2010]

^^^^ this last sentence speaks volumes, excellent point made!

 

[Headholio]

^^^^ this last sentence speaks volumes, excellent point made!

You are believing what you want to believe. They are not excellent points. Excellent points are based on data, and the data you have is that this drug will never be approved because it is carcinogenic.

I'm not trying to be a fear monger, but on the other hand it is irresponsible for non-experts to post that the data is nothing to worry about.

The methods used to determine the carcinogenicity of this compound are the same methods used to determine it for many other chemicals.

With that said, I know a guy who's been smoking for 55 years and has no cancer, but that doesn't mean I'm going to tell people there is no risk with smoking.

 

[maddox2010]

You are believing what you want to believe. They are not excellent points. Excellent points are based on data, and the data you have is that this drug will never be approved because it is carcinogenic.

I'm not trying to be a fear monger, but on the other hand it is irresponsible for non-experts to post that the data is nothing to worry about.

The methods used to determine the carcinogenicity of this compound are the same methods used to determine it for many other chemicals.

With that said, I know a guys who's been smoking for 55 years and has no cancer, but that doesn't mean I'm going to tell people there is no risk with smoking.

No disrespect, the agrument ur having is legitimate, my acknowledgent to his last statement is based on being the husband of a wife that has worked on an oncology floor for 14 years of a prominent hospital. His last sentence regardless of scenario is a valid one.

 

[Headholio]

Ok, the last sentence. I agree.

 

[Jack steel]

Ok, the last sentence. I agree.

What else do you need? Who cares if it's FDA approved if the FDA approved ones are just as bad or worse in the same way or worse. My point is, The last sentence is the only point you need.

 

[UA_Iron]

Go back and read the whole thread and maybe you'll get the whole rundown. Cancer happened with outrageous doses and for VERY long periods of time.... in Rats. Your cell phone is probably giving you cancer as we speak. So is the flouride in your public water... it's a never ending list. Find me an FDA approved drug that can't cause death or horrible side effects, and i'll show you one that does.

There's a certain level of fallout that's deemed acceptable for side-effects and risk per benefit of the drug. And in this case, the side effects did not outweigh the benefits of the drug. The case could probably not be made to the FDA surrounding the therapeutic benefits of the drug far outweighing the side effects.

Rats were given high doses and got cancer, yes. Do we know what the threshold is? What minimum dose causes cancer? What the length of exposure needs to be to cause cancer? No. Finding out the answers to these questions would require a separate study.

Either way, Glaxo decided that the benefits were not worth the risk. Was it a financial driven thing? Yes. Were the side effects the cause? Yes. Large companies, Pharma in particular, are concerned with minimizing risk.

Headholio's logic is 100% correct.

Have all these facts and knowledge of how this industry work stop me from jumping on the GW bandwagon? No.

 

[elite7777]

It looks like the first professional athlete was just busted for using GW!


Russian rider tests positive for black-market drug - Sports- NBC Sports