Hello Guest

Andractim

  • 93 Replies
  • 30567 Views
*

Offline vaio

  • *****
  • 647
  • Gyne free, is the way to be!
Re: Andractim
« Reply #75 on: March 09, 2005, 08:51:16 PM »
^ another onesay it!  :) All it does it keep your nips hard.

That does serve a good purpose in a way, for thoes who don't have surgery yet, and (for some) erect nipples disguise the gyne and make it less noticable.
Only problem is Andractim is how much? Around $100 !right? Thats a lot of money to piss away just to keep the nips hard. I am sure there are cheaper means of doing this, using a test gel or Preperation H, or new skin liquid bandage.
$2,800 = Freedom!

http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/vaiomanfree/album?.dir=7e36&.src=ph&am p;store=&prodid=&.done=http%3a//pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/vaiomanfree/my_photos

*

Offline Daveo

  • ***
  • 129
  • Surgery with Dr. Bermant January 28, 2005
Re: Andractim
« Reply #76 on: March 10, 2005, 03:31:41 AM »
Sure, hypo is right.  When medicated by a doctor, and prescribed to the right patients: absolutely, it will probably be beneficial to the patient.  No one is arguing with that.

UNFORTUNATELY, it has little or no relevance here, which is why vaio and I, I feel, offer the better opinion on the subject.

Q: Should you "try" andractim before surgery to "see if it works"?(this was the original question that started this crap)

A: Absolutely not!  But!  What you should do is see your doctor/an endocrinologist to find out if surgery is your best option.  In a very rare case, andractim may be your solution!  BUT 99.9% OF THE TIME IT WON'T!  And it's not something to just go ahead and take a gamble on.  Please believe that, if you are thinking about "trying" andractim.

Q: "Has anyone else on this board gotten good results using it?"  (This was the second original question)

A: Who knows, the proof is in the pictures, even if hypo would rather search his medical journals that us common folk haven't got a password for.  And as far as the pictures go, there are a few sets of pictures of people on this board who've tried andractim who probably didn't need it...and again, unfortunately, there was little to no visible change in the gynecomastia.  If that's what you're looking for, fine, try andractim.

Now I'll answer hypo's questions, just in the hopes that he shuts his mouth:

"Kallmans Syndrome is a condition that exists- can you go and get me a photograph of someone who has Kallmans syndrome please?"

No, I won't.  But I'll go ahead and say that you're right, I probably can't.

If you cannot, does that mean Kallmans Syndrome does not exist, or does it mean you can't find one via google and yahoo for the aforementioned reasons?

No, I can't say that because I don't know what it is.  But, you're right, just because there are no pictures doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Do you understand that or is that beyond your comprehension?

You are a jackass.

Dropping your fascination with the visual for one moment.

Are you telling me that the endocrinologists- ALL of them are liars and have fabricated ALL the control studies?

No.

Because your statements are diametrically opposed to those made by the endocrinologists and do not allow for any middle ground whatsoever.

Give an answer to explain this please!!!

What do you have to say about the evidence that I have presented?

Valid, well-researched, and almost entirely irrelevent.

So far you've just ignored it like it doesn't exist- this is logical myopia and absolutely ridiculous.

Give me an answer to this please!!!

Are you also telling me that all the people who have noted reduction or resolution in gynecomastia on this site or liars as well?

No, but it would be beneficial to see some pictures, since it's easy to post such pictures, and would be ver interesting for the rest of us to see.  As far as the pictures that have already been posted, well, I would have to say that those aren't the results that anyone here really wants from using andractim.

Give me an answer to this please!!!

Are you telling me that the one before and after set of photographs that you were provided with showed NO reduction of glandular gynecomastia (irrespective of whether that individual was happy with the end result?

The change(if any) was so minor that no intelligent person could possibly conclude that there was a reduction (and by the way, I work in research, so don't tell me that I am not qualified to make a comment like that)

Give me an answer to this please!!!

I have provided the proof from no less than eleven endocrinologists, two of which are world famous and leaders in their respective fields and the fact is I have provided the proof from the actual endocrine reports from which their comments are made.

How does this square with your idea that Andractim does not reduce or resolve glandular gynecomastia.

No one is saying that it doesn't reduce or resolve glandular gynecomastia.  But for the common gynecomastia patient, it rarely will.

Give me an answer to this please!!!

Oh, and please stop PMing me.  If I thought for one second that you were interested in having any sort of intelligent conversation by way of PM I would be a moron.  You've proven already that you want to PUBLICLY display your sarcasm, intelligence, debate skill, research, career background(who knows why?), and ability to make people feel like shit.  So if you want to apoligize to me, you can do it on this board, just like everything else you say.

*

Offline hypo

  • *****
  • 1236
Re: Andractim
« Reply #77 on: March 10, 2005, 04:45:10 AM »
Daveo

Quote
No one is saying that it doesn't reduce or resolve glandular gynecomastia.  But for the common gynecomastia patient, it rarely will.
Unquote

That is exactly what is being said.  Daveo your attempts to move the goal posts is laughable.

Quote
Sure, hypo is right.  When medicated by a doctor, and prescribed to the right patients: absolutely, it will probably be beneficial to the patient.  No one is arguing with that.
Unquote

If you go back to the start of this debate it is clear that the argument stems from whether or not it is of use- not whether or not it should be medicated by a doctor- so this is fresh air your talking isn't it?

Quote
UNFORTUNATELY, it has little or no relevance here, which is why vaio and I, I feel, offer the better opinion on the subject.
Unquote

And the goal posts move slightly again ;D

This is precisely what is being debated- nice attempt though ;)

Quote
Q: Should you "try" andractim before surgery to "see if it works"?(this was the original question that started this crap)
Unquote

This is not the issue.  You really aren't very clever if you think you can move the goal posts like that.  View the start of the thread- It is very clear that the issue quickly moved away from that question to the viability of Andractim itself.

You know this so who is the Jackass?

Quote
A: Absolutely not!  
Unquote

Yes I believe my first statement related to the fact that this should be medicated by a doctor.

Quote
But!  What you should do is see your doctor/an endocrinologist to find out if surgery is your best option.  In a very rare case, andractim may be your solution!  BUT 99.9% OF THE TIME IT WON'T!  And it's not something to just go ahead and take a gamble on.  Please believe that, if you are thinking about "trying" andractim.
Unquote

I disagree.  Can I ask where do you keep getting your statistics from?

99.9% indeed- my statistics come from controlled studies by endocrinologists- hormone experts.  Where does this 99.9% stat come from.

I’m going to have a wild guess here and say you just made that up.

But please show me my error and tell me what validated source it comes from.

Quote
Q: "Has anyone else on this board gotten good results using it?"  (This was the second original question)

A: Who knows, the proof is in the pictures, even if hypo would rather search his medical journals that us common folk haven't got a password for.  And as far as the pictures go, there are a few sets of pictures of people on this board who've tried andractim who probably didn't need it...and again, unfortunately, there was little to no visible change in the gynecomastia.  If that's what you're looking for, fine, try andractim.
Unquote

Your talking rubbish I had quite a substantial change and it made life a lot easier fro me.

In fact there are only two sets of before and after photographs on this site and both of them show a substantial shrinkage of glandular tissue.

Quote
Now I'll answer hypo's questions, just in the hopes that he shuts his mouth:

"Kallmans Syndrome is a condition that exists- can you go and get me a photograph of someone who has Kallmans syndrome please?"

No, I won't.  But I'll go ahead and say that you're right, I probably can't.
Unquote

So you at least can see the point and the fact that medical photographs cannot just be obtained at the click of my fingers.
 
Dropping your fascination with the visual for one moment.  
 
Are you telling me that the endocrinologists- ALL of them are liars and have fabricated ALL the control studies?  

Quote
No.
Unquote
 
Because your statements are diametrically opposed to those made by the endocrinologists and do not allow for any middle ground whatsoever.  
 
Give an answer to explain this please!!!  
 
What do you have to say about the evidence that I have presented?  

Quote  
Valid, well-researched, and almost entirely irrelevent.
Unquote

I see SO STUDIES AND EXPERTS THAT STATE ANDRACTIM WORKS AT REDUCING AND RESOLVING GYNECOMASTIA ARE IRRELEVANT IN A DEBATE THAT REVOLVES AROUND WHETHER OR NOT ANDRACTIM CAN REDUCE OR RESOLVE GYNECOMSTIA!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Have you any idea how stupid that sounds!!!!!!!!

Quite the researcher aren’t you.

Are you also telling me that all the people who have noted reduction or resolution in gynecomastia on this site or liars as well?  

Quote
No, but it would be beneficial to see some pictures, since it's easy to post such pictures, and would be ver interesting for the rest of us to see.  As far as the pictures that have already been posted, well, I would have to say that those aren't the results that anyone here really wants from using andractim.
Unquote

Yes it would have been nice I agree, a pity they didn't post before and afters.

I myself had gynecomastia reduction and it made a big difference to me- but your saying that wasn't a result right?

http://uk.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/chis_az/album?.dir=/b8ad&.src=ph

Are you telling me that the one before and after set of photographs that you were provided with showed NO reduction of glandular gynecomastia (irrespective of whether that individual was happy with the end result?

Quote
The change(if any) was so minor that no intelligent person could possibly conclude that there was a reduction (and by the way, I work in research, so don't tell me that I am not qualified to make a comment like that)  
Unquote

Right ;D

http://uk.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/chis_az/album?.dir=/b8ad&.src=ph

I have provided the proof from no less than eleven endocrinologists, two of which are world famous and leaders in their respective fields and the fact is I have provided the proof from the actual endocrine reports from which their comments are made.  
 
How does this square with your idea that Andractim does not reduce or resolve glandular gynecomastia.  

Quote
No one is saying that it doesn't reduce or resolve glandular gynecomastia.  But for the common gynecomastia patient, it rarely will.
Unquote

Hehe  ;D ;D ;D

That is so funny!  I see of course not ;)  Another crude effort to move the goal posts.  That is exactly what is being said.  But now you concede it ‘can’ reduce or resolve gynecomastia- A big step forward well done!!!!

The twist in the tale- the thorns in your gift being- it rarely will.

Well thank you for the spiked concession, but what makes you now say rarely will.

ALL the expert endocrinologists and ALL the control studies don't say rarely but commonly will.

Where does your new idea that it can but rarely will stem from?

F*cking laughable.  

C’mon give me your validated source that allows for such reasoning.

Give me an answer to this please!!!  

The facts remain the same now as they did at the start of this discussion.

quote from Eberle AJ. Sparrow JT. Keenan BS.  

By the end of treatment, breast size in all four boys had decreased 67% to 78%.

quote from Kuhn JM. Roca R. Laudat MH. Rieu M. Luton JP. Bricaire H.  

Local administration of DHT was followed by the complete disappearance of gynaecomastia in 10 patients, partial regression in 19 and no change in 11 patients after 4 to 20 weeks of percutaneous DHT (125 mg twice daily)

Quote from Glenn D Braunstein M.D endocrinologist

The non-aromatizable androgen dihydrotestosterone has been used, either by injection or percutaneously, in a group of patients with prolonged pubertal gynecomastia.  Approximately 75% had reductions in breast tissue volume, with 25% having complete response.

Quote from Eugene Shippen M.D endocrinologist

Andractim is excellent for direct application to the breast area to offset any E2 effects from other testosterone sources and will usually shrink gynecomastia.

I had reduction but not resolution being one of the 75% of people to get reductions.  I wish I had of been on of the 25% that had totally resolution- still it made life a lot easier

http://uk.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/chis_az/album?.dir=/b8ad&.src=ph


P.S

And all this doesn’t alter the fact that I still think that surgery is the number ONE option in dealing with gynecomastia.

This has been about defending the validity of another option that does work for many people or at least reduces their gynecomastia to make life a lot easier.  

As a first line treatment it might avoid the need for surgery and costs a fraction of what surgery costs and is non invasive.  For people that cannot afford surgery it may be the only option or chance to reduce or resolve gynecomastia.  Also it is a treatment that an endocrinologist can use to prevent further gynecomastia development (something surgery cannot do).

For these reasons I have busting a gut to put the FACTS out there and argued the toss with these people so that the wrong impression about this option is not allowed to blind people as to those FACTS.





*

Offline Daveo

  • ***
  • 129
  • Surgery with Dr. Bermant January 28, 2005
Re: Andractim
« Reply #78 on: March 10, 2005, 06:57:14 AM »
First of all, I'll move whatever goal posts I want to, and let's see what plan you have to try and stop me.  You've stated two or three times(I haven't recorded the EXACT statistic) that you were done posting on this subject, so maybe that might be a start.

Next, I don't believe I did move the goal posts, and since it's a matter of opinion, you can search for some scholarly journals on that all day and you won't prove me wrong.

Third, since I addressed all of your questions, why don't you address this:

"Oh, and please stop PMing me.  If I thought for one second that you were interested in having any sort of intelligent conversation by way of PM I would be a moron.  You've proven already that you want to PUBLICLY display your sarcasm, intelligence, debate skill, research, career background(who knows why?), and ability to make people feel like <excrement>.  So if you want to apoligize to me, you can do it on this board, just like everything else you say."

I'd like to help you resolve some of your issues that clearly are a lot more dangerous than your gynecomastia ever was.  I'm serious.

*

Offline Daveo

  • ***
  • 129
  • Surgery with Dr. Bermant January 28, 2005
Re: Andractim
« Reply #79 on: March 10, 2005, 08:10:29 AM »
Also I thought I'd give anyone else some help on getting to the secret medical files that you need "medically issued passwords" for.  By the way, that's one of the most ridiculous things you've said, hypo.  All of the research that you've provided IS easily accessible by the public.  So, guys, if you want to be as smart as hypo someday(if that's even possible!), here is how you can get to the "secure sites that can only be accessed via medical passwords by medical professionals- like endocrinologists":  Go to your local library and ask the reference librarian if you can access "Medline", or any medical database.  There you can do a search on any medical related topic, including gynecomastia, or how dihydrotestosterone(andractim) is used to treat gynecomastia.  I took a half an hour out of work today to search some top secret medical sites and I found all of hypo's "sensitive" articles.

Rock on.

*

Offline jc71

  • *****
  • 1658
  • Wilma, grab the lotion, we're going to the beach!
Re: Andractim
« Reply #80 on: March 10, 2005, 09:00:18 AM »
Daveo - I've read a lot of Hypo's posts or as you call it, shit. I gotta say, the guy is the Heavyweight Champ of Endocrinology Knowledge on this site.  

Thing is, probably not many people care to have the title.  

I can understand your frustration with his posts, but I think Hypo's only trying to put accurate info out there on a very relevant and  important topic that a lot of people really don't understand. You may not like the guys style, but you surely can't fault his intent.

I'm done.

You're a big boy, now put your gloves on and get back in the ring for the next round.

*

Offline Daveo

  • ***
  • 129
  • Surgery with Dr. Bermant January 28, 2005
Re: Andractim
« Reply #81 on: March 10, 2005, 09:54:53 AM »
Clarification: I never once called hypo's posts shit.  So i don't know where that came from.  Despite his nitpicking of the exact wording of my posts, I do essentially agree with what he says with the exception of his opinion on the quality of results displayed in the pictures of this board.

Now, what I DID say, JC...was that he makes people FEEL like shit, or tries to.  I never can understand why people can't have a debate like civil human beings rather than act like children.  The reason I joined this discussion was first because I wanted to weigh in with my OPINION that the results shown from pictures on this site do not provide any significant results on the usefullness of andractim.  The reason I stayed in the discussion was in response to hypo taking a rude and demeaning approach when engaging in a discussion with vaio.  The fact that I agreed with vaio about the pictures helped, for sure.  But, my main concern was to end the childlike bickering that hypo(AND OTHERS) were engaging in.  I couldn't sit by and watch as hypo, someone who I thought I respected, was embarassing himself after building a reputation (with me, anyway) as a civil, intelligent, and well-researched board member.

Now, once again, I never called hypo's posts shit, and I essentially agree with him despite his nitpicking of every word I write.  Also remember that just because vaio may have said something does not mean I agree with him.

My opinion is, and has always been, that using andractim by the conventional method used on this board(ordering the gel online, unprescribed) would be a waste of time and money and would not work.  Furthermore, my opinion remains that the results from andractim use shown on this board, in pictures, are not desirable.

And yes, JC, I can fault his intent.  I've always tried to make the world a better place, and that starts with treating each other right, not flaunting your knowledge in such a terribly disrespectful way.  We all, including myself, overreact sometimes, but the behavior that I witnessed on this topic was disgusting, and I couldn't help but throw myself into the middle of it.  Unfortunately, hypo took offense on being ganged up on and attempted to overwhelm me with facts that I did not, nor have and desire to, disagree with.  As I said I entered this discussion based on my experience viewing results from andractim use on this board.  I rarely attempt to pass myself off as an expert on anything on these discussion boards, and god dammit, I bow to hypo's knowledge on endocrinology.  I always have!  Jesus Christ!  If anyone else wants to quote me on something I said, please make sure I actually said it, because damn!

*

Offline hypo

  • *****
  • 1236
Re: Andractim
« Reply #82 on: March 10, 2005, 10:44:14 AM »
Thank you for the support  jc71- you've summed me and my intentions up perfectly.

I understand if people do not like my style that is fair enough.  I have used some tactics  that people wont like such as sarcasm and put downs etc that I suppose are questionable- but I have only fought fire with fire.

Daveo I wont PM you- you don't have to worry about that :-/

Just to let people know why I PM'd him;  

I was saying sorry if he thought my original comments way back were personal and explained it was his comments that I was attacking and not him.  But he ignored that and upped the ante anyway by getting personal so it was a bit of a waste of time.

Daveo, I have no idea what you are trying to say in your two last posts, I guess they were heated and you just didn't articulate yourself very well.

I have laid out my arguments so there is little left to debate.

Who won the debate depends upon the interpretation of others.  I honesty think your position and that of Vaio has been shown up severely-

I mean apart from barn burning- going negative what evidence have you or Vaio actually brought to the table?

That is a rhetorical question because the answer is nothing ;)

I have never tried to show you or anyone else that my sources of information are impossibly hard to come by.

My point regarding sensitive medical information was in answer to Vaio who said that before and after photographs of Andractim didn't exist on the internet and therefore didn’t exist at all.  He said this because he couldn't obtain them via google or yahoo searches.

The fact that you have explained the process by which some medical information can be obtained on the internet that cannot be obtained by google or yahoo just illustrates my point beautifully and shows Vaio’s position and logic to be invalid- thank you ;)

Actually you won't be able to access many of the reports that I have obtained as some are owned by the New England Journal of Medicine and that site will almost certainly only provide you with abstracts from those reports and others are only to be found in the latest published endocrinology books I have read (not available via the net).  

And you won’t find some of the quotes anywhere in the world except on my computer.

Because the only place they exist is on my computer-

From email conversations with the endocrinologists concerned ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)

I must say on the reports- you’re a researcher yet you mock hard honest research in order to obtain the reports….how peculiar you are.

I have put in the hours so I could provide this site and the people here with information that concerns them.

This paper for instance is one of the best of its kind in the world.

http://www.leeds.ac.uk/acb/annals/annals_pdf/Nov01/596.pdf

I provided this to the site a long time ago and it has helped many people.  Now it can be obtained via a regular google search- but the point is no one had seen it before and no one knew it was available.

All I did was get it so people could view it- does that make me an Jackass?  

Another question for you- what have you done for the people on this site, what have you done to help?

Nothing I have said in any of this is personal, put downs, sarcasm etc have all been chosen measures to show up the weakness of the position that has been postulated by Vaio and Daveo.

Andractim does reduce gynecomastia in 75% of cases and resolve gynecomastia in 25% of cases.  As stated in the endocrinology paper that I specifically requested from the man who runs PR for The New England Journal of Medicne and had sent over from the US to the UK.

It works best where the gynecomastia is of recent on-set or within two years of development.  It is not appropriate to self medicate and should only be used following a prescription from an endocrinologist.

Again here are my photographs, I was one of the 75% of people who had a reduction with Andractim, but I was not lucky enough to be one of the 25% of people who has a complete resolution.

http://uk.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/chis_az/album?.dir=/b8ad&.src=ph  

Of course according to Vaio and Daveo there is no change in my gynecomastia in the photographs ;)

P.S

Daveo have you ever had that sinking feeling and realised you were out of your depth :-*





*

Offline Daveo

  • ***
  • 129
  • Surgery with Dr. Bermant January 28, 2005
Re: Andractim
« Reply #83 on: March 10, 2005, 11:30:32 AM »
Thank you for the support  jc71- you've summed me and my intentions up perfectly.

I understand if people do not like my style that is fair enough.  I have used some tactics  that people wont like such as sarcasm and put downs etc that I suppose are questionable- but I have only fought fire with fire.  

Daveo I wont PM you- you don't have to worry about that  

Just to let people know why I PM'd him;  

I was saying sorry if he thought my original comments way back were personal and explained it was his comments that I was attacking and not him.  But he ignored that and upped the ante anyway by getting personal so it was a bit of a waste of time.

Daveo, I have no idea what you are trying to say in your two last posts, I guess they were heated and you just didn't articulate yourself very well.

Take the time to read through them again, if you would, as I take the time to sift through your posts and make sense of them as well.  If you're just going to dismiss everything as inarticulate when you don't want to respond, then we're having a one-way conversation.

I have laid out my arguments so there is little left to debate.

Agreed

Who won the debate depends upon the interpretation of others.  I honesty think your position and that of Vaio has been shown up severely-  

Direct this at someone else, as I never was doing this to "win the debate", only offering my opinion so that people who feel that they are similar to me have someone they can really relate to.

I mean apart from barn burning- going negative what evidence have you or Vaio actually brought to the table?

This is irrelevant as the entire point of my involvement was not to present new evidence, only to provide my opinion on the evidence I've seen.  If we ever had a debate on something that I was really knowledgable on I'd be glad to have a war of facts with you.  But that is NOT this topic.

That is a rhetorical question because the answer is nothing  

I have never tried to show you or anyone else that my sources of information are impossibly hard to come by.  

Maybe not, but you could have, in my opinion, made it easier for others to research the same things you did.

My point regarding sensitive medical information was in answer to Vaio who said that before and after photographs of Andractim didn't exist on the internet and therefore didn’t exist at all.  He said this because he couldn't obtain them via google or yahoo searches.

The fact that you have explained the process by which some medical information can be obtained on the internet that cannot be obtained by google or yahoo just illustrates my point beautifully and shows Vaio’s position and logic to be invalid- thank you  

I'm glad I could help, if that's what you genuinely consider it.  Remember I'm not on vaio's "team" here.

Actually you won't be able to access many of the reports that I have obtained as some are owned by the New England Journal of Medicine and that site will almost certainly only provide you with abstracts from those reports and others are only to be found in the latest published endocrinology books I have read (not available via the net).  

Anything I stated earlier-- I checked to make sure I had access to the entire paper before making my statement.

And you won’t find some of the quotes anywhere in the world except on my computer.

Because the only place they exist is on my computer-  

From email conversations with the endocrinologists concerned          

I must say on the reports- you’re a researcher yet you mock hard honest research in order to obtain the reports….how peculiar you are.  

My mocking was directed at your approach to this discussion(rude), not at your methods of research.

I have put in the hours so I could provide this site and the people here with information that concerns them.

This paper for instance is one of the best of its kind in the world.

http://www.leeds.ac.uk/acb/annals/annals_pdf/Nov01/596.pdf

I provided this to the site a long time ago and it has helped many people.  Now it can be obtained via a regular google search- but the point is no one had seen it before and no one knew it was available.

All I did was get it so people could view it- does that make me an Jackass?  

No, that never made you a jackass.  Other comments you made did.

Another question for you- what have you done for the people on this site, what have you done to help?

You can search my posts to find what I offer to this discussion board.  I have nothing to prove to you.  I don't claim to be the guru of anything here.

Nothing I have said in any of this is personal, put downs, sarcasm etc have all been chosen measures to show up the weakness of the position that has been postulated by Vaio and Daveo.

Methods like this are what turns a discussion into an argument, and then into an out-of-control argument.  I am in no way singling you out, though I do feel that people who are respected have more responsibility(and skill!) to keep a discussion positive rather than negative.  I feel that you failed in this regard.

Andractim does reduce gynecomastia in 75% of cases and resolve gynecomastia in 25% of cases.  As stated in the endocrinology paper that I specifically requested from the man who runs PR for The New England Journal of Medicne and had sent over from the US to the UK.

It works best where the gynecomastia is of recent on-set or within two years of development.  It is not appropriate to self medicate and should only be used following a prescription from an endocrinologist.  

Again here are my photographs, I was one of the 75% of people who had a reduction with Andractim, but I was not lucky enough to be one of the 25% of people who has a complete resolution.

http://uk.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/chis_az/album?.dir=/b8ad&.src=ph  

Of course according to Vaio and Daveo there is no change in my gynecomastia in the photographs  

Exactly.  Those picures show no conclusive evidence of a change, in my opinion.  Others may feel differently, but I wouldn't act on those pictures.

P.S

Daveo have you ever had that sinking feeling and realised you were out of your depth  

This post was a great deal more constructive than usual until that last comment, and was extremely disappointing.  I have no idea why you feel the need to put yourself on a pedastal if you feel you are indeed on that pedastal.  I don't have your knowledge of endocrinology and I don't claim to.

*

Offline vaio

  • *****
  • 647
  • Gyne free, is the way to be!
Re: Andractim
« Reply #84 on: March 10, 2005, 12:33:37 PM »
I spoke my mind and all of a sudden I had this crazy man attack my statement. Theres something wrong with him.


Hypo asks for pictures of that syndrome. How can they take pictures of a syndrome. I read a little about it.
It causes hypogondism which can cause gynecomastia.
Gynecomastia is a condition that can be physically viewed. That syndrome takes place intacranial. They cannot take pictures of that. You asked a stupit question which makes no sense.

Hypo stick with computers. From what you say you are obviously good at it. You know nothing medical wise, and try to make up crap.

*

Offline vaio

  • *****
  • 647
  • Gyne free, is the way to be!
Re: Andractim
« Reply #85 on: March 10, 2005, 12:35:01 PM »
and quit bitching and acting like a woman.

*

Offline hypo

  • *****
  • 1236
Re: Andractim
« Reply #86 on: March 10, 2005, 12:57:17 PM »
Although I don't agree with much of what you have said this is the first post from you that was in any way reasoned Daveo.

If you wrote like that more often I might even like you.

Like I said I felt I fought fire with fire, if you don't agree with that- I understand.

But the fact is you started name calling not me and Vaio started that whole thing off even before you got going.

For quite some time both in this thread and others I have taken insults from Vaio and have been quite reserved up until now.

So that is that.

The fact is my original attack regarding yourself was an attack upon your comments not you- I am being genuine here.  

I made that clear to you and even sent you a PM stating that they were not personal, I apologized if you thought they were- but you threw that back at me, disregarded the fact that the comments were not personal and attacked me personally.

You decided to call me a jackass and a lot more besides.

So Daveo I think you have to look at your own actions.

Think of the situation from my perspective-

I knew I was right, I knew ALL the endocrinology reports and ALL the endocrinologists backed me up and I knew that I had reduction of gynecomastia from Andractim.  

But I was taking abuse from two sources at once- both of which have little to no knowledge of this drug, how it works or general endocrinology.  So I fought fire with fire rightly or wrongly.

I don't think I’m on a pedestal.  If I appear arrogant it is my way of dealing with insults and poor logic.  When I know what I am talking about and those arguing around me do not and hurl abuse- that is my way of dealing with it, again rightly or wrongly.

You know what I honestly wish I had taken better photographs at the time so you wouldn't doubt the success I had with Andractim, but I didn't think they were ever going to have to be used as some kind of evidence- a poor webcam is why it is a little difficult to see just how much breast tissue was reduced- quite a lot actually!

I still think the photographs back me up though even if they are not perfect.

Not that, that is at the heart of the issue because the heart of the issue is the control studies that have shown time and again the success that many have with Andractim.   Something that has been consistently ignored, I can only assume through ignorance of their importance.

Again all this said I still prefer surgery- I just think Andractim and other drug therapies are important and have their place and shouldn't be derided by people who know nothing about them.  

P.S

Maybe you can see where I am coming from now even if you don't like it.


Modified following Vaios last two posts.


A) Kallmans syndrome is physically evident and a photograph can be taken of someone with Kallmans syndrome-

This just highlights your ignorance of all matters that relate to endocrinology and is a good reason why if you had any sense at all you wouldn't get involved in such discussions.

B) Your insults pre date this thread and even within this thread came before any comments from myself- the insults that keep coming from you really show you up for what you are!
 



*

Offline vaio

  • *****
  • 647
  • Gyne free, is the way to be!
Re: Andractim
« Reply #87 on: March 10, 2005, 01:04:52 PM »
Hypo you started saying Andractim works and its worth people to try. Than I asked you for before and after photos to prove this. You couldnt find any and became psycho, like a woman. You posted numerous pointless posts that no one in their right mind would take the time out and read. You got proved wrong and you crying about. Stop. Get a life. You are a grown man acting like a kid.

There are no before and after photos from Andractim use that show a visual change.


*

Offline hypo

  • *****
  • 1236
Re: Andractim
« Reply #88 on: March 10, 2005, 01:17:54 PM »
Vaio quotes just from this thread

You are a grown man acting like a kid

quit pregnant doging and acting like a woman

You couldnt find any and became psycho, like a woman

Hypo asks for pictures of that syndrome. How can they take pictures of a syndrome. I read a little about it.

Hypo stayed at a holiday inn express every night and thinks he's an Endocrinologist

You are like a child. You cannot and will not admit wrongness. You are unprofessional. Your the kind of person that says "its his fault, its her fault but its never my fault."

You have a lot of growing up to do. You act like a woman

Are you a pedophile or something?  

You can stick out your toung all you want. Let the inner child out.

Are you f**ken stupit?

Im in college, I have a life, unlike you.

Hypo, you have personal issues you need to work out with yourself. Im through with you. Get a life.  

Your the pathetic one. Get a life. and grow some balls while your at it. f***en homo.

Unquote

Makes you proud to be human doesn't he.


*

Offline vaio

  • *****
  • 647
  • Gyne free, is the way to be!
Re: Andractim
« Reply #89 on: March 10, 2005, 05:09:13 PM »
There are no before and after photos showing a noticable, visual change on the entire internet from Andractim usage. It's not worth the money to experiment with it.


xx
Andractim?

Started by johnnyenglish on Canada

1 Replies
2096 Views
Last post July 31, 2005, 09:56:47 AM
by KingCobra
xx
Re: Andractim anyone?

Started by trojanman87 on Gynecomastia Talk

4 Replies
1962 Views
Last post June 05, 2006, 05:13:43 AM
by rocketrob
xx
andractim

Started by elcrep on Gynecomastia Talk

3 Replies
1918 Views
Last post May 08, 2008, 12:01:56 PM
by King_V
xx
andractim

Started by Nemmies on Gynecomastia Talk

8 Replies
3572 Views
Last post April 08, 2011, 07:43:55 PM
by Paa_Paw