Gynecomastia Forum, Doctor and Surgery Resources

General => Gynecomastia Talk => Topic started by: pe175 on March 05, 2005, 04:07:28 PM

Title: Andractim
Post by: pe175 on March 05, 2005, 04:07:28 PM
Just curious...

Should I try Andractim before I get surgery to see if it works?

Has anyone on this board gotten good results using it?
Title: Re: Andractim
Post by: jc71 on March 05, 2005, 04:11:02 PM
concensus seems to be no.  There's 4 different andractim threads on the next page.
Title: Re: Andractim
Post by: vaio on March 05, 2005, 04:39:18 PM
I consiered it, but after looking on the boards, I have no yet seen one successful before and after picture. Most people that use it report the gland feels softer but there is no obvious visual change. To me its a waste of money.

Also if a Doctor prescribes it to you thats one thing but buying it illegally from the internet is dumb imo.
Title: Re: Andractim
Post by: hypo on March 06, 2005, 02:27:55 AM
Quote
Also if a Doctor prescribes it to you thats one thing but buying it illegally from the internet is dumb imo.
Unquote

Correct.

Quote
I consiered it, but after looking on the boards, I have no yet seen one successful before and after picture. Most people that use it report the gland feels softer but there is no obvious visual change. To me its a waste of money.  
Unquote

There have been successes and they have posted on this board and they have been pointed out to you on more than one occasion Vaio.

Title: Re: Andractim
Post by: vaio on March 06, 2005, 11:04:15 AM
Quote
Quote
Also if a Doctor prescribes it to you thats one thing but buying it illegally from the internet is dumb imo.
Unquote

Correct.

Quote
I consiered it, but after looking on the boards, I have no yet seen one successful before and after picture. Most people that use it report the gland feels softer but there is no obvious visual change. To me its a waste of money.  
Unquote

There have been successes and they have posted on this board and they have been pointed out to you on more than one occasion Vaio.





There are no visual successes that have been pointed out to me. In the one you showed me, the guys nipples were erect in the after picture, which made it look better. Thats was the only difference.

I will say this again, there are no before and after photos with the desired, noticable change that I have personally seen.
Title: Re: Andractim
Post by: hypo on March 06, 2005, 11:57:18 AM
All due respect but that is rubbish, there was a significant reduction in glandular mass as was seen on the photograps and stated by the individual.

The fact is that Andractim does reduce glandular mass in a significant number of people as is borne out by the studies.

Are you claiming that this is not the case?  

If that is so you must be saying that all the evidence found in the studies by multiple endocrinologists is false and fabricated.

If you are not saying that, if there is some middle ground that allows for your statements to be correct and for you not to be directly contradicting all the medical eveidence then please clarify and explain to us how that is.

P.S

I wish you would stop questioning the facts relating to this treatment- just because it was not appropriate for yourself given the fact you have pseudo gynecomastia and this is a treatment for glandular gynecomastia.

Title: Re: Andractim
Post by: Daveo on March 06, 2005, 01:01:10 PM
hypo, i'm going to have to agree with vaio on that.  i can't recall seeing one successful result using andractim.  if you remember which one it was could you please post the link?
Title: Re: Andractim
Post by: hypo on March 06, 2005, 01:54:54 PM
http://www.gynecomastia.org/cgi-bin/gyne_yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=1;action=display;num=1095446135;start=30


A number of people have reported partial ot total success with Andractim just as a number of people have reported no success- it reduced my gynecomastia quite a bit.
Title: Re: Andractim
Post by: vaio on March 06, 2005, 02:05:52 PM
That photo gives off an illusion. The after picture is taken farther away, which makes it look smaller. (things look smaller at a distance) Also the before picture his nipple is soft. The after picture his nipple is erect. Erect nipple means the areola muscle is contracted which pushes the gyne down and hide it.

The guy used Im guessing 2 tubes, which runs over $200 right? Down the trash. There is no noticable difference.
Title: Re: Andractim
Post by: vaio on March 06, 2005, 02:12:45 PM
Quote
All due respect but that is rubbish, there was a significant reduction in glandular mass as was seen on the photograps and stated by the individual.

The fact is that Andractim does reduce glandular mass in a significant number of people as is borne out by the studies.

Are you claiming that this is not the case?  

If that is so you must be saying that all the evidence found in the studies by multiple endocrinologists is false and fabricated.

If you are not saying that, if there is some middle ground that allows for your statements to be correct and for you not to be directly contradicting all the medical eveidence then please clarify and explain to us how that is.

P.S

I wish you would stop questioning the facts relating to this treatment- just because it was not appropriate for yourself given the fact you have pseudo gynecomastia and this is a treatment for glandular gynecomastia.




You mix things up so well Hypo. Here we go again.

I believe it does work on the gland. Its makes it softer, may even shrink it slightly.

It does NOT give off a noticable visual change. I, as well as many other have yet to see this.
Thats why there are NO before and after photos with a NOTICABLE change.

Thats what the thread starter was asking. He wanted to know if he should use it as a last resort before surgery. He doesn't like the way his gyne looks. Andractim has done nothing for anyone on here that we can notice visually. Therefore it would be a waste of money for him.


geez  :)


Vaio





Title: Re: Andractim
Post by: hypo on March 06, 2005, 02:52:23 PM
No visable change look at the link!!

It wont work for you because as your previously stated you have pseudo gynecomastia and Andractim only works on glandular gynecomastia.

Do I have to quote the studies again word by word just to show you that your statements are diametrically opposed to the endocrinologists who stated there were visable changes?

I'll do that for you if you wish.

P.S

The fact is vaio your all over the place when it comes to statements on this therapy and you have little understanding as to its actions.

Geez back at ya :P
Title: Re: Andractim
Post by: vaio on March 06, 2005, 02:58:36 PM
Quote
No visable change look at the link!!

It wont work for you because as your previously stated you have pseudo gynecomastia and Andractim only works on glandular gynecomastia.

Do I have to quote the studies again word by word just to show you that your statements are diametrically opposed to the endocrinologists who stated there were visable changes?

I'll do that for you if you wish.

P.S

The fact is vaio your all over the place when it comes to statements on this therapy and you have little understanding as to its actions.

Geez back at ya :P




Your not a Doctor buddy  ::). You can quote as many studys as you wish. Its stupit for people to spend $200 for slight gland shrinkage if even any. Its false hope. People want it gone.  Andractim won't do that. Surgery will.


Look at day 1 picture and the last day picture in the ONLY LINK you posted.
First picture is close up. His nipple is SOFT.
Last picture is farther away. (from looking at his tattoo)
His nipple is HARD!
HARD NIPPLES HIDE GYNE (since areola muscle is contracted)
His chest still has a cone shape to it. The Andractim did NOTHING to fix his problem. He is going to end up paying for surgery in the long run to get the desired result he is looking for. He wasted $200+ on Andractim.
Not to mention 42 days.

Title: Re: Andractim
Post by: Daveo on March 06, 2005, 03:00:04 PM
I'd say that there's no visible change as well.  In fact I'd say it looks worse, if anything.  In my opinion, it would be a waste of time and money to use andractim.
Title: Re: Andractim
Post by: vaio on March 06, 2005, 03:07:43 PM
Thank you  :P
Title: Re: Andractim
Post by: hypo on March 06, 2005, 04:15:22 PM
What like one opinion equates to vallidation of facts-

I don't think so.

I think the reverse of  you guys does that make me 100% right- of course not.

The fact is Andractim does reduce and resolve gynecomastia in a significant % of cases.

This is not even up for debate my friends!

Andractim has been PROVEN to reduce glandular mass and reduce and resolve gynecomastia by endocrinologists in controlled studies.

Your opinions are not controlled studies.

:P
Title: Re: Andractim
Post by: vaio on March 06, 2005, 05:15:11 PM
Alright Hypo, you got the last word ::). (people these days)
Title: Re: Andractim
Post by: Gine2D on March 07, 2005, 05:41:44 AM
On this one I have to disagree with Hypo.  

Any company that has to rely on false advertisement for money is dishonest.

The product has been advertised for months as Testosterone gel and it was available without a prescription.

Now they are slightly changing the website propaqanda since it was pointed out that it contained no testosterone & was not legal to sell testosterone without a prescription.

They say it was a fake company that was doing it, not them.

Guys at this web site have said they purchased it from All Saints Clinic.  They have never mentioned a  prescription was needed.  

Why would someone use a prescription to purchase something over the internet from who knows where, when they could get real AndroGel or Testim Testosterone from the local pharmacy at the same price?

They could use a prescription to get compounded testosterone at about 1/5 the price.

Now they are advertising it as a gynecomastia reducer.
Are they now suddenly "Honest"?  I Don't think so.

Go to a doctor that specializes in hormones & get your male & female hormones tested.  He can give you a prescription for testosterobne or a Estrogen E2 reducer if you need one.

G
Title: Re: Andractim
Post by: vaio on March 07, 2005, 07:29:45 AM
Thank you once again.

Im starting to think Hypo either works for the company that makes Andractim or has a lot of money invested in its stock or something. He's like the company spokesman trying to get people to spend $100's on a product that gives off false hope. The cases Andractim actually works for, are very rare. Very rare. Hypo stayed at a holiday inn express every night and thinks he's an Endocrinologist.


Vaio
Title: Re: Andractim
Post by: jc71 on March 07, 2005, 07:53:45 AM
LOL. I don't know if they have that commercial in the UK.

I've heard of guys that have had good results with Andractim, but have heard of far more who haven't. Like everything else, what works for one may/may not work for someone else.
Title: Re: Andractim
Post by: hypo on March 07, 2005, 08:16:56 AM
I do not advocate self medication and I never have.

I do not care what that company that is selling Andractim  state about it!!!!!!

They are just a load of tossers and shouldn't be selling it- a pity they couldn't be closed down in my opinion.  

But that does not make Andractim any less useful a treatment in the hands of an endocrinologist.

Gine2d If that company started selling testosterone and stating a load of crap about testosterone would that make testosterone any less useful in the hands of an endocrinologist-  NO IT WOULD NOT!

and the same is true here.

Quote
Why would someone use a prescription to purchase something over the internet from who knows where,
Unquote

I agree 100%

Quote
when they could get real AndroGel or Testim Testosterone from the local pharmacy at the same price?
Unquote

Gine2D...you are not understanding/missing the whole point.

Androgel, Testim etc are testosterone and testosterone is an aromatizable androgen and that means it is not an appropriate treatment for gynecomastia.

Andractim on the other hand is a non aromatizable androgen that cannot be converted to estradiol hence its use in this setting, hence it success in this setting as detailed in controlled medical studies by endocrinologists.

You have to learn and understand the difference otherwise the argument is reduced to a futile misunderstanding of the matters involved.

Quote
Now they are advertising it as a gynecomastia reducer.
Are they now suddenly "Honest"?  I Don't think so.
Unquote

Yes it is used for this purpose by endocrinologists in Europe and it is recommended for this use by Bensin International the company that manufacture it!!!!

This fact is not in question!

and has nothing to do with the fact that these tossers are selling something without a prescription- something they shouldn't be.

They shouldn't be selling Andractim, Andractim shouldn't be self medicated I am with you on this!!!!

But it wasn't them that decided that it could be used as a gynecomastia treatment, it was the phase 3 and 4 medical trials, endocrinologists and national medical regulatory bodies across Europe.

You need to know what you are talking about here before making statements- sorry Gine2d I know you mean well but half of what you are saying is wrong just as the other half of what you are saying is correct.

vaio,

Quote
I’m starting to think Hypo either works for the company that makes Andractim or has a lot of money invested in its stock
Unquote

Please do not make unfounded accusations, or cast aspersions on my character. I have had to listen to such insults from you before-  they were out of order then and they are out of order now!!!!

The fact is I am presenting the truth about this medication no more and no less and I am doing it from an informed position, whereas you actually know very little about this medication.

I have championed the need for endocrinologists- yet I am not an endocrinologist.

I have championed the need for people to get pathology investigations, yet I do not have stock in any pathology laboratories and I am not a phlebotomist.

etc ect

I speak up for the truth- so that that people know the realities and have an idea of what options may be out there.

I do not accuse you of working for a plastic surgeon yet the only option you have ever advocated is surgery.

If you looked at what I have said on this website you would see that the only thing I am pushing for is freedom of accurate information.  

Surgery is the most successful option in treating gynecomastia for those that wish to get rid of it and is NOT in dispute (not that it doesn't have its own drawbacks 64% long term success rate- not 100% as you would think).

This is not a black and white issue.  There are a whole host of reasons as to why alternative therapies like Andractim have their place.

e.g.

For those that have recently developed gynecomastia drug therapies may be a better first line treatment.

For those that cannot afford surgery drug therapies offer an option/ a chance of getting rid of gynecomastia that they would otherwise not have.

For those that cannot have surgery for medical reasons, are afraid of surgery or have minor cases again drug therapies offer an alternative that some people may find be there only choice or find preferable.

P.S


You need to stop trying to reduce this whole issue to something that is black and white- and you need to stop throwing around unfounded accusations just because I fundamentally disagree with what you have to say.

 
Title: Re: Andractim
Post by: vaio on March 07, 2005, 08:19:36 AM
Exactly but the thing that get me, is that I have yet to of come across before and after pictures of actuall noticable, visual results from the Andractim!

The Andractim expert... Hypo, only had 1 set of photos to back his claim up, and even thoes pictures don't show a thing!

My question is, if it actually works, why aren't there pictures?

Conslusion- Don't waste your money on an "experiment"
Title: Re: Andractim
Post by: vaio on March 07, 2005, 08:27:30 AM
Hypo, you got proved wrong. You can stick out you toung as much as you want. I don't wish to read all the crap you type.


Now lets get back on topic.

**If Andractim actually works , where are the before and after photos, "showing an actual, VISUAL change"????* (There are NONE!)**

Its stupit for people to waste money on a product that won't rid them of it.
Title: Re: Andractim
Post by: hypo on March 07, 2005, 09:22:29 AM
Stop throwing insults around it is making you look like an idiot.

The fact that Andractim does work has been proven by the endocrinology studies irrespective of whether or not people have posted results on this site or not- (even though I disagree and believe that the link provided at the very least showed glandular reduction).

Like I have said before this simply isn't up for discussion!

Give me your address and I'll sent you a copy of the god dam report and you can read it and be;

'put straight on the matter'.

Anything else you wish to say on this subject can be directed at someone else-

I’m tried of your musings on a topic that you have absolutely no knowledge or understanding of.



Title: Re: Andractim
Post by: Daveo on March 07, 2005, 09:32:10 AM
Oy.  Who are you going to trust?  Endocrinology studies or people on this site who are living with the same condition that you are?  I'll trust the people on this site before I'll put my faith in a study.

It's like this...Andractim treatments are going to cost you hundreds of dollars which could be used towards surgery.  If it was free, sure I'll rub some miracle cream on my chest for a few weeks.  Unfortunately it's not free, and furthermore it's not going to work an overwhelming majority of the time, and the time that it does work, well it's probably not going to give you anywhere near the results you desire.

I think the bottom line is don't waste your money on Andractim when 99.9% of the people who do are going to end up getting surgery anyway, or wishing they had.
Title: Re: Andractim
Post by: vaio on March 07, 2005, 10:05:28 AM
Closing statement:

Once again. There are NO BEFORE AND AFTER  photos showing a visual change from Andractim.


Title: Re: Andractim
Post by: aux513s on March 07, 2005, 12:17:04 PM
I don't think you shoud order andractim by mail.

Just from looking at "Dr Steven Roles" picture on the All Saints site I can tell it's a scam. That guy just looks sleazy.
Title: Re: Andractim
Post by: hypo on March 07, 2005, 12:41:06 PM
The people who have bought Andractim are self medicating without having had the aetiology of their gynecomastia investigated, in many of these people Andractim would not be an appropriate treatment to start with because;

A) Some of them will have underlying causes that would mean it could not work

B) Some will have pseudo gynecomastia like vaio meaning it would not work.

C) Some of them have BDD meaning it will not work

Etc

Their is no point in saying Andractim does not work because the medical experts and studies state otherwise.

When endocrinologists use it as a treatment for patients with glandular gynecomastia with no underlying causative condition, particularly when such gynecomastia is of recent onset the fact is the studies show that in 75% of cases, glandular gynecomastia is reduced and in 25% of cases glandular gynecomastia is resolved.

These are undisputable facts!

They are results published by one of the countries leading endocrinologists and they are from controlled studies.

How many times do I have to say the following?

This site and people self medicating here are not controlled studies!!!!!! And not representative of the usefulness of this medication!!!!!

For crying out loud- I'm sure many treatments would have lower success rates if they were self medicated and many times in inappropriate people/cases.

Would chemotherapy work if it was self medicated by people who didn't have cancer?

You guys are just losing the plot- you think you have a handle on something that you can't comprehend.

Quote
Miracle cream
Unquote

Daveo

This is just the type of pathetic statement I'm talking about.

It isn't a miracle cream as you sarcastically put it in an attempt to dismiss its relevance; it is the potent non aromatizable androgen/male hormone dihydrotestosterone.

It increases the balance androgens to estrogens in favor of androgens and lowers estradiol by lowering the conversion of testosterone to estradiol.

A poor androgen to estrogen balance is THE single greatest causative factor in the development of gynecomastia and Andractim redresses this balance.

If you are saying that hormones cannot reduce/resolve gynecomastia can you please account for the reduction/resolution of gynecomastia in 90% of pubertal boys?

In case you don't have an answer for that one I'll tell you-

In 90% of boys with gynecomastia their is an improvement in their androgen to estrogen balance and this reduces/resolves gynecomastia- the very same process as the product you mock!!!!

Quote
It’s not going to work an overwhelming majority of the time
Unquote

75% reductions- 1 in 4 resolutions, so with all due respect you’re talking rubbish.

Quote
I think the bottom line is don't waste your money on Andractim when 99.9% of the people who do are going to end up getting surgery anyway
Unquote

If 1 in 4 people, 25% of people have complete resolution why would 99% of people go for surgery- again all due respect but this is total rubbish.

Also you are judging people by your own standards, for many people a good reduction in their gynecomastia would mean that they would not want to have surgery anyway.

And you know what my number one choice when it comes to dealing with gynecomastia is SURGERY- yes you heard that right- so you see I can hardly be said to be anti-surgery in any way at all.

It is just I don't like seeing a lot of rubbish talked by people who quite frankly don't seem to know their ass from there elbow- which you guys don't when it comes to this medication and yet your keen to show the world your ignorance.

Vaio

Your not in a court room- your closing statement as you put it has about as much relevance as urination against a wall when set against the expert sources that completely contradict your comments.










Title: Re: Andractim
Post by: vaio on March 07, 2005, 01:02:05 PM
Quote
Closing statement:

Once again. There are NO BEFORE AND AFTER  photos showing a visual change from Andractim.



Title: Re: Andractim
Post by: hypo on March 07, 2005, 02:12:25 PM
Repeating the same statements over and over does not lend gravitas to your position- it just makes it boring.

This site is not a controlled study what oictures are posted here are not a reflection or lack of it of the realities.

By questioning the fact that Andractim reduces and resolves glandular gynecomastia you are effectively calling one of the countries leading endocrinologists a liar and you are calling his counterparts in many other countries where studies have been performed that have shown similar reults liars as well.

Who should we believe a kid who knows nothing whatsoever about the aetiology of gynecomastia or Glenn D Braunstein M.D endocrinologist.

A bit of a no brainer :P




Title: Re: Andractim
Post by: vaio on March 07, 2005, 02:33:58 PM
Quote
Repeating the same statements over and over does not lend gravitas to your position- it just makes it boring.

Who should we believe a kid who knows nothing whatsoever about the aetiology of gynecomastia or Glenn D Braunstein M.D endocrinologist.

A bit of a no brainer :P








There are NO BEFORE AND AFTER  photos showing a visual change from Andractim use, thats all there is to it.

Title: Re: Andractim
Post by: vaio on March 07, 2005, 02:49:41 PM
Quote


By questioning the fact that Andractim reduces and resolves glandular gynecomastia you are effectively calling one of the countries leading endocrinologists a liar and you are calling his counterparts in many other countries where studies have been performed that have shown similar reults liars as well.

Who should we believe a kid who knows nothing whatsoever about the aetiology of gynecomastia or Glenn D Braunstein M.D endocrinologist.

A bit of a no brainer :P




Damn, thats one hella of a run on sentence! You need to go back and take high school English and stop trying to impress people with all your writing. You sentences do not even make sense.

I can sit here all day and all night and argue with you. The reason I am doing so right now, is because I cannot do much since I just had surgery. Im pretty much glued to the computer, and bored to death.

Obviously you have nothing else better to do than sit here, argue back and fourth with someone that lives 1,000's of miles away from you. It shows the kind of person you are. A nit wit.

If Andractim work so well, there would be before and after photos, showing a visual change from the use of it. There are none. There are hundreds of users on here that you influenced into buying Andractim by your repeated "it works" posts. Out of the hundreds on here that have used it, there are NONE that have pictures to back the claim up that it works. None. Zero. "0".

You can go on and on again about the SINGLE link you showed us saying he had results from the Andractim. I as well as countless others agree there are no results.
Are you blind?

What else can you possibly argue about now? Theres  no visual proof. NONE. ZERO. NADDA. "0". Do you understand Hypo? Yes or no? DO you understand that there are no before and after photos showing a significant visual chage from the use of Andractim in treating gynecomastia? Answer the question. (Don't blab on about other crap thats off subject like you always do.) Answer my question.
Title: Re: Andractim
Post by: Daveo on March 07, 2005, 03:20:08 PM
I'm not sure why I got ripped a new *sshole, but I'm done now.
Title: Re: Andractim
Post by: headheldhigh01 on March 07, 2005, 11:06:02 PM
hypo, for all his extensive endocrinological wisdom, sometimes treats impersonal discussions of fact or opinion with more personal sensitivity than the occasion may call for.  let it go as you've done and keep to the issue so far as you think is productive.  
Title: Re: Andractim
Post by: hypo on March 08, 2005, 01:21:09 AM
I am willing to argue back and forth because it is my perogative and because this is an area I am interest in given the endocrinology.  

Do not try to imply that this is an acceptable topic for you to discuss but that it is not acceptable for me to discuss (stating it shows what I am like)-  because that doesn't hold water.

Also drop the idea about the English, it smacks of a kid hitting out at whatever he can because his arguments are threadbare.

I will say this for you one last time!

This site is not the issue- what is or is not posted here in terms of photographs is neither here nor there;

It is the controlled studies that are important.  

It is the controlled studies by the endocrinologists that have proven the worth of this treatment.

75% reductions in glandular gynecomastia, 25% resolutions of glandular gynecomastia.

And that is not the only study I have more:)

Also can you try getting your god darn fact straight-

I have not influenced anyone to BUY Andractim.  

I have constantly stated that this should not be self medicated and I have constantly told people not to use it unless prescribed it by an endocrinologist.

Furthermore I did not introduce the discussion of Andractim to this website; neither have I at any point mentioned that awful site that sells it to people.

The first discussion that ever involved Andractim on this site saw ME slated on this website by Gruff et al for telling people that they should NOT be self medicating and that that it was IRRESPONSIBLE to be advertising that website.

I am positive about Andractim in the hands of an endocrinologist; just as I am positive about a scalpel in the hands of a surgeon....I don't want either in the hands of self medicating people!!!!!

So please do me a favor and stop talking out of your ass.

If you wish to confirm these facts ask head or do a search.  I believe the original thread was testosterone gel.

It must be said apart from reiterating the same limited point over and over and adding things like- NADDA you have offered little.  

Because you have no arguments and because you have quite literally put your word against that of one of the most eminent endocrinologists in the United States you have had no where else to go.  

So you turn to barn burning- you question my English, you question my right to discuss the topic and without any evidence whatsoever you try mud slinging by calling me into question.

Vaio- any fool can burn a barn.    

Daveo,

I said what I said because your statement was deliberately sarcastic regarding the usefulness of the medication, something you didn’t and still don’t understand.

Head,

For your information- my remarks in that regard were not personal at all.

You guys are having a great go at tag-teaming here to try and put my points down.

But the facts remain the facts however much you dispute them.  

P.S

This discussion is about the viability of this treatment, therefore this whole discussion revolves around endocrinology and you know what?

Not one of you knows a god darn thing about endocrinology!!

That is me finished as far as this thread is concerned- you can say and do what you like from this moment forth.



Title: Re: Andractim
Post by: vaio on March 08, 2005, 08:42:14 AM


Hypo, stop geting off subject. Answer my question YES or NO.
Are there ANY before and after photos showing a VISUAL change in Gynecomastia from using Andractim?
Yes or No?
Title: Re: Andractim
Post by: Daveo on March 08, 2005, 09:10:40 AM
Sorry to be off-topic, but hypo:

For all of your knowledge about andractim and endocrinology, your knowledge about being tactful and dealing with people is in need of serious work.  Your demeaning approach to conversation is insulting and extremely annoying.

I used to think you were an alright guy just from reading your posts, but now I just think you're disrespectful and rude.

When I was in middle school I used to experience arguments like this in AOL chat rooms.

Getting back on topic, for anyone wondering:

"Should I try Andractim before I get surgery to see if it works?"

No, you shouldn't try andractim before surgery to "see if it works".

"Has anyone on this board gotten good results using it? "

No, assuming "good" means anything that I would be happy living with, and I can only speak for myself.
Title: Re: Andractim
Post by: Boobs on March 08, 2005, 11:31:27 AM
I think hypo is the only one with any sense around here. go hypo!
Title: Re: Andractim
Post by: vaio on March 08, 2005, 11:43:32 AM
^speak of people Hypo's got using that stuff.
Title: Re: Andractim
Post by: hypo on March 08, 2005, 02:22:45 PM
Unique Identifier
3088241
Authors
Eberle AJ. Sparrow JT. Keenan BS.
Title
Treatment of persistent pubertal gynecomastia with dihydrotestosterone heptanoate.
Source
Journal of Pediatrics. 109(1):144-9, 1986 Jul.
Abstract
Four boys with persistent pubertal gynecomastia were given intramuscular dihydrotestosterone heptanoate (DHT-hp) at 2 to 4-week intervals for 16 weeks. By the end of treatment, breast size in all four boys had decreased 67% to 78%. Initial plasma levels of gonadotropins, estradiol, testosterone, and dihydrotestosterone (DHT) were normal. Mean plasma DHT concentration rose with the injections of DHT-hp, and remained elevated throughout the treatment period. Estradiol, LH, FSH, and testosterone decreased during treatment, as did 24-hour urinary LH and FSH. No regrowth of breast tissue was observed 6 to 15 months after treatment, although hormone concentrations had returned to near pretreatment values by 2 months after the last injection. DHT-hp has potential to be an effective medical therapy for persistent pubertal gynecomastia.


Unique Identifier
6354523
Authors
Kuhn JM. Roca R. Laudat MH. Rieu M. Luton JP. Bricaire H.
Title
Studies on the treatment of idiopathic gynaecomastia with percutaneous dihydrotestosterone.
Source
Clinical Endocrinology. 19(4):513-20, 1983 Oct.
Abstract
We have studied clinical and endocrine parameters in a group (group A) of forth men referred to us because of persistent idiopathic gynaecomastia (of more than 18 months duration), before and during the administration of percutaneous dihydrotestosterone (DHT). The endocrine parameters (testosterone (T), 17 beta-oestradiol (E2), DHT, gonadotrophins (FSH and LH) and prolactin (PRL), were compared to those of control groups of 12 healthy men on DHT therapy (group B) and 10 on placebo (group C). 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). Before treatment the T + DHT/E2 ratio was significantly (P less than 0.001) lower in group A 244 +/- 21 (SEM) than in groups B and C (361 +/- 21) while T, DHT and E2 concentrations were all within the normal range. During DHT treatment plasma hormone levels were measured in 26 patients from group A: DHT levels increases significantly (day 0: 1.63 +/- 0.14 nmol/l; day 15: 12.8 +/- 1.6 nmol/l, P less than 0.001) while T and E2 levels fell significantly (T: day 0: 22.6 +/- 1.2 nmol/l; day 15: 11.0 +/- 1.5 nmol/l, P less than 0.001; E2: day 0: 110.5 +/- 7.12 pmol/l;

Couldn't resist  ;D
Title: Re: Andractim
Post by: vaio on March 08, 2005, 03:43:38 PM
Once again, Hypo dodges the question and refuses to answer it.

Let's try this one again. :)
 
WHY are there NO before and after photos showing a VISUAL change in Gynecomastia from using Andractim?
On this site, or on the ENTIRE INTERNET!

WHY?  ???

(lets see if he goes off subject once again)
Title: Re: Andractim
Post by: hypo on March 08, 2005, 03:53:14 PM
 ;D

All these endocrinologists are liars and you are right.

Eberle AJ.
Sparrow JT.
Keenan BS.
Kuhn JM.
Roca R.
Laudat MH.
Rieu M.
Luton JP.
Bricaire H.
Braunstein
Shippen

You are right because no one posted photographs on this site for you.

You've got me  ;D
Title: Re: Andractim
Post by: vaio on March 08, 2005, 04:05:32 PM
Thank you Hypo. How that we have come to the conclusion that there are none on this site.

Question #2.

What about on the WHOLE INTERNET itself???
I searched google, and yahoo and found no before and after photos. NONE? Why are there none on the internet itself??
Title: Re: Andractim
Post by: vaio on March 08, 2005, 04:13:58 PM
The point I am trying to make, is that if this product works enough to satisfy people, there would be pictures of them showing the change.
They would be excited!

I cannot find pictures. Im baffled.

Don't get me wrong, how Andractim works, makes perfect sense. Im not some joe shmo, who "talks out his ass". I understand the principle of it.

What I don't get is thru their studys "67% to 78%" of Adolesent boys had breast shrinkage according to the research you posted. Thats a large percent!
Where are the visuals? Where are the pictures, the actual evidence proving this? Showing this? There have hundreds of people on gynecomastia.org that have tried or should I say experimented with Andractim and they have not had any noticable results.




Title: Re: Andractim
Post by: hypo on March 08, 2005, 04:16:57 PM
Ooh got me again!

Or maybe endocrinologists do not publish medical photographs for idiots searching google and yahoo but keep such sensitive material on medical websites that can only be accessed by medically issued passwords ::)

Mmm- No you got me again its a fair cop ;D

Do me a favour can you go and get me these articles in full text from google or yahoo for me please- cheers  ;D

Unique Identifier
3642405
Record Owner
NLM
Authors
Aw C.

Title
Keeping abreast of gynaecomastia.
Source
Occupational Health. 38(11):367-8, 1986 Nov.
Abbreviated Source
Occup Health (Lond). 38(11):367-8, 1986 Nov.
Publication Notes
The publication year is for the print issue of this journal.
NLM Journal Code
odb, 0021263
Journal Subset
N
Country of Publication
England
MeSH Subject Headings
Child
*Gynecomastia / et [Etiology]
Gynecomastia / ge [Genetics]
Gynecomastia / pc [Prevention & Control]
Human
Male
*Occupational Diseases / pc [Prevention & Control]
ISSN
0029-7917
Publication Type
Journal Article.
Language
English
Entry Date
19870129
Revision Date
20001218
Update Date
20031209


Unique Identifier
4471608
Record Owner
NLM
Authors
Wehby V. Salti I.
Title
The significance of gynecomastia.
Source
Journal Medical Libanais - Lebanese Medical Journal. 27(6):719-21, 1974.
Abbreviated Source
J Med Liban. 27(6):719-21, 1974.
Publication Notes
The publication year is for the print issue of this journal.
NLM Journal Code
j1z, 0375352
Journal Subset
IM
Country of Publication
Lebanon
MeSH Subject Headings
Adolescent
Adult
Age Factors
Gynecomastia / ci [Chemically Induced]
Gynecomastia / di [Diagnosis]
*Gynecomastia / et [Etiology]
Human
Male
ISSN
0023-9852
Publication Type
Journal Article.
Language
English
Entry Date
19751204
Revision Date
20021101
Update Date
20031209

Unique Identifier
4738800
Record Owner
NLM
Authors
Yoshioka I. Katsuta S.
Title
[Clinical study of gynecomastia--an etiological study]. [Japanese]
Source
Horumon to Rinsho - Clinical Endocrinology. 21(4):427-30, 1973 Apr.
Abbreviated Source
Horumon To Rinsho. 21(4):427-30, 1973 Apr.
Publication Notes
The publication year is for the print issue of this journal.
NLM Journal Code
dcp, 0420561
Journal Subset
IM
Country of Publication
Japan
MeSH Subject Headings
Addison's Disease / co [Complications]
Adult
Aged
*Gynecomastia / et [Etiology]
Human
Liver Diseases / co [Complications]
Male
Metabolic Diseases / co [Complications]
Middle Aged
ISSN
0045-7167
Publication Type
Journal Article.
Language
Japanese
Entry Date
19731115
Revision Date
20031114
Update Date
20031209


could be good can’t get

Unique Identifier
9174780
Record Owner
NLM
Authors
Braunstein GD. Glassman HA.
Institution
University of California, School of Medicine, Los Angeles, USA.
Title
Gynecomastia. [Review] [5 refs]
Source
Current Therapy in Endocrinology & Metabolism. 6:401-4, 1997.
Abbreviated Source
Curr Ther Endocrinol Metab. 6:401-4, 1997.
Publication Notes
The publication year is for the print issue of this journal.
NLM Journal Code
cb9, 8601485
Journal Subset
IM
Country of Publication
Canada
MeSH Subject Headings
Adolescent
Adult
Gynecomastia / dt [Drug Therapy]
Gynecomastia / pc [Prevention & Control]
Gynecomastia / su [Surgery]
*Gynecomastia / th [Therapy]
Human
Male
ISSN
0831-652X
Publication Type
Journal Article. Review. Review, Tutorial.
Language
English
Entry Date
19970721
Revision Date
20021101
Update Date
20031209




Title: Re: Andractim
Post by: vaio on March 08, 2005, 04:19:51 PM
Ok so you still back up the claim that it will work, and there are no before and after pictures on the ENTIRE INTERNET!!

Ok we are talking the ENTIRE INTERNET :o! No before and after photos of results from Andractim. And you still believe it will give people a noticable result :o?


If it worked so well (67% to 78%), there would be tons of photos. It would not be hard to find any. As we speak I know you are searching you butt off trying to find some to prove me wrong. Look all you want. I did. I found none!




Title: Re: Andractim
Post by: vaio on March 08, 2005, 04:34:42 PM
On a humerous note:

If 50 photographers with camreas in hand, all saw Big Foot in New York, and none of them took a picture, would you believe them?

Thats what this whole Andractim debate seems like to me.

All these people have access to cameras. They all have used Andractim. Some say it worked and none took photos to see before and after results?? Im sure most of them did take photos but the results were so scanty, a change could not be noticed(therefore they were not happy with the results if there were even any!). I would estimate 80%+ of people that have surgery are excited about it and end up posting pictures showing the change.

Your claim that Andractim is worth trying (hence the reason you started argueing with me after I said it wasent) has nothing to back it up, other than words.
The change people want from Andractim is VISUAL. NOT VERBAL. Words do no justice. Pictures do.

All you are doing is beating a dead hourse to death! We want photos showing what andractim can and willl do!
There are none to back up the claims, and even if there were some, they shoudlnt be this hard to find.

To put this thread to rest: Its not worth it to spend the money and try* Andractim, unless surgery is out of the question due to a hormonal imbalance. All you can do is experiment.


Good Night
Title: Re: Andractim
Post by: hypo on March 08, 2005, 04:39:58 PM
Hehe ;D

Oh you mean you couldn't find those reports- I guess they must not exist on the internet then either ;)

Either that or the endocrinologists do not put them on the internet for idiots to find using google and yahoo, meaning they are on the internet but not for you to find my lad ;)

Mmmmmm ;D

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.  



Have you ever had the feeling of being out of your depth  :-*


Title: Re: Andractim
Post by: vaio on March 08, 2005, 04:41:35 PM
Quote
On a humerous note:

If 50 photographers with camreas in hand, all saw Big Foot in New York, and none of them took a picture, would you believe them?

Thats what this whole Andractim debate seems like to me.

All these people have access to cameras. They all have used Andractim. Some say it worked and none took photos to see before and after results?? Im sure most of them did take photos but the results were so scanty, a change could not be noticed(therefore they were not happy with the results if there were even any!). I would estimate 80%+ of people that have surgery are excited about it and end up posting pictures showing the change.

Your claim that Andractim is worth trying (hence the reason you started argueing with me after I said it wasent) has nothing to back it up, other than words.
The change people want from Andractim is VISUAL. NOT VERBAL. Words do no justice. Pictures do.

All you are doing is beating a dead hourse to death! We want photos showing what andractim can and willl do!
There are none to back up the claims, and even if there were some, they shoudlnt be this hard to find.

To put this thread to rest: Its not worth it to spend the money and try* Andractim, unless surgery is out of the question due to a hormonal imbalance. All you can do is experiment.


Good Night

Title: Re: Andractim
Post by: hypo on March 08, 2005, 04:44:30 PM
I wonder what it feels like to be simple and repeat the same mantra.

I wonder what it feels like to be simple and repeat the same mantra.

I wonder what it feels like to be simple and repeat the same mantra.

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Andractim
Post by: vaio on March 08, 2005, 04:44:34 PM
Quote
Hehe ;D

Oh you mean you couldn't find those reports- I guess they must not exist on the internet then either ;)

Either that or the endocrinologists do not put them on the internet for idiots to find using google and yahoo, meaning they are on the internet but not for you to find my lad ;)

Mmmmmm ;D

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.  



Have you ever had the feeling of being out of your depth  :-*







Hypo, there are no pictures to back up the claim on the entire internet!

Title: Re: Andractim
Post by: vaio on March 08, 2005, 04:50:33 PM
Quote
I wonder what it feels like to be simple and repeat the same mantra.

I wonder what it feels like to be simple and repeat the same mantra.

I wonder what it feels like to be simple and repeat the same mantra.

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D






You have been proved wrong buddy and you cannot admit it. I keep repeating my questions because you will not answer them and accept the truth.

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."
Title: Re: Andractim
Post by: vaio on March 08, 2005, 04:53:17 PM
You have a lot of growing up to do. You act like a woman. You cannot admit you were wrong, and keep bitching and changing the subject. On a serious note, maybe you act like this because of your hormone imbalance ???
Title: Re: Andractim
Post by: hypo on March 08, 2005, 05:02:52 PM
And you may be a genius, the contrary is of course probable.

You live in a black and white world and you seem to have an overwhelming interest in pictures.

Perhaps we should all write in pictures instead of words.

On a serious note do you do kids parties?



Title: Re: Andractim
Post by: vaio on March 08, 2005, 05:08:30 PM
Quote
And you may be a genius, the contrary is of course probable.

You live in a black and white world and you seem to have an overwhelming interest in pictures.

Perhaps we should all write in pictures instead of words.

On a serious note do you do kids parties?







You must be very a very lonely person to argue with a kid on the internet all night. Now you are asking me if I do kids partys? Are you a pedophile or something?

Title: Re: Andractim
Post by: vaio on March 08, 2005, 05:14:20 PM




You make no sense! DO you really expect people to buy something that says it will make their chest smaller without seeing before and after photos?

If you were a female, would you get breast implasts without seeing before and after photos?

If you wanted a face lift, would you get it done without ever seeing a single before and after photo from a previous case?

NO

How can you sit here and still argue with me. You have been proved wrong without a shadow of a doubt. WHat more can you possible say?
Title: Re: Andractim
Post by: Daveo on March 08, 2005, 06:00:53 PM
You're acting like a real jackass, hypo.  What are you trying to prove?  What's all the crap about medical journals vs. the internet?  You're insulting everyone on this board.  If you were really such a guru about this subject, would you really feel the need to prove it in such a terrible way?  Christ, man, c'mon.
Title: Re: Andractim
Post by: aux513s on March 08, 2005, 07:25:14 PM
 Hahaha this argument is getting really funny to read.  :D
Title: Re: Andractim
Post by: vaio on March 08, 2005, 07:47:42 PM
It's rediculous how he keeps saying it works. There is not a single before and after photo on the entire internet proving this! You can stick out your toung all you want. Let the inner child out.  
Title: Re: Andractim
Post by: hypo on March 09, 2005, 07:02:58 AM
Talking to you has been like trying to teach a dog a card trick :-/

But ok I’ll stop playing with you now and get serious again-  

It has been impossible to reason with you Vaio as you have been mindlessly illogical and impossibly dogmatic.

The whole point about asking you to get those endocrine reports, something which went WAY over your head was this;

Those reports I asked you to get are out there on the internet just as the before and after photographs of Andractim treatment are out there.  Just they cannot be found via google or yahoo.  They are kept as most sensitive medical material is, at secure sites that can only be accessed via medical passwords by medical professionals- like endocrinologists.

This is true of many, many medical photographs.

Do you understand that or is that beyond your comprehension?

To prove this point I am going to give you another task-

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

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?

Do you understand that or is that beyond your comprehension?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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.

Give me an answer to this please!!!

So there you go- making you look like a fool for easy pickings and laughs over with at least for now ;D

Enlighten us with your answers if you can.


P.S

I only had reduction of gynecomastia being in the 75% of people with Andractim as opposed to the 25% of people who have complete resolutuion.  Probably because I had gynecomastia for years- but we wont get into that subject because you wont understand that either.

Anyway here are my photos

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










Title: Re: Andractim
Post by: vaio on March 09, 2005, 11:57:48 AM
Hypo, you say that gynecomasita reduction is such a sensitive subject that before and after photos are not posted? Thats nonsense. For crying out loud, there are pictures of woman who had labia reductions on the internet! You can find any picture of anything on the internet. And if theres a medication that says it will reduce gynecomasitia and it actually work, you bet your bottom dollar, there would be before and after photos showing the change.

You keep saying that I think Endo's are liers. Are you fucken stupit? I tell you over and over again, results from Andractim are so minimal that you can't even notice a difference! Its the truth! Which makes it a waste of time and money. \

Stop putting words in my mouth jackass.
Your pictures below show before, a soft nipple and after, a hard nipple. Its not hard to see that!


If I took before pictures of my nipples soft and hard, there would be a major improvement just because my nipple washard and the areola muscle was contracted.

Andractim will not give the desired results as one would expect therefore it is a waste of money.  
Title: Re: Andractim
Post by: vaio on March 09, 2005, 12:01:50 PM
You need to just stop cause you are making a fool out of your self.
Title: Re: Andractim
Post by: Boobs on March 09, 2005, 12:05:55 PM
are you kidding me, vaio? his pictures make it so obvious there was a change.
Title: Re: Andractim
Post by: Boobs on March 09, 2005, 12:08:16 PM
hypo, what was your treatment regimen with andractim?
Title: Re: Andractim
Post by: vaio on March 09, 2005, 12:41:08 PM
Quote
are you kidding me, vaio? his pictures make it so obvious there was a change.


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

Ok lets examine his pictures once more.

Before pictures, his nipples are SOFT and his arms are down at his sides.

After pictures his nipples are noticable HARD and erect, his arms are not at his sides. His arms are pulled back! Thats makes the chest look smaller. The hard nipples hide the gland.

You mean to tell me that you can't notice this??

Hypo has been using  Andractim for quite some time and has no noticable results.
Title: Re: Andractim
Post by: hypo on March 09, 2005, 12:49:21 PM
Yes Boobs

My results were with Andractim prescribed by my specialist as a replacement at the time for testogel given my hypogonadism.

They were not amazing, much less than what can be expected for many people- but they allowed me to live with the condition a lot easier.

The gynecomastia was far less breast like, and was far easier to conceal than before.  It made a big difference to me psychologically- but is dismissed by people like vaio.

Drug treatments like Andractim are less likely to work after gynecomastia has developed over two years and reductions in glandular mass tend to be less.  This is because the glandular tissue becomes fibrous and less responsive to treatment.

Still it did a job for me even if in my case that was just making life easier for a year or two until surgery.

Those that are likely to have complete resolution are those whose gynecomastia developed within the last year to two years.

I have showed the clinical evidence- time and again!

Incidentally Glenn D Braunstein M.D and Eugene Shippen M.D are two of the leading endocrinologists in the world-

Vaio says they are liars!!!!!

Vaio says that I am putting words into his mouth, I ask how?  

They say;

Andractim shrinks gynecomastia and can reduce/resolve it in a statistically significant number of people

Vaio says

It cannot.

How am I putting words into his mouth?

How is he not saying they are liars?

How????

Tell me Vaio, please tell me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

When you have finished doing that;

Quote
Hypo, you say that gynecomasita reduction is such a sensitive subject that before and after photos are not posted? That’s nonsense. For crying out loud, there are pictures of woman who had labia reductions on the internet! You can find any picture of anything on the internet.
Unquote

Most of the photographs you are referring to relate to surgery.  

Of course you get before and after photographs with surgery- that is the nature of surgery.  It doesn't tend to work that way with drug treatments or other sensitive medical issues.

If what your saying is true and you can get anything;

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

Get me the photograph now!!!!!!

Also I want photographs of a man with hypogonadism before and after treatments to see the very real differences in muscle mass development that occur.

If you don't get me those photograph to prove your point-

Maybe you'll realize it is because it is not so easy to come by and that it is deliberately held on medical sites that need passwords so clever guys like you and your genius use of google and yahoo can't view them ;D

Right all that out of the way........


I have given you another set of before and afters no less than my own, irrespective of your opinions on them.  

Now!!!!

You answer my questions you little....you know what I wont lower myself ;)

Just answer my questions now.      

P.S

When you are not able to answer the questions, when you fall foul of them and are completely unable to answer the questions or complete the tasks to prove the validity of your own points- I will be doing this;

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

You must wish you never got into this because you are out of your depth  :-*




Added following Vaios last post.

If you look at my side photograps I went from having titts to having little gynecomastia.

The front photographs are a little harder to determine, I apologise I never realised they were going to be used as evidence otherwise they would be less conspicuous.

I concede that my arms are at a different position and further back to make me look better in the after photograph- BUT- look at the breast tissue, does anyone seriously think I had anywhere near the amount of breast tissue?

I am telling you for a fact I did not!!!















Title: Re: Andractim
Post by: vaio on March 09, 2005, 01:40:28 PM
I don't feel like reasearching all this bs for you hypo. Im in college, I have a life, unlike you.



There are NO BEFORE AND AFTER PHOTOS showing a visual change from Andractim use!!!! NONE

END OF DISCUSSION
Title: Re: Andractim
Post by: hypo on March 09, 2005, 01:48:35 PM
You didn't answer the questions I asked or provide the evidence that vallidated your position because you were incapable of doing just that.

Hence your pathetic cop out.

A tip;

In future learn when your out of your depth and don't speak with authority upon subjects that you have no knowldege or understanding of.

Having had to put up with your insults and having just seen your comment to a man with a possible pituitary problem- I'm going to break with tradition just for you.


Your a Tw@


Modified

You’re in college oh sorry- I should have realized and bowed to the obvious wisdom that must ensue ;)

I was;

A computer software designer

Senior computer software designer

An associate computer software producer

A computer software producer

Senior computer software producer and company manager- I used to handle muti-million pound business accounts.

I also qualified as a tennis coach before I was ill.


College indeed- who on earth do you think you are talking to?
Title: Re: Andractim
Post by: vaio on March 09, 2005, 02:54:37 PM

There are NO BEFORE AND AFTER PHOTOS showing a visual change from Andractim use.
Title: Re: Andractim
Post by: Daveo on March 09, 2005, 03:44:17 PM
You're like a god, hypo.

I'd be proud if I was you.
Title: Re: Andractim
Post by: hypo on March 09, 2005, 04:22:13 PM
Daveo,

You’re being sarcastic as you were earlier in this debate.  

You had little grasp of the issues then and you are just as ignorant of the issues now.

Answer the questions and tasks that I put to Vaio fully or;

Forget matters and just give it up.

I’ve already pulled the wings off one mindless fly.
Title: Re: Andractim
Post by: vaio on March 09, 2005, 05:02:48 PM
Hypo, you have personal issues you need to work out with yourself. Im through with you. Get a life.



There are NO BEFORE AND AFTER PHOTOS showing a visual change from Andractim use.
Title: Re: Andractim
Post by: hypo on March 09, 2005, 05:12:01 PM
I’ve answered your questions-

Answer my questions in full you moron or shut up!
Title: Re: Andractim
Post by: vaio on March 09, 2005, 06:21:16 PM
Your questions have nothing to do with the post.  

There are NO BEFORE AND AFTER PHOTOS showing a visual change from Andractim use on the entire internet.
Accept it!
Your the pathetic one. Get a life. and grow some balls while your at it. f***en homo.
Title: Re: Andractim
Post by: aux513s on March 09, 2005, 08:22:02 PM
Lol, you guys are taking this way to seriously.

I'm convinced that, although both of you disagree, you each really believe in what you're saying. You're both just trying  to present the facts as you see them in order to help others who suffer from this horrible disease.

Is this any reason to insult each other?
Title: Re: Andractim
Post by: Fgyne on March 09, 2005, 08:45:09 PM
In my expireince, andractim was not worth it.  It just became a chore with hardly any effects.  The only good thing is it keeps your nips hard for a while which i am gonna use to my advantage next week for spring break...
Title: Re: Andractim
Post by: vaio 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.
Title: Re: Andractim
Post by: Daveo 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.
Title: Re: Andractim
Post by: hypo 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.




Title: Re: Andractim
Post by: Daveo 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.
Title: Re: Andractim
Post by: Daveo 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.
Title: Re: Andractim
Post by: jc71 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.
Title: Re: Andractim
Post by: Daveo 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!
Title: Re: Andractim
Post by: hypo 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 :-*




Title: Re: Andractim
Post by: Daveo 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.
Title: Re: Andractim
Post by: vaio 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.
Title: Re: Andractim
Post by: vaio on March 10, 2005, 12:35:01 PM
and quit bitching and acting like a woman.
Title: Re: Andractim
Post by: hypo 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!
 


Title: Re: Andractim
Post by: vaio 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.

Title: Re: Andractim
Post by: hypo 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.

Title: Re: Andractim
Post by: vaio 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.
Title: Re: Andractim
Post by: vaio on March 10, 2005, 06:44:04 PM
From many psychology discussions, how you are acting towards people is a tell tale sign of mental hurt, and low self asteem. Just to let you know.

You make it very apparent just from your typing behavior. Any slight mistake someone makes, or if their opinion does not match yours you go OFF THE WALL.
You have to try to prove them wrong no matter what. You cannot accept being wrong. You have to be right everytime!  If something contractdicts you, you attack them, with long thoughtout responseto prove yourself.

Im guessing in real life, you are a prisoner to yourself as a result of your gynecomastia? On the internet, nobody sees you, nobody can judge you. You are free. So it seems to me this is where you let out all your frustration.

Point im trying to make is you don't have to do it that way. I was doing alot of the argueing back and fourth just for the sole purpose to expose this. You seem like an intelligant individual but you have got to learn to accept things that are true as well as peoples opinions.

So let me rephrase the entire debateas an adult.  

In my opinion, no, it is not worth the money to "try" Andractim. Unless you have money to burn. From successrates on this site, there are little to none. There are also no before and after pictures SHOWING anything  more than erect nipples. I'm NOT bashing the product or its claims, im just making it apparent that the product claims it will shrink the gland, inturn making the chest look better. And that:

"There are no pictures showing before and after of what the product claims."

(you shouldnt even aregue with me on that. You should either agree or say "no there are some. Here are some" and post pictures and "inform me". NOT prove me wrong, making yourself seem higher up. On higher ground. Its disrespectful. Im not a debating individual. I take offence to people argueing with me on stupit things. Its annoying. And immature.)


Thats my opinion. DO NOT quote my post, and say "no this is wrong, or correct, or No thats not right."

ACCEPT what I said, and leave it at that.
I read what you wrote, I wrote what I wrote.
Leave it at that.

If you post back commenting on me and saying "thats not right, or correct, etc." we are right back at square 1..

Its all about respecting onces opinion, and proving them wrong in a respectful mannor. No  "move to higher ground, im king of the hill, or im the shit, kind of mannor"
Thats  (c)ockyness. I took offence to that. Thats why I because disrespectful back towards you.


peace
Vaio

Title: Re: Andractim
Post by: hypo on March 11, 2005, 02:15:58 AM
The debate over Andractim is over.


You talk about being an adult and of respecting other peoples opinions.

Firstly you do not have the right to be treated like an adult.

Go back and look at how many base insults you made in the course of one thread.

You have hurled a torrent of abuse in my direction and you conclude your post with- peace- is that some sick joke?

Secondly respect is something which is earned, it cannot be demanded and your behavior doesn't warrant any respect at all.

You think of yourself as quite the amateur psychologist and you say that I have psychological problems; well I do have psychological problems regarding my gynecomastia- but nothing out of the ordinary.

You however have real issues.

I mean you seem to have a very low opinion of women for example as you were using them as a derogatory slur.

Quote
You couldnt find any and became psycho, like a woman

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

How would your mother feel if she were reading this, would she treat you, would it be like an adult and with respect- with such language?

And you use homophobic language to insult me as well quote

your at it. f***en homo

I’m not gay, but I believe in tolerance towards people who are.

P.S

Can leave me alone now please; I can’t face talking to you any more.


Title: Re: Andractim
Post by: target3 on March 11, 2005, 03:21:44 AM
pregnant doging hehehe...
Title: Re: Andractim
Post by: vaio on March 11, 2005, 11:24:38 AM
Hypo, you have learned nothing from what I wrote. You continue to say things to get a reaction out of me. Im not going to answer your disrespectful questions.
Stop asking them. Stop writing crap to me or about me.
I don't care.