"Clomid & Nolvadex - The Dark Side"

[dezza6969]

I tried using the search tool bar to see members thoughts on this article by Eric Potratz, but couldn't find a thread about it. Anyway what are your views on the following article?-

------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Clomid & Nolvadex - The Dark Side

By Eric M. Potratz (Email)

Eric M. Potratz has developed his education in the field of endocrinology and performance enhancement through years of research, counseling, and real world experience. Over the past five years he has been a private consultant for hundreds of athletes and bodybuilders alike, and is the founder & president of Primordial Performance.



Preface - Over the past 15 years, the use of Clomid and Nolvadex, as Selective Estrogen Receptor Modulators (SERMs) has become a staple in the HRT and bodybuilding communities.

The popularity of these drugs stems from the popular advice to use these drugs for everything from testosterone recovery, bloat reduction, to gyno prevention. In many communities SERMs have become akin to vitamins -- vitamins that can do no wrong and provide seemingly endless benefits.

This article is not intended to examine the proper use or possible applications of Clomid or Nolvadex. Instead, we will be exploring the historical development of these drugs, the short-term side-effects and long-term consequences.

As I will illustrate, these drugs are true danger to men’s health.

Synthetic estrogens, the beginning -

It was the 1930’s and there was a new age of hormone-dependant pathologies on the rise. Scientists were eager to determine the structural requirements of estrogen for new drug design.

In 1937 Sir Charles Dodd of the Middlesex Hospital of London found estrogenic activity in a molecule with two benzene rings linked together via a short carbon chain (eg, diphenylethane). (1) Soon thereafter, a synthetic, non-steroidal estrogen known as diethylstilboestrol (DES) was created from this basic molecular backbone. (1) By 1941, DES was an FDA approved drug, and by the 1950’s, DES gained widespread popularity as the drug of choice for menopausal symptoms, cancer treatment, and prevention of miscarriages. (2)

DES sparked the interest of ambitious drug manufactures that saw this synthetic molecule as a potential “molecular backbone” which could be tailored for estrogenic activity, and patented for maximum profit.

Within months, a research group from the University of Edinburgh found that the addition of a benzene ring to the original diphenylethane structure created an somewhat of an anti-estrogen known as triphenylethylene. (1) Although it had very weak estrogenic activity, it was called an anti-estrogen because it competed with the body’s more powerful estradiol for the ER receptors.

Although the complex estrogenic action of triphenylethylene was not fully understood, it was considered the perfect molecular platform for future drug development because of its high oral bioavailability and extended half-life due to its lipophilicity (fat solubility). As it was later discovered, the estrogenic action could be manipulated with structural modifications for more specific agonist/antagonist actions. (3) Despite the lack of understanding for its full physiological effects, triphenylethylene would become the molecular backbone for generations of SERM’s to come.

By the early 1940’s, the world’s largest chemical manufacturers, including Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI), got word of the triphenylethylene development, and seized the opportunity to expand this new class of compounds. By the 1950’s, the synthesis of new triphenylethylene based molecules had began picking up momentum, as the first FDA approved SERM’s started appearing on the market.

One of the first was Triparanol, which was sold as a cholesterol lowering SERM, until it was eventually pulled from the market in the 1950’s for causing cataracts in patients. (7) Later, Ethamoxytriphetol (MER-25) was discovered and found to be a reliable contraceptive and anti-cancer agent in rats, but failed in humans due to the drug’s severe toxicity and stimulation of “acute psychotic episodes”. (6)

Despite these early warning signs, development continued.

Among one of the newer SERM’s to appear in the late 1950’s, was a mixture of two stereoisomers -- zuclomiphene and enclomiphene -- both having unique estrogenic and anti-estrogen actions. This mixture was collectively called clomiphene, and later marketed as Clomid.

Then, in 1962, ICI synthesized ICI-46474, another mixture of a trans and cis isomers with mixed estrogenic and anti-estrogenic activity. (7) Ultimately, the trans isomer was found to be the predominate anti-estrogen, which was isolated and eventually named tamoxifen , and later marketed as Nolvadex.

Originally, ICI pushed these new SERM’s to market as a “morning after” contraceptives, which were eventually approved by the FDA. (4) Yet again, the profit hungry and presumptuous drug manufacturer based its findings on rat studies, which would prove to be a mistake upon subsequent human research that showed the SERM’s induced, rather than inhibited ovulation. (4) Needless to say, tamoxifien was withdrawn as a contraceptive.

And remember DES, the original synthetic estrogen developed back in the 1930’s? As it turned out, DES was found to increase the risk of breast cancer by 50%. Further research linked DES to millions of vaginal and testicular cancers among the children of mothers who took DES during pregnancy. (2,5)

The light on synthetic anti-estrogens was dim, and by the late 1960’s, there was little enthusiasm to continue R&D with triphenylethylene based SERM’s, especially considering their inherently toxic effects (7, 10)

It wasn’t until 1971, that tamoxifen would be dug up from the dead and considered as a candidate for cancer treatment.

Treating cancer with a carcinogen –

When research is done on anti-cancer drugs (such as SERMs), the aim is to find a drug that prolongs life, with the least amount of acute side-effects. In other words, the goal isn’t so much about finding a cure, as it is finding something that can alleviate the symptoms and/or prolong life.

For an estrogen dependant cancer, the idea was simple – Block the proliferative action of estrogen with an anti-estrogen and slow the cancer growth. What could be more appropriate than an already available, orally active, patentable synthetic estrogen such as tamoxifen? It was a practical shoo-in.

Therefore, in 1971, when drug researchers decided to examine all of the historical anti-cancer SERM data, they found that all of the SERM’s showed anti-proliferative activity on estrogen dependant cancer, and all of them demonstrated some extent of toxicity. (10, 37-39) However, the SERM that happened to show the least amount of toxicity was tamoxifen. (clomiphene missed the mark by showing a high rate of cataract formation)

At the time, Pierre Blais, a well known drug researcher, commented on the finding (5) -


“Tamoxifen is a garbage drug that made it to the top of the scrap heap. It is a DES in the making."

In spite of the criticism from a number of researchers, the FDA approved tamoxifen as a cancer treatment in 1977, and in 1985 ICI was awarded a US patent for tamoxifen in the treatment of breast cancer. (5) Soon, tamoxifen would become the most popularity prescribed cancer drug.

“Its FDA approved for cancer treatment. It must be safe!”

It’s wrong to assume that an “FDA approved” drug has a proven safety profile. The FDA has continually issued stronger health warnings for tamoxifen over the years. For instance, in 1994 the FDA demanded that the tamoxifen manufacturer Zeneca (an ICI sub-division), issue warning letters to health care practitioners about the increased risk of endometrial and gastro-intestinal cancers with tamoxifen use. Zeneca also reported adverse effects similar to those seen with DES, such as reproductive abnormalities in the animals whose mothers received tamoxifen. (remember, DES was the original synthetic estrogen, and also an analog to tamoxifen)

A number of cancer researchers have pointed out the health risks too, such as Elwood et al (6) -


“[Tamoxifen], therefore, is not appropriate for use in the general population because of the known increased risk of endometrial cancer”

“So why is tamoxifen the most popularly prescribed cancer drug, if it’s so toxic?”

The answer is simple. Tamoxifen is the lesser of two evils.

Tamoxifen remains the most popularly prescribed drug because it is one of the few drugs that has shown a “statistically significant” improvement of the survival rate of breast cancer patients.* (Not to mention, tremendous financial motives and intraworking’s from its patent holder Zeneca)

Remember, the goal in cancer treatment is to prolong life -- even if it means committing to therapy that is potentially cancerous or injurious to future health (as confirmed in long-term follow up’s and close examinations of tamoxifen patients).

So, perhaps the risks are worthy for the cancer patient, but are they worthy for the health conscious male?

* Most research has shown tamoxifen to improve the survival rate by 4-14%. For instance, over a 5 year period, 74% of the women survived who used tamoxifen, compared to 70% of the women on placebo. Depending on the type of cancer, this may translate into an extra 2-3 years of life for a cancer patient. (9) Continuing tamoxifen therapy for more than 5 years, results in increased tumor recurrences and serious side effects. (8)

Translating the science, for men’s health -

Fast forward 30 years, through hundreds of human and animal trials and we find that the research is quite extensive, and contradicting. (21)

The damaging evidence from many early rat studies showed severely toxic effects, including the development of cancer in the liver, uterus, or testes upon tamoxifen administration. (30-34,41) However, this evidence was largely disregarded by further test tube studies on human cell-lines which appeared to show a lack of toxic effects. (21)

This misleading test tube data gave the green flag to perform large scale human studies with tamoxifen in the 80’s and 90’s. Even more misleading, was the majority of the human research described tamoxifen as having a “low incidence of troublesome side effects” and that the “side effects where usually trivial”. (22)

As science would uncover, the lack of human toxicity reported in original tamoxifen research was a result of insufficient study duration, inability to detect low level DNA damage with insensitive methodologies, and/or misdiagnosis of collateral cancers as metastasis infections from the breast cancer itself. (15, 21, 28-34)

A word on clomiphene (Clomid) –

Clomiphene (Clomid) consists of two stereoisomers which possess radically different pharmacodynamics. Zuclomiphene has predominantly estrogenic effects and slow clearance while the enclomiphene isomer has predominately anti-estrogenic effects and quick clearance. (9) This creates a dichotomy between estrogen blockage and estrogen stimulation and an acute imbalance once Clomid administration is discontinued. Bodybuilders will often complain of “estrogenic rebound” after stopping Clomid, which could be attributed to the lingering estrogenic isomer zuclomiphene as the anti-estrogenic enclomiphene has long cleared the system. (Recently, enclomiphene has been isolated by the pharmaceutical company Repros, for use in Androxal™.)

For all intents and purposes, tamoxifen is a superior SERM, simply for the fact that tamoxifen provides a purely anti-estrogenic isomer, whereas Clomid provides a mix of anti and pro estrogenic effects.

In regards to the health consequences about to be listed, it can be safely assumed that Clomid will share similar detrimental effects as tamoxifen, since it shares the same triphenylethylene backbone and carcinogenic tendencies. (44,45,57,58)

Liver cancer -

Originally, tamoxifen was accepted as being non-toxic to human liver upon finding that tamoxifen did not cause noticeable liver damage (DNA adducts) during short-term test tube studies with human liver cells. (35,36)

However, it became apparent that test tuberesearch was largely flawed due to the low rate of metabolism in such a superficial environment. (21) It was soon discovered that the hepatotoxic effects from tamoxifen are from the metabolism and buildup of the a-hydroxytamoxifen and N-desmethyltamoxifen metabolites, which would only appear in an in vivo environment. (15) Surely enough, the results from the original rat studies showing dramatic carcinogenic effects on the liver, 30-34,41 soon correlated with human data when researchers found the same type of liver DNA adducts in tamoxifen patients. (15, 28-34)

More recent human research has reported tamoxifen treated women to have 3x the risk of developing fatty liver disease, which occurs as soon as 3 months into therapy at only 20mg/day. (24-26) In some cases, the disease lasts up to 3 years, despite cessation from tamoxifen therapy. Five and ten year follow-ups with patients on long term tamoxifen therapy shows cases of deadly hepatocellular carcinoma. (27-29)

In 2002, a bizarre study examined the use of tamoxifen for hepatocellular carcinoma treatment in humans. It was assumed that since tamoxifen could inhibit proliferation of breast cancer, it could offer the same benefit for liver cancer. The devastating results could not have been further indicative of tamoxifen’s hepatotoxic nature, as the tamoxifen treatment significantly increased the rate of death, compared to the group not receiving tamoxifen. (14)

Finally, in a case study reviewing tamoxifen induced liver disease; D.F Moffat et al made a profound statement –

“hepatocellular carcinoma in tamoxifen treated patients may be under-reported since there may be reluctance to biopsy liver tumours which are assumed to be secondary carcinoma of the breast.”

In other words, it appears that the liver carcinoma from a large number of breast cancer patients on tamoxifen therapy has been misdiagnosed as an infection from the breast cancer itself. (28)

Although the tamoxifen induced liver cancer make take years to manifest in a healthy male, its damaging effects could easily be exaggerated by other popular hepatotoxc , including 17aa oral steroids . (15)

Prostate cancer -

In 1996, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) concluded that tamoxifen clearly promotes uterine cancer in humans – at a standard 20mg/day dose. (16,23,42) This is due to tamoxifen acting as an estrogen agonist in the uterus, presumably from the 4-hydroxytamoxifen metabolite, which triggers abnormal growth of the uterus and the formation of cancer causing DNA adducts. (33, 40)

Contrary to popular thought, these implications are quite scary for a male when we realize the male equivalent to the uterus is the prostate – which differentiates from the same embryonic cell line, shares the same oncogene, Bcl-2, and high concentration of estrogen receptors. In fact, there is no reason to assume that tamoxifen would not initiate the same the same cancerous growth in the prostate. (60-62) It is no wonder that tamoxifen failed as a treatment for prostate carcinoma. (43)

Note: This same risk would be applicable to Clomid, which has also been linked to uterine cancer and ovarian hyper-stimulation. (18, 19, 57, 59)

Libido reduction & erectile dysfunction -

Erectile dysfunction, low libido, and general impotence are typical complaints from men recently discontinuing steroids or HRT therapy, which is often combated by Clomid or Nolvadex, paradoxically so.

Regardless of any positive effects on fertility or testosterone levels , Clomid and Nolvadex use is highly correlated with erectile dysfunction, libido suppression, and even emotional disorders. (10,47)

Research with male breast cancer patients has also reported decreased libido, and thrombosis associated with tamoxifen use. (47) The thrombotic effect (blood vessel clogging) could explain the mechanism by which SERM’s may inhibit erectile function, by reducing circulation to erectile tissue. (47, 52)

Increased susceptibility to gyno -

Tamoxifen is often used to combat gyno during cycle when “flare ups” occur. While tamoxifen may provide immediate inhibition of proliferation, and serve as valuable tool, it can actually increase future susceptibility to gyno.

This is caused by tamoxifen’s ability to up-regulate the progesterone receptor. (54-56) This can dramatically increase the chances of developming gyno in future cycles when utilizing progestin based anabolics such as Nandrolone (Deca ) or Trenbolone (or any pro-hormone acting upon the progesterone receptor).

It is interesting to speculate. Is tamoxifen use directly related to the increased gyno occurrences seen with modern day steroid users?

Ocular toxicity –

Another possible side effect associated with SERMs is visual cloudiness, loss of vision and even cataract formation. Although this tends to be a more common side effect from high dosed SERM therapy, standard 20mg/day tamoxifen regimes have been reported to cause these symptoms of ocular toxicity. (17, 46)

Newer SERM’s -

As the medical community became more aware of the side-effects associated with tamoxifen treatment, newer and safer SERMs, such as toremifene and raloxifene hit the developmental fast track. Toremifene appears to be less liver toxic, but it is a closely related analog of tamoxifen, so it also carries many of the related genotoxic effects. (48,49)

Raloxifene is a newer SERM based off a benzothiophene structure, which appears to make it less toxic in the liver, uterus or prostate. (50-52) Unfortunately, Raloxifene has been associated with a higher incidence of thromboembolism (52), and also has very low oral absorption, making it an expensive alternative at a typical dose (120mg/day). (53) Still, Raloxifene could presumably be equally effective as Clomid or Nolvadex at restoring HPTA function, while imparting less side effects. (53)

Newer SERMs are already being evaluated such as bazedoxifene, arzoxifene, and lasofoxifene, in hopes of reducing risk even further. (further enumerating the evidence of toxicity with the tamoxifen generation of SERM’s)

What to do now?

Firstly, it should become a priority to create awareness about the possible side effects of SERMs. Once educated, users will be able to start reducing their requirements of these drugs, and begin adopting healthier, more responsible alternatives.

Carefully planned cycles, and the proper use of aromatase inhibitors (AIs) must pursue over haphazard combinations of excessively dosed aromatizing AAS’s -- which require high doses of SERM’s to reduce possible side-effects. Whereas avoiding SERM’s in HRT will involve the natural clearance and management of endogenous estrogens.

It will be important to maintain testicular function during cycle for a quick and efficient recovery of natural testosterone production for PCT – negating the need for high dose 2-3 month SERM based PCT’s. (For more information on the proper use of hCG during cycle, visit here)

Thus, abolishing the bad habit of SERMing will involve community wide enlightenment with careful, comprehensive planning of worthy alternatives.

[dezza6969]

(Continued)

References -

1. Drug Discovery
By Walter Sneader

2. D.E.S., the bitter pill.
Meyers, Robert (1983).
New York: Seaview/Putnam. ISBN 0-399-31008-8

3. Geometric isomers of substituted triphenylethylenes and antiestrogen action
VC Jordan, B Haldemann, and KE Allen
Endocrinology, Apr 1981; 108: 1353.

4. Antioestrogens: a review.
LUNAN, C.B. et al.
Clin. Endocrinol., 4, 551–572. (1975).

5. Patient No More: The Politics of Breast Cancer,
Batt, Sharon et al
Spinifex Press, Melbourne, Australia, 1994, page 118

6. The Estrogen Receptor: A model for molecular medicine
Elwood V et al.
Department of Cell Biology. Vol 9, 1980-1989

7. Tamoxifen (ICI46,474) as a targeted therapy to treat and prevent breast cancer
V Craig Jordan
British Journal of Pharmacology (2006) 147, S269-S276

8. Selective estrogen receptor modulation: concept and consequences in cancer.
VC Jordan
Cancer Cell, March 1, 2004; 5(3): 207-13.

9. A pharmacological review of selective oestrogen receptor modulators
Steven R. Goldstein, Suresh Siddhanti, Angelina V. Ciaccia, and Leo Plouffe, Jr
Hum. Reprod. Update, May 2000; 6: 212 - 224.

10. Clomiphene citrate (Clomid).
The Wm. S. Merrell Company
Clin. Pharmacol. Therap., 8: 891–897, 1967.

11. Cole, M. P., Jones, C. T., and Todd, I. D. A new anti-oestrogenic
agent in late breast cancer. An early clinical appraisal of ICI46474. Br. J.
Cancer, 25: 270–275, 1971.

12. Ward, H. W. Anti-oestrogen therapy for breast cancer: a trial of
tamoxifen at two dose levels. Br. Med. J., 1: 13–14, 1973.

13. Breast Cancer? Breast Health!
Weed, Susan S.,
Ash Tree Publishing, Woodstock, New York, 1996, page 203

14. High-dose tamoxfen in the treatment of inoperable hepatocellular carcinoma: A multiicenter randomized controlled trial.
Chow et al.
Hepatology, 36: 1221-1226, 2002

15. Liver Cancer: New Research
By Felix Lee
Publisher: Nova (2006)

16. IARC Tamoxifen: Monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans.
66: 253-365, 1996

17. Eye problems in breast cancer patients treated with tamoxifen
Paganini Hill et al.
Breast Cancer Res Treat, 60: 167-172 2000

18. Ovarian hyperstimulation and oophorectomy following accidental daily clomiphene citrate use over three consecutive months.
ES Sills, EA Poynor, and M Moomjy
Reprod Toxicol, Nov 2000; 14(6): 541-3.

19. Uterine Cancer after Use of Clomiphene Citrate to Induce Ovulation
Michelle D. et al
Am. J. Epidemiol., Apr 2005; 161: 607 - 615

20. Detoxifying Cancer Causing Agents to Prevent Cancer
Margaret Hanausek, Zbigniew Walaszek, and Thomas J. Slaga Integr
Cancer Ther, Jun 2003; 2: 139 - 144.

21. Understanding the genotoxicity of tamoxifen?
David H. Phillips
Carcinogenesis, Jun 2001; 22: 839 - 849.

22. A randomized clinical trial evaluating tamoxifen in the treatment of patients with node-negative breast cancer who have estrogen-receptor-positive tumors
B Fisher, et al.
N. Engl. J. Med., Feb 1989; 320: 479 - 484

23. Tamoxifen treatment and its consequences
Adrian Shulman, Ilan Cohen, Ron Maymon, and Marco M. Altaras
Hum. Reprod., Aug 1995; 10: 2174 - 2175

24. Tamoxifen induced hepatotoxicity in breast cancer patients with pre-existing liver steatosis: the role of glucose intolerance.
Elefsiniotis et al.
European Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology 2004;16:593-598.

25. Incidence and risk factors for non-alcoholic steatohepatitis: prospective study of 5408 women enrolled in Italian tamoxifen chemoprevention trial
Savino Bruno el al.
BMJ 2005;330;932-; originally published online 3 Mar 2005;

26. Fatty liver and transaminase changes with adjuvant tamoxifen therapy.
Liu, Chien-Liang a c; Huang, Jon-Kway b; Cheng, Shih-Ping a
Anti-Cancer Drugs. 17(6):709-713, July 2006

27. The association between tamoxifen and the development of hepatocellular carcinoma: case report and literature review.
Law CH, Tandan VR.
Can J Surg 1999;42:211-4.

28. Hepatocellular carcinoma after long-term tamoxifen therapy
D. F. Moffat, K. A. Oien, J. Dickson, T. Habeshaw and D. R. McLellan
Volume 11, Number 9 / September, 2000

29. Tamoxifen-associated hepatocellular damage and agranulocytosis.
Ching,C.K., Smith,P.G. and Long,R.G. (1992)
Lancet, 339, 940.

30. Tamoxifen induces hepatocellular carcinoma in rat liver: a 1-year study with two antiestrogens.
Hirsimaki P, Hirsimaki Y, Nieminen L, et al.
Arch Toxicol. 1993; 67: 49–4

31. Epigenetic reprogramming of liver cells in tamoxifen-induced rat hepatocarcinogenesis.
VP Tryndyak, O Kovalchuk, L Muskhelishvili, B Montgomery, R Rodriguez-Juarez, S Melnyk, SA Ross, FA Beland, and IP Pogribny
Mol Carcinog, Mar 2007; 46(3): 187-97

32. Antiestrogens and the formation of DNA damage in rats: a comparison.
Kim SY, Suzuki N, Laxmi YR, Umemoto A, Matsuda T, Shibutani S.
Chem Res Toxicol. 2006 Jun;19(6):852-8.

33. Activation of 4-hydroxytamoxifen and the tamoxifen derivative metabolite E by uterine peroxidase to form DNA adducts: Comparison with DNA adducts formed in the uterus of Sprague-Dawley rats treated with tamoxifen
Deena N. Pathak, Krisztina Pongracz, and William J. Bodell
Carcinogenesis, Sep 1996; 17: 1785 - 1790

34. Activation of the Tamoxifen Derivative Metabolite E to Form DNA Adducts: Comparison with the Adducts Formed by Microsomal Activation of Tamoxifen
Krisztina Pongracz, Deena N. Pathak, Takemichi Nakamura, Alma L. Burlingame, and William J. Bodell
Cancer Res., Jul 1995; 55: 3012 - 3015.

35. Activation of tamoxifen and its metabolite -hydroxytamoxifen to DNA-binding products: comparisons between human, rat and mouse hepatocytes.
Phillips,D.H., Carmichael,P.L., Hewer,A., Cole,K.J., Hardcastle,I.R., Poon,G.K., Keogh,A. and Strain,A.J.
Carcinogenesis, 17, 88–94. (1996)

36. Adjuvant tamoxifen in early breast cancer: occurrence of new primary cancers.
Fornander,T., Rutquist,L.E., Cedermark,B., Glas,U., Mattsson,A., Silfversward,C., Skoog,L., Somell,A., Theve,T., Wilking,N., Askergren,J. and Hjalmar,M.-L.
Lancet, i, 117–120.(1989)

37. Reduced genotoxicity of [D5-ethyl]-tamoxifen implicates -hydroxylation of the ethyl group as a major pathway of tamoxifen activation to a liver carcinogen.
Phillips,D.H., Potter,G.A., Horton,M.N., Hewer,A., Crofton-Sleigh,C., Jarman,M. and Venitt,S. (1994)
Carcinogenesis, 15, 1487–1492

38. Genotoxicity of tamoxifen, tamoxifen epoxide and toremifene in human lymphoblastoid cells containing human cytochrome P450s.
Styles,J.A., et al (1994)
Carcinogenesis, 15, 5–9.

39. Clastogenic and aneugenic effects of tamoxifen and some of its analogues in hepatocytes from dosed rats and in human lymphoblastoid cells transfected with human P450 cDNAs (MCL-5 cells).
Styles,J.A., et al. (1997)
Carcinogenesis, 18, 303–313.

40. Effect of tamoxifen on endometrial proliferation
A Decensi, et al.
J. Clin. Oncol., Feb 1996; 14: 434 - 440.

41. Safety Testing of New Drugs. Tamoxifen.
Lawrence,D.R., et al.
Academic Press, London, pp. 125–161. (1984)

42. Endometrial cancer in tamoxifen-treated breast cancer patients: findings from the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) B-14.
Fisher,B et al.and other NSABP contributors (1994)
J. Natl Cancer Inst., 86, 527–537.

43. Phase II trial of tamoxifen in metastatic carcinoma of the prostate.
JH Glick, A Wein, K Padavic, W Negendank, D Harris, and H Brodovsky
Cancer, Apr 1982; 49(7): 1367-72.

44. Biotransformation of the Antiestrogen Clomiphene to Chemically Reactive Metabolites in the Immature Female Rat
Peter C. Ruenitz, et. al
Cancer Res., Aug 1987; 47: 4015 - 4019.

45. Teratogenic effects of clomiphene, tamoxifen, and diethylstilbestrol on the developing human female genital tract.
GR Cunha, O Taguchi, R Namikawa, Y Nishizuka, and SJ Robboy
Hum Pathol, Nov 1987; 18(11): 1132-43.

46. Tamoxifen-associated eye disease. A review
SG Nayfield and MB Gorin
J. Clin. Oncol., Mar 1996; 14: 1018 - 1026.

47. Tamoxifen administration is associated with a high rate of treatment-limiting symptoms in male breast cancer patients.
Anelli TF, et al.
Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York 10021.

48. DNA adducts caused by tamoxifen and toremifene in human microsomal system and lymphocytes in vitro.
Hemminki,K., Widlak,P. and Hou,S.-M. (1995)
Carcinogenesis, 16, 1661–1664.

49. Major difference in the hepatocarcinogenicity and DNA adduct forming ability between toremifene and tamoxifen in female Crl:CD(BR) rats.
GC Hard, et al.
Cancer Res., Oct 1993; 53(19): 4534-41.

50. Selective estrogen receptor modulators: mechanism of action and clinical experience. Focus on raloxifene.
D Thiebaud and RJ Secrest
Reprod Fertil Dev, January 1, 2001; 13(4): 331-6.

51. Raloxifene, an oestrogen-receptor-beta-targeted therapy, inhibits androgen-independent prostate cancer growth: results from preclinical studies and a pilot phase II clinical trial.
RL Shazer, et al.
BJU Int, Apr 2006; 97(4): 691-7.

52. Review on raloxifene: profile of a selective estrogen receptor modulator.
M Heringa
Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther, August 1, 2003; 41(8): 331-45.

53. Comparison of effects of the rise in serum testosterone by raloxifene and oral testosterone on serum insulin -like growth factor-1 and insulin-like growth factor binding protein-3.
EJ Duschek, et al
Maturitas, July 16, 2005; 51(3): 286-93.

54. Effects of tamoxifen on steroid hormone receptors and hormone concentration and the results of DNA analysis by flow cytometry in endometrial carcinoma.
M Nola, et al
Gynecol Oncol, Mar 1999; 72(3): 331-6.

55. Tamoxifen increases the plasma estrogen-binding equivalents and has an estradiol agonistic effect on histologically normal premenopausal and postmenopausal
Gorodeski, G.I., et al.
endometrium. Fertil. Steril, 57, 320-327. (1992)

56. Estrogen and progesterone receptor expressors o£ decidual endometrium in a postmenopausal woman treated with tamoxifen and megestrol acetate.
Cohen, I., Shulman, A., Altaras, M., Tepper, R., Cordoba, M. and Beyth, Y.
Gynecol. Obstet. Invest., 38, 127-129. (1994)

57. Endometrial biopsy during induction of ovulation with clomiphene citrate in polycystic ovary syndrome.
R Homburg, H Pap, M Brandes, J Huirne, P Hompes, and CB Lambalk
Gynecol Endocrinol, September 1, 2006; 22(9): 506-10.

58. In vivo evaluation of the genotoxic effects of clomiphene citrate on rat reticulocytes: a micronucleus genotoxicity.
B Duran, I Ozdemir, Y Demirel, O Ozdemir, A Cetin, and A Guven
Gynecol Obstet Invest, Jan 2006; 61(4): 228-31.

59. Clomiphene citrate - end of an era? a mini-review
Roy Homburg
Hum. Reprod., Aug 2005; 20: 2043 - 2051

60. Selective estrogen receptor modulators: pharmacological profile in the rat uterus.
Bryant H. U., Wilson P. K., Adrian M. D., Cole H. W., Phillips D. L., Dodge J. A., Grese T. A., Sluka J. P., Glasebrook A. L.
J. Soc. Gynecol. Invest., 3: 152A 1996.

61. Molecular perspectives on selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs): progress in understanding their tissue-specific agonist and antagonist actions.
Lonard D. M., Smith C. L.
Steroid, 67: 15-24, 2002

62. Defining the "S" in SERMS.
Katznellenbogen B. S., Katznellenbogen J. A.
Science (Wash. DC), 295: 2380-2381, 2002
__________________
Primordial Founder & President"

[CptAmericaX]

well that was stupid should have been posted in the pct section. What is your point? Body builders dont take nolvadex a constant dose for 4 years. No one does or should if they do well they deserve it. If you look at any gear and look at the consiquences of running in extended periods of time there is alot of damage as well. If you look at vitamen C and the possible harms and effects of it being used long term youd be suprised.


Vitamin C may be capable of actually causing damage to cells that could potentially lead to cancer as well as protecting them, laboratory tests suggest.
Just look up vitamin C damage on google first page

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1389262.stm imagine that

[wrathchild212]

ture that ^ ^...

[Immortal Soldier]

well that was stupid should have been posted in the pct section. What is your point? Body builders dont take nolvadex a constant dose for 4 years. No one does or should if they do well they deserve it. If you look at any gear and look at the consiquences of running in extended periods of time there is alot of damage as well. If you look at vitamen C and the possible harms and effects of it being used long term youd be suprised.

You don't need to take Nolva or Clmoid for 4 years constant to start gettng the carcinogenic side effects. That's like saying you need to smoke a pack of cigarettes everyday for 5 years to get cancer.

It doesn't work that way, in healthy males cancer (prostate or liver) caused by Nolva or clomid would take several years to manifest itself either way so its not like you are going to run a PCT and boom two months later be diagnosed with cancer. No, it takes time and the use of nolva/clomid in conjunction is the backbone of steroid PCT cycles. The use of it for 4-6 weeks over time as the user does more steroid cycles will cause some sort of an effect on the body.

As of right now the evidence is not vindictive, but I do believe nolva and clomid should be scraped as SERMS used by bodybuilders and the new-generation of SERMS should be picked up by steroid sources and the bodybuilding population because one they are safer and more reliable and two they work better than the old SERMS that were made nearly 50 years ago.

[CptAmericaX]

You don't need to take Nolva or Clmoid for 4 years constant to start gettng the carcinogenic side effects. That's like saying you need to smoke a pack of cigarettes everyday for 5 years to get cancer.

It doesn't work that way, in healthy males cancer (prostate or liver) caused by Nolva or clomid would take several years to manifest itself either way so its not like you are going to run a PCT and boom two months later be diagnosed with cancer. No, it takes time and the use of nolva/clomid in conjunction is the backbone of steroid PCT cycles. The use of it for 4-6 weeks over time as the user does more steroid cycles will cause some sort of an effect on the body.

As of right now the evidence is not vindictive, but I do believe nolva and clomid should be scraped as SERMS used by bodybuilders and the new-generation of SERMS should be picked up by steroid sources and the bodybuilding population because one they are safer and more reliable and two they work better than the old SERMS that were made nearly 50 years ago.

I thought about using cigarrets as a example as well, if someone smokes 1 month every year, what are the chances of him getting cancer? highly doubt its that high of a risk. But in the same sence check that Vitamen C crap out thats not even taking vitamen C in constant doses. Im not argueing that fact that its time for new serms but Im just saying anything is harmful

[Immortal Soldier]

I thought about using cigarrets as a example as well, if someone smokes 1 month every year, what are the chances of him getting cancer? highly doubt its that high of a risk. But in the same sence check that Vitamen C crap out thats not even taking vitamen C in constant doses. Im not argueing that fact that its time for new serms but Im just saying anything is harmful

LOL @ you comparing over use of vitamin ingestion to cancer therapy carcinogenic drugs. That's like comparing chemotherapy and the killing of cells to Mcdonalds and heart disease.

Also comparing smoking one month every year to a 4 week everyday dosage therapy of nolvadex is once again ignorant, my example of using smoking was to show you don't need to take a carcinogenic for an constant excessive amount of time to release the effects into the body, yours on the other hand was to directly comparing a "once in a while smoker" chances of cancer to a steroid user who does 4 week PCT therapy at 2-4 times a year.

Same reason as to why doctors would allow chemotherapy which kills healthy cells as well as cancer cells is the same reason doctors use Nolvadex, it is the lesser of two evils. Both methods are last-ditch efforts to save lives, so if the person can stay alive for 6-12 months longer and develops tumors on their liver than so be it because they will address the liver issue when it occurs.

[CptAmericaX]

LOL @ you comparing over use of vitamin ingestion to cancer therapy carcinogenic drugs. That's like comparing chemotherapy and the killing of cells to Mcdonalds and heart disease.

Also comparing smoking one month every year to a 4 week everyday dosage therapy of nolvadex is once again ignorant, my example of using smoking was to show you don't need to take a carcinogenic for an constant excessive amount of time to release the effects into the body, yours on the other hand was to directly comparing a "once in a while smoker" chances of cancer to a steroid user who does 4 week PCT therapy at 2-4 times a year.

Same reason as to why doctors would allow chemotherapy which kills healthy cells as well as cancer cells is the same reason doctors use Nolvadex, it is the lesser of two evils. Both methods are last-ditch efforts to save lives, so if the person can stay alive for 6-12 months longer and develops tumors on their liver than so be it because they will address the liver issue when it occurs.

Imortal you have been around longer and have way more research my point was, that using it 1 month year isnt going to give you cancer and kill you. There are plenty of things that are on the market that people use daily that can cause just as many health problems

[guardian72]

My very first cycle pct consisted of clomid/nolv.
My eyes have never been the same since.
I got tracers and lowered the dosage and finished my PCT.
My vision deteriorated and Never recovered.
Am I blind, no.
Do I need glasses, no.
I was a long distance rifle shooter. I can't do it anymore.
I was a competition archer. I can't do it anymore.
I never touched clomid or nolv again.

1 PCT of 4 weeks
Clomid no more than 100mg daily
Nolv no more than 20mg daily
That's all it took.

G72

[dezza6969]

well that was stupid should have been posted in the pct section. What is your point? Body builders dont take nolvadex a constant dose for 4 years. No one does or should if they do well they deserve it. If you look at any gear and look at the consiquences of running in extended periods of time there is alot of damage as well. If you look at vitamen C and the possible harms and effects of it being used long term youd be suprised.


Vitamin C may be capable of actually causing damage to cells that could potentially lead to cancer as well as protecting them, laboratory tests suggest.
Just look up vitamin C damage on google first page

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1389262.stm imagine that

mate i think your location is really 'on the moon'. your sure not on planet earth. cheers for the observations though

*The one thing you have right is about where i posted this. I should've posted in PCT section

[dezza6969]

LOL @ you comparing over use of vitamin ingestion to cancer therapy carcinogenic drugs. That's like comparing chemotherapy and the killing of cells to Mcdonalds and heart disease.

Also comparing smoking one month every year to a 4 week everyday dosage therapy of nolvadex is once again ignorant, my example of using smoking was to show you don't need to take a carcinogenic for an constant excessive amount of time to release the effects into the body, yours on the other hand was to directly comparing a "once in a while smoker" chances of cancer to a steroid user who does 4 week PCT therapy at 2-4 times a year.

Same reason as to why doctors would allow chemotherapy which kills healthy cells as well as cancer cells is the same reason doctors use Nolvadex, it is the lesser of two evils. Both methods are last-ditch efforts to save lives, so if the person can stay alive for 6-12 months longer and develops tumors on their liver than so be it because they will address the liver issue when it occurs.

^^^x2

[dezza6969]

My very first cycle pct consisted of clomid/nolv.
My eyes have never been the same since.
I got tracers and lowered the dosage and finished my PCT.
My vision deteriorated and Never recovered.
Am I blind, no.
Do I need glasses, no.
I was a long distance rifle shooter. I can't do it anymore.
I was a competition archer. I can't do it anymore.
I never touched clomid or nolv again.

1 PCT of 4 weeks
Clomid no more than 100mg daily
Nolv no more than 20mg daily
That's all it took.

G72

Thats really unfortunate mate. my job depends largely on the accuracy of my vision but i couldn't begin to imagine how much that would p*ss me off not being able to continue my career

[kewkewkrazy]

This article was made by people who market a product that rivals clomid and nolva. If Nolva is so bad why is it since 2004 the largest sellign drug in the world for its purpose?

Everything is bad for you!

[Swifto]

You don't need to take Nolva or Clmoid for 4 years constant to start gettng the carcinogenic side effects. That's like saying you need to smoke a pack of cigarettes everyday for 5 years to get cancer.

It doesn't work that way, in healthy males cancer (prostate or liver) caused by Nolva or clomid would take several years to manifest itself either way so its not like you are going to run a PCT and boom two months later be diagnosed with cancer. No, it takes time and the use of nolva/clomid in conjunction is the backbone of steroid PCT cycles. The use of it for 4-6 weeks over time as the user does more steroid cycles will cause some sort of an effect on the body.

As of right now the evidence is not vindictive, but I do believe nolva and clomid should be scraped as SERMS used by bodybuilders and the new-generation of SERMS should be picked up by steroid sources and the bodybuilding population because one they are safer and more reliable and two they work better than the old SERMS that were made nearly 50 years ago.

Agreed.

Roll on Toremifene!

I think this also reiterates my point of using the lowest possible dose of SERM's (during PCT) and still be effective at their purpose.

Clomid will raise endogenous T at 25mg/ED in a number of days and studies confirm this. I think (off the top of my head) it was around 145%. Far too many people use higher doses, then complain of sides from it.

[bnjf]

I'm curious as to what serm would be safer than?

[Nooomoto]

As of right now the evidence is not vindictive, but I do believe nolva and clomid should be scraped as SERMS used by bodybuilders and the new-generation of SERMS should be picked up by steroid sources and the bodybuilding population because one they are safer and more reliable and two they work better than the old SERMS that were made nearly 50 years ago.

What new generation SERMS are you talking about? I've been using clomid and nolvadex without issues for pct in all my cycles, but I'm open to new shit.

[Immortal Soldier]

What new generation SERMS are you talking about? I've been using clomid and nolvadex without issues for pct in all my cycles, but I'm open to new shit.

Like Swifto, said toremifene is a good one.

There are a good amount of new SERMS being put into development and tested and the ones that do make it out will no doubt be safer and more effective than either nolva or clomid.

[Swifto]

Like Swifto, said toremifene is a good one.

There are a good amount of new SERMS being put into development and tested and the ones that do make it out will no doubt be safer and more effective than either nolva or clomid.

Agreed.

Making them safer then both Clomid/Tamox is one of the main reasons new SERMs are being developed. Genotoxicity (sp) and occular toxicity are both rare when using Clomid or Tamox (morese occular toxicity), but are very real side effects.

Clomid and Tamox will make way for safer more effective compounds in the future.

The ones you and I have access to now are Toremifene Citrate and Raloxifene Citrate.

[Nooomoto]

Like Swifto, said toremifene is a good one.

There are a good amount of new SERMS being put into development and tested and the ones that do make it out will no doubt be safer and more effective than either nolva or clomid.

Thanks for that. I'll do more research into this.

[meathead320]

What new generation SERMS are you talking about? I've been using clomid and nolvadex without issues for pct in all my cycles, but I'm open to new shit.

BUmp,

I always figured 30 or less days on the SERM would not cuase peremanent liver or eye damage.

Who uses it for 3 months at a time these days?

[Swifto]

PCT should last as long as it takes to recover (within reason).

MY PCT's last around 5-6 weeks at low doses.

[Shadeed]

PCT should last as long as it takes to recover (within reason).

MY PCT's last around 5-6 weeks at low doses.

Hi Swifto,

Can you please tell me, what was your doses? Was it Nolva + Clomid? or what?

Regards,
Shadeed

Edit: Oops, last year thread!

[Mr.Rose]

This should be bumped.

[Warmachn]

Good read

[livingwithdoms]

very good read, I like the clomid and nolva pct combo, always worked very well for me.