Quote Originally Posted by charger69 View Post
The dosage, age and length is a standard for any clinical trial. They do not just make it up to what they feel.
Saying that this was different is incorrect.

I am not saying if the study says anything or not... everyone is trying to say this is an exception... it is not.

I know 4 people that used it and have cancer. Coincidence? Maybe. There is no proof that it did cause the cancer so I am not hopping on that bus. I do however think that it does lead to indications.

Remember, this was being toted as “exercise in a bottle”, which is more like a supplement where it would make far more money to the main population.

Damn- just go to CA where just about every building has signs that this place has products known to be carcinogens..... even at a freaking hospital.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Did you just say that the dosage, age and length is standard for every trial? Are you saying that every trial uses these mice at this age, for this duration and at that specific dose? In what world is any of these parameters standard in any specific trial? It’s exactly this reason that we have systematic reviews and meta analysis that literally have to start with saying how much heterogeneity they have amongst the studies because there’s always WAY TOO MUCH of it haha. The study was what it was but to act as if anything was standard and that it was exceptional quality is flat out wrong. It’s just that we have very little to go off of, following it up with anecdotal evidence is exactly what perpetuates these kinds of concepts. The bottom line is fuck tons of stuff causes cancer in the world, eliminating confounders is next to impossible over a duration of 2-3 years. Using mice that are KNOWN for developing excessive amounts of cancer and attempting to attribute cancer to a drug used in the study with said mice is alwaysssss gonna be difficult to delineate an actual causal relationship vs sporadic correlation. The study is shit, but sometimes shit is all we’re gonna get.