data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c1086/c1086eb63cabf9928fc4abe746e5dc1658a44af3" alt="Quote"
Originally Posted by
ascendant
Lol, yea I figured this thread would wander off topic. :P
As far as big pharma profiting off of it, the problem is since HCG has been out so long and generics are available, big pharma couldn't profit because they can't corner the market with a patent. It's too cheap for them to be interested.
You're also right though in that if HCG did work like this, I'd imagine quite a few people would know. Then again, not sure how many have tried doses that high. I mean with our weight vs what was most likely the average weight in the tests, I'd say 2k ius per shot (so about 6k per week) would be the minimum for us to have a fair basis of comparison.
I don't really see why researchers would lie and skew results, and with it being peer-reviewed to get on NCBI, it seems like the study was most likely sound.
I'm thinking though that the big difference here is that the people in the study suffered from idiopathic hypogonadotrophic hypogonadism. So, maybe if you're deficient in GnRH and do the HCG doses in the study, it would give you this type of results after correcting the deficiency. However, if you're not deficient, it may have minimal to no results. That's really the only thing I can think of.
Regardless, I'm thinking I'll probably give it a shot for the hell of it. I need to order more HCG to have enough for it, but once I do and give it a shot, I'll post an update on here.