I got my tamoxifen from a research site and it says on the label “Not for human use”… now is that just for legal concerns from the site or should I not take it.
Thanks in advance
Well, I have finally seen it now 
From a single oral dose, sure, its peak is that rapid.
But that level is much less than even the trough point of ongoing daily usage.
Neither my method of frontloading on the first day with multiple divided doses across the day or the more common method of using double dose for some number of days before going to standard dose is likely to achieve levels higher than the peak point of ongoing daily usage at regular dose.
BTW the wedding went great, thanks. Very nice ceremony and my friend’s brother has a large property where they were able to set up a huge tent for the rehearsal and after-wedding dinners and parties, which were excellent.
One thing was comical and fortunately did not go badly. The day-before rehearsal was not in the tuxedos, etc. Now some people actually have a dress rehearsal that is a dress rehearsal – I mean exactly as it’s supposed to be.
Anyway it was never made clear to me just when the wedding was going to be – I heard both 5 and 6 PM – whereas I was supposed to be at the church by 12:30 or something like that, for photos. Anyway talking with the other groomsmen one of them said something about their being still a rehearsal, as the afternoon dragged on. I later asked a couple of people about it or mentioned it and just got blank, no-idea looks.
Anyway it seemed well before 5:00 (I don’t wear a watch) and guests started filling the church. Then suddenly we were supposed to go. I figured it was the dress rehearsal, since there seemed considerable time left to go and another rehearsal had been mentioned.
So it’s the whole walking-in-sync with the bridesmaid on the other side, the standing in line and so forth, and the preacher goes on and on FOREVER, plus has a speech impediment. I just can’t believe he’d go on so long for the rehearsal, but maybe he likes the sound of his own voice. It’s a little uncomfortable standing at attention for so long, so I shift a little (not much) since it’s just the rehearsal.
Also at some point where the musicians utterly butchered Pachelbel’s Canon (however people in general seemed not to notice) I rolled my eyes, which I wouldn’t have done in an actual ceremony.
Had I known – of course this is obvious now – that it was the actual wedding.
I thought it bizarre that one of the bridesmaid’s fainted in the rehearsal.
It actually wasn’t till the guests were filing out of the church that it started to dawn on me… needless to say, I was glad that I hadn’t taken a yet more relaxed attitude than I actually did on thinking it not the actual ceremony.
Luckily, as – at a mere 5’11.5" – I was the next-to-tallest groomsman, I wasn’t in the video at the moments of shifting position or rolling my eyes.
[quote]Westclock wrote:
Brook wrote:
I agree… i always was under the impression tamox had negative actions on lipid prfiles, carcinogens, and many other nasties… i personally would never take 140mg.
Brook
Hmmm, carcinogenic;yes
But I believe it was actually shown to have a positive effect on the lipid profiles.
[/quote]
I’ve read somewhere that this has never been shown to have any cardioprotective action, even in long term studies
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Dynamo Hum wrote:
This is for Bill. Others feel free to chime in.
Hey Bill,
I was extolling the virtues of frontloading Nolva 140mg on day 1 of a 4 week SERM PCT (followed by 20mg/d) and a forum member (another board) rebutted with the following:
===============================================
"Do your eyes and retinas a favor and don’t megadose nolvadex.
From AstraZeneca’s package insert for Nolvadex:
Absorption and Distribution
Following a single oral dose of 20 mg tamoxifen, an average peak plasma concentration of 40 ng/mL (range 35 to 45 ng/mL) occurred approximately 5 hours after dosing. The decline in plasma concentrations of tamoxifen is biphasic with a terminal elimination half-life of about 5 to 7 days."
=================================================
I would like to respond to the person. What is the appropriate response?
Thanks in advance…
Why anyone would do something like this is beyond me.
Tamoxifen itself is not a very strong anti-estrogen; it is a prodrug for 2 metabolites which are 10 to 1000 times more potent inhibitors of the estrogen receptor action.
So the tamoxifen half-life in serum is irrelevant. What matters is the status of the individual’s 2D6 enzyme. The time of elimination of the metabolites is measured in days and weeks.
Other errors:
The cornea is not effected by tamoxifen. Posterior capsular cataracts (lens) occur at an excess rate of 3 per 10,000 over 5 years of use (mostly in older women.)
Retinal changes and liver changes were reported in earlier Scandinavian studies when the dose was presumed to be 30 mg per day,over 2 or 3 years of use.
Tamoxifen actually is a fairly good antilipemic agent in men, and even in peri- and post-menopausal women.
[/quote]
With reference to lipid values I’m pretty sure its never been shown to be cardioprotective in the long run tho, in a couple of studies i’ve seen anyway
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
To me it seems a good thing for blood lipid profiles to be better.
One of the things I would like to look at is the benefit of long-term half-dose use of Clomid or tamoxifen (25 or 10 mg/day, respectively.)
There is already a study showing considerable nenefit to testosterone levels from half-dose Clomid usage. I would be interested in what the lipid profile benefits might be.
An interesting fact is that (as of some years ago: I don’t know the current value) 75% of health care expenses are for disease states showing sex-specific differences. E.g., men are more prone to heart disease, while women are more prone to autoimmune diseases. If only we could find ways to achieve the best of both, without adverse virilizing effects for women or anti-androgenic or feminizing effects for men, that could be quite important to health. Blood lipid profile is perhaps the simplest and most directly accessible such aspect.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
To me it seems a good thing for blood lipid profiles to be better.
One of the things I would like to look at is the benefit of long-term half-dose use of Clomid or tamoxifen (25 or 10 mg/day, respectively.)
There is already a study showing considerable nenefit to testosterone levels from half-dose Clomid usage. I would be interested in what the lipid profile benefits might be.
An interesting fact is that (as of some years ago: I don’t know the current value) 75% of health care expenses are for disease states showing sex-specific differences. E.g., men are more prone to heart disease, while women are more prone to autoimmune diseases. If only we could find ways to achieve the best of both, without adverse virilizing effects for women or anti-androgenic or feminizing effects for men, that could be quite important to health. Blood lipid profile is perhaps the simplest and most directly accessible such aspect.[/quote]
Without a doubt i agree with everything you just said, though if you were only interested improving lipid values specific target drugs and things like the newly developed 4-in-1 pill seem to have more long term evidence supporting their application if your not looking at improving T levels. However obviously while i think they actually can improve T levels due to a systemic effect, we know nolva and clomid do this better and via another mechanism which i think would act differently by boosting nat test production by not sitmulating the ER in the htpa but more generalised improved lipid and cholesterol profiles given by newer statins and the like (tho possibly this is more like bringing them up to baseline than raising natural levels). so it would be an interesting experiment, though i’m pretty sure the long term studies were on women (naturally) so a long term male study i’m sure would show some interesting results. Though interestingly i cant remember the drug name but I remember a drug trialed which massively increased HDL protein and reduced LDL (seems like a miracle drug) actually had a very high incidence of cardiac death so was stopped in the trial phase… Cardiovascular risk factors in exercise is actually my research project next year so I might try to find a cohort who happen to be taking nolva/clomid long term, though i dont have that much control over the whole project.
**p.s. sorry to hijack the thread. I get a bit carried away when i get onto a subject
I got my tamoxifen from a research site and it says on the label “Not for human use”… now is that just for legal concerns from the site or should I not take it.
Thanks in advance
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
To me it seems a good thing for blood lipid profiles to be better.
One of the things I would like to look at is the benefit of long-term half-dose use of Clomid or tamoxifen (25 or 10 mg/day, respectively.)
There is already a study showing considerable nenefit to testosterone levels from half-dose Clomid usage. I would be interested in what the lipid profile benefits might be.
An interesting fact is that (as of some years ago: I don’t know the current value) 75% of health care expenses are for disease states showing sex-specific differences. E.g., men are more prone to heart disease, while women are more prone to autoimmune diseases. If only we could find ways to achieve the best of both, without adverse virilizing effects for women or anti-androgenic or feminizing effects for men, that could be quite important to health. Blood lipid profile is perhaps the simplest and most directly accessible such aspect.[/quote]
Nolvadex dosage results in both positive and negative changes in blood lipids - see link Tamoxifen rejuvenates blood vessels
The overall results from that study were very positive
Your take on it thought seems to be that you see a quite small reduction in HDL – scarcely larger, for the group receiving no other drug, than the error bar – and you sum the whole thing up as being “both positive and negative changes.” Well okay, if that’s what you get out of it.