• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5


GW-501516
#11
My daughter told me yesterday that they had an assembly at her high school last week concerning this chemical. Two kids at her school have been diagnosed with cancer, and it is thought that this chemical is to blame. The cancers are inoperable because it is in multiple vital organs. The other high schools ion this area are also having the same types of assemblies to warn the kids there about the dangers of this chemical.
If anyone knows of any vendors selling this chemical do not buy ANYTHING from them. People have found that many vendors run out of a SARM and will substitute something else for what they have run out of. 
It's also a good idea to email vendors stocking this and let them, know that you feel they are unethical and would not trust them to be your source of peptides.
 I know that there probably isn't many people on this forum using this type of thing, but the forum is read by many so I feel it is good to keep these types of warnings fresh.
My posts here are ludicrous manifestations of my vivid imagination. Stories are like gateways into the world of those portrayed. I'm living vicariously thru the experiences of those  characters by telling their story.
Forum rules
Reply
#12
F*cking hell, school kids with terminal cancer from taking an RC slimming/bodybuilding drug?

That's awful, that's really, really awful :(
Reply
#13
(28-11-2014, 12:54 PM)Knothing Wrote: My daughter told me yesterday that they had an assembly at her high school last week concerning this chemical. Two kids at her school have been diagnosed with cancer, and it is thought that this chemical is to blame. The cancers are inoperable because it is in multiple vital organs. The other high schools ion this area are also having the same types of assemblies to warn the kids there about the dangers of this chemical.
If anyone knows of any vendors selling this chemical do not buy ANYTHING from them. People have found that many vendors run out of a SARM and will substitute something else for what they have run out of. 
It's also a good idea to email vendors stocking this and let them, know that you feel they are unethical and would not trust them to be your source of peptides.
 I know that there probably isn't many people on this forum using this type of thing, but the forum is read by many so I feel it is good to keep these types of warnings fresh.

what the fuck. Proof? I took this shit and now im scared..

I have a feeling this would be on the news.. You should tell a news outlet and show some proof please.
Reply
#14
It has been in the news, references are on the wikipedia page... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GW501516
Reply
#15
how is this still a thing?
Reply
#16
(01-08-2015, 11:05 PM)Passiflora Wrote: It has been in the news, references are on the wikipedia page... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GW501516

Don't see the news article.Post it pls. Doesn't say anything about any human getting cancer.

(03-08-2015, 01:54 AM)Jackkca Wrote:
(01-08-2015, 11:05 PM)Passiflora Wrote: It has been in the news, references are on the wikipedia page... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GW501516

Don't see the news article.Post it pls. Doesn't say anything about any human getting cancer.

bump

bump..
Reply
#17
I know this is an old thread and all but some may still be using and/or worried about previous consumption.

Just some information about this substance. There's no reference to any evidence of it causing human cancers following consumption anywhere. It transpires that the rodents used in the tests that show cancer formation were an animal model specifically bred to have a predisposition to developing tumors. I think these are the shitty albino rats that you get from shady pet shops which get lumps a year later and you find them rotting in their ball of wood hay. No? Just me? O...K... I think they're called Lewises or similar.

I'm not in any way implying SARMS are safe, nor saying there's no danger with this substance. But if you were trying to test for carcinogenic activity, you'd probably design a different biological test.

Hopefully, this might give the likes of Jackkca, if they ever revisit, or I think Tizzy too? a better nights sleep.

Just to add, out of full unadulterated fear, that I'm not disputing Mela's initial post, I wouldn't dare. Lewises are a type of Wistar rat that looks identical but gets lumps. Someone sold them bad rats.
'If you're one of those who can, make certain that you do."
Reply
#18
(15-01-2018, 03:48 PM)AiwassATeenageKeyframe Wrote: I know this is an old thread and all but some may still be using and/or worried about previous consumption.

Just some information about this substance. There's no reference to any evidence of it causing human cancers following consumption anywhere. It transpires that the rodents used in the tests that show cancer formation were an animal model specifically bred to have a predisposition to developing tumors. I think these are the shitty albino rats that you get from shady pet shops which get lumps a year later and you find them rotting in their ball of wood hay. No? Just me? O...K... I think they're called Lewises or similar.

I'm not in any way implying SARMS are safe, nor saying there's no danger with this substance. But if you were trying to test for carcinogenic activity, you'd probably design a different biological test.

Hopefully, this might give the likes of Jackkca, if they ever revisit, or I think Tizzy too? a better nights sleep.

Just to add, out of full unadulterated fear, that I'm not disputing Mela's initial post, I wouldn't dare. Lewises are a type of Wistar rat that looks identical but gets lumps. Someone sold them bad rats.

The studies found increased rates of carcinomas in both rats and mice. The rats used were Wistar, not Lewis. (Lewis rats are derived from the Wistar breed and do have increased rates of neoplasms and other health issues, not present in Wistars). These studies were conducted by GSK as part of early clinical studies for what was then a candidate pharmaceutical and resulted in development being halted.

"But if you were trying to test for carcinogenic activity, you'd probably design a different biological test."

These tests were designed to test for carcinogenic activity and used standard laboratory animals widely used for this specific purpose. You can find the abstracts here

Quote:895
RAT CARCINOGENICITY STUDY WITH GW501516, A PPAR DELTA AGONIST.
L. E. Geiger[1], W. S. Dunsford[2], D. J. Lewis[2], C. Brennan[3], K. C. Liu[3] and S. J. Newsholme[1]
[1] Safety Assessment, GlaxoSmithKline, King of Prussia, PA [2] Safety Assessment, GlaxoSmithKline, Ware, United Kingdom and [3]Huntingdon Life Sciences, Huntingdon, United Kingdom.

GW501516, a non-genotoxic PPARδ agonist, was assessed for carcinogenic potential by daily administration (oral gavage) to Han Wistar rats for a period of 104 weeks. Males were given 0, 5, 15 or 30 mg/kg/day for the first 6 weeks of the study. For the remainder of the study males were given 0, 5, 20 or 40 mg/kg/day. Females were given 0, 3, 10 or 20 mg/kg/day for the entire study. GW501516 produced test article-related neoplastic findings in multiple tissues at all doses. Increased mortality was seen with females given GW501516 at all doses and uterine endometrial adenocarcinoma contributed to death in a high proportion of these animals. Neoplasms considered test-article related occurred in the liver (hepatocellular adenoma at ≥ 10 mg/kg/day), urinary bladder (transitional cell carcinoma in males given 20 and 40 mg/kg/day), thyroid (follicular cell adenoma at ≥ 3 mg/kg/day and carcinoma in males at ≥ 20 mg/kg/day), tongue (squamous cell papilloma in males at 5 mg/kg/day and 40 mg/kg/day), stomach (squamous cell papilloma in males at≥ 5 mg/kg/day and a female at 20 mg/kg/day, and carcinoma in a male at 40mg/kg/day and a female at 3 mg/kg/day), skin (inverted squamous cell papilloma in males at ≥ 5 mg/kg/day and females at 3 or 20 mg/kg/day), Harderian glands (adenoma in males at ≥ 5 mg/kg/day and adenocarcinoma in a male at 40 mg/kg/day), testes (interstitial cell adenoma at 40 mg/kg/day), ovary (Sertoli cell adenoma at ≥10 mg/kg/day) and uterus (polyp and endometrial adenocarcinoma at ≥ 3mg/kg/day). Some of the tumor types observed in this study have not been reported with either PPARα or PPARγ agonists and may reflect tumor promotion mediated through PPARδ agonism.

896
MOUSE CARCINOGENICITY STUDY WITH GW501516,A PPAR DELTA AGONIST.
S. J. Newsholme[1], W. S. Dunsford[2], T. Brodie[2], C. Brennan[3], M. Brown[3] and L.E. Geiger[1]
[1]Safety Assessment, GlaxoSmithKline, King of Prussia, PA, [2]Safety Assessment, GlaxoSmithKline, Ware, United Kingdom and [3]Huntingdon Life Sciences, Huntingdon, United Kingdom.

GW501516, a non-genotoxic PPARδ agonist, was assessed for carcinogenic potential by daily administration (oral gavage) to CD1 mice for 104 weeks at doses of 0, 10, 30, 60 or 80 mg/kg/day. Survival was decreased at doses ≥ 30 mg/kg/day. Neoplasms considered related to test article occurred in liver (hepatocellular carcinoma at ≥ 30 mg/kg/day and adenoma at ≥ 10 mg/kg/day), stomach (squamous cell carcinoma at all doses) and combined squamous cell tumours at all doses (squamous cell papilloma and carcinoma, and keratoacanthoma). There have been conflicting reports in the literature regarding the effects of PPARδ on epithelial cell proliferation. The results of this study demonstrate an increase in proliferation in certain epithelial cell populations, but do not support a role for PPARδ in colon carcinogenesis. The squamous cell tumors observed in this study have not been reported with either PPARα or PPARγ agonists and may reflect tumor promotionmediated through PPARδ agonism.
Reply
#19
You appear to correct, although the rats were subjected to daily doses, for more or less their entire lives, far in excess of what I'd previously believed was a dose fairly comparable to that given used for performance enhancement in humans: rats weighing a half kilo were dosed between 2.5 and 40mg (no clear reason for the range here) so somewhere twixt 400mg and 7g per day for an 85kg human. Presumably for 70 years. Against a recommended, cycled, dose for performance of 15mg or so, the doses aren't anywhere near as close as I thought.

What is certainly disturbing is that when rats were given cancer deliberately in a different study, the things almost burst with tumors in basically every organ. So maybe if you smoke, for example, this could be especially dangerous.

That said, I can find no evidence anywhere of the human cancers that Knothing mentions. Colon cells didn't react in vitro.

This appears to be the primary source, it's a very, very heavy read: https://web.archive.org/web/201505040134...009Tox.pdf
'If you're one of those who can, make certain that you do."
Reply
#20
(16-01-2018, 01:07 AM)AiwassATeenageKeyframe Wrote: You appear to correct, although the rats were subjected to daily doses, for more or less their entire lives, far in excess of what I'd previously believed was a dose fairly comparable to that given used for performance enhancement in humans: rats weighing a half kilo were dosed between 2.5 and 40mg (no clear reason for the range here) so somewhere twixt 400mg and 7g per day for an 85kg human. Presumably for 70 years. Against a recommended, cycled, dose for performance of 15mg or so, the doses aren't anywhere near as close as I thought.

What is certainly disturbing is that when rats were given cancer deliberately in a different study, the things almost burst with tumors in basically every organ. So maybe if you smoke, for example, this could be especially dangerous.

That said, I can find no evidence anywhere of the human cancers that Knothing mentions. Colon cells didn't react in vitro.

This appears to be the primary source, it's a very, very heavy read: https://web.archive.org/web/201505040134...009Tox.pdf

You can't scale rodent doses linearly. There's a number of methods to calculate sensible human equivalent doses from doses given to animals. Using this method gives a dose range between 40mg and 550mg for an 85kg human based on rats and between 70mg and 550mg based on mice
Reply

Reddit   Facebook   Twitter  




Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)

   
DISCLAIMER
Any views or opinions posted by members are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the UKCR staff team.