I had cancer 4 years ago. Can I take Testosterone?

Speed King

Bluelighter
Joined
Mar 7, 2014
Messages
6,074
I need it. some fucking doctors lied and said my level was fine, even though it was like 236 -250. In case it matters, it was Hodgkin's Lymphoma.
I tried a 30 mg roll on test and I felt like a million bucks. What do you think?




Speed King
 
I don't see any issues with it as long as you're in the clear cancer wise. Just testosterone should be fine even with a cancer of your kind if it was still present as I don't believe it's growth is mediated by androgens or estrogen like some cancer. As long as no major IGF increases occur, you should be "safe". I'd wait for GF and/or CFC to chime in as they have a lot more extensive knowledge than I do in this area.
 
I need it. some fucking doctors lied and said my level was fine, even though it was like 236 -250. In case it matters, it was Hodgkin's Lymphoma.
I tried a 30 mg roll on test and I felt like a million bucks. What do you think?


Speed King

I personally can't see low dose within physiological parameters being a problem..

There is some thought lymphocytes abnormalities via an autoimmune response could present as Hodgkin Lymphoma...

It might be best to limit all chronic inflammatory responses, and other known unhealthy practices in the future, look into eliminating gluten (especially whole grains), alcohol, vegetable oils, refined sugar (even fresh fruit juice), heavy metal exposure, toxic mold, glyphosate from GMO crops (unfortunately in just about everything you consume in the US), EMF exposure (mobile phones, bluetooth, Wifi, tobacco, blue light, diet colas, etc..

Eat healthy fibre (as many different coloured vegetables as possible..
 
I personally can't see low dose within physiological parameters being a problem..

There is some thought lymphocytes abnormalities via an autoimmune response could present as Hodgkin Lymphoma...

It might be best to limit all chronic inflammatory responses, and other known unhealthy practices in the future, look into eliminating gluten (especially whole grains), alcohol, vegetable oils, refined sugar (even fresh fruit juice), heavy metal exposure, toxic mold, glyphosate from GMO crops (unfortunately in just about everything you consume in the US), EMF exposure (mobile phones, bluetooth, Wifi, tobacco, blue light, diet colas, etc..

Eat healthy fibre (as many different coloured vegetables as possible..
Will do the best I can. So the numbers wern't low?
 
Will do the best I can. So the numbers wern't low?

Sorry, I was commenting on you using low dose TRT being beneficial.. Your number are quite low, so a boost might be beneficial, but without going too high, ie within normal physiological ranges (but higher than what you currently are)...
 
Sorry, I was commenting on you using low dose TRT being beneficial.. Your number are quite low, so a boost might be beneficial, but without going too high, ie within normal physiological ranges (but higher than what you currently are)...
That's what I thought. I used this gel a few times called Axiom or close to that. I felt 20 years younger. No words can describe the feeling. I figure when I go to a good doctor or a sports doctor, I'll get put on something like that. If I could find it, I would use test now. Its that ot become Amish,lol
 
It might be best to limit all chronic inflammatory responses, and other known unhealthy practices in the future, look into eliminating gluten (especially whole grains), alcohol, vegetable oils, refined sugar (even fresh fruit juice), heavy metal exposure, toxic mold, glyphosate from GMO crops (unfortunately in just about everything you consume in the US), EMF exposure (mobile phones, bluetooth, Wifi, tobacco, blue light, diet colas, etc..

And especially plastics, plasticizers and non-stick coatings on pans, tins and packaging, with their myriad highly-bioactive leeching hormone-disrupters and hormone-mimetics, which are strongly associated with increased cancer risk including (especially) lymphomas :(

Just make sure you keep your test levels in a physiologic range SK, and you should be safe. But make sure you exercise several times a week and consume plenty of healthy oils (eg nuts like walnut), which help reduce levels of systemic IGF-1 (and increase levels within muscles).
 
And especially plastics, plasticizers and non-stick coatings on pans, tins and packaging, with their myriad highly-bioactive leeching hormone-disrupters and hormone-mimetics, which are strongly associated with increased cancer risk including (especially) lymphomas :(

Just make sure you keep your test levels in a physiologic range SK, and you should be safe. But make sure you exercise several times a week and consume plenty of healthy oils (eg nuts like walnut), which help reduce levels of systemic IGF-1 (and increase levels within muscles).

Oh dear..!! I've just purchased a new pressure cooker (and ditched the microwave due to EMF exposure and effects on food nutrient quality), unfortunately it's got a non stick coating.. :0(
 
It might be best to limit all chronic inflammatory responses, and other known unhealthy practices in the future, look into eliminating gluten (especially whole grains), alcohol, vegetable oils, refined sugar (even fresh fruit juice), heavy metal exposure, toxic mold, glyphosate from GMO crops (unfortunately in just about everything you consume in the US), EMF exposure (mobile phones, bluetooth, Wifi, tobacco, blue light, diet colas, etc..

Am I wrong? I thought:
- little alcohol consumption is beneficial to health
- native vegetable oils are beneficial to health (nut oil, linseed oil, olive oil, coconut oil)

And why should diet colas or sweeteners cause inflammatory responses or be unhealthy? Same for WIFI or bluetooth or microwave (also influence on food quality). Never heard about that.

Could you please explain these points and maybe add scientifical sources? Thanks.
 
Yeah sweeteners can be pretty nasty, the assumption being that it's due to what they may do to the gut microbiota, which can lead to the development of inflammatory bowel diseases like Crohn's in those vulnerable.

I'm highly sensitive to splenda - sucralose - it causes me extreme gastro trouble from the tiniest amounts. In the UK there's now a sugar tax, and they're slowly replacing sugar with sucralose in so many products to avoid it, so I have to carefully read the labels and ask in restaurants now.

For example:

The Artificial Sweetener Splenda Promotes Gut Proteobacteria, Dysbiosis, and Myeloperoxidase Reactivity in Crohn's Disease-Like Ileitis.


Abstract

BACKGROUND:
Epidemiological studies indicate that the use of artificial sweeteners doubles the risk for Crohn's disease (CD). Herein, we experimentally quantified the impact of 6-week supplementation with a commercial sweetener (Splenda; ingredients sucralose maltodextrin, 1:99, w/w) on both the severity of CD-like ileitis and the intestinal microbiome alterations using SAMP1/YitFc (SAMP) mice.

METHODS:
Metagenomic shotgun DNA sequencing was first used to characterize the microbiome of ileitis-prone SAMP mice. Then, 16S rRNA microbiome sequencing, quantitative polymerase chain reaction, fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH), bacterial culture, stereomicroscopy, histology, and myeloperoxidase (MPO) activity analyses were then implemented to compare the microbiome and ileitis phenotype in SAMP with that of control ileitis-free AKR/J mice after Splenda supplementation.

RESULTS:
Metagenomics indicated that SAMP mice have a gut microbial phenotype rich in Bacteroidetes, and experiments showed that Helicobacteraceae did not have an exacerbating effect on ileitis. Splenda did not increase the severity of (stereomicroscopic/histological) ileitis; however, biochemically, ileal MPO activity was increased in SAMP treated with Splenda compared with nonsupplemented mice (P < 0.022) and healthy AKR mice. Splenda promoted dysbiosis with expansion of Proteobacteria in all mice, and E. coli overgrowth with increased bacterial infiltration into the ileal lamina propria of SAMP mice. FISH showed increase malX gene-carrying bacterial clusters in the ilea of supplemented SAMP (but not AKR) mice.

CONCLUSIONS:
Splenda promoted gut Proteobacteria, dysbiosis, and biochemical MPO reactivity in a spontaneous model of (Bacteroidetes-rich) ileal CD. Our results indicate that although Splenda may promote parallel microbiome alterations in CD-prone and healthy hosts, this did not result in elevated MPO levels in healthy mice, only CD-prone mice. The consumption of sucralose/maltodextrin-containing foods might exacerbate MPO intestinal reactivity only in individuals with a pro-inflammatory predisposition, such as CD.



https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29554272
 
Last edited:
Am I wrong? I thought:
- little alcohol consumption is beneficial to health
- native vegetable oils are beneficial to health (nut oil, linseed oil, olive oil, coconut oil)

And why should diet colas or sweeteners cause inflammatory responses or be unhealthy? Same for WIFI or bluetooth or microwave (also influence on food quality). Never heard about that.

Could you please explain these points and maybe add scientifical sources? Thanks.


little alcohol consumption is beneficial to health.. Not anymore..


diet colas or sweeteners cause inflammatory responses or be unhealthy? Refined fructose causes epithelial tight junction dysregulation (leaky gut).. Artificial sweeteners decimate your gut microbiome..

Same for WIFI or bluetooth or microwave (also influence on food quality).

We know that there is a massive literature, providing a high level of scientific certainty, for each of eight pathophysiological effects caused by non-thermal microwave frequency EMF exposures.

Such EMFs:
1. Attack our nervous systems including our brains leading to widespread neurological/neuropsychiatric effects and possibly many other effects.

2. Attack our endocrine (that is hormonal) systems. In this context, the main things that make us functionally different from single celled creatures are our nervous system and our endocrine systems – even a simple planaria worm needs both of these. Thus the consequences of the disruption of these two regulatory systems is immense.

3. Produce oxidative stress and free radical damage, which have central roles in essentially all chronic diseases.

4. Attack the DNA of our cells, producing single strand and double strand breaks in cellular DNA and oxidized bases in our cellular DNA. These in turn produce cancer and also mutations in germ line cells which produce mutations in future generations.

5. Produce elevated levels of apoptosis (programmed cell death), events especially important in causing both neurodegenerative diseases and infertility.

6. Lower male and female fertility, lower sex hormones, lower libido and increased levels of spontaneous abortion and, as already stated, attack the DNA in sperm cells.

7. Produce excessive intracellular calcium [Ca2+]i and excessive calcium signaling.

8. Attack the cells of our bodies to cause cancer. Such attacks are thought to act via 15 different mechanisms during cancer causation.
There is also a substantial literature showing that EMFs also cause other effects including life threatening cardiac effects. In addition substantial evidence suggests EMF causation of very early onset dementias, including Alzheimer’s, digital and other types of dementias and there is evidence that EMF exposures in utero and shortly after birth can cause ADHD and autism.

Each of these effects is produced via the main mechanism of action of microwave/lower frequency EMFs, activation of voltage-gated calcium channels (VGCCs). Each of
them is produced via what are called downstream effects of VGCC activation. It follows from this that we have a good understanding not only that these effects occur, but also how they can occur. The extraordinary sensitivity of the VGCC voltage sensor to the forces of the EMFs tells us that the current safety guidelines allow us to be exposed to EMF levels that are something like 7.2 million times too high. That sensitivity is predicted by the physics. Therefore, the physics and the biology are each pointing to the same mechanism of action of non-thermal EMFs.

The different effects produced are obviously very deep concerns. They become much deeper and become existential threats when one considers that several of these effects are both cumulative and eventually irreversible. There is substantial evidence for the cumulative nature and eventual irreversibility of the neurological/neuropsychiatric effects, of the reproductive effects, the mutational DNA effects, the cardiac effects, of some but not other of the hormonal effects any causation of ADHD and autism may add additional concerns (here the cumulative nature is probably limited to the perinatal period). When we know that sperm counts
have dropped by more than 50% throughout the technologically advanced countries on earth, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the vast majority of the population in those countries is already substantially impacted.

The same conclusion can be made based on the widespread nature of the neuropsychiatric effects in those countries. Both of those effects will get much much worse even with no increase in current exposures, due to the cumulative nature and irreversibility of these effects. I expect we will see crash in human reproduction almost to zero as happened in the Magras and Xenos mouse study which I estimate to occur within about 5 years, without any increases in our exposures. Obviously 4G and 5G will make the situation much worse.

I have 171 papers that back up the information above with links to 1000's more, I can't post if you wish, but it might take a while..
 
Thanks for your detailed answer. I needed some time to read and understand your points.


But what would be your practical implications? WIFI, 3G/4G, radio are present everywhere. Microwave devices do not seem to be harmful.


Here is a site that deals with an extensive literature database with an inventory of 27,105 publications and 6,238 summaries of individual scientific studies on the effects of electromagnetic fields. In my opinion it seems not that harmful as you stated it. What do you think?

Some excerpts:

https://www.emf-portal.org/en said:
The Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks of the European Commission (SCENIHR) stated in their opinion (2015, p.5) that overall epidemiological studies on mobile phone use did not show an increased risk for brain tumors. Some studies suggested an increased risk for glioma and acoustic neuroma. However, the results of cohort studies and incidence time trend studies did not support an increased risk for glioma and the possibility of an association with acoustic neuroma remains open. According to SCENIHR, there is no evidence of an increased risk for other cancer types in adults and children.

The German Commission on Radiological Protection (SSK) stated in their evaluation (2011, p.8 in German only) that there is insufficient evidence for an association between cancer risk and mobile communication exposure. The German Federal Office for Radiation Protection stated on the basis of epidemiological studies on mobile phone use that there is no increased cancer risk in adults.

A possible association between extremely low-frequency magnetic fields and the incidence of cancer has been examined in numerous epidemiological studies for more than 35 years. No evidence was observed in adults that long-term exposure to extremely low-frequency magnetic fields increases the risk of developing cancer (e.g. leukemia, breast cancer or brain tumor) (German Commission on Radiological Protection 2008). In contrast, in children, the results of epidemiological studies indicated an increased risk of developing childhood leukemia when exposed to magnetic flux densities of more than 0.3-0.4 ?T. Based on these studies, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization (WHO) classified extremely low-frequency magnetic fields as class 2B "possibly carcinogenic to humans" (2002 and 2007).

The German Commission on Radiological Protection (SSK) concluded in its recommendation from 2008 that there is, even after the evaluation of the newer scientific literature, no evidence of possible adverse health effects due to extremely low-frequency electric and magnetic fields which would be reliable enough to justify a change in the existing limit value regulation 26th BImSchV. Additionally, there is no sufficient proof from the analysis of the present scientific literature to recommend lower precautionary values, which would promise a quantifiable health effect. However, the German Commission on Radiological Protection acknowledges the need for further experimental and dosimetric research (German Commission on Radiological Protection 2008).

Experimental investigations on both short-term and long-term exposure to extremely low-frequency fields in the workplace or in the environment show that they are very unlikely to cause dangerous cardiovascular effects (WHO Environmental Health Criteria 238). Likewise, epidemiological studies gave no evidence of an association between extremely low-frequency electric and magnetic fields and the incidence of cardiovascular diseases (Kheifets, L. et al. 2007).

At European level the ?Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks? (SCENIHR) conclude that in most of the studies on genotoxicity, no effects of exposure at permissible levels were recorded, although in some cases DNA strand breaks and spindle disturbances were observed (SCENIHR, 2015, p.101 f) .

The German Committee for Radiation Protection (SSK) at the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety concludes in its statement on mobile phone-related biological effects (2011 , p. 8, in German), that the literature provides no reasonable scientifically suspicion for evidence of genotoxic effects caused by radiofrequency electromagnetic fields and the evidence for genotoxic effects is weak.
The Swiss Federal Office for the Environment (BAFU, 2014, p. 30) also sees only insufficient evidence for direct DNA damages caused by radiofrequency field exposure, although single effects were observed.

In conclusion, international and national expert committees do not see sufficient evidence for genotoxic effects caused by radiofrequency fields at permissible levels. A new statement by WHO on the effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields is expected in 2016.

Because of the sheer number of study objects and methods, an evaluation of studies on induction of DNA damage by extremely low-frequency fields is difficult. In most studies, no genotoxic effects were found. The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) concluded in its 2010 evaluation, that the studies on the effects of extremely low-frequency fields in cells do not show any induction of genotoxicity below 50 mT (ICNIRP (2010)).
 
Thanks for your detailed answer. I needed some time to read and understand your points.


But what would be your practical implications? WIFI, 3G/4G, radio are present everywhere. Microwave devices do not seem to be harmful.


Here is a site that deals with an extensive literature database with an inventory of 27,105 publications and 6,238 summaries of individual scientific studies on the effects of electromagnetic fields. In my opinion it seems not that harmful as you stated it. What do you think?

Some excerpts:

Microwaves are very harmful, after reading the literature I no longer use mine and promptly bought a pressure cooker..

The industry won't discuss non-thermal effects of EMF exposure point blank..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8ATQF8omdI
 
I have limited knowledge when it comes to Testosterone But I know A LOT of people who are Cancer Patients that are Friends of mine unfortunately. I would think that given the Fact your in the clear Or "remission" now that it won't be A problem but even if the Cancer came back I believe if your Testosterone Levels are in the NORMAL RANGE as in less then 1000-1200 from what I Read. I would think the Cancer Growth would not be any quicker then someone who has NORMAL Testosterone Ranges such as A 20 Year Old suffering from Cancer Vs. an old man suffering from Cancer with super low Testosterone Levels.


This is My 2 Cents, it makes sense if you think about it but this is simply just all theoretical of course.
 
Top