* These products are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease. These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). This website and the associated domain names "roid-" are representative of ingredients which may enhance blood levels of hormones in the body. This site is offering this extremely strong alternative to the highly toxic drug listed on the top of the page. These products are not drugs. Our products are not to be used by anyone under 18 years of age. The information provided on this site is not intended as a substitute for advice from your physician or other health care professional or any information contained on or in any product label or packaging. You should consult with a healthcare professional before starting any diet, exercise or supplementation program, before taking any medication, or if you have or suspect you might have a health problem.
A collaborative, hospital-based case-control study was conducted at 12 participating centres in 10 countries. Based on data from personal interviews of 2,116 women with newly diagnosed breast cancer and 12,077 controls, the relative risk of breast cancer in women who ever used oral contraceptives was estimated to be (, ). Estimated values of this relative risk based on data from three developed and seven developing countries were (, ) and (, ) respectively; these estimates are not significantly different (P = ). Estimates for women under and over age 35 were (, ) and (, ), respectively, and these estimates are also not significantly different (P = ). Risk was highest in recent and current users and declined with time since last use regardless of use. Risk did not increase with duration of use after stratifying on time since last use. Risk did not increase significantly with increasing duration of use before age 25 or before a first live birth. However, a relative risk of that was of borderline statistical significance was observed in women who used oral contraceptives for more than 2 years before age 25. No single source of bias or confounding was identified that could explain the small increases in risk that were observed. Chance alone is also an unlikely explanation. The results could be due to a combination of chance and potential sources of bias, or they could represent a weak causal relationship.
All C17- alpha alkylated oral steroids have displayed at least some level of hepatotoxicity in studies, and what is very important to make note of is the fact that in many of these studies, doses utilized were medical therapeutic prescription doses that are generally doses of oral steroids that are far lower than those the doses of oral steroids required for performance and physique enhancement. A perfect example to examine is Dianabol, as it is without a doubt the most popular oral anabolic steroid. Studies have demonstrated that Dianabol doses of 15mg per day or more displayed elevated bromosulphalein levels (an indication of increased hepatic strain), and at doses of 10mg or less per day displayed minimal hepatic strain  . This would indicate that Dianabol’s hepatotoxicity will always increase in relation to the dose used, and is the case for all oral steroids that happen to be C17-alpha alkylated. In terms of how the doses in the aforementioned study relate to real world bodybuilding doses, one could easily see how liver toxicity could potentially become an issue seeing as though the minimum beginner dose for bodybuilding purposes for something like Dianabol is no less than 25mg per day on average.