My Andractim Diary *UPDATED PICTURES*

[manboob]

DAY 6 and 7
----------------------------
sorry i was away for a couple days, didnt have any internet access.

anyway, things looking good, il post pics tomorrow.

[vaio]

and vaio, there are plenty of people who have had results from andractim. I know hypo had some, I know steini had some on at least one of his glands, jigglypuff has expressed results. I know many people have order the stuff and then never come back to this site. I think that's because they had results and then they just said, well, my gyne's gone, and never come back.

There are NO BEFORE AND AFTER PICTURES SHOWING RESULTS.

[manboob]

DAY 8
------------------
here are my pics, u decide if they look any smaller

http://img141.exs.cx/img141/7479/picture02917gv.jpg

http://img141.exs.cx/img141/4684/picture03012pz.jpg

http://img141.exs.cx/img141/5412/picture03116yw.jpg

[daytonasurf]

Yea they did but it looks like you just got done putting it on and theyre hard. Cheater.

[manboob]

no, im finding they are hard most of the time now, atleast half the day...even when its warm...anyone know why?
not fully hard, i mean, my nipples get smaller then that when its cold...but these are like half erect.

[manboob]

DAY 9
--------------
size reduction is now becoming more apparent.
gland braking down.

[manboob]

DAY 10
-------------
Same as yesterday. i can wear a t-shirt and not look as bad as when i started.

[Boobs]

looks good

[vaio]

Areola muscles are contracted. Thats why the gyne looks better.

[hypo]

Vaio,

Andractim is not a miracle cure, it doesn't work for some people but it DOES work for others!!!!!

This is evidenced in the New England Journal of Medicine by Glenn D Braunstein M.D endocrinologist in his paper entitled gynecomastia.

This is an extract quoted verbatim

The non-aromatizable androgen dihydrotestosterone has been used iether by injection or percutaneously, in a group of patients with prolonged pubertal gynecomastia.  Approximately 75% had reductions in breast-tissue volume, with 25% having a complete response.

unquote

If you want me to send you a photocopy of this document simply pm me with your address.

Here are some dynamic before and after photos from this very site

http://www.gynecomastia.org/cgi-bin/gyne_yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=1;action=display;num=1095446135;start=15

Furthermore;


Unique Identifier
3088241
Authors
Eberle AJ. Sparrow JT. Keenan BS.
Title
Treatment of persistent pubertal gynecomastia with dihydrotestosterone heptanoate.
Source
Journal of Pediatrics. 109(1):144-9, 1986 Jul.

Abstract
Four boys with persistent pubertal gynecomastia were given intramuscular dihydrotestosterone heptanoate (DHT-hp) at 2 to 4-week intervals for 16 weeks. By the end of treatment, breast size in all four boys had decreased 67% to 78%. Initial plasma levels of gonadotropins, estradiol, testosterone, and dihydrotestosterone (DHT) were normal. Mean plasma DHT concentration rose with the injections of DHT-hp, and remained elevated throughout the treatment period. Estradiol, LH, FSH, and testosterone decreased during treatment, as did 24-hour urinary LH and FSH. No regrowth of breast tissue was observed 6 to 15 months after treatment, although hormone concentrations had returned to near pretreatment values by 2 months after the last injection. DHT-hp has potential to be an effective medical therapy for persistent pubertal gynecomastia.

Unique Identifier
6354523
Authors
Kuhn JM. Roca R. Laudat MH. Rieu M. Luton JP. Bricaire H.
Title
Studies on the treatment of idiopathic gynaecomastia with percutaneous dihydrotestosterone.
Source
Clinical Endocrinology. 19(4):513-20, 1983 Oct.
Abstract
We have studied clinical and endocrine parameters in a group (group A) of forth men referred to us because of persistent idiopathic gynaecomastia (of more than 18 months duration), before and during the administration of percutaneous dihydrotestosterone (DHT). The endocrine parameters (testosterone (T), 17 beta-oestradiol (E2), DHT, gonadotrophins (FSH and LH) and prolactin (PRL), were compared to those of control groups of 12 healthy men on DHT therapy (group B) and 10 on placebo (group C). Local administration of DHT was followed by the complete disappearance of gynaecomastia in 10 patients, partial regression in 19 and no change in 11 patients after 4 to 20 weeks of percutaneous DHT (125 mg twice daily). Before treatment the T + DHT/E2 ratio was significantly (P less than 0.001) lower in group A 244 +/- 21 (SEM) than in groups B and C (361 +/- 21) while T, DHT and E2 concentrations were all within the normal range. During DHT treatment plasma hormone levels were measured in 26 patients from group A: DHT levels increases significantly (day 0: 1.63 +/- 0.14 nmol/l; day 15: 12.8 +/- 1.6 nmol/l, P less than 0.001) while T and E2 levels fell significantly (T: day 0: 22.6 +/- 1.2 nmol/l; day 15: 11.0 +/- 1.5 nmol/l, P less than 0.001; E2: day 0: 110.5 +/- 7.12 pmol/l; day 15: 86.79 +/- 9.4 pmol/l, P less than 0.01). The T/E2 ratio decreased from 231 +/- 20 to 164 +/- 27 (P less than 0.05) while the T + DHT/E2 ratio increased significantly (P less than 0.02) to a normal mean value (day 15: 354 +/- 57).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

[vaio]

Hypo, aka (Im not an Endo. but I did stay at a holiday inn express last night)   jk

The point I am trying to make, is that people should go to a Doctor, Endo whatever, and let him decide wheather or not Andractim would work for them.
There are many factors that have to be concidered before using Andractim. Reactions with other medicines, patient historys, disorders, etc etc. That ONLY Doctors can interpret.

A prescription is a prescription for a reason. Bottom line.

Also, if Andractim is right for the subject, most likely insurance will cover a huge percent of the cost for the Andractim. Instead of paying for it illegally, not knowing if its going to work or not, you can see a doctor who may or may not prescribe it to you (depending on if it will work or not) and you will only have to pay a small amount of money since insurance will most likely cover it.

Also Andractim in most cases will not give people the desired result as surgery will. It will soften the gland and may even shrink it but it will not do anything to the surrounding tissues and excess skin like surgery will do.

ALSO, The before and 42 days after photo looks exactly the same. The only actuall difference is that in the after photo, the mans nipple is slightly erect, and the picture is taken at a further distance, (which makes the gyne look better aka appear smaller)

My question is, if all these people are using it, why are there no before and after pictures with a noticable visual* change?

Answer, Andractim softens the gland tissue and eliminates some of the gland itself. It DOES NOTHING to the surrounding tissue, which is why the areola and surrounding area still looks the same (saggy and or pointy, puffy)

With surgery, after the gland removal, the tissue under the areola is damaged, disturbed, raw, what ever you want to call it. Compression holds it all togather. The skin heals togather with the fatty tissue benanith it which causes the pointyness and nipple puffyness, loose areola skin to heal togather and become flat.  

Problem solved.  

[hypo]

Vaio,

If you want to make fun of the fact that I have a good understand of the endocrinology involved because of my own hormone condition and my actions within patients support groups- fine.  But I’m not going to apologize for 'not being ignorant of the facts' and neither am I going to agree that knowledge is the exclusive property of doctors.  

Why?

Because patients support groups have often been in the vanguard in fighting for advancements in treatments, this is very true of hypogonadism- hence my knowledge in this area, given that gynecomastia is an associated condition.  

I am defending Andractim as I don't think your comments are particularly representative of the facts of this medication.  A medication that has helped me and others to live with gynecomastia a little bit easier (via prescription).

So my defense is based on A) my own experience B) the proven studies, details of which I have already provided you with in two instances and offered to provide you with in a third instance and C) the testimony of other sufferers who have stated reduction or resolution of their gynecomastia.

I am saying all this and yet I am no more pro Andractim than I am pro surgery.  I myself favor the surgical option.  But it is not a black and white issue and when you paint it as such I feel compelled to state otherwise.


At no point have I EVER suggested that anyone should self medicate Andractim or any other steroid.  You are VERY remise in implying this.  Ever since I have been on this site I have promoted the need for endocrinologists (the hormone experts) more than any other person here.

I happen to agree with you 100% that this medication should be used ONLY under the guidance of an endocrinologist.

quote
Also Andractim in most cases will not give people the desired result as surgery will. It will soften the gland and may even shrink it but it will not do anything to the surrounding tissues and excess skin like surgery will do.  
unquote

Glenn D Braustein M.D endocrinologist reported a 25% or 1 in 4 resolution rate.  He did not state the reservations that you have above.  Is your statement sourced from a controlled medical study?  If not, what makes you think that this is so?  If these are only your own thoughts that would just make it conjecture wouldn’t it?

quote
With surgery, after the gland removal, the tissue under the areola is damaged, disturbed, raw, what ever you want to call it. Compression holds it all togather. The skin heals togather with the fatty tissue benanith it which causes the pointyness and nipple puffyness, loose areola skin to heal togather and become flat.  

Problem solved.
unquote

I think surgery with a good plastic surgeon having had hormone pathology prior to rule out any underlying condition is a great treatment option.  At the moment it represents the ideal for those that can afford it.

However surgery is not as perfect as you make out.  The long term success rate is 64%, not 100%.  If people routinely had their hormones checked prior to surgery this rate would be higher but they don't which is why that percentage is not as high as it could be.

I would venture that the simplistic approach of saying go a see a PS- job done, is precisely the type of attitude which has led to this success rate being lower than it could be.  I would also say that for various reasons it is not the correct option for all, for those who cannot afford it, it is not even an option at all.

All that said I agree with you that surgery is a better option for most people, but that isn’t the issue here is it?  

The issue is that you are saying that this therapy has no worth and on that I and many endocrinologists disagree with you.

I guess we just have to agree to disagree.

[vaio]

Very well said hypo. I apoligize if I came across as a jerk.
I was only joking around.

All these people that have Psueo (i dont know to spell it) (gynecomastia since childhood) gyne are "testing" or "experimenting" with this product.

From my knowledge, Andractim will only have an effect on people who have hormone imbalances.
Thats were you get my quote "100 bucks down the drain" The guy who started this post said he has had gynecomstia for quite some time since childhood.

I feel bad that some of the people on here are pissing their good hard earned money away on something thats not going to work for them.

1. I have psuedo gyne, you have a hormone imbalance gyne. Two seperate things. For psuedo gyne, the only option for treatment is surgery. (Most people on here have psuedo gyne)

2. For hormone imbalances, Andractim is an option as well as surgery. An endocrineologist should check for this. If there is any change Andractim will work, the endo will prescribe it to you.

I'm coming from a pseudo gyne point of view when I wrote a response since the topic of the post has to do with someone who has psuedo gyne. You are taking this way off topic.




 

[vaio]

Vaio,

If you want to make fun of the fact that I have a good understand of the endocrinology involved because of my own hormone condition and my actions within patients support groups- fine.  But I’m not going to apologize for 'not being ignorant of the facts' and neither am I going to agree that knowledge is the exclusive property of doctors.  

Why?

Because patients support groups have often been in the vanguard in fighting for advancements in treatments, this is very true of hypogonadism- hence my knowledge in this area, given that gynecomastia is an associated condition.  

I am defending Andractim as I don't think your comments are particularly representative of the facts of this medication.  A medication that has helped me and others to live with gynecomastia a little bit easier (via prescription).

So my defense is based on A) my own experience B) the proven studies, details of which I have already provided you with in two instances and offered to provide you with in a third instance and C) the testimony of other sufferers who have stated reduction or resolution of their gynecomastia.

I am saying all this and yet I am no more pro Andractim than I am pro surgery.  I myself favor the surgical option.  But it is not a black and white issue and when you paint it as such I feel compelled to state otherwise.


At no point have I EVER suggested that anyone should self medicate Andractim or any other steroid.  You are VERY remise in implying this.  Ever since I have been on this site I have promoted the need for endocrinologists (the hormone experts) more than any other person here.

I happen to agree with you 100% that this medication should be used ONLY under the guidance of an endocrinologist.

quote
Also Andractim in most cases will not give people the desired result as surgery will. It will soften the gland and may even shrink it but it will not do anything to the surrounding tissues and excess skin like surgery will do.  
unquote

Glenn D Braustein M.D endocrinologist reported a 25% or 1 in 4 resolution rate.  He did not state the reservations that you have above.  Is your statement sourced from a controlled medical study?  If not, what makes you think that this is so?  If these are only your own thoughts that would just make it conjecture wouldn’t it?

quote
With surgery, after the gland removal, the tissue under the areola is damaged, disturbed, raw, what ever you want to call it. Compression holds it all togather. The skin heals togather with the fatty tissue benanith it which causes the pointyness and nipple puffyness, loose areola skin to heal togather and become flat.  

Problem solved.
unquote

I think surgery with a good plastic surgeon having had hormone pathology prior to rule out any underlying condition is a great treatment option.  At the moment it represents the ideal for those that can afford it.

However surgery is not as perfect as you make out.  The long term success rate is 64%, not 100%.  If people routinely had their hormones checked prior to surgery this rate would be higher but they don't which is why that percentage is not as high as it could be.

I would venture that the simplistic approach of saying go a see a PS- job done, is precisely the type of attitude which has led to this success rate being lower than it could be.  I would also say that for various reasons it is not the correct option for all, for those who cannot afford it, it is not even an option at all.

All that said I agree with you that surgery is a better option for most people, but that isn’t the issue here is it?  

The issue is that you are saying that this therapy has no worth and on that I and many endocrinologists disagree with you.

I guess we just have to agree to disagree.

I am not saying the therapy has no worth! I believe it does help for people who have hormone imbalances like yourself.
The thread starter has psuedo gynecomastia,
which andractim is useless for treating. He basically pissed away $100. Try to stay on topic.

Also, because I didn't type all this extra crap, (like you do) doesn't mean I don't understand what im talking about.
I try to stay on topic when I write. Clearly you don't! You jump from here and to there and than over there and than back over there again. Thats why there are all these stupit little childlike "disputes."

I like to keep things between everyone on level ground. Hence me backing down and apoligizing since my joke offended you. You continue to jump back up like you are the king of the hill of something. Your behavior is immature as well as a tell tale sign of mental issues.

[hypo]

Look….

You made a derogatory statement about Andractim therapy that didn't to my mind do it justice; I thought it was worth defending it because your comments lacked balance.  You never mentioned pseudo gynecomastia before, only now, the original poster hasn’t mentioned pseudo gynecomastia anywhere in this thread and from the photos it looks to me as though he has glandular gynecomastia.

I’m sorry you see this as personal it isn’t, you’ve got mixed up.

If you had qualified your original statement by saying that you thought it was useless in psuedo gynecomastia, something totally different, I wouldn't have had a problem, in fact I would have agreed with you.

P.S

Insults do neither of us any favors