Andractim

[pe175]

Just curious...

Should I try Andractim before I get surgery to see if it works?

Has anyone on this board gotten good results using it?

[jc71]

concensus seems to be no.  There's 4 different andractim threads on the next page.

[vaio]

I consiered it, but after looking on the boards, I have no yet seen one successful before and after picture. Most people that use it report the gland feels softer but there is no obvious visual change. To me its a waste of money.

Also if a Doctor prescribes it to you thats one thing but buying it illegally from the internet is dumb imo.

[hypo]

Quote
Also if a Doctor prescribes it to you thats one thing but buying it illegally from the internet is dumb imo.
Unquote

Correct.

Quote
I consiered it, but after looking on the boards, I have no yet seen one successful before and after picture. Most people that use it report the gland feels softer but there is no obvious visual change. To me its a waste of money.  
Unquote

There have been successes and they have posted on this board and they have been pointed out to you on more than one occasion Vaio.

[vaio]

Quote
Also if a Doctor prescribes it to you thats one thing but buying it illegally from the internet is dumb imo.
Unquote

Correct.

Quote
I consiered it, but after looking on the boards, I have no yet seen one successful before and after picture. Most people that use it report the gland feels softer but there is no obvious visual change. To me its a waste of money.  
Unquote

There have been successes and they have posted on this board and they have been pointed out to you on more than one occasion Vaio.

There are no visual successes that have been pointed out to me. In the one you showed me, the guys nipples were erect in the after picture, which made it look better. Thats was the only difference.

I will say this again, there are no before and after photos with the desired, noticable change that I have personally seen.

[hypo]

All due respect but that is rubbish, there was a significant reduction in glandular mass as was seen on the photograps and stated by the individual.

The fact is that Andractim does reduce glandular mass in a significant number of people as is borne out by the studies.

Are you claiming that this is not the case?  

If that is so you must be saying that all the evidence found in the studies by multiple endocrinologists is false and fabricated.

If you are not saying that, if there is some middle ground that allows for your statements to be correct and for you not to be directly contradicting all the medical eveidence then please clarify and explain to us how that is.

P.S

I wish you would stop questioning the facts relating to this treatment- just because it was not appropriate for yourself given the fact you have pseudo gynecomastia and this is a treatment for glandular gynecomastia.

[Daveo]

hypo, i'm going to have to agree with vaio on that.  i can't recall seeing one successful result using andractim.  if you remember which one it was could you please post the link?

[hypo]

http://www.gynecomastia.org/cgi-bin/gyne_yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=1;action=display;num=1095446135;start=30


A number of people have reported partial ot total success with Andractim just as a number of people have reported no success- it reduced my gynecomastia quite a bit.

[vaio]

That photo gives off an illusion. The after picture is taken farther away, which makes it look smaller. (things look smaller at a distance) Also the before picture his nipple is soft. The after picture his nipple is erect. Erect nipple means the areola muscle is contracted which pushes the gyne down and hide it.

The guy used Im guessing 2 tubes, which runs over $200 right? Down the trash. There is no noticable difference.

[vaio]

All due respect but that is rubbish, there was a significant reduction in glandular mass as was seen on the photograps and stated by the individual.

The fact is that Andractim does reduce glandular mass in a significant number of people as is borne out by the studies.

Are you claiming that this is not the case?  

If that is so you must be saying that all the evidence found in the studies by multiple endocrinologists is false and fabricated.

If you are not saying that, if there is some middle ground that allows for your statements to be correct and for you not to be directly contradicting all the medical eveidence then please clarify and explain to us how that is.

P.S

I wish you would stop questioning the facts relating to this treatment- just because it was not appropriate for yourself given the fact you have pseudo gynecomastia and this is a treatment for glandular gynecomastia.

You mix things up so well Hypo. Here we go again.

I believe it does work on the gland. Its makes it softer, may even shrink it slightly.

It does NOT give off a noticable visual change. I, as well as many other have yet to see this.
Thats why there are NO before and after photos with a NOTICABLE change.

Thats what the thread starter was asking. He wanted to know if he should use it as a last resort before surgery. He doesn't like the way his gyne looks. Andractim has done nothing for anyone on here that we can notice visually. Therefore it would be a waste of money for him.


geez  


Vaio

[hypo]

No visable change look at the link!!

It wont work for you because as your previously stated you have pseudo gynecomastia and Andractim only works on glandular gynecomastia.

Do I have to quote the studies again word by word just to show you that your statements are diametrically opposed to the endocrinologists who stated there were visable changes?

I'll do that for you if you wish.

P.S

The fact is vaio your all over the place when it comes to statements on this therapy and you have little understanding as to its actions.

Geez back at ya

[vaio]

No visable change look at the link!!

It wont work for you because as your previously stated you have pseudo gynecomastia and Andractim only works on glandular gynecomastia.

Do I have to quote the studies again word by word just to show you that your statements are diametrically opposed to the endocrinologists who stated there were visable changes?

I'll do that for you if you wish.

P.S

The fact is vaio your all over the place when it comes to statements on this therapy and you have little understanding as to its actions.

Geez back at ya

Your not a Doctor buddy  . You can quote as many studys as you wish. Its stupit for people to spend $200 for slight gland shrinkage if even any. Its false hope. People want it gone.  Andractim won't do that. Surgery will.


Look at day 1 picture and the last day picture in the ONLY LINK you posted.
First picture is close up. His nipple is SOFT.
Last picture is farther away. (from looking at his tattoo)
His nipple is HARD!
HARD NIPPLES HIDE GYNE (since areola muscle is contracted)
His chest still has a cone shape to it. The Andractim did NOTHING to fix his problem. He is going to end up paying for surgery in the long run to get the desired result he is looking for. He wasted $200+ on Andractim.
Not to mention 42 days.

[Daveo]

I'd say that there's no visible change as well.  In fact I'd say it looks worse, if anything.  In my opinion, it would be a waste of time and money to use andractim.

[vaio]

Thank you  

[hypo]

What like one opinion equates to vallidation of facts-

I don't think so.

I think the reverse of  you guys does that make me 100% right- of course not.

The fact is Andractim does reduce and resolve gynecomastia in a significant % of cases.

This is not even up for debate my friends!

Andractim has been PROVEN to reduce glandular mass and reduce and resolve gynecomastia by endocrinologists in controlled studies.

Your opinions are not controlled studies.