10 replies to this topic

[Chanterix]

Clomid is one of the few good options available for treating low testosterone. It can raise test without impairing fertility as testosterone replacement therapy does. It is currently in trials(in its single enantiomer form) for FDA approval.

All sounds good, right? Well, it can also be carcinogenic and liver toxic. Furthermore, it can cause eye damage due to vascular sludging and restricted blood flow to the eye. Finally, it has mixed effects on brain health with some positive effects (boosting some monoamine neurotransmitters) while having a bad reputation amongst male users for causing moodiness. Who knows what the long term effects of the drug are on the brain? Its an estrogen agonist in some places and an antagonist in other. So, unfortunately, it seems like not the best solution for the long term.


I think Testosterone injections/cream coupled with HCG is a much better option. In a Feb 2013 study in the journal of urology, men given test replacement and HCG had a good testosterone level AND maintained sperm counts. What do you guys think? Isn't this a much safer alternative to the possible toxicity of clomiphene?

[Chanterix]

Manic delirium associated with clomiphene, Optic neuropathy associated with clomiphene, With regards to carcinogenicity it is unclear but possible

[jadamgo]

Toremifene is a safer option. There's also tamoxifen and raloxifene.

[Chanterix]

tamoxifen has even more evidence of carcinogenicity than clomiphene. The newer ones such as toremiphene and raloxifene may be safer which is probably one of the reasons they were developed. Still, for long term use testosterone replacement + HCG seems safer.

[nowayout]

Carcinogenic for what cancer types? If female cancers, probably not a concern for men.

[Chanterix]

Well, how about prostate? That's a very real possibility.
Also, the effects on the liver...

But aside from carcinogenicity, its damaging effects on vision seem quite clear

[RichardHead]

We know it is toxic, but maybe dose is what really matters. Studies and anecdotal experience has shown that lower doses of clomid (on the order of 12.5mg EOD) are just as effective and less side-effect prone than higher doses.

[nowayout]

Well, how about prostate? That's a very real possibility.

Are you speculating? Is there any data at all on carcinogenicity that isn't on female organs?

[Chanterix]

Yes, there is some evidence of carcinogenicity if you look deeply into the literature. That aside, the evidence for eye damage is strong enough that it alone should give pause. Although low doses may be safer, consider that it has a very long half-life and likely accumulates in the body. Even if take every other day at a low dose, it may still be toxic to the eyes if taken for a period of years. Add to that its unclear effects on mood and the brain.

Low testosterone is often a chronic condition. Clomiphene has great evidence as a drug used to "reboot" the HPTA after a period of steroid abuse(see the literature) or perhaps excessive stress/obesity/etc. However, do you really want to take it for a decade to treat chronic low T?

[RichardHead]

Yes, there is some evidence of carcinogenicity if you look deeply into the literature. That aside, the evidence for eye damage is strong enough that it alone should give pause. Although low doses may be safer, consider that it has a very long half-life and likely accumulates in the body. Even if take every other day at a low dose, it may still be toxic to the eyes if taken for a period of years. Add to that its unclear effects on mood and the brain.

Low testosterone is often a chronic condition. Clomiphene has great evidence as a drug used to "reboot" the HPTA after a period of steroid abuse(see the literature) or perhaps excessive stress/obesity/etc. However, do you really want to take it for a decade to treat chronic low T?

I agree with you, and to take it long-term is probably not the best route. Clomid is good as a compound used to test whether one is primary or secondary hypogonadal. If the former is confirmed, then compounds like HCG can be used. However, what always bothered me about hcg, not knocking it's effectiveness, was that it disconnects part of the natural feedback loop. It starts with gnrh being pulsed from the hypothalamus which signals to the pituitary gland to secrete LH which then signals to leydig cells in the testis to produce testosterone. When you take hcg, it cuts out the hypothalamic and pituitary signaling part of the axis and while I've read that low doses of hcg aren't suppressive of the pituitary, I would think that long-term dormancy of gonadotroph cells would lead to atrophy? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[MenDis]

Not looking like its the safest:

"Concentrations of 0.40, 0.80, 1.60, and 3.20μg/ml of CC significantly increased the frequency of chromosomal aberrations (p<0.01 and p<0.001) and micronuclei (p<0.05, p<0.01 and p<0.001) in cultured human lymphocytes, and of DNA damage (tail length, p<0.05, except 0.80μg/ml) in isolated lymphocytes compared with their respective controls. The highest CC concentration at 24h and highest two concentrations after the 48-h treatment significantly decreased the mitotic index. The Ames test showed that the concentrations of CC used in this study induced neither base-pair substitutions nor frame-shift mutations in S. typhimurium strains TA98 and TA100."

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/24189048