Liver hemangiomas and klow use

[Slaine]

Someone I know was found to have 4 small hemangiomas in the liver, with the largest measuring roughly 1 cm. While using klow, every doctor he saw advised him to discontinue it, citing angiogenesis and related concerns.

The issue is that none of them gave a concrete reason beyond suggesting it would be wiser to steer clear, since these peptides haven't been properly researched and so on.

He's using klow to help with a broken wrist.

Does anyone here have firsthand knowledge about this kind of situation?

Tia!

 

[data259]

I’ll be following this thread closely. I have small angiomas throughout my body and had a large one taken out during childhood. That said, I imagine liver hemangiomas would be a far bigger worry.

 

[Slaine]

data259 said:

I’ll be following this thread closely. I have small angiomas throughout my body and had a large one taken out during childhood. That said, I imagine liver hemangiomas would be a far bigger worry.

Each doctor advised him to quit, citing lack of regulation, absence of approval, and similar reasons. None of them understood the effects of individual peptides.

Once he brought up angiogenesis and related points, they insisted he must stop.

He is considering adding cjc/ipa and /or tesa. They rejected that too.

I'm curious to hear others' views. As for me, I have very small nodules on the thyroid that have stayed the same during peptide use, yet I'm still worried.

 

[Slaine]

data259 said:

I’ll be following this thread closely. I have small angiomas throughout my body and had a large one taken out during childhood. That said, I imagine liver hemangiomas would be a far bigger worry.

Each doctor advised him to quit, citing lack of regulation and approval. None of them understood the function of any individual peptide.

Once he brought up angiogenesis and similar topics, they insisted he absolutely had to stop.

He is considering adding cjc/ipa and /or tesa. Once again, they refused.

I am curious to hear other perspectives. As for me, I have very tiny modules in the thyroid that have stayed the same throughout peptide use, but it still worries me.

 

[faloppi]

Based on what is currently understood, the GHK-Cu and KPV parts of Klow wouldn't concern me much when it comes to angiogenesis, meaning the encouragement of malignant growth specifically. BPC raises slightly more concern, and TB500 (TB4) perhaps a bit more than BPC. The key point, however, is that the available data is very thin, so solid conclusions are hard to reach. Any GHRH/GHRP compound that lifts IGF1 ties into the broader growth hormone question: could extended elevation of GH levels support the growth of a tumor or cancer that is already present (not bring it about), and would a modest rise still meaningfully add to that risk compared with a Zscore above +2 (the further you deviate from the normal range for your age, in theory the greater the risk). Every one of these compounds carries risk, and your typical doctor won't be a useful source, since their default response will be "don't do it". Some don't even grasp the benefits or potential benefits of FDA approved GLPs, so these more niche compounds are an entirely different world. They also have costly malpractice insurance to consider. In any case, even though the data isn't great, a substantial amount of research can still be done on forums like this and elsewhere so you or your friend can learn more about these compounds and better judge the risk on an individual basis.

 

[Slaine]

faloppi said:

Based on what is currently understood, the GHK-Cu and KPV parts of Klow wouldn't concern me much when it comes to angiogenesis, meaning the encouragement of malignant growth specifically. BPC raises slightly more concern, and TB500 (TB4) perhaps a bit more than BPC. The key point, however, is that the available data is very thin, so solid conclusions are hard to reach. Any GHRH/GHRP compound that lifts IGF1 ties into the broader growth hormone question: could extended elevation of GH levels support the growth of a tumor or cancer that is already present (not bring it about), and would a modest rise still meaningfully add to that risk compared with a Zscore above +2 (the further you deviate from the normal range for your age, in theory the greater the risk). Every one of these compounds carries risk, and your typical doctor won't be a useful source, since their default response will be "don't do it". Some don't even grasp the benefits or potential benefits of FDA approved GLPs, so these more niche compounds are an entirely different world. They also have costly malpractice insurance to consider. In any case, even though the data isn't great, a substantial amount of research can still be done on forums like this and elsewhere so you or your friend can learn more about these compounds and better judge the risk on an individual basis.

Thanks for replying. Whether the vessels inside the hemangioma would enlarge or increase in number when using bpc, tb, cjc, ipa, tesa and so on is something we simply can't determine. No studies have ever been carried out on that, which means it amounts to guessing blindly.