Regarding the recent interview with Dr. Rouzier on the benefits of estradiol in men, he cites numerous studies which have been deemed as "flawed" by some of the members here. Dr. Crisler regards them as "invalid", I believe, due to the inaccurate immunoassays upon which they are based.
If these are the very same studies you have been citing "for years", I presume you do not regard them as "flawed" or "invalid"? Or perhaps I'm overlooking some nuance here? Thanks.
If these are the very same studies you have been citing "for years", I presume you do not regard them as "flawed" or "invalid"? Or perhaps I'm overlooking some nuance here? Thanks.
