If utilizing testosterone for 85 years and the most common side effect is a secondary erythrocytosis which hasn't caused an epidemic of heart attacks, strokes, clots , or any disorder, then I don't know what more you need to be convinced. Would 100 years be adequate? Wasn't that long ago we thought testosterone cause prostate cancer or worse than that but now we used to treat prostate cancer and we know that actually protects against it. The exact opposite of what was thought for over 70 years. No harm does equate to no harm. What do you not get about this? Tell me, why do we not Phlebotomize everyone that lives about 2500 m? Why don't we treat those 80 million people with blood donations? You didn't read what was written, very closely or you would maybe understand it. The fact that testosterone has been used for 85 years and abused for over half of that time as well and yeah, it has caused no harm. How can I provide you evidence when there is none. But why don't you do this? Why don't you provide evidence that it has caused harm. Can you do that? because no one else can. You can also continue to believe that testosterone causes prostate cancer or worsens it, and you can continue to believe that estrogen is the devil. What you cannot understand is that the secondary erythrocytosis from testosterone just like living at altitude doesn't cause harm and has never caused harm. Therefore, no one can provide you with evidence that it caused harm. You believe it causes harm but you can't provide evidence that it has caused harm.
