(23-06-2010, 14:29)carlaa1124 Wrote: What exists are animal studies. It is not like you can biopsy or cut the breast off and analyze the tissue.
Young overectomized animals ...(their bodies now produce no estrogen) when given miroestrol grew breasts. Young Overectomized animals that were not given miroestrol did not grow breasts. Study done in England in the early 1960's.
You mean "ovariectomized" ...?
Right, that's fascinating... but the original question was whether PM gave permanent results, and the asker was asking in relation to herself, not in relation to young, ovariectomized animals.
Since (as you say) you can't just biopsy human breast tissue to find out (whether increased size is due to cell turgidity vs. proliferation), nobody really knows.... agreed?
If you would care to share the research you are referencing, we could at least examine it to see whether the study includes an analysis of biopsied breast tissue from the ovariectomized young animals, and perhaps draw some TENTATIVE generalizations about the way the PM acts on living tissue, while keeping in mind that we women are not young animals whose ovaries have been surgically removed and therefor can't draw a one-to-one comparison.
I'd also be interested in knowing:
- what was the hypothesis? what questions did the researchers seek to answer?
- what species of animal was used, and in what stage of development were they?
- why was ovariectomization chosen, rather than simply establishing baseline and post-experimentation hormone levels?
- what were the dosages of PM per pound body weight for the animal?
- how long was the testing period?
- how did the researchers quantify the term "growth" ?
- what other side effects/unexpected consequences were observed?
- were the animals sacrificed at the end of the study? ...or is there any long term analysis of the subject's health, development, mortality of breast tissue, following administration of the testing conditions?
Are you equipped to discuss this?