One of the most pronounced effects in Equipoise is its ability to raise your RBCs (red blood cells). This is very typical of anabolic steroids; however, Equipoise would appear to do it to a slightly greater degree than most. One of the other effects most Equipoise users report is an increased appetite. I can say that this is true of me, also; this factor makes it impossible for me to diet on it. Its because of this ability to increase appetite that many will include Equipoise in a mass cycle, and its for the quality of muscle gained on it that many will include it in a cutting cycle. Its probably the most versatile injectable compound, next to testosterone. People even use a low dosed version of Equipoise to blend with irritating injectable drugs suck as testosterone suspension or Propionate. Im thinking of the old Ganabol version which was dosed at 50mgs/ml, here… its not that Equipoise is especially good to cut other steroids with, but the low dose and cost of Ganabol made it ideal to do this with, when sterile oil wasn’t available or desirable. This low dosed version was also very popular with women, who were comfortable shooting 1cc of this stuff every few days or every week.
Its Mexican gear, Its says on the box its made in mexico..I found out that Weyth's Fort Dodge did join with PHIZER. Im just weighin in on what I know..Why PHizer, a multi trillion . pharmaceutical company would outsource any sales and manufacturing and distribution to Mexico is beyond me..The gear inside is probably gtg, but persionaly mexican gear back in the mid 90's was a coin flip could you imagine in today economy..I would still pinn the hell out of it. I have never done EQ if you want you can send it to me and I will tell you if its gtg..lol
Let’s also assume that the standard treatment is known to have a mean response rate of 25 percent. Since there is typically much more evidence about the standard treatment, there will also be less uncertainty around this estimate (., 95 percent confidence interval ranges from 15 to 35 percent). We can thus establish that there ought to be a state of clinical equipoise: since the confidence intervals of our average effect estimates for these two treatments overlap, there is legitimate scientific uncertainty about which is better. Furthermore, since the interval for MX320 does not fall below the interval for standard treatment, then both are consistent with competent medical care.