You know? If I put you on ignore and don't read your blatant mis-information my life is better. And for some reason, others think so too. Maybe they are reading the facts too. That's why the price of the stock keeps going up.
To date there has been no evidence that SARMs cause clinically significant levels of myocardial hypertrophy. Recall that MH is due to the heart needing to compensate (work harder) due to HBP etc. Sure, better fitness may lead to more activity, but in general, as fitness and muscle efficacy improves, resting heart rate falls as does bp, leading to a reduction in MH.
Yes, there are some concerned about T and steriodial effects on left ventricular hypertrophy enhancement, and so it will be a topic for SARMs as well. However, I'm aware of several in vivo studies including one in the post MI setting where LV end-diastolic pressure and wall stress were decreased by T, and other peramiters remained unchanged. The conclusion of that study was that T Rx had no detrimental effects following MI and reduced wall stress and LVEDP may even improve long-term outcome. We expect a similar effect with SARMs.
Sure, it's possible - even highly likely - that the FDA may require additional safety studies for broader use of SARMs, but we see such as much less likely in the cachexia setting.
We expect positive efficacy data in POWER I & II to be reported this qtr, and with the current market cap, expect it to vault to $800 to $1 B range over next 18 months on the FDA biorunup and remain a buyer of $GTXI.
But for those with a lower risk tolerance, another way to play the SARM race is $LGND, which has a next gen unpartnered SARM ready to entery PhII. I say lower risk as it also has a wide range of fully funded partnered programs, but would get a major pop on positive $GTXI results as well, but no where the drop $GTXI will face if the POWER studies prove to be a dud. In fact $LGND might then be back in the lead position with SARMs if these POWER studies uncover a safety issue with the Ostarine class of mols.