This page shows what was measured, who it was measured in, and what that does not settle.
What Stanozolol does in the body
A discontinued anabolic steroid formerly used for inherited swelling and anaemia.
Stanozolol is testosterone with a pyrazole ring fused onto one end and a methyl group added at the other. The pyrazole ring makes it a poor substrate for aromatase, so it produces no oestrogen; the methyl group lets it survive being swallowed. Both of those are why it was popular. The methyl group is also why it damages the liver, and the injury it causes has an unusual fingerprint: the bilirubin climbs high enough to turn people yellow while the enzymes that normally flag bile duct problems stay close to normal.
What happened in people
A forward-looking series documented a distinctive severe liver injury pattern in 18 young men.
✓ Reviewed first-read answer
Where this came from
A person wrote this and a reviewer approved it against this exact record. It carries no effect size.
A reviewer approved this against this record. The reviewed-claim record carrying the exact population and effect size does not exist yet.
No source is stored against this line.
The limit that matters most
Lacking oestrogen effects says nothing about safety for the liver, cholesterol or heart.
Where it acts
Androgen receptor in skeletal muscle and bone marrow; hepatic canalicular transport
Kind of result
The kind of result is not recorded
Supervision
Professional supervision is normally required. It is a prescription or clinician-administered medicine where it is approved.
What the registries record it as
The substance registry classes this as chemical.
FDA substance registry · 4R1VB9P8V3 · read 2026-08-29
Its recorded molecular formula is C21H32N2O, weighing 328.5.
PubChem record · 25249 · read 2026-08-29
Where each sentence above came from
No recorded sentence describes the change this makes in a way that stands on its own. The page opens with what it is taken for instead, and the recorded explanation follows below.
Shown as the opening line on this page.
The limit a reviewer approved as the one that matters most here.
The four opening statements run to 118 words.
Words this page uses
Four words worth knowing first
Chosen from what this page shows, with each one explained before the word it depends on.
Protein
A protein is a folded chain your body builds to do a specific job.
A picture of it, and where the picture fails
A protein is like a tool bent into one shape for one task.
Where that stops being true. A tool keeps its shape. A protein can change shape and stop working.
What people get wrong. Protein in food and a protein in the body are related but not the same thing.
A polymer of amino acids folded into a defined structure that determines its function.
Enzyme
An enzyme is a protein that speeds up one chemical change.
A picture of it, and where the picture fails
An enzyme is like a machine on a production line doing one cut.
Where that stops being true. A machine is switched on and off by a person. Enzymes are controlled by the cell.
What people get wrong. Enzymes are thought to be used up. They are not; they work again and again.
A catalytic protein that lowers the activation energy of a specific reaction.
Receptor
A receptor is a part of a cell that a signal fits into.
A picture of it, and where the picture fails
A receptor is like a lock waiting for one key.
Where that stops being true. A lock either opens or does not. A receptor can be half-triggered, or worn out.
What people get wrong. Fitting a receptor is read as causing a benefit. It causes a step, and nothing more.
A protein that binds a specific ligand and converts that binding into a cellular response.
Pathway
A pathway is a chain of steps inside a cell, each one setting off the next.
A picture of it, and where the picture fails
A pathway is like a row of dominoes.
Where that stops being true. Dominoes fall one way. Pathways loop back and can switch themselves off.
What people get wrong. Changing one step is read as changing the outcome. Other steps often absorb it.
An ordered series of molecular interactions producing a defined cellular change.
What happened in people◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What happened in people
Each card is one study: the exact question it asked, who was in it, and whether it showed what it set out to show.
Clinical and biochemical phenotype of stanozolol-induced liver injury, with other causes excluded
✓ The study showed what it set out to show
Who was studied
Latin American DILI Registry prospective case series, 2013 to 2023
How many people
18
Study design
Prospective registry case series
Compared against
Not recorded for this study
Kind of result
A number that stands in for health
What was found
Descriptive: total bilirubin raised in all 18; gamma-glutamyl transferase within or slightly above normal; mean latency 55 days
Repeated elsewhere
Partially Replicated
What this does not prove. Meeting one endpoint in one population does not carry to other goals or other people.
The limits of this study, and where it came from
Main limit. Ten of eighteen reported concurrent use of other substances, so attribution to stanozolol alone is not possible in those cases.
How far it carries. This study is recorded from the curated record, not from the registry match.
Form and route. Oral tablet, 2 mg in the approved product; also an aqueous microcrystalline injectable suspension
Interval reported. Not recorded in this summary
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim.
RNAWiki holds 2 written-up human studies for this substance, each with the question it asked.
How we know it
Each card names the study, the number of people and what the study set out to measure.
What this does not prove
These summaries were written by a person and have not been signed off as reviewed claims.
Why it matters
A study that failed is as informative as one that worked, and both are here.
What we still do not know
No reviewed claim exists, so no exact population, effect size or interval is published yet.
What happened in people◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
How close this is to real life
The top step is something a person would feel or care about. The bottom is a guess from software. Filled steps are where evidence exists for this substance.
□Living longer, or avoiding a major eventNo evidence recorded. Death, a heart attack, a stroke, a hospital stay.No registered study measures this.
□What a body can do day to dayNo evidence recorded. Walking, dressing, breathing, recovering.No registered study measures this.
□Measured performanceNo evidence recorded. How much was lifted, how far was run, how fast.No registered study measures this.
□Symptoms and quality of lifeNo evidence recorded. Pain, tiredness, mood, sleep, as the person rated it.No registered study measures this.
□A number that stands in for healthNo evidence recorded. Cholesterol, blood sugar, bone density. A stand-in, not the thing itself.No registered study measures this.
■A step measured inside a personEvidence recorded. Something measured in human tissue or human cells.A human record sits on the stored organism ladder.
■AnimalsEvidence recorded. Mice, rats, dogs. Useful for ideas, not proof about people.Stored records in Rat. A result in animals says what to test next. It does not say what happens in people.
□Cells in a dishNo evidence recorded. Cells or chemistry on a bench, far from a whole body.No cell or bench record is stored.
□A guess from softwareNo evidence recorded. Nobody measured it. RNAWiki never publishes one as a finding.RNAWiki stores no prediction for this record. Software can suggest a link. RNAWiki does not publish one as a finding.
Higher on these steps means closer to something a person would feel. It does not mean better done.
What it changes in the body◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
The path through the body
From what a person takes to what changes. A solid line is a step measured in people. A dashed line is a step nobody has measured that way.
Start
Stanozolol
What a person takes: Oral tablet, 2 mg in the approved product; also an aqueous microcrystalline injectable suspension.
The measurement behind this step
The approved United States product was a 2 mg oral tablet. The injectable form is an aqueous microcrystalline suspension rather than an oil solution, which is unusual among anabolic steroids and gives a shorter duration and a well-known injection-site reaction. Neither form is available through the lawful United States supply chain today.
Getting in
Oral tablet or aqueous suspension
It is one of the few steroids formulated as a water-based injectable as well as a tablet, because it does not dissolve well in oil.
╌╌Described, with no measurement named. No measurement is named for this step, so it is drawn as an unconfirmed link.
The measurement behind this step
17alpha-methylation blocks hepatic 17-oxidation and confers oral activity. The injectable form is a microcrystalline aqueous suspension rather than an oil solution, which gives it a short half-life and a reputation for injection-site pain.
A lipophilic steroid that diffuses into cells and binds the receptor inside.
╌╌Described, with no measurement named. No measurement is named for this step, so it is drawn as an unconfirmed link.
The measurement behind this step
Passive diffusion; binds the cytoplasmic androgen receptor. As a 5alpha-reduced derivative it is not a substrate for 5-alpha-reductase and, because of the pyrazole ring, not appreciably a substrate for aromatase.
Androgen receptor agonism with no oestrogen produced
It switches the androgen receptor on and, unlike testosterone, generates no oestrogen at all along the way.
╌╌Described, with no measurement named. No measurement is named for this step, so it is drawn as an unconfirmed link.
The measurement behind this step
Androgen receptor transactivation without aromatisation, so no oestradiol is produced from the drug and endogenous oestradiol falls as the gonadal axis is suppressed. In hepatocytes the same molecule impairs canalicular bile salt export, the mechanistic basis of the cholestatic injury.
Raises C1 inhibitor production and stimulates erythropoiesis
In the liver it increases production of the missing protein in hereditary angioedema. In the bone marrow it stimulates red cell production, which is why it was used for anaemia.
╌╌Described, with no measurement named. No measurement is named for this step, so it is drawn as an unconfirmed link.
The measurement behind this step
Hepatic androgen receptor signalling increases C1 esterase inhibitor synthesis, the basis of the angioedema indication. Marrow effects, including on regulatory T cell populations, underlie its continued use in non-severe aplastic anaemia and lower-risk myelodysplastic syndromes in some centres.
In the men followed prospectively, jaundice and itching appeared after about eight weeks, with bilirubin high and the usual bile duct enzyme normal.
╌╌Described, with no measurement named. No measurement is named for this step, so it is drawn as an unconfirmed link.
The measurement behind this step
Mean latency to symptom onset 55 days across 18 prospectively evaluated cases; total bilirubin raised in all, transaminases mildly raised, gamma-glutamyl transferase within or slightly above normal. Hepatocellular adenoma reported after long-term oral use.
No suggested links are held for this record, so nothing is hidden from this path.
What we know
The record describes 5 steps from taking it to an effect in a person.
How we know it
Each step names the study behind it in the technical detail beside it.
What this does not prove
A change inside the body is a reason to look. It is not a result in a person.
Why it matters
A reader can see exactly where the chain stops being measured in people.
What we still do not know
No reviewed claim binds any of these steps to a named population.
What is missing or unclear◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Were people like you studied?
RNAWiki cannot tell whether a study fits you. It can show who was in it, and where the result stops carrying.
Who was studied
People similar to this profile were included.
Historically, patients with hereditary angioedema and with aplastic anaemia; in some countries it is still used for lower-risk myelodysplastic syndromes and non-severe aplastic anaemia. Otherwise, athletes and bodybuilders.
Who is missing from the studies
Which groups were under-represented in the studies has not been recorded for this substance. Pregnancy, breastfeeding, children, older adults, and people with liver or kidney conditions are commonly excluded from trials; nothing here says whether they were.
Where the result stopped carrying
The approved human product was discontinued and no stanozolol human label is currently listed in DailyMed
Its angioedema indication was superseded by targeted C1 inhibitor, kallikrein and bradykinin receptor therapies
This is a scope explorer, not a diagnosis engine.
It shows who was studied so you can see whether people similar to you were included.
RNAWiki cannot tell whether a study fits you. It can show who was in it.
What it would be like to take◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Why it might seem to do nothing
A real effect and a noticed effect are different things. These are the recorded reasons the two come apart.
It was studied in different people
The people in the studies were not much like the reader.
On this record: Which groups were under-represented in the studies has not been recorded for this substance. Pregnancy, breastfeeding, children, older adults, and people with liver or kidney conditions are commonly excluded from trials; nothing here says whether they were.
The evidence may simply be wrong
Small early studies often do not hold up.
On this record: RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
Other reasons RNAWiki checked and found nothing for (11)
It was studied for a different goal
The studies measured something else entirely. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
A different form was studied
The studied form is not the form on the shelf. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
There was nothing to correct
Where a level is already normal, topping it up may change nothing. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
Something else had to happen too
In the studies it was paired with training, a diet or another treatment. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
The change is too small to feel
A real change can still sit below what a person notices. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
Day-to-day swing hides it
Sleep, food, stress and time of day move most numbers more than this would. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
Not enough time yet
The studies ran longer than the person has waited. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
It was not taken as studied
Missed days change the result, and studies count them. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
Something else changed at the same time
Two changes at once cannot be told apart afterwards. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
The product may not be what it says
Contents of a sold product are not always what the label states. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
No recorded reason
RNAWiki has nothing stored that would explain it. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
None of these is a reason to take more. Taking more is not a step this page ever suggests.
What it would be like to take◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What taking it involves
The recorded facts about getting hold of it and using it. Nothing here is a suggestion about what you should do.
How it is supplied
Withdrawn
❝ Quoted from a source
Where this came from
Copied from a source RNAWiki stored, with the source named.
Read from the recorded approval status.
No source is stored against this line.
Form and route
Oral tablet, 2 mg in the approved product; also an aqueous microcrystalline injectable suspension
✎ Source-linked record
Where this came from
A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.
The form and route recorded on this substance.
No source is stored against this line.
Who oversees it
Professional supervision is normally required. It is a prescription or clinician-administered medicine where it is approved.
❝ Quoted from a source
Where this came from
Copied from a source RNAWiki stored, with the source named.
A register records the withdrawal of an approval.
No source is stored against this line.
What is in the pack
The approved United States product was a 2 mg oral tablet. The injectable form is an aqueous microcrystalline suspension rather than an oil solution, which is unusual among anabolic steroids and gives a shorter duration and a well-known injection-site reaction. Neither form is available through the lawful United States supply chain today.
✎ Source-linked record
Where this came from
A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.
Recorded notes on how this is sold and what that means for what is in the pack.
No source is stored against this line.
Where it is registered
Regulatory records are listed in the technical disclosure at the foot of this page.
# Counted from records
Where this came from
A count of rows RNAWiki holds. It describes our records, not your body.
Register entries are stored per jurisdiction and shown with their dates.
No source is stored against this line.
Why people stop
Not recorded.
∅ Nothing recorded
Where this came from
RNAWiki holds nothing here and says so rather than guessing.
No record of why people stopped taking it is stored for this substance.
No source is stored against this line.
What it would be like to take◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What can go wrong
Sorted by where each line came from. A regulator's label and a report somebody sent in are not the same kind of fact.
·Worth asking a clinician aboutWritten into the record from the studies named on this page
Cholestatic drug-induced liver injury with a characteristic biochemical signature is the best-documented harm: marked bilirubin elevation with only mild transaminase rise and near-normal gamma-glutamyl transferase, at a mean of 55 days. Hepatocellular adenoma has been reported after long-term oral use, and the boxed warning carried by approved anabolic steroid labels describes peliosis hepatis and hepatic tumours that may be silent until intra-abdominal haemorrhage. Marked reduction in HDL cholesterol and suppression of endogenous testosterone and gonadotropins follow by class mechanism. It does not aromatise, so oestrogenic effects do not occur.
Nobody counted how many people took this and were fine, so this cannot be turned into a rate.
These are reports people sent to a regulator. They do not show the medicine caused the reaction.
Nobody counted how many people took the medicine and reported nothing.
The same event can be reported more than once, and many reports are incomplete.
News coverage, lawsuits and new warnings change how often people report.
A count is not a rate and not a risk.
Stanozolol appears in spontaneous reports to regulators. Across the 10 most-reported reaction terms, 109 reaction mentions were counted. One report can name several reactions.
open-targets-adr · recorded 2026-06-24 · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
Over a long time. No completed tested study window is recorded, so long-term effects are not established by the registry record.
Groups the studies covered thinly. Which groups were under-represented in the studies has not been recorded for this substance. Pregnancy, breastfeeding, children, older adults, and people with liver or kidney conditions are commonly excluded from trials; nothing here says whether they were.
What is missing or unclear◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Does the exact form matter?
Evidence belongs to the exact thing that was tested. A different salt, a different mixture or a different preparation is a different question.
The form that was studied
Oral tablet, 2 mg in the approved product; also an aqueous microcrystalline injectable suspension
✎ Source-linked record
Where this came from
A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.
The form used in the studies cited on this page.
No source is stored against this line.
What is sold
The injectable form is an aqueous microcrystalline suspension rather than an oil solution, which is unusual among anabolic steroids and gives a shorter duration and a well-known injection-site reaction. Neither form is available through the lawful United States supply chain today.
✎ Source-linked record
Where this came from
A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.
Recorded notes on which forms are sold and how they compare.
No source is stored against this line.
What is recorded as being sold
13 products list this as an active ingredient in the United States drug directory. 13 of them contain it and nothing else.
FDA National Drug Code directory · 87832-0305 · read 2026-08-29
They are sold as powder.
FDA National Drug Code directory · 87832-0305 · read 2026-08-29
Evidence carries across two names for one substance. It does not carry across a salt, a mirror form or a mixture.
What it would be like to take◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What you could measure
This one is decided with a clinician, so this section holds questions to ask rather than a plan to run.
Self-experiment planning is not offered for a prescription or clinician-supervised medicine, withdrawn medicine. The questions below are for a clinician or pharmacist.
Questions worth asking
Which of the trials of Stanozolol studied people like me?
What was measured, and for how long?
Was the result a laboratory value or a health outcome?
What would we watch for, and when would we stop?
Tracking can show whether something changed for you. It cannot show what caused it.
RNAWiki records evidence. It does not say whether this substance is right for you.
What is missing or unclear◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Claims that go past the evidence
Things said about this substance that sound reasonable, and the exact step that is missing between the evidence and the claim.
✗Goes past the evidence
That the absence of aromatisation makes the compound safe, when the documented harms are hepatic and lipid-related
Why it sounds right. It follows from something real on this page: a body step, an animal result or a related finding.
The missing step. Nobody measured this in people for this use, or the study that did measure it did not show it.
What would change this
A study in people, for this exact use, measuring this exact thing, that a reviewer signs off.
RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
✗Goes past the evidence
That safety experience from supervised use in angioedema and anaemia transfers to unsupervised use for appearance at different doses and durations
Why it sounds right. It follows from something real on this page: a body step, an animal result or a related finding.
The missing step. Nobody measured this in people for this use, or the study that did measure it did not show it.
What would change this
A study in people, for this exact use, measuring this exact thing, that a reviewer signs off.
RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
✗Goes past the evidence
That an oral tablet is inherently milder than an injection, when 17alpha-alkylation is precisely what makes the oral forms hepatotoxic
Why it sounds right. It follows from something real on this page: a body step, an animal result or a related finding.
The missing step. Nobody measured this in people for this use, or the study that did measure it did not show it.
What would change this
A study in people, for this exact use, measuring this exact thing, that a reviewer signs off.
RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
What is missing or unclear◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What nobody knows yet
Open questions, each with why it is open and what would close it.
How much did people take in the studies?
The sources RNAWiki checked hold nothing for this field.
Why it matters. A result belongs to an amount. Without the amount the result floats free.
What would answer it
A stored source that records it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
How fast does the body clear it?
The sources RNAWiki checked hold nothing for this field.
Why it matters. Without this, nothing on this page can say how long anything lasts.
What would answer it
A stored source that records it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
Missing populations
Which groups were under-represented in the studies has not been recorded.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
Missing long-term data
No completed tested study window is recorded.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
No reviewed conclusion
RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
Missing interaction studies
No interaction was found in the registers checked. Not finding one is not the same as showing there is none.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
Formulation uncertainty
Several salts, forms or products of Stanozolol are recorded. Results from one form may not transfer to another.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
Mechanism not reviewed
No reviewed mechanism story exists for this substance.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
What happened in people◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Check any of this yourself
Every line above traced back to the study it came from. This is the technical layer, and the vocabulary changes here.
Every line above can be traced to the study named beside it. Follow the link and read it.
A distinctive liver injury signature in 18 prospectively followed young men
In plain words
A Latin American registry followed 18 men aged 19 to 48 who developed liver injury after using stanozolol for appearance. All had high bilirubin and jaundice, with only mild enzyme rises and a normal gamma-GT — an unusual combination that identifies the cause.
What was measured
Total bilirubin, transaminases and gamma-glutamyl transferase at presentation; latency to symptom onset
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
Nunes et al. prospectively evaluated 18 individuals through the Latin American DILI Registry between 2013 and 2023. All were young males aged 19 to 48 using stanozolol for aesthetic purposes. Mean latency to symptom onset was 55 days. Jaundice and pruritus predominated. Total bilirubin was elevated in every case while gamma-glutamyl transferase remained within or only slightly above the normal range, with transaminases mildly raised — a biochemical pattern the authors identify as characteristic of stanozolol. Ten of the eighteen reported concurrent use of other substances, so attribution in those cases is not clean, and the paper says so.
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
Approved in 1962, and every product discontinued
In plain words
Winstrol was approved by the FDA on 9 January 1962 as a 2 mg tablet. That application is now listed as discontinued and there is no marketed human stanozolol product in the United States.
What was measured
Approval date, dosage form and current marketing status
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
Drugs@FDA records NDA 012885 for WINSTROL, stanozolol 2 mg tablet, held latterly by Lundbeck Inc., with original approval dated 9 January 1962 and supplements approved in 1986, 1987, 1991 and 2003. The product's marketing status is Discontinued and a DailyMed search for a current stanozolol human label returns nothing. The last indication the product carried in the United States was prophylaxis against attacks of hereditary angioedema, an indication now served by C1 esterase inhibitor concentrates, a kallikrein inhibitor and a bradykinin receptor antagonist — targeted drugs that did not exist when stanozolol was the alternative.
Source
openFDA Drugs@FDA, NDA 012885 (WINSTROL, stanozolol 2 mg tablet), original approval 9 January 1962, marketing status Discontinued
Role in the trial
Not matched to a registered study
Identity check
no open identity hold
Audit mark
verified
Review state
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
Hepatocellular adenoma after long-term oral use
In plain words
A 2025 case report describes a benign liver tumour that developed after long-term oral stanozolol, which is the specific lesion the anabolic steroid class carries a boxed warning about.
What was measured
Histologically characterised hepatocellular adenoma attributed to stanozolol
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
A 2025 case report in Frontiers in Medicine describes hepatocellular adenoma attributed to long-term oral stanozolol administration. Hepatocellular adenoma and peliosis hepatis are the lesions named in the boxed warning that appears on approved anabolic steroid labels in the United States, which states that such tumours are more vascular than other hepatic tumours and may remain silent until life-threatening intra-abdominal haemorrhage develops. A single case report cannot establish incidence. What it does is confirm that the lesion the label warns about is still being seen in people using the drug outside medical supervision.
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
Anti-doping analysis moved to the N-glucuronides, and detection windows lengthened
In plain words
Laboratories stopped looking for stanozolol itself and started looking directly for the sugar-conjugated forms the body makes, which stay detectable far longer.
What was measured
Analytical target selection and resulting urinary detection window
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
Stanozolol-N-glucuronide metabolites are now established as suitable targets for routine anti-doping analysis, with validated online solid-phase extraction methods coupled to high-resolution mass spectrometry analysing them directly in untreated urine. Earlier methods targeted the parent and 16beta-hydroxystanozolol after hydrolysis. The practical consequence is that detection windows for stanozolol lengthened substantially without any change in the drug, which is a recurring pattern in this field: an apparent change in how often a substance is found can be a change in what the laboratory is looking for.
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
A drug for airway swelling and anaemia became a drug for appearance
In plain words
Every published clinical use of stanozolol is haematological or immunological. Every documented case of harm in the recent literature is in a young man using it to look a certain way.
What was measured
That the safety experience from supervised haematological use transfers to unsupervised use for appearance, when the dose, duration, monitoring and co-exposures all differ
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
The clinical literature on stanozolol concerns hereditary angioedema prophylaxis, non-severe aplastic anaemia, and anaemia in lower-risk myelodysplastic syndromes after failure of epoetin alfa, where retrospective series still report responses. The recent harm literature concerns a different population entirely: all 18 patients in the Latin American DILI registry series were young men using it for aesthetic purposes, mean latency 55 days. The molecule did not change. The population taking it did, and the evidence base did not follow, so what is known about efficacy comes from one group of patients and what is known about harm comes from another.
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
"It does not aromatise" is true and is not a safety statement
In plain words
Stanozolol genuinely produces no oestrogen, which is why it does not cause breast tissue growth or water retention. That says nothing about the liver, the cholesterol or the heart.
What was measured
That absence of oestrogenic side effects implies overall safety, when the documented harms of this compound are hepatic and lipid-related
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
The fused pyrazole ring makes stanozolol a poor aromatase substrate, so it does not generate oestradiol, and the oestrogenic effects that limit other steroids do not occur. That is a real pharmacological property. It is routinely offered as a reason the compound is safe, which does not follow: the documented harms are hepatic — cholestatic injury with a characteristic biochemical signature, and hepatocellular adenoma — plus the marked HDL suppression the class boxed warning describes, and the loss of endogenous testosterone. Not aromatising removes one category of side effect and touches none of those.
This order is fixed in code and does not count clicks or time on the page.
What is not here
6 questions this page could not answer
These sections were prepared and left out because there was nothing to put in them. They are listed rather than hidden, so the gaps in this record are visible.
What was measured, goal by goal — found nothing in the sources checked.
Felt, measured, or meaningful — found nothing in the sources checked.
How long anything takes — found nothing in the sources checked.
What it may clash with — found nothing in the sources checked.
Other ways to the same goal — found nothing in the sources checked.
What changed on this page — found nothing in the sources checked.
The record as stored
The full record, for auditing
Everything above is built from what is below. This layer keeps the technical vocabulary, record identifiers and every stored row, so a reader who wants to check the page can.
The older medicine-wide conclusion held in this record
Written for a clinical reader, and about the medicine as a whole rather than about one indication, population and set of trials. RNAWiki does not treat it as a programme conclusion and no reviewer has signed it off in that form. It is here word for word because it is what the record holds.
The steroid that made doping a public subject, approved in 1962 and long discontinued, with a distinctive drug-induced liver injury signature described prospectively in 18 young men: marked bilirubin rise, mild transaminase rise, near-normal gamma-glutamyl transferase.
Recorded evidence blocks (4)
Q1
What did Stanozolol's largest trial (50 people) and its longest (2.2 years) measure?
50 people in Stanozolol's largest registered study, 2.2 years in its longest registered window, measuring overall response rate at 6 months. ClinicalTrials.gov · 2026-09-01
1 phase2, 1 phase3; NCT05024877; 2023-12-01; no ageing endpoint recorded
Interpretation These counts include studies where Stanozolol was a comparison treatment, a background treatment or an exposure in an observational study, and the longest window may be a planned end date. Trial roles have not yet been classified for this record.
Show the evidence
phase2
1
phase3
1
recorded 2026-09-01 · last checked 2026-09-04
Q2
From rat to human: where has Stanozolol shown mechanism-only?
overall response rate at 6 months — the recorded outcome words.
Show the evidence
rat
mechanism-only
humanNCT05024877
mechanism-only; overall response rate at 6 months; 1
recorded 2026-09-01 · last checked 2026-09-04
Q3
At the median, Stanozolol's trials enrolled 50 people — anything larger?
Median enrolment
50
Largest enrolment
50
Registered trials counted
1
Q4
What do 109 spontaneous reports say about Stanozolol — and not say?
These are reports people sent to a regulator. They do not show the medicine caused the reaction. Nobody counted how many people took the medicine and reported nothing. The same event can be reported more than once, and many reports are incomplete. News coverage, lawsuits and new warnings change how often people report. A count is not a rate and not a risk.
Stanozolol appears in spontaneous reports to regulators. Across the 10 most-reported reaction terms, 109 reaction mentions were counted: drug abuse 32; acute myocardial infarction 13; acute respiratory distress syndrome 10; hyperthyroidism 10. open-targets-adr · CHEMBL2079587 · 2026-06-24
Show the evidence
drug abuse
32
acute myocardial infarction
13
acute respiratory distress syndrome
10
hyperthyroidism
10
pneumonia
9
secondary hypogonadism
8
4 more recorded rows
autoimmune thyroiditis
7
diabetes mellitus
7
rhinovirus infection
7
aortic aneurysm
6
recorded 2026-06-24 · last checked 2026-09-04
Where it is registeredIdentifiers, relations and other names
ChEMBL ATC CC BY-SA · ClinicalTrials.gov — US Government work · Europe PMC — metadata only, under the recorded legal gate · Open Targets 26.06 — CC0 · derived from this page's own recorded fields; no external licence · mixed register set; per-register licences in docs/specs/corpus-20k-sources.md
✗ required summary fields resolved: 5 required field(s) not terminal: Why people use it, Best-supported result, Most important common problem, Biggest unanswered question, Human evidence
✓ public claims reviewed: 0 reviewed claim(s); drafts are never rendered
✓ source coverage passed: 6 source rows
✓ no critical contamination: no quarantine open
✓ canonical metadata passed: slug and display name present
✓ no raw internal fields: enforced by the copy-contract test over the rendered page
This is a record of evidence. It is not medical advice, and it does not say this substance suits you. Nothing here says any substance on RNAWiki is appropriate for a child.