Latest Diablo 3 News
DiabloWiki Updates
Page 10 of 16 FirstFirst ... 67891011121314 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 157
  1. #91
    Banned Anakha1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Ottawa: Home of Stupid Weather
    Quote Originally Posted by Man In Black
    Well now. How inciteful. Way to have nothing at all to say. In case you didn't know, testosterone is also already present in your body naturally.
    I've already said plenty. I'm just reiterating succinctly. And steroids are not just testosterone and creatine is still cheating. I'm a weight trainer too and I would not stoop that low to cheat myself. I think the only reason someone uses steroids is to make up for their own lack of willpower and ability.

  2. #92
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Quote Originally Posted by Anakha1
    I've already said plenty. I'm just reiterating succinctly. And steroids are not just testosterone and creatine is still cheating. I'm a weight trainer too and I would not stoop that low to cheat myself. I think the only reason someone uses steroids is to make up for their own lack of willpower and ability.

    You know, that is your opinion. And you are entitled to it. Don't take this the wrong way, but your ignorance on the subject is quite vast.

    Have you ever eaten red meat? Or maybe fish?

  3. #93
    Banned Anakha1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Ottawa: Home of Stupid Weather
    Quote Originally Posted by Man In Black
    You know, that is your opinion. And you are entitled to it. Don't take this the wrong way, but your ignorance on the subject is quite vast.

    Have you ever eaten red meat? Or maybe fish?
    Pathetic scapegoating. And you have no idea of my knowledge or lack of it on the subject. If you bothered to read you'd notice that I haven't attested to my knowledge nor tried to weigh in on the facts. The facts are not relevent in this case because it's the entire concept that offends me. No **** it's my opinion. Who's else would it be? I wasn't trying to inform you. I'm saying that as far as I'm concerned people who use steroids are sad and pathetic. But you go on trying to justify continuing to shoot drugs intravenously because you can't naturally get that big without it (hey! Nature is giving you a hint!) by comparing unjusifyably to what normal people do. That's your perogative. But no human being could possibly get as big as steroid users naturally. That makes it cheating and pathetic in my books. It's perverted the nobility of body building and physical challenge. Like I said. Cut your losses and get body implants. You'd look great and you wouldn't have to do all that icky hard work.

  4. #94
    IncGamers Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Ranger, I have said several times that recreational steroid use cannot be studied with appropriate controls, therefore, not peer-reviewed studies can exist. As such, animal studies are the best I or anyone can do. Also, many of your studies have dealt with the application of such super-normal doses in _developing_ organisms. Responsible users DON'T use until their mid to late twenties at the earliest, for the express reason of not screwing up their endocrine system. You refer to your first articles as "controlled", and yet the peer-reviewed article from the journal of endocrinology specfically cites one of your articles as flawed and lacking approprate controls.
    If you'd have read the full text articles of those studies I posted, there's a wonderful little section of each and every peer-reviewed article called the "references" section. Several of those have over a hundred different cites. No, I'm not going to post them all.
    You first attack my using animal studies (even ones done on monkeys) then quote a study that uses hamsters? And juvenile hamsters, at that. No, not all aggression expresses itself as domostic violence, just as not all high-minded ignorance expresses itself in forums on the web.
    My quote of steroids not putting you in danger was mis-interpreted. I meant, if you choose not to use, you have no way of being injured by them. Their bodies, their choices. Perhaps it's because of my Libertarian lean, but I see no problem with what steroid users choose to do. It's better than many other choices you can make.
    Anakha1, he's at least reasonable. He stated his opinion that steroids are a shortcut, and what he thinks of users. I respect that, just as I respect the choice of users to do what they wish. I can reference blogs, guides, how-tos, and a dozen other types of sites that are steroid pro or neutral, but you'll not accept them since they're not journals. Last I checked, AAS are still illegal.
    Believe it or not, most of the medical community is biased very heavily against steroids. Many "professional" websites, articles and studies will say how dangerous and hazardous they are because of doctor prejudice and ignorance. Most of your studies that were done on developing life would become completely irrelevant if steroids were to become legal, as any and all useage would be supervised by a physician with actual training in how these compounds should be controlled and used. I can't see how this could be anything but good for both users and the manufacturers of AAS.
    I think they should be made legal. The risks currently associated with their use would evaporate for users, and no risk of any significance would be presented for nonusers. (Like for Ambien , and the super-zombie crash-cart drivers in the news as of late). Its a choice that should be given to the people, not an out-of-touch federal government.

  5. #95
    IncGamers Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    I would rather do mediocore competitively against steroid users than stay up to par with them if it means I also have to use steroids. Where does the point of competition actually lie? to me it is against myself. Anyway, I don't like bodybuilders bodies, ****ing gross looking in my opinion. Being cut's the way to go ^_^.

  6. #96
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Quote Originally Posted by Anakha1
    And you have no idea of my knowledge or lack of it on the subject.
    But you go on trying to justify continuing to shoot drugs intravenously

    ROFL! First of all, take it easy there little guy. Secondly, if anyone did wonder about the extent of your knowledge (or should I say the extent of your ignorance?) you certainly answered them all with the second sentence up there.

    Just an FYI, shooting viscous oils IV is a big no no. There is a reason why you should aspirate before injecting. Steroids are injected intramuscularly. But thanks for playing. Please try again soon.

    Scapegoating? Where? All I was getting at was that if you have ever eaten red meat or fish (two of the most abundant natural sources of creatine) then you yourself are a cheat (not to mention a hypocrite), well according to this quote anyway:

    Quote Originally Posted by Anakha1
    creatine is still cheating.
    Please stick around though, I can tell that you are just chock full of examples of the anti-steroid crowd's ignorance. Not to mention that you are adding oh so much wonderfully intelectual insight with your posts. Bravo.

  7. #97
    Join Date
    Mar 2006

    Regarding Steroids liver toxicity with references

    Hepatoxicty: Fact or Fiction
    by Roy Harper

    We all know that the alpha alkylated steroids are hepatotoxic, right?.. But, is there actually any truth to this? We?ve been told for years that if you take 17 alpha-alkylated steroids, you will eventually run into liver problems. Never combine 17 aa?s, never go beyond 50mg day, never go longer than 4 weeks, etc. All of this is crap! As I we walk you through some studies, today, you?ll see 17 alpha-alkylated steroids can be hepatotoxic but not to the degree you would think.

    To make a steroid hepatotoxic, you need only a small change to a steroid molecule; A strong bond that cannot readily be down broken by enzymes in the liver. This may be a bond at the 17th position, or even at the 1st position (as in methenolone or proviron). Because the liver cannot easily break the steroid down before it is released in to the blood stream, this also results in the steroid to becoming more orally bio-available.

    We can see that the liver has to work harder to break down these steroids. Enzymes in the blood and tissue easily metabolize other steroids such as Testosterone. Commonly, this increase in liver activity has been viewed as a harmful process, but as you will see, this increase is, in and of itself, irrelevant. The liver is THE filter of the human body -- it can figure out what to do with just about anything. The only real problem comes in when one keeps their liver at full blast for long periods of time.

    Let?s look at some studies showing the hepatotoxicity of steroids. Here's one of my favorites, a study published in 1979[1]. Essentially, researches did a study of deaths caused by hepatic angiosarcoma (a malignant tumor of vascular tissue in the liver) between 1964 and 1974. Researchers found 131 reported cases of death from hepatic angiosarcoma. Out of the 131 cases, 3.1% (4 cases) were reported to be at all related to the use of androgenic-anabolic steroids. Keep in mind that these 4 people could have liver complications before any steroids were used, aka a genetic disposition. In fact there is no proof, in this study at least, that the anabolic-androgenic steroids even caused the hepatic angiosarcoma.

    This is the classic case of associating a cause with an effect, without any evidence, aside from both existing. Furthermore, based on the above numbers, there are only 0.4 cases of hepatic angiosarcoma reported each year, by those using AAS. Now consider the number of people on steroids at this time. Now factor in all the people that don?t know their *** from a hole in the ground when it comes to using AAS, properly. Clearly, this is very week evidence. Lastly there has not been a real increase in hepatic angiosarcoma since the early seventies. Meanwhile, there has been a huge, almost exponential, increase in steroid use during this period.

    Another study, that somewhat supports the previous hepatotoxicity case, showed the possibilities of hepatic adenomas(cysts in the liver) caused by androgenic-anabolic steroids[2]. In this study, a Japanese girl was found to have multiple liver lesions after the use of the drug oxymetholone (aka Anadrol). Most everyone ?knows? that Anadrol is linked with liver problems, but a closer inspection into this study shows more.

    Apparently, this girl, starting at the age of 14, was diagnosed with aplastic anemia. She was prescribed oxymetholone at 30mg per day. This continued for 6 years until the lesions first appeared. Assuming that the girl was most likely around 100 lbs., this was a pretty heavy dosage. If you extrapolated this data out to a 200 - 250lbs. male, that would be taking approximately 60 - 90mg of anadrol per day for 6 years. Ouch!

    The researchers also stated that there were only 17 other cases of hepatic adenomas, found in English literature between 1975 and 1998. They failed to mention the causes of these 17 cases, but there is no reason to believe they were all using 17-AA androgens and 17 is certainly miniscule compared to the number of people who have used them. The authors? finish off the study by saying the following: "This report may be helpful in identifying the population who is at risk of developing hepatic sex hormone-related tumors." So remember, if you're a small 14-year-old girl taking 30mg of Anadrol per day for 6 years, you may be at risk!

    Let's move on to some more useful studies. Take for example a 1995 study that showed the toxic effects of anabolic-androgenic steroids in primary rat hepatic cell cultures[3]. In this study the researchers used the following drugs and dosages:




    Testosterone cypionate







    As proof of the hepatoxicity they used Lactate dehydrogenase release, neutral red retention, and glutathione depletion to determine plasma membrane damage, cell viability, and possible oxidative injury, respectively.

    What they showed was that the 17 alpha-alkylated steroids, methyltestosterone, stanozolol and oxymetholone, significantly increased Lactate dehydrogenase release and decreased neutral red retention at the 1x10^-4M dosage for 24h. Both methyltestosterone and oxymetholone also showed depleted glutathione at the 1x10^-4M dosage after 2h, 6h and 8h treatments. In other words they increased liver activity. You may also note that the other, non-alkylated steroids showed no significant difference in any levels. All in all this not only shows that 17 alpha-alkylated steroids are directly ?hepatotoxic?, but also non-alkylated steroids are note hepatotoxic at all. But is this a real measure of hepatotoxicity? There is yet to be any correlation between the increase of the above-mentioned measurement and ?hepatotoxicity?. Obviously, high dosages of the 17 alpha-alkylated steroids are potentially dangerous, but upon closer inspection, the study reveals more.

    Take a look, the researchers took cell cultures from the liversse of 60-day-old Sprague-Dawley rats. Not only are rat livers much smaller than human livers, but these were merely cultures. Furthermore, it was the 1x10^-4M concentrations that caused the most changes, but these are approximately 1 to a 1/3 of a full, daily human dosage -- at least for the 17 alpha-alkylated steroids. Even at the 1x10^-6M concentration, there were no significant changes observed. It's apparent that the levels of 17 alpha-alkylated steroids used were potentially toxic, but for a human to take the same amount would be insane. I'm guessing this could translate to maybe 4 grams every 24 hours or 28 grams a week if not more.

    What is common so far is we can only prove that any steroid, that is believed to be hepatotoxic, only increases liver activity. I?ll say it again, where is the correlation to hepatotoxicity? We know that if the liver is running at 100% for long periods this may cause complications, but this is akin to any other chemical, which is metabolized by the liver. Ever noticed that liver cancer due to alcoholism takes decades of constant alcohol abuse? It?s apparent that the possibility for hepatotoxicity is there, but for the smart steroid user this is nearly an impossible task.

    Another study done in 1999, attempted to show the acute and chronic effects of stanozolol on the liver[4]. In acute treatments of stanozolol, dosages not mentioned, both cytochrome P456 and b5 (microsomal enzymes) levels dropped after 48 hours, and then at 72 hours, levels significant increased. On the other hand, with chronic treatments, time or dosage not mentioned, these microsomal enzymes showed a decrease in levels. Researchers showed that both acute and chronic treatments resulted in "slight to moderate inflammatory or degenerative lesions in centrilobular hepatocytes", but the authors did not note true hepatotoxicity.

    How about we look at the other side of the story, the good studies. For instance, in a 1999 study, which looked at the effects of an 8-week cycle of 17 alpha-alkylated steroids[5]. The researchers used fluoxymesterone, methylandrostanolone, or stanozolol on rats at 2mg/kg-body weight, five times a week for 8 weeks. That's 182mg per dosage, for a 200lb man, or 910mg per week. Half of the rats were sedentary and the other were trained on a treadmill.

    Levels of NADH-cytochrome c reductase, succinate cytochrome c reductase, and cytochrome oxidase (showing liver activity), increased in the steroid-administered rats, while citrate synthase showed no change. Comparatively, in vitro, the "cytochrome oxidase and citrate synthase activities were insensitive to the AAS, whereas NADH-cytochrome c reductase and succinate cytochrome c reductase activities were partly inhibited."

    Furthermore, in vivo, each rat had liver enzyme levels that were within normal range. From this, the researchers determined that the steroid-administered rats, trained or sedentary, did not show "...classical serum indicators of hepatic function". Extrapolating this, 910mg a week for 8 weeks could potentially have little to no effect on the liver in humans.

    As for human studies, in 1999 researchers tried to prove that the hepatotoxicity of steroids is overstated[6]. In this study, 15 of the participants were bodybuilders using self-administered steroid dosages and 10 were non-steroid bodybuilders. Serum data was compared to 49 patients with viral hepatitis, and 592 exercising and non-exercising medical students. [

    All of the bodybuilders showed increases in aspartate aminotransferase (AST), alanine aminotransferase (ALT) and creatine kinase (CK) while gamma-glutamyltranspeptidase (GGT) levels were in the normal range. In comparison, hepatitis patients showed increased ALT, AST, and GGT levels while the control exercising medical students showed increased CK levels. From this, the researchers suggested that it is the correlation between AST, ALT and GGT that shows true liver dysfunction. Keep in mind, we can only guess that the 15 steroid users were using 17 alpha-alkylated steroids, and we do not know what the dosages that were used., but common sense tells us the results are likely relevant.

    Last but not least, a simple study done in 1996, showed the long term benefits after taking a 3 month break from steroids[7]. 16 bodybuilders using steroids were compared to 12 bodybuilders that were not. After a three-month drug withdrawal, the researchers showed that levels of liver enzymes, types not mentioned, returned to the same as the non users. Again the dosages are left to the reader?s imagination and we can only guess that the 16 steroid users were using 17 alpha-alkylated steroids.

    So what can we conclude from all of this? First off, 17 alpha-alkylated steroids are hepatotoxic in high dosages taken for a long time. On the other hand, short cycles and small dosages appear to be perfectly safe. I suggest that maximum dosages should be 50mg to 90mg per day. They should be cycled for perhaps 8 weeks at a time, and if needed a 3-month break from them should be used. Using the above-mentioned techniques, your liver can be healthy for a long time. Simply put, the hysteria surrounding ?hepatoxic? steroids, is based mainly on folk lore.


    [1] Lancet 1979 Nov 24;2(8152):1120-3, Hepatic angiosarcoma associated with androgenic-anabolic steroids. Falk H, Thomas LB, Popper H, Ishak KG.

    [2] J Gastroenterol 2000;35(7):557-62, Multiple hepatic adenomas caused by long-term administration of androgenic steroids for aplastic anemia in association with familial adenomatous polyposis. Nakao A, Sakagami K, Nakata Y, Komazawa K, Amimoto T, Nakashima K, Isozaki H, Takakura N, Tanaka N.

    [3] J Pharmacol Toxicol Methods 1995 Aug;33(4):187-95, Toxic effects of anabolic-androgenic steroids in primary rat hepatic cell cultures. Welder AA, Robertson JW, Melchert RB.

    [4] Arch Toxicol 1999 Nov;73(8-9):465-72, Evaluation of acute and chronic hepatotoxic effects exerted by anabolic-androgenic steroid stanozolol in adult male rats. Boada LD, Zumbado M, Torres S, Lopez A, Diaz-Chico BN, Cabrera JJ, Luzardo OP.

    [5] Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1999 Feb;31(2):243-50, Rat liver lysosomal and mitochondrial activities are modified by anabolic-androgenic steroids. Molano F, Saborido A, Delgado J, Moran M, Megias A.

    [6] Clin J Sport Med 1999 Jan;9(1):34-9, Anabolic steroid-induced hepatotoxicity: is it overstated? Dickerman RD, Pertusi RM, Zachariah NY, Dufour DR, McConathy WJ.

    [7] Int J Sports Med 1996 Aug;17(6):429-33, Body composition, cardiovascular risk factors and liver function in long-term androgenic-anabolic steroids using bodybuilders three months after drug withdrawal. Hartgens F, Kuipers H, Wijnen JA, Keizer HA.

  8. #98
    Join Date
    Mar 2006

    Another article about steroid myths and such

    You'll Shoot Your Eye Out
    by TC

    Scientists Discover More Disturbing News about Steroids

    Scientists at the Tuscaloosa Institute of Technology have uncovered yet more disturbing evidence that steroids pose a significant health risk. According to lead scientist, Dr. Randy Kreider, dosages of steroids as small as 100 milligrams, taken simultaneously with a fifth of bourbon, can cause impaired judgment, lack of equilibrium, and the propensity to say "all kinds of goofy **** with slurred speech."

    Furthermore, the men in the steroid group displayed "aggressive tendencies," many of them repeating the question, "Ya' think yer better than me?" over and over again while taking swings at the researchers.

    The double blind study involved 14 healthy men, ages 21 to 24. Half of the men were given a single injection of steroids and a fifth of bourbon, while those in the control group each received a handful of "Snausages," a new snack food made from deep-fried ****tail wieners.

    While the control group suffered no ill effects other than congealed aortas, each member of the group receiving steroids experienced the alarming side effects listed above.

    The study reports that the effects of the steroids seemed to wear off after a good night's sleep and a couple of aspirin, but the authors urged that the Government continue their vigilance over these dangerous drugs.

    — Associated Press

    Okay, so the Associated Press "news release" is a little far-fetched, but if you look at what journalists, lay people, and even doctors know–or think they know–about steroids, the press release suddenly doesn't seem so silly.

    It's almost hard to believe, but to the general public, steroids, including Testosterone, are America's new crack cocaine.

    What the hail happened? What universe did I wake up in? Where the doo-doo doo-doo, doo-doo doo-doo, is Rod Serling?

    Maybe you've noticed that wacko-taco commercial produced by Major League Baseball and the Partnership for a Drug-Free America. The commercial is called "The Statue," and it features good ol' Discobolus, originally carved by the Greek sculptor Myron in 5th century B.C.

    Proud Discobolus is crumbling before our eyes because he's been using steroids. A somber voiceover describes all the ills that befall steroid users, from piles to the obligatory cancer reference, and then they give us the solar plexus deathblow:

    Steroids don't make great athletes. They destroy them.

    The trouble is, it doesn't take a huge Archimedes-in-the-bathtub Eureka deductive leap to see, despite their warnings, that Barry Bonds managed to prevail. Canseco did, too. Palmeiro, McGwire, all of them made a lot of money. Their reputations might have been damaged by Victor Conte's hubris, but none of them are exactly "crumbling." In fact you'd be hard pressed to name anybody that died or experienced permanent physical problems from steroid use.

    It reminds me of the anti-marijuana commercial they used to show us in school in the 70's. We'd all meet in the auditorium to watch a grainy filmstrip that depicted wild-eyed, dope smoking hippies who'd start to hallucinate and see monsters after taking a puff of the demon weed.

    While the teachers and administrators nodded their heads solemnly, most of us kids were snickering...well, except for Stuey, the kid with boogers in his hair who wet his bed so much that he shorted out his electric blanket and electrocuted the family schnauzer. Stuey, much alarmed by the film, took a deep drag from his asthma inhaler while vowing silently never to touch the evil weed.

    But the weird thing is that the kids today — and the grown-ups — are all Stuey. They might not have the boogers in their hair or be chronic bed wetters, but they've drunk the Kool Aid; they believe these anti-steroid David Koresh types who are espousing their bad steroid religion.

    Even Maxim magazine, the anointed User's Manual for today's ADD afflicted, education-despising slacker, explains that steroids, while effective for putting on mass, will make you "want to kill people, and in between you'll want to kill yourself." And Maxim doesn't stop there:

    "Oh, and your liver, kidneys, and heart will take a beating, and you'll get bacne, go bald faster, and your nuts will shrink to the size of blueberries. You won't like yourself, but you'll have huge guns!"

    If that weren't stupid enough, in the same article they give us the real scoop on such "street drugs" as arginine, chromium picolinate, and pyruvate.

    Street drugs? Am I in a time warp, or is Maxim launching some sort of drug and supplement version of TV Land? Hey, Skreetch is getting ready to do some desiccated liver tablets! Bring me some Screaming Yellow Zonkers and a Tab!

    This misinformation is everywhere.

    Just the other night, while brushing my teefers and getting ready for beddy-bye, I turned on the radio that I keep next to the sink. There's some wahoo talk show host on FOX sports radio talking about Rafael Palmeiro:

    "Listen. I sat down with a sports doctor for an hour and got the scoop on steroids.

    "Apparently, there's this pro-pah-nate bear with me because it even took me a little while to understand this...this pro-pah-nate stuff that you clears your system in 24 hours!

    "It's the same with this stan-o-zol stuff that's been in the papers. It clears in 24 hours! You can't detect it! No wonder these guys aren't getting caught!

    "Why isn't anybody in the country talking about this other than me?"

    Christ. Now we have all these sports-radio listeners walking around the country thinking that Testosterone propionate and Stanozolol clear your system in 24 hours.

    And let's not even start to talk about the misinformation surrounding GH, although I do have to share this one little gem that's featured in this month's Playboy during an interview with Jose Canseco's ex-wife, a major league piece of *** if there ever was one. The writer, another self-proclaimed drug expert, explains that GH has a side effect none of us knew about:

    At the same time, the human growth hormone Jose was taking actually made his penis larger.

    The reporter apparently felt confident writing that because Jessica confirmed it!

    "Your penis is a muscle, it [GH] makes it heavy, solid. He was very well-endowed down there."

    Shirley! Get Payne Whitney on the phone. Tell them I want to buy a bazillion shares of Merck pharmaceuticals, stat!

    Oh mamma oh mamma oh mamma.

    Jessica, my penis may be strong; it may be capable of heroic feats; it may shimmy and shake like my sister Kate and it may even be able to fungo a fly ball off Jose's melon, but it ain't no muscle.

    Unfortunately, the mutts that read Playboy now believe they can actually work their dick out in the gym and make it grow. Sure buddy, it's a muscle. That's why there's a hole in the middle of every plate. Drop your drawers and try this 45-pounder on for size. Do a few "Aroused Farmer's Walks" across the gym until the cops get here.


    I'm not advocating the use of steroids in sport, but I'm not condemning it, either. Truth is, I don't know what to think. I don't know what constitutes cheating anymore. There are so many supplements available to an athlete that might help them, including some "natural" ones, that I don't know where to draw the line. I don't even know if a line should be drawn.

    Maybe the recommendations I made a few years ago still hold true; that athletes should be required to pass physicals. Their blood pressure and their blood chemistry should all fall within the parameters of what constitutes "healthy." That means they could use steroids judiciously, but if any one of a number of tests fell out of accepted limits, they'd be disqualified from competition.

    Regardless, what really bugs me about all this steroid and drug misinformation is that it's trickled down into mainstream medicine. People who genuinely need or just want Testosterone replacement are being presented with the same arguments that we read about in magazines or hear about on TV or radio.

    Consider my friend, Andy. Andy is 85 years old, but he works out every day. He's got the mind of a 35-year-old. His favorite TV shows are Curb Your Enthusiasm and The Daily Show. He reads anything and everything. His mind is young and vital, but despite his efforts, he's really slowing down. He doesn't walk; he shuffles. He's plagued by achy joints, a lack of energy, and erections that are about as soft as the overcooked macaroni his wife makes him for lunch.

    On my recommendation, he faxed his doc a letter requesting information about Testosterone replacement therapy. Not an hour had passed before the doc returned the fax.

    On it, scrawled in large, block letters were the words, "YOU'LL GET CANCER."

    No explanation. No ifs, ands, or buts. It was like when Ralphie got his essay back from his teacher, the one about his Red Ryder double action air rifle. There too, scrawled across the paper, was a similar warning:


    Poor Ralphie. Poor Andy.

    Andy deserves to have quality of life, but his lame brain, obstinate doctor has become a Stuey.


    To make things worse, the news agencies are reporting a synopsis of a recent study that appeared in the August issue of The Journal of Urology. According to the study, cancer developed in 20 men within months to a few years after they began Testosterone replacement therapy.

    The results were culled from the records of six different urology practices.

    Unfortunately, none of the other particulars of the study were reported by the news agencies. The average age of the men who developed cancer was about 65. There was no baseline data on many of the patients. Some had not been properly screened for prostate cancer (by PSA, ultrasounds, or digital rectal exam).

    No control data was available to determine the number of men receiving T replacement who didn't get cancer. There was limited pathological data as to whether the cancers were clinically significant.

    In other words, the study didn't really tell anyone all that much, but that doesn't matter. Without reading the particulars, the study will merely reinforce the YOU'LL SHOOT YOUR EYE OUT mentality.

    The thing is, a lot of old dudes have prostate cancer. If you autopsy a hundred old guys who died of natural causes, you'll likely find that about 35% of them had prostate cancer–occult prostate cancer. So, it's possible that T therapy, especially when not accompanied by a 5 alpha-reductase inhibitor like finasteride or dutasteride, could stimulate these cancers. All the more reason to do a thorough evaluation before writing the prescription.

    But facts don't seem to matter. The message that trickles down is that Testosterone is dangerous.

    It makes me wonder how much we know about anything. Unless you're an expert in something, you merely take it on faith that what you're reading is true.

    I mean, what if, hold onto your hats, there really were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? I know it strains credulity, but what if the Government lied to us? What if!?! The implications are staggering!

    Or what if Tom Cruise wasn't really an expert in psychiatry, and that there really are psychological problems that should be treated with drugs?

    For that matter, how do we really know that Canada exists? We hear about it once in awhile, but how many of us have actually seen Canada? I bet if you drove a snowmobile north from, say, Minnesota or something, you'd hit one gigantic ice floe and be eaten by polar bears.

    Wow. I don't know about you, but I think I just blew my mind.

    Every journalist, every radio or TV newscaster or talk show host, needs to be careful about what information he or she disseminates. There are often repercussions to misinformation. Likewise, we all need to be careful about what we accept as fact. Hearsay should not be confused with truth.

    The possible consequence of intellectual laziness is clear: YOU'LL SHOOT YOUR EYE OUT!

    ©1998 — 2005 Testosterone, LLC. All Rights Reserved.

  9. #99
    IncGamers Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    While not exactly peer-reviewed, and one uses animals heavily, (which I'm sure will be the first complaints about these articles) pretty good data you got there, MIB. Thanks.

  10. #100
    IncGamers Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Valley of the Sun
    Crispy, you don't pay attention too well do you? I addressed the hamster issue saying that I was going to throw your own kind of studies back at you, at least the researchers stated that it may not be conclusive as to the length of time it would stay with humans being the study was done on hamsters. It certainly was the most current research out there and it didn't paint out any pretty pictures. Did you read it all?

    I don't have the time to read all the information posted, but at a quick glance it still appears there are a lot of testosterone studies done that say no problem as opposed to looking at the reported anabolic steroids. They are two different things. As I said, laced cocaine will have much more harmful affects than regular cocaine. The debate can go on and on. I can keep posting medical sources and you all will keep posting medical sources. I will bet that I could post more, but I am not going to waste my time. If you want to ignore the harms caused to people like Lex Luger, Bill Romananski, Lyle Alzado, Barry Bonds, etc. etc. and write it off as a few insignificant abusers, so be it. Realize these are all supposed role models for our youth, but that's ok. Did anyone watch the federal hearings and listen to the parents of the teens who died from steroid usage? Probably not, or again, they are written off as insignificant. Steroids have no purpose except for when medically prescribed to help some other condition. The only other reason they are used is for some ego driven person to try to be bigger or stronger than the next guy. Yeah, they have the right to take that risk I suppose, but the message it sends is what is dangerous. Perhaps I care too much about the younger generation out there. Hopefully they're not too self-centered to realize the harms and dangers of taking drugs.


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts