Misinformation about gear in the public press: Another example, from someone who should know better.

[archive_Bjaarki]

I was reading today in the New York Times Book Review section, a review of a book titled "The Pursuit of Perfection: The Promise and Perils of Medical Enhancement" by Sheila and David Rothman, a couple of professors of public health and medical sociology at Columbia. These are no dopes, and neither is the man who wrote the review of their book, Stephen S. Hall, author of a similar recent bubble popper, "Merchants of Immortality: Chasing the Dream of Human Life Extension". I take from Hall's review that the book's main thesis is that society has gone through serial infatuations with medicines, procedures and other technologies designed to restore youth or perfect the body, and that these have invariably fallen out of favor as the side effects and other downsides of the technologies become apparent. Hormones (including anabolics), according to the book, were all the rage during the 1920's and 30's. The way we now emphasize genetics, we then emphasized hormones.

Hall completely agrees with the Rothmans' book - yeah, there's nothing but chicanery going on here, Hall says, and nothing is being extended but the bank statements of the docs and drug companies peddling this witchery. But here's what he says about testosterone:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="**-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The persistence of testosterone therapy provides a variation on the theme ... Drug companies rapidly moved in to market the hormone as rejuvenating medicines, essentially inventing a medical condition - the "male climacteric" or male menopause - to justify its use. There was (and is) no compelling evidence that testosterone relieves fatigue or nervousness, and later there was evidence that it might be harmful. Testosterone now qualifies as a postmodern exemplar of snake oil, regularly hawked in that new digital bazaar, the Internet. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fatigue? Nervousness? WTF? It's amazing that you can be smart enough to use a term like "postmodern" as though you meant it, and still be stupid enough to frame your argument about test in terms of "fatigue" and "nervousness", and then to compound your stupidity by saying There was (and is) no compelling evidence that testosterone relieves [them], and later there was evidence that it might be harmful. Testosterone now qualifies as a postmodern exemplar of snake oil ... SNAKE OIL? Incredible. I wonder what the Guvernator of California would say about that statement.

Ulter, if you want to write a letter to the Book Review editor, I'll help you with it. I really hate seeing shit like this in the press. When it's a hack from USA Today doing it it's one thing, but it's something else when it's by a guy whose own bio describes him as: "... a contributing writer at the New York Times Magazine. His pieces have also appeared in the New York Times Book Review, the Atlantic Monthly, Smithsonian, Technology Review, Science, and other periodicals. He is the author of three critically acclaimed books about contemporary science."

Bjaarki

... Then, do what you have to do.

[rocko]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="**-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bjaarki:
Ulter, if you want to write a letter to the Book Review editor, I'll help you with it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

B you make a great point, it's one thing to have people who are not recognized or known publisize their oppinion under the misrepresentation of fact. But when you have people who are widley recognized for thier knowledge providing misleading and just wrong information, that becomes a problem.

Your idea of letter is a good one, for if there is one truisim in business, it is that if it is not written down, it doesn't exist. So your right B, instead each of us just posting on this board what misleading, uneducated, and misinformed piece of crap this is, lets work together on a well writen letter that can be sent off. I know that we as a colective group could compile more then enough prof in scentific literature to refute this point. Maybe we could make it a Vetrans Concensus Letter

Pain is temporary,
Pride is forever.

[SteelPreacher]

yet another example of smart people saying dumb shit. I guess we're writing a letter ...

[archive_Ulter]

I don't think we need to look any further than the article written by Life Extension Foundation on HRT that I have posted a dozen times here. If we write the letter I would suggest we include it in its entirety. My knee-jerk reaction was that this sounds like the response of a gay man. (Not that there is anything wrong with that.) A gay man has little use for elevating testosterone levels for the same benefits a heterosexual man does, so if he is in fact gay, in a sense he may be right, he may be better off raising his estrogen levels. In any case, it shows a complete lack of knowledge of endocrine system and other systems affected by low test levels. I am astonished he’s making statements with such glaring ignorance. There are approx 3800 endocrinologists in this country who would view his statements as an insult to their profession and rightly so.
I will right him (that’s not misspelled) if I can get a little help. I don't write as well as I would like to.

[archive_Flash]

yes it is.

Fight is spelled with an "F", what you said means to correct him, while I know you meant you'd meet him in the ring for 12 rounds, If he can make wieght.

will this fight be drug tested?

Anyway, good luck Ulter. I need to call my bookie.

[archive_Bjaarki]

Ulter: This letter will have be produced very fast (by mid-week), and it will have to be very short, there is no space to include your article by the LEF, letters are limited to 200 words (about 2/3 of a page of double-spaced text). That is SHORT, bro. Shit, I have written single sentences that long.

I can help write the letter, but I can't sign it for reasons you understand. One person should sign it. You? Let's work on this. I'll email you something tomorrow.

As per your guess about the book reviewer's sexual preferences (so long as a man treats his friends and family well and keeps himself safe, what he does out of my sight is his own affair), I know a couple of gay lifters, and these guys are as big, bad-ass, and apparently testosterone-charged as any of us. No offense in this holiday season, brother, but you have a bit of a stereotype going there.

Bjaarki

... Then, do what you have to do.

[N-Smith,Dawn]

[quote]Originally posted by Bjaarki:
(so long as a man treats his friends and family well and keeps himself safe, what he does out of my sight is his own affair),

Bjaarki
QUOTE]

I am not commenting on misinformation - I mean it is such an ongoing thing all around us, so ubiquitous , that I just can't get exited about even the most rediculous comments being presented as fact (Calcium coral and anybody-can-do-a-no-money-down-home-deal-and-make-a-million-dollars as the first examples that come to mind).

But I have to agree with you here. I am pretty darn hetero - can't think of any homo tendencies except wanting a more muscular physique-maybe that is maybe that isn't. But I lost a dear friend (Friend 1) over the subject recently. Friends for about 15 years. Another common friend (friend 2) admitted to the fact that he had homosexual encounters over the last 12 years of his marriage - without his wife knowing. The fact he subjected his wife to danger as many of these were unsafe sex, is what bothered me. Friend 1 told me that if he found out I was gay our friendship would be over.

Keep in mind this guy (friend 1) called me in the middle of the week 10 years ago to ask me to be a godparent to his new born daughter - I drove roughly 1500 miles to be there for the ceremony that weekend with less than a weeks notice. As soon as he told me that, as far as I was concerned our friendship was over. He has called like he used to and I don't even bother returning his calls. If I run into him somewhere, which I might, and he asked I would tell him that if sexual preference was the limiting factor in our friendship then its not worth that much effort - I mean we are "friends" like Hi and Bye type of friends, but I was completely wrong to see him as a drive-across-the-country-on-a-moments-notice type of friend.

For family and good friends, I would drive 1500 miles tomorrow if they really needed it or wanted it. For a so so friend, I am friendly enough when I run into them but I would not go out of my way for them.

I am grossed out by male homo sex, but I am also grossed out by other forms of sex - even some between men and women (scatology or eating feces for example) - but hey, as long as I don't have to do it - its their business. I mean, some sex is like a car wreck - you would just have to stop and stare if you came across it. I am still as good as friend with Friend 2, which is not that good of a friend - not a drive across country type friend - but it did not alter what friendship we have.

Anyway, too much on this topic....
============

My fake breasts are the best part of me. Its funny. You boil me down to my most important features and it is 2 bags of saline.

[This message was edited by N-Smith,Dawn on 01-04-2004 at 12:07 PM.]

[archive_Bjaarki]

N-Smith,Dawn: Just to point out something obvious, Ulter did not communicate any disrespect for gay people. We all know him for a fair-minded guy. I was just surprised that Ulter opined that gay guys don't need testosterone, they'd be happier with estrogen. That buys into the limp-wristed gay stereotype, which many (most?) gay guys don't match.

I forgot to mention that there's only a slim chance that the letter we write will be published in the NY Times. The Sunday Book Review only prints 2 or 3 letters a week. Still, I think it worth the effort.

Bjaarki

[archive_Ulter]

Actually my comment is being skewed a little there. What I said was that, " gay man has little use for elevating testosterone levels for the same benefits a heterosexual man does"
What I am referring to is "elevating T levels for the reason we do it" not that the man wouldn't need normal levels of test to live a better, healthier, life. Regardless of his sexual preference he's still a man whose system runs on test. But if he was gay he would probably find elevated E levels more fun. I think the key word here is elevated.
My brother is not limp-wristed nor is he a stereotypical gay even though he's married a male partner. He's the Vice President and General Counsel for Sax 5th Ave in NY. He's 39 and he didn't get where he is by not being aggressive and extremely intelligent. He took on one of the best lawyers in Los Angles who was defending Wynona Ryder and made him look like an idiot with a very aggressive attitude. But I can't imagine him cycling or shooting test. That's all I'm saying.

[SteelPreacher]

how does this go from Misinformation regarding Gear to eating shit! lol Im looking at how it did and stil can't figure it out. I think i need to reup my neurogenex soon

[N-Smith,Dawn]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="**-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ulter:
But I can't imagine him cycling or shooting test. That's all I'm saying.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Wow. He doesn't shoot test? Not that there's anything wrong with that.

My fake breasts are the best part of me. Its funny. You boil me down to my most important features and it is 2 bags of saline.

[archive_Bjaarki]

Okay, here's a rough draft of a letter to the editor on this topic. You can all pull it off your screen, edit it, whatever, I'm not jealous of you savages hacking up my beautiful prose ...

---------------------

Editor, New York Times Sunday Book Review

In his review of "The Pursuit of Perfection: The Promise and Perils of Medical Enhancement" by Sheila and David Rothman, Stephen S. Hall (Sunday, January 4, 2004) made several important errors of fact and interpretation involving at least one of the "medical enhancement" technologies he has studied, anabolic/androgenic steroids. Mr. Hall dismisses an important set of medical and biochemical specialties by opining that, after the development of synthetic testosterone in the 1930’s, "Drug companies rapidly moved in to market the hormone as rejuvenating medicines, essentially inventing a medical condition - the ‘male climacteric’ or male menopause - to justify its use. There was (and is) no compelling evidence that testosterone relieves fatigue or nervousness, and later there was evidence that it might be harmful. Testosterone now qualifies as a postmodern exemplar of snake oil, regularly hawked in that new digital bazaar, the Internet."

Anabolic/androgenic steroids were partially synthesized from a cholesterol base by Adolf Butenandt at Schering in 1935. Inventors of snake oil generally are not awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry, which Butenandt shared for his work with another steroid chemist, Leopold Ruzicka, in 1939. Both testosterone and its derivatives, and nandrolone and its derivatives, quickly became the target of invention and application to both humans and animals during the “Golden Age of Steroid Chemistry,” the 1950’s to mid-1960’s, both in the West and behind the Iron Curtain. Physicians learned the use of these powerful tissue builders to very effectively treat a variety of medical conditions, including hypogonadism, anemia, wasting diseases, burns, recovery from surgery and trauma, age-related frailty, and many others. No snake oil, the literature is replete with studies of the efficacy of these agents, along with very low rates of significant pathophysiologic effects that can be directly traced to them. Athletes, too, learned the use of these agents to increase muscle mass and explosive strength and to speed the recovery from vigorous exercise. No snake oil here either, steroids are so effective as a component of athletic training that the debate in sport involves neither their lack of effect nor their side-effects, but rather the ethics of their use, given that they are so very effective at improving athletic performance.

Currently, most experts are realizing that there is a huge dearth of information regarding steroid use patterns and long-term effects, good and bad, particularly in the supraphysiologic dose ranges favored by athletes. Remarks such as Mr. Hall’s do nothing to advance policy in this area.

Anabolic Fitness

... Then, do what you have to do.

B,
I'm no writer but,it sounds like a very
well thought out response. To the point.

Now if we could get somebody to pull some
strings and actually get it printed.

Best of luck.

Doggy

[Curious George]

I love it when B gets like that.

Take Good Care,

Cg

[archive_Ulter]

I added...

I would also like to point out that when the congressional hearings were held to determine whether they should schedule steroids, representatives from the FDA, FTC, and Health and Human Services came out against the scheduling of steroids.

[archive_Mr. Nobody]

Its about time we pull together to turn the tide of misinformation around and use our resources (pencil necks with muscles, namely Bjaarki and Co.).
Thanks B.

In the slim event this gets printed, it should become part of the Bjaarki library....actually even if it doesn't get printed.

Disclaimer:
Mr. Nobody is presenting fictitious opinions and does in no way, shape or form encourage, use nor condone the use of any illegal substances or the use of legal substances in an illegal manner.
The information discussed is strictly for entertainment purposes only and shall not take the place of qualified medical advice.

[archive_Bjaarki]

I really don't know what the chances are that the letter will get published, Mr. N. Maybe it will. I submit things to journals all the time with 95% rejection rates, and they usually get in somehow. Ulter submitted it, I know. He finished it last night, he added his thing about the congressional hearings, and cc'd me the Book Review Editor's acknowledgement. So, "it's in there," as we say.

About your other point, I have been saying for a coon's age that the evidence (such as it is, which is piss-poor) pretty much supports the planned use of anabolics at moderate doses, especially (but not exclusively) for older men, but there are no data about the high doses or drug combinations we use, other than the fact (a significant fact, I'll grant you) that hundreds of thousands of guys have been doing this for several decades, and while there have been some deaths (I've told you all this a million times and you're finally beginning to believe me) due to hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (which effects strength athletes in any event, and is exacerbated by gear), bodybuilders are not keeling over in droves. But, clearly, we need more information, and we should marshall the information that we do have to support our views. That's what the Library and the Consensus Statements (and the Position Paper on Obesity, if I can ever clear my desk enough to finish that thing) and the board itself are all about. They're a voice. We have one. Let's use it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="**-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> pencil necks with muscles, namely Bjaarki and Co. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ummmmm ... from a beast your size, Mr. N., I'll let the pencilneck thing slide. I'd have to, anyway.

It would be great to see this letter in the NYT.

Bjaarki

... Then, do what you have to do.

[gtaman]

Good for standing up for us Bjaarki et al, but I'm coming to the conclusion that we really can't win.

When someone wants to sound smart or detached, they'll write just about anything. The health field (even so-called news articles) is one of the worst for this (screaming headline in the Globe and Mail today: "30% of kids will eat fast food today" -- so big deal, I had Wendy's chili last night, it doesn't make the reporter smarter than me).

But you didn't even comment on that last bit, which lazily characterizes the Internet as a "digital bazaar" whose purpose is for "hawking" things.

I guess all of us hawkers and meat-heads will never live up to the lofty standards of a Manhattanite scribbler. Unless of course we can actually afford to buy those $4,000 watches they insist on "hawking" in their publications.

[SteelPreacher]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="**-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> But you didn't even comment on that last bit, which lazily characterizes the Internet as a "digital bazaar" whose purpose is for "hawking" things.

I guess all of us hawkers and meat-heads will never live up to the lofty standards of a Manhattanite scribbler. Unless of course we can actually afford to buy those $4,000 watches they insist on "hawking" in their publications <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

good point

[Fukkenshredded]

---------------------Editor, New York Times Sunday Book ReviewIn his review of "The Pursuit of Perfection: The Promise and Perils of Medical Enhancement" by Sheila and David Rothman, Stephen S. Hall (Sunday, January 4, 2004) made several important errors of fact. Mr. Hall’s statement that "Drug companies rapidly moved in to market the hormone as rejuvenating medicines, essentially inventing a medical condition - the ‘male climacteric’ or male menopause - to justify its use,” is not only factually inaccurate, it reveals a complete lack of familiarity with current medical literature. Furthermore, it implies that testosterone levels in men are a non-factor when diagnosing overall health. Nothing could be further from the truth. As if this were not enough, he actually stresses his position with the following: “There was (and is) no compelling evidence that testosterone relieves fatigue or nervousness, and later there was evidence that it might be harmful. Testosterone now qualifies as a postmodern exemplar of snake oil, regularly hawked in that new digital bazaar, the Internet." No evidence? Snake oil? Next he will be claiming that testosterone has no impact on muscle mass. Clearly Mr. Hall has gaps in his knowledge about this subject. Allow us to help bring him up to speed.

Anabolic/androgenic steroids were partially synthesized from a cholesterol base by Adolf Butenandt at Schering in 1935. Inventors of snake oil generally are not awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry, which Butenandt shared for his work with another steroid chemist, Leopold Ruzicka, in 1939. Both testosterone and its derivatives, and nandrolone and its derivatives, quickly became the target of invention and application to both humans and animals during the “Golden Age of Steroid Chemistry,” the 1950’s to mid-1960’s, both in the West and behind the Iron Curtain. Physicians learned the use of these powerful tissue builders to very effectively treat a variety of medical conditions, including hypogonadism, anemia, wasting diseases, burns, recovery from surgery and trauma, age-related frailty, and many others.No snake oil, the literature is replete with studies of the efficacy of these agents, along with very low rates of significant pathophysiologic effects that can be directly traced to them. Athletes, too, learned the use of these agents to increase muscle mass and explosive strength and to speed the recovery from vigorous exercise.

Lastly, just consider this point of fact: Steroids are so effective as a component of athletic training that the debate in sport involves neither their lack of effect nor their side-effects, but rather the ethics of their use, given that they are so very effective at improving athletic performance.

That’s some snake oil, eh?

Currently, most experts are realizing that there is a huge dearth of information regarding steroid use patterns and long-term effects, good and bad, particularly in the supra-physiologic dose ranges favored by athletes. Remarks such as Mr. Hall’s do nothing except further misinform the general public, and belong on the shelves right next to the speculation about bodybuilders’ muscle turning into fat when they are forty.

Anabolic Fitness

[This message was edited by Fukkenshredded on 01-07-2004 at 10:21 PM.]