Massive steroid conspiracy

RE: Massive steroid conspiracy

michaelmoore — Sat, 24 Jan 2004 06:27:47 GMT

Thanks for the article Craig, it was a good read. michael

RE: Massive steroid conspiracy

Former Member — Fri, 23 Jan 2004 14:50:17 GMT

Great article on this subject from last Sunday's NY Times: www.nytimes.com/2004/01/18/magazine/18SPORTS.html?pagewanted=1 The bottom line, according to a University of Pennsylvania geneticist: "There will come a day when just have to give up. It's maybe twenty years away, but it's coming."

RE: Massive steroid conspiracy

Former Member — Tue, 18 Nov 2003 16:59:51 GMT

Please read this article: www.nytimes.com/.../18DRUG.html which discusses the complexities of this issue much more eloquently than I can.

RE: Massive steroid conspiracy

Former Member — Fri, 31 Oct 2003 06:32:32 GMT

Aquageek, Thanks for the help - I did find the section, the arguement comes down to semantics. Based upon the writing it is hard to say that the drug companies are the biggest lobbiers in DC - if that was the case then why didn't the Public Citizen come out and say that, that is a much stronger message than the 'still appeared to have spent more on lobbying in 2001 than any other industry' . The reason for their statement rather than a 'They are the biggest' is because the public citizen is using their criteria ('as defined by Public Citizen ' - which could be just about anything) and of course the 'based on available data.' Not sure what Lobbying and the Drug industry has to do with original question for this thread - but would appear to have been totally sidetracked into a politically based debate (which I thought were discouraged, oh well).

RE: Massive steroid conspiracy

aquageek — Fri, 31 Oct 2003 06:18:59 GMT

kailonj - I didn't just make this up, I really didn't. I wasn't trying to make a point for the sake of making a point. There is a sentence that reads: That said, the drug industry – as defined by Public Citizen – still appeared to have spent more on lobbying in 2001 than any other industry, based on available data. It's about halfway down.

RE: Massive steroid conspiracy

Former Member — Fri, 31 Oct 2003 06:17:37 GMT

Well, this discussion is out of hand. Anyway, wealth doesn't always have to do with using recreatonal drugs. Probably some of you forgot that China had an opium problem in the 19th century and the Chinamen that came to work on the railroads use the stuff. Now China is the biggest market for smoking tobacco, so times change and people use different drugs.

RE: Massive steroid conspiracy

Former Member — Thu, 30 Oct 2003 16:40:57 GMT

Again, your slam with hero worship is out of line and untrue. I have a profound RESPECT for Doctors....Nothing less and nothing more, and my posts have indicated nothing remotely close to "HERO WORSHIP". Lastly, my post was anything but, RANTING.

RE: Massive steroid conspiracy

Former Member — Thu, 30 Oct 2003 16:03:23 GMT

"Maybe you haven't travelled as well as alleged if you think it's worse elsewhere." I have, and it is MUCH WORSE in other places! Maybe you should do your homework a bit better before making fact statements like, "" then please explain why the pharmaceutical lobby is the largest lobby in DC." Statements like, "your wrong" or "Again, you are incorrect" are pretty one sided and leave little or no room for decent, interactive dialog. This is especially true when the poster gets and F in homework…..

RE: Massive steroid conspiracy

Former Member — Thu, 30 Oct 2003 14:37:09 GMT

Is there really a difference in the patent law between drugs that are prescribed and OTC. I thought they would be the same. If there is a difference is may be because of all the testing (and money for those tests) that has to be done before the drug can be released This is part of my point about the FDA regulations. It is the ridiculous regulations that supposedly jack up the cost of prescription drugs. Yet, the same drugs are available outside of the US for much less and... Other countries' regulations are not as 'strigentent.' The safety and effocasy of the drugs are proven more quickly, and therefore new & cheaper drugs are getting into the hands of doctors and patients who need them. Why then must the US have the regulations that they do? Monetary and political reasons, thats all! When those type of things factor into decisions such as approving a drug, then the decision its self is questionable. All decisions made under the same regulations are questionable because no one knows exactly what factors influenced the decision. It might have been good solid scientific research, on the other hand, it might not have been. Extend that to the current discussion of performance enhancing drugs and you have to ask yourself what is the motivation behind this substance or that substance being labeled as dangerous or performance enhancing. Don't get me wrong, I believe that there should be regulations concerning the marketing and use of drugs and other substances. What I am saying is, the argument that the FDA has labeled this substance or that substance as 'dangerous' is useless because the regulations under which it operates are political in nature.

RE: Massive steroid conspiracy

aquageek — Thu, 30 Oct 2003 11:47:02 GMT

So that I'm not accused of making things up anymore, please reference the folowing report: www.citizen.org/.../articles.cfm

RE: Massive steroid conspiracy

aquageek — Thu, 30 Oct 2003 11:30:52 GMT

I told you my source, NPR, maybe you should rant to them. There is no single country in the world with a greater drug problem. You think the poppy fields of Asia and the coca fields of SA are destined for the Congo? Get real, amigo, it's all coming to the US. So, Tom, I did my homework and quoted my sources. Just because I don't participate in hero worship of doctors like you doesn't make me wrong, just makes me have a different opinion.

RE: Massive steroid conspiracy

Former Member — Thu, 30 Oct 2003 09:28:38 GMT

Aquageek, Maybe I read it to fast but I have to agree with Meg, it says they increased their spending not that they outspent others. If I am wrong could you please tell me where it states in the article that the drug companies outspent everyone else.

RE: Massive steroid conspiracy

aquageek — Thu, 30 Oct 2003 05:30:50 GMT

I got my info from an NPR story that make this assertion. The story was about the new prescrption drug benefit debalte and the claim was made quite clearly that the pharmaceutical industry was the largest lobby in DC. Maybe as a whole they are, not by individual company. I think it's a well established fact te US is the largest market for illegal drugs in the world. The Congo probably isn't keeping the Columbians in business. Lastly, there is no difference in patent laws. That is my point. Once the patent expires, the profilt margin is gone.

RE: Massive steroid conspiracy

MegSmath — Thu, 30 Oct 2003 03:44:47 GMT

I have better things to do with my time than to wade through a voluminous article simply to try to prove you wrong. What you should apologize for is your rudeness.

RE: Massive steroid conspiracy

aquageek — Thu, 30 Oct 2003 03:32:33 GMT

Please re read the article. You might note this sentence: That said, the drug industry – as defined by Public Citizen – still appeared to have spent more on lobbying in 2001 than any other industry, based on available data. So, I'm not exactly what I should apologize for.

RE: Massive steroid conspiracy

MegSmath — Thu, 30 Oct 2003 03:01:11 GMT

Aquageek, The article you referenced does not say that the drug industry is the biggest lobby in Washington. It says the biggest drug companies and their trade associations employed more lobbyists and spent more on Washington, D.C. lobbying in 2001 than in previous years. This lobbying increase occurred while overall lobbying by all industries appeared to decline in 2001, based on available data. All it's saying is the drug industry is spending more on lobbying than it has in the past, not that it spent more than any other industry or cause spends on lobbying. I don't really care who the biggest lobbyist in Washington is, but I think you have been unnecessarily rude and should apologize.

RE: Massive steroid conspiracy

michaelmoore — Thu, 30 Oct 2003 02:45:23 GMT

It will be interesting to see if any swimmers are caught in the web. Maybe swimming will be lucky and no one will be found using the drug. A couple of other comments Almost every medicine you see was at one time available by prescription only and it was done this way to protect the patent on the drug for 7 years, not to protect the consumers. Is there really a difference in the patent law between drugs that are prescribed and OTC. I thought they would be the same. If there is a difference is may be because of all the testing (and money for those tests) that has to be done before the drug can be released "These rules and laws are not designed or enacted for monetary gain, they are enacted to help us and protect us" then please explain why the pharmaceutical lobby is the largest lobby in DC. You really naive enough to think they are spending all those millions to help us? C'mon, money, man, money. Could you explain that statement in light of the Fortune article ( www.fortune.com/.../0,15233,,00.html ) the top ten lobbying firms are 1. National Rifle Association 2. AARP 3. National Federation of Independent Businesses 4. American Israel Public Afairs Comm 5. Association of Trial Lawyers 6. AFL-CIO 7. Chamber of Commerce 8. National Beer Wholesalers Association (now there is a lobby group I can get behind). 9. National Association of Realtors 10 National Association of Manufacturers. Well they did not make the top ten AMA was#12 and American Hospital Association was #13 Pharmaceutical Research was #24 The US has the largest drug problem in the world, hands down, no one else is even close. What numbers are you using for that statement? The US has the third largest population in the world - if one is going to have problems the US would have a lot of them just because of the the large numbers. Or it could be the US has the largest GDP. With all that wealth some could land in recreational pharmacology. (one would certainly not expect a large drug problem in Congo where the GDP / person is $400). michael

RE: Massive steroid conspiracy

Former Member — Wed, 29 Oct 2003 08:07:03 GMT

Interesting how this thread has wandered off into some areas far removed from the original post. The timely issue is how will the recent exposure of THG impact certain Olympic sports. Now that FINA has agreed to test urine samples from the Swimming World Championships will our sport be tarnished my new disclosure of cheating. Regardless, it does give us some hope that through such actions (applauds to the person who provided the UCLA lab with the tip) and the vigliance of people who are forcing the authorities to pursue the drug cheaters. The show that there is still hope for sports especially if the cheaters have to worry about being caught AFTER THE FACT as the various labs develop new test for new drugs. Now we just have increase the funding for new tests, keep the pressure on FINA and others to add to the list of banned drugs and keep enough samples from major world championships to retroactively disqualify cheaters. That should dissuade some "borderline" cheaters to keep on the right side of the law.

RE: Massive steroid conspiracy

Former Member — Tue, 28 Oct 2003 17:58:00 GMT

Craig, Intuition is a poor justification for a policy that can affect the lives of hundreds or thousands of athletes. What seem intuitively obvious to you, someone steeped in the hippocratic (sp?) oath, is not intuitive, or true, to someone else. There is no proscription against doing harm to oneself, especially if one is not a doctor. Your qualms about providing these drugs may be very ethical, but these qualms may not apply to someone causing harm to him or her self. As you know, there is quite a lot of work in medical ethics in trying to create an environment removed from 'intuition.' Anyway, doctors seem quite willing to treat conditions that are hardly illnesses, often performing risky operations for no illness whatsoever - cosmetic surgery comes to mind. I suppose someone could argue, perhaps justifiably, that if athletes are going to use steroids, it is better under the supervision of a knowledgeable physician who can prevent some of the more serious side effects. Then it would be unethical for the physician to ignore the situation by pretending that abusers could be talked or legislated out of abuse. This logic is often used to justify providing abortion, or certain treatments for drug addiction. A recognition that some things can't be legislated away is one reason the 18th amendment was repealed. Is it justified to take a pain killer because I damaged my body by competing too hard, and in order to compete too hard tomorrow? I can imagine extreme cases - a boxer hurts during a fight, so takes some legal pain killer between rounds. This strikes me as blantantly unfair, and extremely dangerous, as some of the pain signals indicating serious damage would be more likely to be ignored. I assume that as a doctor you would not give these drugs in this situation, even though it may be legal, and certainly treats a medical condition. I'm sure it is obvious by now that I am trying to have a discussion justifying the rules, not accepting them as apriori right. Sure, they are rules now, but are they the right rules? Are they logically based on ethical principles, or intuition? Are they fair? Are they enforceable? The saddest thing in all this is when people on all sides of the issue resort to legalities, instead of the fundamental issues of right and wrong.

RE: Massive steroid conspiracy

Former Member — Tue, 28 Oct 2003 17:19:14 GMT

Next....I have said all I will say. I support drug laws and the ban on steroid us without Doctors prescriptions....

RE: Massive steroid conspiracy

Former Member — Tue, 28 Oct 2003 16:38:27 GMT

“what in the world were they protecting by making medications for yeast infections for women or allergy medications available only by prescription?” They were protecting woman from possibly using these medications incorrectly and possibly causing additional harm to their bodies. Or, possibly THINKING they had yeast infections, when in fact the symptom they were seeing was something completely different. As to allergy medications, perhaps they wanted to prevent addiction to these medication where you could no longer breath properly due to a dependence on these medications. These rules and laws are not designed or enacted for monetary gain, they are enacted to help us and protect us.

RE: Massive steroid conspiracy

Former Member — Tue, 28 Oct 2003 16:30:28 GMT

Their are always going to be exceptions to the rule. Hey, I could care less if you get my point. Having said that, anytime you care to see in vivid detail exactly what I am talking about, then go to a drug rehab facility and see the horror in living color. You will see people addicted to pain medications, heroin, cocaine and amphetamines. Hey, let’s open the flood gates and let us buy anything we want, only leave me off the streets when we do that, because it is going to get rather scary….and I mean scary…. Or, go to any emergency room and spend a few hours and watch as the paramedics wheel in people who have overdosed on medications that were prescribed for OTHER patients. Yet, they wanted to prescribe their own medications and found out the hard way that was a bit over their education level or outside their expertise. "but domestic tranquility is sort of a a stretch on this one." If you believe this, I suggest you travel to some of the countries around the globe that have little or no control over what their people can buy. I have been in many of these countries and it is nothing shy of a free for all. A very scary free for all.....

RE: Massive steroid conspiracy

Former Member — Tue, 28 Oct 2003 15:41:32 GMT

Phil: Please forgive my rather blunt venture into deep sarcasm. Your understanding of what I initially meant was correct. The body of evidence is overwhelming in proving that anabolic steroids cause serious health problems. I felt that no matter how much evidence, regardless of the quality or persuasiveness, you were going to debate the opposite. When we talk of policies established by the authorities (government), I DO believe they are established for the good of society. Sure, their are many instances where government intrudes into our lives and frankly, needs to stay out of. But, a society run amuck with no governing intervention or laws is destined to fail. Perhaps we can look at our own Constitution and read the preamble to understand how I believe our government should set forth laws to establish order and ensure domestic tranquility. “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” I have no problem with our government establishing laws that ensure and promote general welfare and provide us all with domestic tranquility. I dare say our society would become a horrid place if our government allowed the free use of heroin, cocaine, and prescription medications. Anabolic steroids fall into a category where the government chose to regulate this drug for the good of the people. I for one have no problem with that anymore then I have a problem with laws prohibiting us from walking into a drug store and purchasing heart medication, stimulants or antibiotics. Obviously, this is a debate or open dialog attempting to define or quantify the amount of government intervention or supervision we experience or allow in our lives. Although our government is by no means perfect, it is the finest government on the face of this planet. I support laws governing the use of steroids and believe these laws help ensure domestic tranquility.

RE: Massive steroid conspiracy

Former Member — Tue, 28 Oct 2003 15:24:37 GMT

Here is a very interesting article on this subject. Lots of information that I was not aware of, well presented: www.nytimes.com/.../29STER.html

RE: Massive steroid conspiracy

Former Member — Tue, 28 Oct 2003 14:37:39 GMT

Phil, When I said intuitive, I was referring to my perspective as a physician. After several years, some things become intuitive. You raise a very good point in suggesting that cosmetic surgery may be analogous to the use of performance enhancing substances or techniques. I have my own opinions about cosmetic (not, and I emphasize not, reconstructive) surgery. I'll try not to offend anyone. I am at best ambivalent about this. Our doctrine is to do no harm (Aquageek's comments not withstanding). Elective surgery for the sake of altering one's appearance subjects a healthy individual to the risks of general anesthesia and surgery (much like anabolic steroids subject a healthy athlete to the risks of the drug). The argument goes that one's appearance and self image impact one's psychological well-being, which is true. Does that justify the risk? Society seems to think so. I'm not sure what Hippocrates would say, and I've not researched the history of cosmetic surgery. The day is not far off when we will be able to genetically alter or sculpt an individual. At that point we may need to reassess the meaning of athletic competition. I do know that when we as physicians deviate from our mission, which is to treat the sick, we are venturing onto thin ice.