Massive steroid conspiracy

Originally posted by aquageek So far, this is what I have heard from gull - I am a doctor, I know better. I have ethics that are beyond repute because I am a doctor. Because I am a doctor, I can dictate to you what to do to your body and what to take. Aquageek, if this is the sum total of what you have learned from my posts than either I didn't express myself very well or you didn't read them. Or perhaps you just don't care for the medical profession, which is your prerogative. Regarding my patients, I can only make recommendations. It's up to them to decide what to do with their bodies. Regarding my ethics, I can only set myself high standards and try to achieve them. I never claimed to be perfect. And no, I won't perform a procedure on a patient just because they're going to pay me. Sounds like a different profession to me. My last post was in response to Phil, as we were discussing the original topic of performance enhancing drugs.

This is a terribly shallow argument, that our government is protecting domestic tranquility by making us get prescriptions. If that were the case, what in the world were they protecting by making mecidations for yeast infections for women or allergy medications available only by prescription? Are you actually willing to state that prescriptions protect us? Take a walk down the aisle at Wal Mart pharmacy. 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. I have yet to understand why I had to go to the doctor for 20 years to get allergy medication that I can now get at Wal Mart off the shelf. Oh, I know why, it was so I could spend $50 for a 2 minute doctor visit, $20 for a prescription and spend half a day wasted in an office and pharmacy line. Some meds should be controlled, others not but domestic tranquility is sort of a a stretch on this one.

Thanks to all for your comments on my posting about NO2(manufactured by MRI). I was hoping a swimmer at USMS had some actual experience with this supplement. My weight lifting friends say they have benefited from it. Obviously, I am concerned because swimming is such an intense aerobic activity and my weight lifting friends are mainly trying to build muscle(and are not focusing on aerobic conditioning). If you have actually tried the supplement, I'd enjoy hearing from you. Thanks to all, Terry

Tom: Again, you are incorrect. A few points: 1. If we were protecting women from what they THOUGHT might be a non issue, why was the medication made available OTC? Was there a sudden epiphany that now makes that an unlikely event? No, of course not, it was done because it was outrageous to tell women to go to the doctor for this. 2. Claritin is not additictive. Again, when was that magic moment that it no longer became dangerous enough to require prescription and now is ok? There was no moment, the patent expired. Did you see the share price of the maker of Claritin prior to the OTC release? It plumetted b/c investors saw a lucrative source of income vanish. If you think for one second that profit motive is irrelevant, you are greatly mistaken. 3. The US has the largest drug problem in the world, hands down, no one else is even close. The war on drugs is a colossal failure and probably a prime example of why we have so many emergency room visits and rehab houses nationwide. Maybe you haven't travelled as well as alleged if you think it's worse elsewhere.

Sorry, one last point. Tom, if you really think "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.

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.

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

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.

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.....

“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.