I was offered a presciption for steroids in 1952. I went to the library and found out what they were and I told my doctor no.
I knew all kinds of athletes who took them I don't think any one really benefitted from their use.
George Park
Parents
Former Member
Originally posted by gull80
Craig, if your point is that we don't know the magnitude of the risk, I would agree. However, if you're trying to argue that it's uncertain whether there even is a risk, either you haven't researched this subject very well or you don't believe what you've read. Risk means potential for (not guarantee of) injury. Again, I would recommend pubmed.org, the National Library of Medicine. It's one of the resources health care professionals use to search the medical literature.
My point is both. How to define risk is truly a medical tedder-totter. I believe that with soem of the recent medicines that have been pulled from shelves the risk was under .003%. Too often, I believe that many studies define a negative effect to broadly. When I was reading some of the cases I randomly, some argued that steroids ha dnegative effects of their subjects even though less than one percent had any bad effect. I do believe that anabolic steroids are very bad for human consumption. But is my belief one based on science or based on a few studies that have a negative interpretation?
Originally posted by gull80
Craig, if your point is that we don't know the magnitude of the risk, I would agree. However, if you're trying to argue that it's uncertain whether there even is a risk, either you haven't researched this subject very well or you don't believe what you've read. Risk means potential for (not guarantee of) injury. Again, I would recommend pubmed.org, the National Library of Medicine. It's one of the resources health care professionals use to search the medical literature.
My point is both. How to define risk is truly a medical tedder-totter. I believe that with soem of the recent medicines that have been pulled from shelves the risk was under .003%. Too often, I believe that many studies define a negative effect to broadly. When I was reading some of the cases I randomly, some argued that steroids ha dnegative effects of their subjects even though less than one percent had any bad effect. I do believe that anabolic steroids are very bad for human consumption. But is my belief one based on science or based on a few studies that have a negative interpretation?
