Learning with the news

<Montesquiou> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email hidden]...
| Reading the News Papers you can learn something as :
| "Kaye, Landis's doctor, said a cyclist would not benefit from taking
| testosterone. "If you take a look at the facts of the case, first off it
| makes absolutely no sense that a professional cyclist would be taking
| testosterone in the first place," he said. "That never ever would enhance
| your performance. In fact, it would make you slower.""
|
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/29/sports/othersports/29testing.html?pagewanted=2&ref=othersports
|
| or the opposite :
| "forensic toxicologist in Nashville and author of the book ``Drug Testing
in
| Sports'' questioned the assertion by some experts that it would not make
| sense for suspended Tour de France winner Floyd Landis to have taken
| testosterone for a quick boost of energy and strength before his Stage 17
| breakaway....
| I have injected myself with testosterone in doing research, and I can tell
| you from personal experience that within hours, you feel a profound
| psychological change, a sense of well-being, aggression and energy," Black
| said.
| "You feel strong and powerful. And your endurance is definitely improved.
| So, it's not peculiar to me that a cyclist would take testosterone after a
| bad day. What does seem peculiar is that an athlete of that caliber would
| put himself at such great risk, knowing that they test for testosterone."
| http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/sports/15153880.htm
| ****
| I hope it is clear now ?
| Cristal !
|

Well, I also have had testosterone injections. And there were in fact no
immediate effects. Clearer?

trg said:

Well, I also have had testosterone injections. And there were in fact no
immediate effects. Clearer?

While we are at it, I had never testosterone injections, and I feel a
bit tired now and then. Especially if it's so hot!

Montesquiou said:

Reading the News Papers you can learn something as :
"Kaye, Landis's doctor, said a cyclist would not benefit from taking
testosterone. "If you take a look at the facts of the case, first off it
makes absolutely no sense that a professional cyclist would be taking
testosterone in the first place," he said. "That never ever would enhance
your performance. In fact, it would make you slower.""
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/29/sports/othersports/29testing.html?pagewanted=2&ref=othersports

or the opposite :
"forensic toxicologist in Nashville and author of the book ``Drug Testing in
Sports'' questioned the assertion by some experts that it would not make
sense for suspended Tour de France winner Floyd Landis to have taken
testosterone for a quick boost of energy and strength before his Stage 17
breakaway....
I have injected myself with testosterone in doing research, and I can tell
you from personal experience that within hours, you feel a profound
psychological change, a sense of well-being, aggression and energy," Black
said.
"You feel strong and powerful. And your endurance is definitely improved.
So, it's not peculiar to me that a cyclist would take testosterone after a
bad day. What does seem peculiar is that an athlete of that caliber would
put himself at such great risk, knowing that they test for testosterone."
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/sports/15153880.htm
****
I hope it is clear now ?
Cristal !

Not at all clear.

I'm sorry, but what kind of scientist is this guy Black? It's not very
clinical or objective to inject himself with testosterone and describe
his feelings as proof of the results. Does he do these experiments in
his garage? Is his dog his lab assistant?

Plus, he's one "scientist" refuting the results of several studies
cited in the media.

Linda Lou

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Linda Lou said:

I'm sorry, but what kind of scientist is this guy Black? It's not very
clinical or objective to inject himself with testosterone and describe
his feelings as proof of the results. Does he do these experiments in
his garage? Is his dog his lab assistant?

Plus, he's one "scientist" refuting the results of several studies
cited in the media.

A good scientist will always experiment on himself. The
report you may take as you will.

Once read an account of a scientist who purposely had
himself bitten by a black widow spider. Two days of agony.

--
Michael Press

Michael Press said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Linda Lou said:

I'm sorry, but what kind of scientist is this guy Black? It's not very
clinical or objective to inject himself with testosterone and describe
his feelings as proof of the results. Does he do these experiments in
his garage? Is his dog his lab assistant?

Plus, he's one "scientist" refuting the results of several studies
cited in the media.

A good scientist will always experiment on himself. The
report you may take as you will.

Once read an account of a scientist who purposely had
himself bitten by a black widow spider. Two days of agony.

--
Michael Press

And of course it was double-blind and with a placebo control.

One has to wonder about the credibility of people who grasp at
non-science to further their position.

trg said:

Quoted message said:

Well, I also have had testosterone injections. And there were in fact no
immediate effects. Clearer?

Ernst Noch said:

While we are at it, I had never testosterone injections, and I feel a
bit tired now and then. Especially if it's so hot!

All you need is nice hot podium girl.

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

Michael Press said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Linda Lou said:

I'm sorry, but what kind of scientist is this guy Black? It's not very
clinical or objective to inject himself with testosterone and describe
his feelings as proof of the results. Does he do these experiments in
his garage? Is his dog his lab assistant?

Plus, he's one "scientist" refuting the results of several studies
cited in the media.

A good scientist will always experiment on himself. The
report you may take as you will.

Once read an account of a scientist who purposely had
himself bitten by a black widow spider. Two days of agony.

And of course it was double-blind and with a placebo control.

One has to wonder about the credibility of people who grasp at
non-science to further their position.

What are you talking about? You are blind to what I am
getting at.

--
Michael Press

Michael Press said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

Michael Press said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,
"Linda Lou" <[email hidden]> wrote:

> I'm sorry, but what kind of scientist is this guy Black? It's not very
> clinical or objective to inject himself with testosterone and describe
> his feelings as proof of the results. Does he do these experiments in
> his garage? Is his dog his lab assistant?
>
> Plus, he's one "scientist" refuting the results of several studies
> cited in the media.

A good scientist will always experiment on himself. The
report you may take as you will.

Once read an account of a scientist who purposely had
himself bitten by a black widow spider. Two days of agony.

And of course it was double-blind and with a placebo control.

One has to wonder about the credibility of people who grasp at
non-science to further their position.

What are you talking about? You are blind to what I am
getting at.

--
Michael Press

Excuse my attempt at humor. To wit, a silly investigator using
himself as a test bed for conducting an experiment cannot be without
subjective involvment. And the original poster should not have been
"non-science" to further his position.

I

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

Michael Press said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

Michael Press wrote:
> In article
> <[email hidden]>,
> "Linda Lou" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
> > I'm sorry, but what kind of scientist is this guy Black? It's not very
> > clinical or objective to inject himself with testosterone and describe
> > his feelings as proof of the results. Does he do these experiments in
> > his garage? Is his dog his lab assistant?
> >
> > Plus, he's one "scientist" refuting the results of several studies
> > cited in the media.
>
> A good scientist will always experiment on himself. The
> report you may take as you will.
>
> Once read an account of a scientist who purposely had
> himself bitten by a black widow spider. Two days of agony.

And of course it was double-blind and with a placebo control.

One has to wonder about the credibility of people who grasp at
non-science to further their position.

What are you talking about? You are blind to what I am
getting at.

Excuse my attempt at humor.

Apologies. I missed it.

Quoted message said:

To wit, a silly investigator using
himself as a test bed for conducting an experiment cannot be without
subjective involvment. And the original poster should not have been
"non-science" to further his position.

Certainly a procedure carried out upon oneself falls short
of many experimental design ideals. But, how is a
scientist to determine the consequences of black widow
poison? Interview victims certainly. Ask for volunteers?
Ludicrous. Therefore he must make himself the victim. His
report is credible. He was monitored by people qualified
to observe and log vital signs. His own account of his
experiences are worth at least as much as other victims,
and better than most.

When thinking about Science we sometime try to ignore the
subjective, but the subjective does not go away. Best to
accept this and watch for the subjective. It is only the
hidden subjectivity that corrupts an investigation.

When I say that a good scientist experiments upon himself
I am thinking of two things.

1) Ethics. He or she should be prepared to undergo
procedures he or she proposes to carry out on test
subjects.

2) Self-knowledge.

I applaud the gent who injected himself with testosterone
to observe the effects. His observations are at least as
valuable as those who inject testosterone as a means to an
end; better in my opinion.

--
Michael Press

Michael Press said:

Certainly a procedure carried out upon oneself falls short
of many experimental design ideals. But, how is a
scientist to determine the consequences of black widow
poison? Interview victims certainly. Ask for volunteers?
Ludicrous. Therefore he must make himself the victim. His
report is credible. He was monitored by people qualified
to observe and log vital signs. His own account of his
experiences are worth at least as much as other victims,
and better than most.

When thinking about Science we sometime try to ignore the
subjective, but the subjective does not go away. Best to
accept this and watch for the subjective. It is only the
hidden subjectivity that corrupts an investigation.

Subjective conclusions, whether hidden or blatant are still essentially
worthless. They don't prove anything.

Quoted message said:

When I say that a good scientist experiments upon himself
I am thinking of two things.

1) Ethics. He or she should be prepared to undergo
procedures he or she proposes to carry out on test
subjects.

Ethics? I know what the word means in most cases, but I don't follow
you on this one.

A single person study provides little if any benefit. Subjective
information, perhaps, but not something that would constiture medical
research with respect to creating anti-doping controls. That's what
we're talking about, right?

Testing something on yourself and extrapolating to how the populace as
a whole would react is stupid. Reporting your dabbling in drugs to the
media as a scientific "proof" is beyond stupid. Ethics be damned.

Quoted message said:

2) Self-knowledge.

I applaud the gent who injected himself with testosterone
to observe the effects. His observations are at least as
valuable as those who inject testosterone as a means to an
end; better in my opinion.

Timothy Leary? Is that you....?

Frankly, that would be a lot more interesting - Le Tour de LSD. If
anyone at all makes it to the finish line it's a miracle!

R

Michael Press said:

Quoted message said:

To wit, a silly investigator using
himself as a test bed for conducting an experiment cannot be without
subjective involvment. And the original poster should not have been
"non-science" to further his position.

Certainly a procedure carried out upon oneself falls short
of many experimental design ideals. But, how is a
scientist to determine the consequences of black widow
poison? Interview victims certainly. Ask for volunteers?
Ludicrous. Therefore he must make himself the victim. His
report is credible. He was monitored by people qualified
to observe and log vital signs. His own account of his
experiences are worth at least as much as other victims,
and better than most.

When thinking about Science we sometime try to ignore the
subjective, but the subjective does not go away. Best to
accept this and watch for the subjective. It is only the
hidden subjectivity that corrupts an investigation.

When I say that a good scientist experiments upon himself
I am thinking of two things.

1) Ethics. He or she should be prepared to undergo
procedures he or she proposes to carry out on test
subjects.

2) Self-knowledge.

I applaud the gent who injected himself with testosterone
to observe the effects. His observations are at least as
valuable as those who inject testosterone as a means to an
end; better in my opinion.

Following in the footsteps of Dr. Albert Hofmann.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Donald Munro said:

Michael Press said:

Quoted message said:

To wit, a silly investigator using
himself as a test bed for conducting an experiment cannot be without
subjective involvment. And the original poster should not have been
"non-science" to further his position.

Certainly a procedure carried out upon oneself falls short
of many experimental design ideals. But, how is a
scientist to determine the consequences of black widow
poison? Interview victims certainly. Ask for volunteers?
Ludicrous. Therefore he must make himself the victim. His
report is credible. He was monitored by people qualified
to observe and log vital signs. His own account of his
experiences are worth at least as much as other victims,
and better than most.

When thinking about Science we sometime try to ignore the
subjective, but the subjective does not go away. Best to
accept this and watch for the subjective. It is only the
hidden subjectivity that corrupts an investigation.

When I say that a good scientist experiments upon himself
I am thinking of two things.

1) Ethics. He or she should be prepared to undergo
procedures he or she proposes to carry out on test
subjects.

2) Self-knowledge.

I applaud the gent who injected himself with testosterone
to observe the effects. His observations are at least as
valuable as those who inject testosterone as a means to an
end; better in my opinion.

Following in the footsteps of Dr. Albert Hofmann.

And Dr. Barry Marshall:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Marshall

Ulcers: they can be cured,

--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

Michael Press said:

Certainly a procedure carried out upon oneself falls short
of many experimental design ideals. But, how is a
scientist to determine the consequences of black widow
poison? Interview victims certainly. Ask for volunteers?
Ludicrous. Therefore he must make himself the victim. His
report is credible. He was monitored by people qualified
to observe and log vital signs. His own account of his
experiences are worth at least as much as other victims,
and better than most.

When thinking about Science we sometime try to ignore the
subjective, but the subjective does not go away. Best to
accept this and watch for the subjective. It is only the
hidden subjectivity that corrupts an investigation.

When I say that a good scientist experiments upon himself
I am thinking of two things.

1) Ethics. He or she should be prepared to undergo
procedures he or she proposes to carry out on test
subjects.

2) Self-knowledge.

I applaud the gent who injected himself with testosterone
to observe the effects. His observations are at least as
valuable as those who inject testosterone as a means to an
end; better in my opinion.

Experimenting upon oneself is generally an expedient
one is driven to for a test that might not be ethical to
conduct upon other subjects. For example, poisons, or
proving that yellow fever is transmitted through mosquito
bites.

However, experimenting with the psychological and
physiological effects of testosterone is in a different
category. The drug is already regularly used in clinical
practice, so there are plenty of subjects available. But
the real issue is that the average Principal Investigator
is already well-enough supplied with ego, aggressiveness,
and feelings of power, confidence, control, and domination.
One man's sacrifice in the name of science is another
man's good excuse for getting a high.

Ben
If you can't follow the money,
follow the ego.

Quoted message said:

Experimenting upon oneself is generally an expedient
one is driven to for a test that might not be ethical to
conduct upon other subjects.

Hmmm. I can scarcely remember ever reading any clinical papers
regarding studies conducted this way (though I don't doubt they're out
there).
However, this general plot line was used in many of the cheap Hammer
horror films of yore.

Steve

For example, poisons, or

Quoted message said:

proving that yellow fever is transmitted through mosquito
bites.

However, experimenting with the psychological and
physiological effects of testosterone is in a different
category. The drug is already regularly used in clinical
practice, so there are plenty of subjects available. But
the real issue is that the average Principal Investigator
is already well-enough supplied with ego, aggressiveness,
and feelings of power, confidence, control, and domination.
One man's sacrifice in the name of science is another
man's good excuse for getting a high.

Ben
If you can't follow the money,
follow the ego.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Steven Bornfeld said:

Quoted message said:

Experimenting upon oneself is generally an expedient
one is driven to for a test that might not be ethical to
conduct upon other subjects.

Hmmm. I can scarcely remember ever reading any clinical papers
regarding studies conducted this way (though I don't doubt they're out
there).
However, this general plot line was used in many of the cheap Hammer
horror films of yore.

Gah! Heliobacter pylori! Ulcers!

--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

Ryan Cousineau said:

And Dr. Barry Marshall:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Marshall

Ulcers: they can be cured,

What about that guy who injected himself with an HIV containated needle,
to demonstrate that HIV does not cause AIDS, what happened to him?

Ryan Cousineau said:

Steven Bornfeld said:

Quoted message said:

Experimenting upon oneself is generally an expedient
one is driven to for a test that might not be ethical to
conduct upon other subjects.

Hmmm. I can scarcely remember ever reading any clinical papers
regarding studies conducted this way (though I don't doubt they're out
there).
However, this general plot line was used in many of the cheap Hammer
horror films of yore.

Gah! Heliobacter pylori! Ulcers!

Like Steve said, it's rare. A perhaps more well-known example
is yellow fever, especially in the case of Jesse Lazear, who
actually died. Barry Marshall got better.

http://yellowfever.lib.virginia.edu/reed/lazear.html
http://yellowfever.lib.virginia.edu/reed/story.html

trg said:

Well, I also have had testosterone injections. And there were in fact no
immediate effects. Clearer?

Someone that works here had a pituitary gland problem, pretty serious,
and evidently he gets regular injections for one of the effected
'other functions' that the pituitary controls. He says that he does,
in fact, feel absolutely great after a testosterone injection. Says
its the greatest drug in the world.

Entire conversation had nothing to do with Landis and I'm waiting and
seeing on the results - it doesn't raise the price of beer to wait -
so this is just an observation. Some people anyway do feel as if they
received a boost.

"Makes you feel like a tiger" is pretty close to his comment.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Curtis L. Russell said:

trg said:

Well, I also have had testosterone injections. And there were in fact no
immediate effects. Clearer?

Someone that works here had a pituitary gland problem, pretty serious,
and evidently he gets regular injections for one of the effected
'other functions' that the pituitary controls. He says that he does,
in fact, feel absolutely great after a testosterone injection. Says
its the greatest drug in the world.

Entire conversation had nothing to do with Landis and I'm waiting and
seeing on the results - it doesn't raise the price of beer to wait -
so this is just an observation. Some people anyway do feel as if they
received a boost.

"Makes you feel like a tiger" is pretty close to his comment.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Low Testosterone levels are linked with stress, and also these anti
aging industry is also selling this stuff "for feeling better"