Let the prohormone lawsuits begin!

Joe Humble said:

Poor poor PA...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/chi-0602100280feb10,1,105446.story?track=rss&ctrack=1&cset=true
--
Is this thing on?<<

Someone who blames two bottles of 1-AD for ongoing endocrinal problems
over a year later is simply not credible, and hopefully will be laughed
out of court.

W. Bacon said:

Joe Humble said:

Poor poor PA...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/chi-0602100280feb10,1,105446.story?track=rss&ctrack=1&cset=true
--
Is this thing on?<<

Someone who blames two bottles of 1-AD for ongoing endocrinal problems
over a year later is simply not credible, and hopefully will be laughed
out of court.

Were these and other prohormones studied in large clinical trials
(say, on the scale comparable to an approved medication, like Vioxx),
using dosages normally taken as athletic aid?

DZ said:

W. Bacon said:

Joe Humble said:

Poor poor PA...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/chi-0602100280feb10,1,105446.story?track=rss&ctrack=1&cset=true
--
Is this thing on?<<

Someone who blames two bottles of 1-AD for ongoing endocrinal problems
over a year later is simply not credible, and hopefully will be laughed
out of court.

Were these and other prohormones studied in large clinical trials
(say, on the scale comparable to an approved medication, like Vioxx),
using dosages normally taken as athletic aid?

Under the DSHEA, that's irrelevant. It would be like suing because
you had a bad reaction to green tea capsules.

JMW said:

DZ said:

W. Bacon said:

Joe Humble wrote:
> Poor poor PA...
>
> http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/chi-0602100280feb10,1,105446.story?track=rss&ctrack=1&cset=true
> --
> Is this thing on?<<

Someone who blames two bottles of 1-AD for ongoing endocrinal problems
over a year later is simply not credible, and hopefully will be laughed
out of court.

Were these and other prohormones studied in large clinical trials
(say, on the scale comparable to an approved medication, like Vioxx),
using dosages normally taken as athletic aid?

Under the DSHEA, that's irrelevant. It would be like suing because
you had a bad reaction to green tea capsules.

My question is not about legal aspects. I'm wondering if people who
take that stuff basically elect to be guinea pigs in a badly
controlled experiment.

John said:

DZ said:

JMW said:

DZ wrote:
> W. Bacon <[email hidden]> wrote:
>> Joe Humble wrote:
>>> http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/chi-0602100280feb10,1,105446.story?track=rss&ctrack=1&cset=true
>>
>> Someone who blames two bottles of 1-AD for ongoing endocrinal problems
>> over a year later is simply not credible, and hopefully will be laughed
>> out of court.
>
>Were these and other prohormones studied in large clinical trials
>(say, on the scale comparable to an approved medication, like Vioxx),
>using dosages normally taken as athletic aid?

Under the DSHEA, that's irrelevant. It would be like suing because
you had a bad reaction to green tea capsules.

My question is not about legal aspects. I'm wondering if people who
take that stuff basically elect to be guinea pigs in a badly
controlled experiment.

Yes. Quit being a [censored] and join the club. 😉

You mentioned that you're interested in life extension so I'm still
wondering how you make such decisions and balance potential risks and
benefits. I'm not judging it. I'd simply not want to take something as
understudied, yet as potent that it causes testicular atrophy. It
isn't "green tea capsules".

"Nobody died from it" is not a good argument. Extra 20lb is not a
matter of life or death. I did a lot of statistical work for an HIV
drug study. That drug causes very serious side effects in 5% of people
who take it. If a patient with the bad reaction to the drug is
rechallenged once again, the reaction becomes potentially fatal. In
case of this drug the risk of dying from AIDS is so large, the risk is
justified.

DZ said:

W. Bacon said:

Joe Humble said:

Poor poor PA...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/chi-0602100280feb10,1,105446.story?track=rss&ctrack=1&cset=true
--
Is this thing on?<<

Someone who blames two bottles of 1-AD for ongoing endocrinal problems
over a year later is simply not credible, and hopefully will be laughed
out of court.

Were these and other prohormones studied in large clinical trials
(say, on the scale comparable to an approved medication, like Vioxx),
using dosages normally taken as athletic aid?<<

Steroids have been widely used for over 50 years...

W. Bacon said:

DZ said:

W. Bacon said:

Joe Humble wrote:
> Poor poor PA...
>
> http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/chi-0602100280feb10,1,105446.story?track=rss&ctrack=1&cset=true
> --
> Is this thing on?<<

Someone who blames two bottles of 1-AD for ongoing endocrinal problems
over a year later is simply not credible, and hopefully will be laughed
out of court.

Were these and other prohormones studied in large clinical trials
(say, on the scale comparable to an approved medication, like Vioxx),
using dosages normally taken as athletic aid?<<

Steroids have been widely used for over 50 years...

He said "studied," not "used." And the controlled studies using
supraphysiological dosages of anabolic steroids did not use anywhere
near the amounts used by bodybuilders.

I believe that anyone who wants to "roll the dice" on this stuff
should be able to do so. But let's not delude ourselves on how
extensively these things have been studied.

DZ wrote:

[...]

Quoted message said:

Do you know how much time and money are spent on

Do you?

Quoted message said:

promising compounds that in the end come out total failures?

And how do you define success? If death is part of your definition of
total failure then it's ALL total failure eventually.

--
Curt
http://curtjames.com/

JMW said:

W. Bacon said:

DZ said:

W. Bacon <[email hidden]> wrote:
> Joe Humble wrote:
>> Poor poor PA...
>>
>> http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/chi-0602100280feb10,1,105446.story?track=rss&ctrack=1&cset=true
>> --
>> Is this thing on?<<
>
> Someone who blames two bottles of 1-AD for ongoing endocrinal problems
> over a year later is simply not credible, and hopefully will be laughed
> out of court.

Were these and other prohormones studied in large clinical trials
(say, on the scale comparable to an approved medication, like Vioxx),
using dosages normally taken as athletic aid?<<

Steroids have been widely used for over 50 years...

He said "studied," not "used." And the controlled studies using
supraphysiological dosages of anabolic steroids did not use anywhere
near the amounts used by bodybuilders.

I believe that anyone who wants to "roll the dice" on this stuff
should be able to do so. But let's not delude ourselves on how
extensively these things have been studied.<<

Very extensively, actually, esp. in normal, therapeutic dosages (2
bottles of 1-AD is a trival amount for a cycle, far less "potent" than
the Rx dosages of any number of currently or formerly widely prescribed
steroids). Of course one could argue that 1-AD/1-testerone is somehow
unlike all similar drugs, etc.

But the real story is very likely "Scumbag sues Pat Arnold for
something Pat Arnold's products had nothing to do with because scumbag
wants money at any cost, truth be damned" See also: Finger in Chili,
Wendy's

Curt James said:

DZ said:

Do you know how much time and money are spent on

Do you?

Sorry, Curt. Nothing personal,
but I'm not <curt> ~*INTERESTED*~ </curt>.

DZ

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

promising compounds that in the end come out total failures?

And how do you define success? If death is part of your definition of
total failure then it's ALL total failure eventually.

W. Bacon said:

JMW said:

W. Bacon said:

DZ wrote:
> W. Bacon <[email hidden]> wrote:
> > Joe Humble wrote:
> >> Poor poor PA...
> >>
> >> http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/chi-0602100280feb10,1,105446.story?track=rss&ctrack=1&cset=true
> >> --
> >> Is this thing on?<<
> >
> > Someone who blames two bottles of 1-AD for ongoing endocrinal problems
> > over a year later is simply not credible, and hopefully will be laughed
> > out of court.
>
> Were these and other prohormones studied in large clinical trials
> (say, on the scale comparable to an approved medication, like Vioxx),
> using dosages normally taken as athletic aid?<<

Steroids have been widely used for over 50 years...

He said "studied," not "used." And the controlled studies using
supraphysiological dosages of anabolic steroids did not use anywhere
near the amounts used by bodybuilders.

I believe that anyone who wants to "roll the dice" on this stuff
should be able to do so. But let's not delude ourselves on how
extensively these things have been studied.<<

Very extensively, actually, esp. in normal, therapeutic dosages (2
bottles of 1-AD is a trival amount for a cycle, far less "potent" than
the Rx dosages of any number of currently or formerly widely prescribed
steroids). Of course one could argue that 1-AD/1-testerone is somehow
unlike all similar drugs, etc.

[a] You were talking about recognized anabolic steroids, not
prohormones.
[b] I've got most of the prohormone studies right here, so I'll gladly
address them, too, if you wish.
[c] I've read the studies, Dan. If you think there are *controlled*
studies of anabolic steroid use in amounts commonly used by
bodybuilders, then cite them. And I'm not talking about the anecdotal
studies of bodybuilders using undetermined amount with researchers
inquiring into their health problems. Cite *controlled* studies, Dan,
or stop bullshitting.

Quoted message said:

But the real story is very likely "Scumbag sues Pat Arnold for
something Pat Arnold's products had nothing to do with because scumbag
wants money at any cost, truth be damned" See also: Finger in Chili,
Wendy's

DZ lied:

Quoted message said:

Curt James said:

DZ said:

Do you know how much time and money are spent on

Do you?

Sorry, Curt.

I'll take that as a no.

(Thanks for verifying your ignorance on the subject, however.)

Quoted message said:

Nothing personal, but I'm not <curt> ~*INTERESTED*~ </curt>.

If that were true then you probably wouldn't have found it necessary
to reply ~*AT ALL*~! :-)

Dumbass.

Quoted message said:

DZ

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

promising compounds that in the end come out total failures?

And how do you define success? If death is part of your definition of
total failure then it's ALL total failure eventually.

See how that works? Better luck next time. And, yes, I suspect there
will be a next time.

--
Curt
http://curtjames.com/

JMW said:

"W. Bacon" <[email hidden]> wrote:

[...]

Quoted message said:

[c] I've read the studies, Dan.

ahahahaHAHAHAH!

Like you're "Dan"'s best pal.

You know W. Bacon? You close enough to call him by his alleged first
name? Or is this just a technique you use to make yourself feel
somethingsomething.

Rhetorical.

JMW, change your initials to TBR and be done with it.

--
Curt
http://curtjames.com/

Joe Humble said:

Poor poor PA...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/chi-0602100280feb10,1,105446.story?track=rss&ctrack=1&cset=true
--
Is this thing on?

[censored], that [censored] needs to quit blamin' his overwhelming gayness on
drugs and take it like the er, ah, "man" that he claims he is, or was
or might have been, sometime.

EatMe said:

Joe Humble said:

Poor poor PA...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/chi-0602100280feb10,1,105446.story?track=rss&ctrack=1&cset=true
--
Is this thing on?

[censored], that [censored] needs to quit blamin' his overwhelming gayness on
drugs and take it like the er, ah, "man" that he claims he is, or was
or might have been, sometime.

I gather you attempting to take over where TBR failed?

Problem is in that self-appointed role, by comparison with TBR, you
lack his wit innate and cultural sophistication.

You have a long way to go little man.

Uh...reread my post. If you wish to reply to me, please reply to what I
actually wrote.

Thanks!

W. Bacon said:

Uh...reread my post. If you wish to reply to me, please reply to what I
actually wrote.

OK. I re-read your post. You're still wrong, and you posted a quick
missive without quoting earlier posts because you know can't cite
studies that support what you claimed. And that's exactly why I made
that challenge.

The bottom line: The use of anabolic steroids in the amounts used by
bodybuilders has been subjected to almost no testing in controlled
studies. Testing of therapeutic amounts is irrelevant because that's
not how they're used. And the testing of prohormones in amounts
sufficient to cause significant muscular anabolism is equally limited.

Quoted message said:

Thanks!

You're welcome!

JMW said:

W. Bacon said:

Uh...reread my post. If you wish to reply to me, please reply to
what I actually wrote.

OK. I re-read your post. You're still wrong, and you posted a quick
missive without quoting earlier posts because you know can't cite
studies that support what you claimed. And that's exactly why I made
that challenge.

The bottom line: The use of anabolic steroids in the amounts used by
bodybuilders has been subjected to almost no testing in controlled
studies. Testing of therapeutic amounts is irrelevant because that's
not how they're used. And the testing of prohormones in amounts
sufficient to cause significant muscular anabolism is equally limited.

What I asked in the beginning was actually a question. Sometimes
people see my style of writing as condescending or snobbish, but one
should realize that's just the way I choose most familiar words while
I speak and write, being damn foreigner and all that.

The way I'd like to look at the "designer drugs" issue is to compare
the amount of research, money, clinical studies etc. to the amount of
resources pharmaceutical companies spend on a drug to bring it to the
market. A large proportion, like 20%, of drugs still fail due to
safety concerns after more than half a million is already spent on
compound screening, biological research, and then clinical
studies. Only about 10% of those entering controlled human studies
reach approval. The Phase III trials are well controlled, large and
expensive. Is there anything comparable done with "superdrol"? (and
other drugs bearing equally immature names :-))

DZ said:

JMW said:

W. Bacon said:

Uh...reread my post. If you wish to reply to me, please reply to
what I actually wrote.

OK. I re-read your post. You're still wrong, and you posted a quick
missive without quoting earlier posts because you know can't cite
studies that support what you claimed. And that's exactly why I made
that challenge.

The bottom line: The use of anabolic steroids in the amounts used by
bodybuilders has been subjected to almost no testing in controlled
studies. Testing of therapeutic amounts is irrelevant because that's
not how they're used. And the testing of prohormones in amounts
sufficient to cause significant muscular anabolism is equally limited.

What I asked in the beginning was actually a question. Sometimes
people see my style of writing as condescending or snobbish, but one
should realize that's just the way I choose most familiar words while
I speak and write, being damn foreigner and all that.

The way I'd like to look at the "designer drugs" issue is to compare
the amount of research, money, clinical studies etc. to the amount of
resources pharmaceutical companies spend on a drug to bring it to the
market. A large proportion, like 20%, of drugs still fail due to
safety concerns after more than half a million

Bzzz! I meant half a BILLION.

Quoted message said:

is already spent on compound screening, biological research, and
then clinical studies. Only about 10% of those entering controlled
human studies reach approval. The Phase III trials are well
controlled, large and expensive. Is there anything comparable done
with "superdrol"? (and other drugs bearing equally immature names
:-))