Talk:Anabolic steroid/Archive 1

message: Even an adult woman will experience growth of the clitoris, just as she would deepening of the voice.  There will also be scrotal type alterations in the outer labia, the clitoris would not grow indefinitely, but would stop probably at about the size of an adult male glans penis, which I believe is the analogous tissue, the inner labia are analogous to the shaft of the male penis.  HGH, although it cannot lengthen adult bones, will cause most soft tissues to grow including the nose, penis and clitoris.  Since there is exposure to HGH throughout life, this one reason for larger noses among the elderly and possibly the depiction of old witches as having long noses.--Silverback 01:44, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  I believe the clitoris will grow even in an adult woman 

message: This page is in serious need of NPOV, all it talks about are the positive effects, HELLO performance enhancing drug here! Known side effects... 
Roleypolinde 07:24, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Anabolic steriods are also natural components of the body and have roles in medicine.  Many of the side effects are more likely with abuse rather than mere use, although direct effects such as virilization, would be considered side effects in woman, assuming they are not taking them for that reason.  That said, what side effects are not mentioned in the article?--Silverback 11:33, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Giving the article a good lookover, it is more balanced than I originally thought, I'll call this resolved for now-- Roleypolinde 17:38, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutral Point of View needed(resolved)

message: changed back to "admitted to years of steroid use"
actually IIRC he released a publication that was advertised in the back of muscle magazines. in this he actually played down the role of steroids, claiming that he took dianabol to prevent muscle loss whilst dieting for a competition. Weightshead 18:46, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: credited his physique to years of steroid use

message: :The "dangers" have all but disappeared when applied on a personal level.  In the meantime, the drugs remain C-III.  They are the only compounds on the list of the DEA compounds which have neither psychological or physical addictive properties - the very criteria for having any compound fall under the auspices of the DEA.
While I am not offering a personal opinion on the matter (as I am not a doctor), the first and last sentences here are clearly disputed.  I assume "C-III" means Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act.  It could be mentioned that these facts are disputed, though that may be best accomplished somewhere else. 
I merged the history paragraph above this with the history section.  The section on the initial hazards of injection does not have references.  It should, and so should any claims that these dangers have passed.
-- Beland 03:41, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV text removed, references needed 

message: a 1998 Pennsylvania State University study found that 175,000 high school girls nationwide reported taking steroids at least once in their lifetime.
Does anybody know what percentage this was? A link to the original paper would be ideal. --NeuronExMachina 07:36, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My memory from 7 years ago. I think it was published in JAMA. I think the percentages were surprisingly high. If I remember correctly at least 5-10% of high school girls reported taking anabolic steroids. HOWEVER, there was no way to verify whether the boys and girls had any idea what was and wasn't a steroid, or whether they were telling the truth or exaggerating. I am very skeptical. alteripse 23:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  question about study 

message: I'd like to add a note on the way steroids are generally associated with doping, and that "on steroids" has subsequently become an expression for any dramatically boosted thing, as in "Wikipedia is Linus' Law on steroids." I don't know where, though. --Kizor 09:58, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "On steroids"

message: I've noticed that the study saying a particular percent of high school students in polls have admited to using steroids.
I wanted to point out that I have heard that these studies simply asked the question "have you ever used steroids" or something like that where the person answering may not of known what exactly would of quallified as "steroids" and may of checked "yes,I have done steroids." when in fact he had just taken creatine or some other food supplement which he confused with anabolic steroids. Believe it or not,Most people believe that food supplements are anabolic steroids and often get them confused.
So I think a source of the study along with what precise question was asked to the students was so that we can make sure there was no possibility of the students confusing a food supplement such as a protein shake or creatine with an anabolic steroid which often happens.
66.6.80.48 16:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the highschool studies... 

message: Its AFD debate suggested a merge and redirect, but the content of the article merely repeated what this article states, so I merely redirected it. Johnleemk | Talk 12:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Steroids in High School Athletics]] redirects here 

message: All other synthetic AAS are testosterone-derivatives which have both anabilic and androgenic properties, in different proportions. 
*Not all anabolic steroids are testosterone derivatives. They react with androgen receptors and many are modelled on testosterone, but that is not the same as being a chemical derivative.
Properly known as Androgenic/Anabolic Steroids or AAS are a ...
*This phrase is a poor one to lead the article. It is an awkward contrivance that contradicts the article title. It refers to a very minority phrase. And who says what is "properly"? Farther down, if you want to say, sometimes referred to as "anabolic-androgenic steroids... I would not object. thanks alteripse 19:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Alteripse|alteripse; Your first revision to my article appreciated, however, you are incorrect on your second revision.
When you say "who says what is proper?", my answer to you would be the medical community.
Perhaps it is a poor one to lead the article, but they are correctly reffered to as AAS, not just "anabolic: steroids.
Please post back to me and tell me what you think. As you can see, I am new to posting here, so your help will b appreciated.
Thank you, Cavell
I have heard the designation before, but few medical texts and journals use the combined designation. I have never heard a doctor use the phrase in speech-- we say androgens or we say anabolic steroid depending on context (they not interchangeable terms in many contexts), but we never actually say "androgenic/anabolic steroid". I have no problem mentioning it farther down in the article, but it is a minority usage, not a "proper" one. Does that make sense? alteripse 18:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: reason for reversion

message: Alteripse, regarding "preservation of muscle mass", im curious is the current stance of the literature that AAS prevent protein breakdown? or is it a case of preserving net protein balance via increased protein synthesis? im not suggesting the article needs altering, its purely to satisfy my own curiousity. i always thought it was the largely the latter... StrengthCoach 22:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Preservation of muscle mass 

message: Left ventricular hypertrophy seems to be a medium term effect of steroid use and is dose dependant - this declines several years after discontinuation but remains slightly above baseline levels. StrengthCoach 10:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enlargement of the heart 

message: The following paragraph, in my opinion, needs to be completely rewritten.
In addition, an entire market for counterfeit drugs emerged at this time. Never seen in the previous 30 years of their availability on the U.S. market, computers and scanning technology made the ease of counterfeiting legitimate products by utilizing their original label design, and the market was flooded with products that contained everything from mere vegetable oil to toxic substances which unsuspecting users injected into themselves, of which some died as a result of blood poisoning, methanol poisoning or subcutaneous abcess.
My points are these: (1) Did "an entire market" for counterfeit drugs really emerge in the early 1990's? Or, was it "an entire market for anabolic steroids" that emerged in the early 1990's? Was the writer trying to tell us something like "Counterfeit anabolic steroids became  prevalent in the early 1990's"? (2) The second sentence, from its "Never seen..." introductory phrase to the phrase "original label design" is improper use of the English language.
Although I'm comfortable making minor grammar and spelling edits, changing an entire paragraph concerning a subject with which I have no expertise is beyond my arrogance. However, I might propose the following alternate version:
By the beginning of the 1990's, personal computers, scanners and printers made it easier for  drug counterfeiters to sell their products with copies of legitimate product labeling. Counterfeit anabolic steroids therefore became more prevalent; some of these contained dangerous or toxic substances which unsuspecting users injected into themselves.  A number of deaths resulted from blood poisoning, methanol poisoning, and subcutaneous abcess.
This proposed version seems to convey the information which the original version is intended to convey, I guess.  Note that my introductory "By the beginning of the 1990's" is a placeholder, and probably needs to be replaced with something which better provides continuity.
But, I have no idea if the information presented in either version of the paragraph is really true, of course. Any input?  Thanks.
--GrouchyDan 06:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  An inferior paragraph in '''History''' section 

message: Muscles do not grow by cell division. muscle cells do not divide during adulthood. The intro alludes to that. It should be changed and/or cleared up.  And do steriods really directly cause cell division? Sources anyone?--152.20.189.21 20:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  muscle growth 

message: I have re-added the information which Ashmoo has deleted. The Wiki:Not policy states Wikipedia should not be a "how-to" guide. This information is not "how to". It is warnings
on the dangers associated with incorrect administration. Why would you want this information removed? More information is always better. That is the true essence of what makes Wiki so sucessful. The continuing growth of knowledge. Cavell 04:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Administration

message: Shouldn't the side effects due to aromatization be included under side-effects? Gynecomastia is only mentioned under Minimising the Side-effects. Jack Daw 18:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then it would seem a propos that a discussion of the "clinical reality" resulting from illegalization be also included; the impact of criminal laws on health issues, i.e. fake and contaminated stuff, misadministration, lack of education because users can't speak to their physicians, the health impacts of taking someone off a cycle drastically when they are arrested for possession/use, and so on.  See Four Pillars Strategy and Four Pillars Drug Strategy re heroin users; Harm Reduction, Prevention, Treatment and Enforcement, in that order.  It's not a question of morality or what people should be doing, it's what they are doing that matters; and education, consultation and all the rest are much more serving the public interest through protecting health, rather than creating further problems by continued criminal treatment; it's a health issue, not a criminal one.  And the relationship of "recreational" or personal rehabilitative use to the growth of hormone therapy in treatment of andropause and other aging-male issues is critical to a full treatment of this subject (speaking as a 50 year old whose life has been transformed after years of disabuse from medical-system negligence and indifference). Skookum1 01:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Side effects from aromatization 

message: What would happen as far as bone or muscle growth for someone who used steroids and only did cardiovascular intense exercising (as opposed to weight-training)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.76.136.149 (talk • contribs) .
:I assume it would be similar to a cutting cycle for a weight trainer, the person would lose body fat while retaining lean mass (assuming appropriate caloric intake). --Bk0 (Talk) 17:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Might that amount to an increase in bone mass?71.76.135.102 21:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think it depends on the kind of cardio; light-impact probably not, but heavy-impact probably.  Thing is muscle growth in my experience has more to do with your diet, which the steroids simply allow you to eat more of; taking steroids by themselves, even with weight training, will not get you bigger unless you eat accordingly.  If you don't, it'll be like a cutting cycle; but I wouldn't think walking is as good for bones as something involving more tension; conversely, running's fairly bad for bones because of the shattering effect from impact (depending on surface, and your age, I'd think).Skookum1 01:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other effects 

message: In a few drug articles such as on Marijuana they address numerous issues that exist for anabolic steroids as well. For instance this article should include common 'myths' concerning the use of anabolic steroids. Including how the media demonizes anabolic steroids and only mentions them in negative contexts. Whenever we see any mention of Anabolic Steroids in the media, It's in a negative context. Despite anabolic steroids are being safely used by the medical community and others on a daily basis. Despite the fact that anabolic steroids are extremly benefitial to the medical community. The complete demonization of Steroids should atleast be mentioned partialy here. As well as absurd mentions of steroids in hollywood such as in 'fightclub' the movie where meatloafs character has breasts larger than most women supposedly from steroid abuse. In reality no victim of gyno in the world would have breasts that look like that. The absolute worst case scenerios that aren't even caused by steroids but genetics make the male breast about the size of a tenis ball. No steroid user could possibly get formation of breasts the size portrayed in the movie, It's a physical impossibility.
Also concerning the 'side effects', There should be sources from scientific studies for all of the side effects mentioned. I see none.
:And there are, in fact, none; for many of the scarier scare myths; Aussie and German doctors did tons of blind studies on 'roid rage for example, and couldn't prove it; American doctors say they have proof, but their papers were, I believe, not peer reviewed.  Then there's the legions of horror stories about deaths and permanent organ damage, but on http://www.andropause.com, the British doctors who run that site maintain that in thirty years of steady testosterone use in therapy in Europe and elsewhere, even at high doses, no such deaths or damage have been recorded.  As for balding and gynos, well, let's compare those to the side-effects of SSRIs and Vioxx and ritalin and and and, which are pushed at the public like candy by doctors looking for a quick fix for their patients' personal problems (well, not Vioxx so much, but you get the idea; dangerous pharmaceuticals are given out like candy).  In this context, a mention of the recently-increased criminal penalties for simple possession in the US deserves mention/critique: the critique being "WHY?".  "Because this is a war on drugs" isn't a valid answer, when the doctors are pushing far more dangerous drugs at their patients, even children, every day....Skookum1 07:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As for Meatloaf's breasts, those are from lifelong obesity, fer chrissake.Skookum1 07:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can find an Australian one and I think a German one - a European one, at any rate.  I found them during research for a legal case.  And OK, "tons" is hyperbole in this case, although it does apply to the amount of ritalin, prozac/paxil/zyban/whatnot, valium, oxycontin and other crap that doctors will much more easily write you a scrip for, and which are far more dangerous.  It'll take me a while to find my notes on those studies again but they do exist...I think I found the Australian one via a link off www.andropause.com.  I'll dig these out later when I get a chance.Skookum1 17:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text: "American doctors who are part of the anti-steroid propaganda/disinformation community" should be a qualifier there; or American/Canadian doctors who pander to the IOC's anti-doping hysteria/witchhunt (see Talk:Bodybuilding and search "Kelly Guest" to find my post about this.  Poin here is that the doctors in general, who you point out find it hard to study, find it hard to study because of the paucity of materials available AND because the illegality of the product lines makes it hard for users to come forward; this was the point about British doctors overriding any restrictive laws there (which are not as strong as in the US) by invoking the Hippocratic Oath; they monitor their patients and compile data on heavy users.  And yeah, roid rage is folk culture; in my estimation it has a lot more to do with the psychology of the sort of person who gets involved with steroids because of their illegality, i.e. who already may have insecurity or temper problems (the number of b.b.ers I know who were either bullied and/or sexually abused when young is overwhelming; sorry guys don't mean to say you all are, but it's common enough to be worth commenting on; jokingly one of the 6'8" guys I knew, a professional wrestler, said to someone else on the film set we were working on about some homophobic fear or other "Look, we were all f**ked by our uncles, but get over it, OK?").  How does that tie into the illegality?  Well, the tough-guy thing is often rooted in that, and tough guys are the ones who like to get involved in crime, either because it's "cool" or it makes them feel powerful; and so the correlation crime+steroids=goofs comes into play.  Sure, bodybuilder steroid users before crimnalization were still often insecure and prone to tantrums, but they weren't connected to the heavy-drug and gangster crowd, not intrinsically as they can be now; so are people in traffic; but after criminalization a lot of the truly psycho found out the stuff could help them be even more psycho, and BIG to boot.  It's all pretty complicated; not enough proper research and analysis of the phenomenon has been done; the studies I read maintained that there was no direct cause-effect, that there were too many other factors at play.  And in my experience, I'll submit that because of illegalization it's a certain kind of guy who has the connections to get the stuff; and those guys are already prone to outbursts and nastiness.  Steroids just make you more confident that you can get away with it, or at least that you don't care what people think.  I know I'm already a cranky old fart; it's just before I'd be more likely to turn my being pissed off at someone trying to push me aside (as is often the case with short, assertive people, as big guys know) inside, i.e. to either choke it down or introvert it somehow, whereas "now" I'm more likely to say "what the f**k is your problem?"  Deal is I'm 6'5" 240lbs (skinny by bb standards) and, even without steroids, people react to you as if you'd intimidated them when all you're doing is standing up to their passive-aggressive bullshit; even a slight edge on my voice has people thinking I'm yelling or threatening them; the same tone of voice that they used on me....that's a personal experience and obviously subjective; but again, the reason roid rage CANNOT be studied and either proven or disproven is because the laws make it difficult for researchers and doctors and shrinks to communicate with users, and for users to feel comfortable being part of such studies, or being able to talk to medical people AT ALL.  That's what I meant by "clinical reality" - the effect the law has on research and public health is DECIDEDLY NEGATIVE.Skookum1 17:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Fine, but because of the laws and the DEA/IOC stigma campaign, even andropause doses can't be easily obtained; again this is the clinical reality issue.  Actual health needs and uses are being restricted "because Ben Jonson ran too fast"; the IOC, to me, is particularly guilty of pressing for criminalization because of use in their high-and-holy sports venues, but the brush they've used is wide; it's because of their propaganda that I spent five years barely able to walk, when a good shot in the ass or two would have had me up and walking (see Talk:Bodybuilding if I haven't discussed that here).Skookum1 17:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text: AGAIN, this is because no records are kept because of the legal taboos; and the cite again is from www.andropause.com (I'll find the exact page later) and other European sites,; but here's a counter-question: list me some of the deaths due to steroid abuse.  And isolate out of those the individuals who weren't also alcoholics, coke users, bain/heroin users, pill takers etc etc etc; and those bb'ers like Benaziza who died were not steroid-caused, but diuretic (which is the fault, to me, of the shift in bodybuilding judging parameters from aesthetics to rippedness and megamass...blame it on Weider's tastes, in fact....)Skookum1 17:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Authoritative source?  How's the IOC for starts?  And don't pretend the criminalizatoin of steroids as "dangerous drugs" in the same years that the Reagan-instigated "War on Drugs" started is accidental; or that "drugs" has become some kind of near-religious shibboleth in American media witchhunting, as if it were the next best thing to bestiality.  Logic?  This has nothing to do with logic, but with media hype and IOC/DEA propagandizing; ask them for THEIR logic.Skookum1 17:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, I do actually, and what I said about doctors pushing dangerous experimental pharamaceuticals at their patients for minor ailments (depression, aches, feeling out-of-sorts) is VERY TRUE.  That's not demonization.  What's demonization is having even marijuana-legalization and heroin-normalization advocates look at you concerning steroid use as if you'd committed bestiality or somehow become less than human; it's because of the media hype that "steroids are bad" and the fostering of ignorance about their proper use (even at high doses there's "proper use") by way of keeping the whole thing in the dark, and therefore under the control of the pushers and counterfeiters.  The Four Pillars strategy I spoke of elsewhere (either here or Talk:Bodybuilding) should be brought to bear; bring things into the light of day so they can be studied, users can receive counselling, education and proper medical services, and so on.  As with any contraband, continued illegalization means only more money for the criminal crowd, more risk of potentially dangerous counterfeits and fakes, and (interestingly enough) more use; and more unedcated use to boot.  Take your head out of the sand.  I meant to ask - you don't work for the Ministry of Disinformation do you?Skookum1 17:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The Ministry of Disinformation quip was a quip; find a sense of humour before you reply, and maybe read 1984 and consider the term "Newspeak".  As for the rest of your reply, all I see is denial, denial, denial.  "Exaggerations, hyperbole and bullshit" are the stock-in-trade of the anti-steroid lobby, just as they are of the anti-marijuana lobby and anti-everything else lobby.  And yeah, didn't I say that there have been NO STUDIES on bodybuilder dosages, and this is the problem?  And the problem is caused by their criminalization??  I'm not sure at this point if you're just being anal about cites and citability, which is fine, or whether you're trying to debunk my general argument: which is that the CLINICAL REALITY is that research into bodybuilder-level usage and other "recreational" (or in my case, self-rehabilitative) dosing has been held back by the stone-age mentality of US legislators and DEA propagandists; the health issues caused by criminalization are a LOT more serious than those posed by the substances themselves.  I'd rather have gynos that a bottle of fake shit, that's for sure; I'd like to be sure that what I'm buying isn't just vegetable oil or repressed aspirin, and doesn't have contaminants in it, or as in one case in Calgary years ago, Armour-all (instead of Winnie; the recipient was a Mountie so it may have been a revenge-sale; he had to have part of his butt amputated).  I do note, also, that someone here has belanket-denounced all the vast user forums on the internet as having no validity, even though many of the guys contributing are pharmacists or doctors or physios themselves, as well as experienced users; their knowledge and experience is being denied as having value, and therefore "not citable".  But as long as US doctors and medical researchers either can't or won't do the necessary research, the pro-steroid, or at least neutral-steroid, position, will never be citable.  Handy, huh?  That's partly what Newspeak is about: if truth presents its head, discredit the source and, if possible, cause lurid scandal so as to not have to discuss the science.  And, in this case, the clinical reality of what has happened because of illegalization - the burgeoning of the counterfeit/fake trade and the involvement of organized crime; same as what happened with marijuana (the biggest industry where I live; and every time there's a bust or crackdown, there's more money to be made, same as with alcohol Prohibition; and the policing establishment, at the behest/influence of the US and DEA, spends more time hunting down grows than it does on the escalation of property crime, dangerous driving, financial buggering-around and so on; the steroid trade's not as big although - because it's illegal - it's now also interconnected.  So the social consequences of illegalization of ANY DRUG/substance are a reality, even though you may deny the citability of any disputative source to your own position.  Denying the validity of evidence is an old legal technique, as well as a p.r./propagandist one.  That's why my comment about the Ministry of Disinformation (in Orwell it was the Ministry of Truth, only slightly less feared than the evil Ministry of Love....)Skookum1 17:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Things that should be added.... 

message: This is some research I found. here
here
here
here
Keep up the good work guys
:All sources in the hip-pocket of the DEA and all American; got any European or British or Australian studies for us?  Or only ones from the land of the free and the home of the brave?  Skookum1 17:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone once said (a few inches above) "Denying the validity of evidence is an old legal technique, as well as a p.r./propagandist one." It seems very apposite here. Since you cannot possibly have any evidence that all of these authors are somehow in thrall to the DEA, it appears you are quite familiar with the tactic of simply denying the validity of any evidence that doesn't support your opinion. I am less and less impressed. alteripse 18:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The principal things that press my buttons and deter my sense of humor are (a) the use of inaccurate information or claims to support a position, (b) sloppy, illogical, or dishonest arguing, and (c) people who want to impute opinions or positions to me that I do not hold. Although I didn't set out to pick a fight and I suspect we might disagree on fewer things than you think, you have been transgressing in all three areas with at least as much force and humorlessness as I was. I can respect the position that rules should keep anabolic steroids out of sports, but it shouldn't be supported by exaggerated claims of toxicity. I can respect the position that society has an interest in restricting use of many drugs to certain people or conditions, or the opposite position that all drugs should be freely available to everyone, but not when the positions are justified by inaccurate exaggerations or minimizations of risks and medical or social consequences. It was a ridiculous inconvenience when anabolic steroids were made controlled substances by the DEA and a result of confusing the sports policy issues with health issues; I would vote to rescind that classification in a moment. The issues of safety and efficacy should not be confused with social policy (although they are relevant), and issues related to non-competitive bodybuilding are different than the issues arising from use to gain a competitive athletic edge. The debate over the andropause, the definition of deficiency, and potential benefit or risk of supplementing men our age is completely different from both. If you argue intelligently and honestly a debate can be both enjoyable and informative to all involved. I looked at your user page and the stuff you put here doesnt seem to match it. Start over if you wish, but read carefully and try less overstatement. alteripse 20:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Misc

message: The following is excerpted from a newsletter distributed by www.elitefitness.com:
:The U.S. Sentencing Commission has published notice of temporary "emergency" amendments to the federal anabolic steroid sentencing guidelines and thing just got a lot tougher for American juicers! A LOT TOUGHER!
:03.27.06 - U.S. Anabolic Steroid Punishments Increased!
:The U.S. Sentencing Commission has published notice of temporary "emergency" (i.e., immediate) amendments to the federal anabolic steroid sentencing guidelines. Henceforth, injectable and oral steroids will be quantified for punishment in a 1:1 ratio to other Schedule III drugs, resulting in a twenty-fold measurement increase for injectable steroid units and a fifty-fold increase for oral steroid units. Steroids in other forms ("e.g., patch, topical cream, aerosol") will be reasonably estimated based on a consideration of 25mg as one unit. Additionally, sentencing enhancements will apply in cases involving distribution to "athletes" or where coaches use their positions to influence athletes to use steroids, as well as in cases involving "masking agents." While likely to impact dealers more than personal users, the new 1:1 ratio nonetheless ignores fundamental differences between steroid usage and volume patterns as compared to other Schedule III drugs. Other potential problems with the amendments include the lack of any reference to potency in oral or injectable steroids, potentially leading to black market adaptations to circumvent the amendment (e.g., the creation of high potency "mega-pills") as well as the lack of any knowledge requirement involving distribution (e.g., via the Internet) to unidentifiable customers who may turn out to be athletes. It is expected that the revisions will be made permanent by Congress in November. [For further information, see the written testimony of Rick Collins to the Sentencing Commission, the transcript of his appearance before the Commission, the Report of the USSC Steroids Working Group, and the Commission's Notice of Amendment to the guidelines.
Links (all PDFs) as in the newsletter.Skookum1 06:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Escalation of US penalties for steroid use/possession 

message: i made minor chandes to this article but suspect sum1 may have deleted part of it while i was reading it
212.120.230.226 22:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Misc

message: As was mentioned already, There is no section on the demonization of anabolic steroids and the psuedo science concerning their side effects like we see in the Marijuana articles.
There are no scientific sources in this article supporting any of the claims being made.
There is no discussion concerning scientific sources on the talk page.
There is no section about the people who support anabolic steroids being descheduled in the united states as there is in the marijuana section.
Alot of changes must be made to this article by people who know the scientific facts.
Alteripse does, he just doesn't want to admit that his scientific facts are compatible with the social and political and criminal realities caused by the demonization/illegalization.  Looks like I'll be the one writing an article about Vancouver's Four Pillars Strategy, which discusses substance abuse as a social and medical problem instead of as a criminal one.  I've been accused of ranting about "dark establishment forces"...no, not dark ones, I'd say, but simply blind and arrogant ones.  Arrogance and the medical profession go hand in hand; in this case it's "poppa knows best" - but what poppa wants has resulted in the broadening and deepening of the user-base; same as with anything you make illegal; you make it profitable, you make it pushable.  This has happened with marijuana, it happened with alcohol, and it's happening with steroids.  I'm over 40 (50) and have my own mind, and the medical profession wrote me off at 30 and told me I'd never walk again; when I asked about steroid rehab to rebuild my atrophied tissues and relieve me of the depression they'd rather pump me full of valium, xanax and SSRIs for (all incredibly dangerous drugs, the first two heavily addictive) and scold me for looking "unnaturally muscular"; what should I be instead?  Unnaturally skinny/fat, unnatrually depressed, unnatturally lethargic and wishing I could do instead of having to live in the kind of pain and debilitation they'd abandoned me to?  Yeah, OK, I've got a hate-on for doctors; but they earned it.  And what I think is that once you're over 40 or 35, it should be your choice, and you should be able to buy things over-the-counter or import them for your own use; instead of having to approach guys from the local bike gang or tong for what you HOPE will be real product.  "You don't need steroids to train and eat properly" some people will shoot back; but you haven't led my life, and lived in my body, and you don't have a clue.  Alteripse wants evidence; I'm the evidence, as are the huge bulk of steroids users that the medical community either can't or won't talk to.  That's not the users' fault.  It's the law's.Skookum1 19:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is in bad shape... 

message: "It is only illegal to buy steriods, not to use them; it falls under the same line of conviction as Liquor did during Prohibition." -- We need to tweak this to remove the USA-centricity here (Per the {globalize} template: "The examples and perspective in this article or section may not represent a worldwide view." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Template_messages/Cleanup - 201.78.251.20 21:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  USA-centric 

message: I am removing "Prostate cancer" and "Gingival overgrowth" until sources are provided. Once someone provides scientific studies supporting the claim that these are side effects then it can be put back up. Until then it doesn't belong on the page unsourced. I've never heard of AAS causing "Gingival overgrowth". Provide a source.
* I am adding prostate cancer again. The reason AAS can lead to prostate cancer is simple. Many types of AAS will convert readily to DHT. An over-abundance of DHT has been proven to affect tissues sensitive to it, for exaple the prostate. DHT can also be responsible for accelerating male pattern baldness.Cavell 20:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Explaining how it could possibly do it isn't the same as a scientific study concluding the same thing. Provide a scientific study as a source.--Wikidudeman 14:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing "Prostate cancer" and "Gingival overgrowth" until sources are provided. 

message: This is an example of the media-myth, false-information concerning steroid use/abuse; I hear the prostate cancer thing all the time; on the other hand, I also hear testosterone used as a treatment.  Gingival overgrowth strikes me as a synonym for acromegaly of the jawbone, although gingiva- is IIRC the gums and not the jawbones per se; acromegaly is associated with pituitary GH overproduction, not AAS.  Hype, hype, hype and paranoia, same as Alzado's unsubstantiated claim that his brain cancer was steroid caused, despite no epidimiology to that effect whatsoever with his form of brain cancer.  Sources please, yes.  I've also had a look at the roid rage sources posted above, which I'll excerpt some interesting lines from with my responses and comments later on; contradiction and obfuscation and the occasional bit of moralizing and self-justification are the order of the day, even in peer-reviewed scientific papers.  The one on animal AAS studies concerning aggression was particularly interesting, as it showed that it was only after steroid use had ended that increased tendencies to violence were noted....hmmm, somewhere I came across something that it's estrogen that makes men bitchy, not testosterone; it's when the latter aromatizes and turns to estrogen that the piece I'm thinking of commented that rage-like tendencies were observed; testosterone is associated with elation and buoyancy, as well as assertiveness....it's when it's absent from the body that anger and rage etc become an issue; and despite the ominous title of that piece, i.e. re effects on adolescent violent behaviour, the paper indicates that steroid use does NOT induce violence or aggression; ending it does.  Weird, huh?  But take a line or a title and run with out-of-context and you can say nearly anything, as any good political spin doctor knows (ref. the current White House or 34 Sussex in Canada regimes).  Kind of reminds me of the much-publicized study indicating brain damage and violent psychosis in baboons given MDMA (ecstasy); only two years later did it come out that they "made a mistake and gave the baboons crystal meth" instead....makes you wonder who the baboons were, huh?Skookum1 18:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Research from Turkey published in the Journal Periodontology, 77:1104-1109, 2006; showed that prolonged use of  anabolic steroids increased the risk of gum tissue enlargement. Comparisons of 27 bodybuilders who used AAS for more than a year, and 20 that never used AAS showed greater gum encroachment and gum thickness on the bodybuilders that used AAS. Yankees76 19:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re Prostate and Gingival comments above and general tone of papers cited on talk page 

message: Whoever removed the "Expert needed" and "Citations needed" should put it back ASAP. This page still needs an expert and 99% of the claims are sourceless. Also the 1st sourcelink is baseless and doesn't itself reference studies for the claims IT makes.DustinKP
:You should understand that Gresham's law applies to expertise on Wikipedia. Bad "expertise" will drive away good expertise if they both have equal authority. Be cautious when the "expert" will not cite sources and responds to requests with personal attacks and irrelevant or questionable generalizations from his own experience. alteripse 11:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds vaguely like a veiled accusation.  If it's me you're talking about, I never claimed expertise, and don't recall personal attacks (certainly not like those I'm capable of, to be sure); and as for finding promised cites, there are time issues; and I think you picked up from my userpage I have an extremely broad range of interests and am all over the place on Wiki.  If it's not me that you're talking about, I'll take the shoe off as it didn't fit anyway.Skookum1 14:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expert still needed, 1st source baseless. 

message: I've added an area called Popular Misconceptions which details popular misconceptions concerning anabolic steroid use.
Please add onto this with more popular misconceptions concerning anabolic steroids.--DustinKP 20:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Popular Misconceptions" area added. 

message: I've added some more sources to direct scientific studies on a few of the things mentioned in this article. However alot more work needs to be done on this article.
Those of you who have the time. Please search the web for scientific studies done on anabolic steroids that I can review and use for this article. As many scientific studies as possible.
please sign your post (above)Skookum1 00:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More reliable sources added. 

message: The reason I posted this site was in the course of writing Rick to see if he would come on board to do some edits concerning steroid laws; his expertise is only U.S. and not Canada or elsewhere: I don't know if you've looked at his page but here's a sample of recent articles written by him:
*08.28.05 - The Truth about Steroids and Suicide
*06.30.05 - Girls Gone Steroids?
*05.28.05 - Of Terrorism and Steroids
*04.29.05 - "Pumped-Up Hysteria" over Steroids
*04.29.05 - Steroids and Sports? Yes! An Interview with Norm Fost, MD
*04.21.05 - The Psychological Effects of Anabolic-Androgenic Steroids
*04.20.05 - Cops on Steroids
*04.20.05 - Adulterated Androstenedione: What FDA's Action Means for Industry
Now, I can appreciate the desire for medical expertise here, but you'd think legal expertise was also of concern to the content of the page; especially because in its current form it's so US-biased (like so much of the internet, and wiki, sigh...).  OK, you can say he has a bias; so will a lot of the medical expertise that may come on board; be it someone from the AMA or Dr. Colgan.  Maybe external links wasn't the right place to put the SteroidLaw.com link; but it belongs here somewhere, as it's not a product-sales bulletin board/website like so many (mesomophorsis, absolutelyhuge, elitefitness, ironman, musclemag etc).  Rick may be marketing his legal services through his website; but he also provides informed commentary on various issues/hype that the major media revs up to full gear without knowing diddly-squat (like the recent/ongoing baseball investigations.....yawn....).  I'll try and get the specifics on Canadian and British steroid law, as well as links to CBC and BBC documentaries and interviews with ethicists, medical practitioners and researchers on clinical realities as well as the this-or-that of the sports ethics, and try and get together a listing of what's legal where and under what circumstances; there's a difference in many countries between what's on the books and what you can get over the counter, needless to say; and there are ongoing changes, like Italy's recent criminalizing of steroid/enhancement use (including erythropoetin) in order to kiss up to the IOC prior to the Winter Olypmics.  Rick's only one steroid-specialist lawyer, but he's the only one I know of; if you know of another that may be interested (as he may) in taking part, please invite them, whichever side they're on.  And I would imagine you'd welcome participation by Michael Colgan or Dan Duchaine, under pseudonyms or not, yes?Skookum1 00:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: SteroidLaw.com 

message: :Increased awareness has caused the government to take a harder stance to steroid traffic and the increased seizures of high quality gray market alternatives such as IGF-1 would be likely to lead to a decrease in traditional anabolic steroid usage.
Actually, it's more like "are hoped to lead to a decrease etc."..."but increasing rates of seizure tend to escalate prices in any black market, and therefore profitability AND supply"; I won't put that in until I find a study about it, but it's a standard nostrum in non-police analyses of the drug trade, be it heroin, pot, cocaine, oxycontin, steroids or whatever.  And actually, there's even poice chiefs, maybe even the Nat'l Assn of Police Chiefs, who hold this point of view; can't remember exactly but they're cited in our local press (Vancouver BC) all the time relating to our city's mounting hard-drug problems and its relationship to the escalation of the War on Drugs; which isn't provide a cure, rather is the problem itself.  Create a black market, you create criminals by definition; crack down, and profitability goes up; with increased profitability, greater measures are taken to obtain supply.  And the jails get fuller and fuller and fuller, at great expense to the taxpayer and requiring ever larger policing budgets; it's all a vicious circle.  This is fairly easy to cite, although it's not an area where I'm familiar with web content; I'll do some emailing tomorrow to various Orgs, including the Four Pillars Strategy bunch in town here, and come back with a competing opinion the bit I quoted.Skookum1 06:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment on text of Distribution section 

message: This article is far too long and someone should try to make it so it's seperated into various pages for easier browsing.--DustinKP 15:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk page is too long. Should be moved to page 2 or something. 

message: "In a 1972 study [12], participants were informed they would recieve injections of anabolic steroids on a daily basis, but instead had actually been give placebo. They reportedly could not tell the difference, and the performance enhancement was similar to that of subjects taking the real anabolic compounds. According to Geraline Lin, a researcher for the National Institute on Drug Abuse, at the time of the books' publishing in 1996, the results of the study remained unchallenged for 18 years.[13]"
This is implying that a Placebo is just as effective as actuall anabolic Steroids. This itself is blatantly false. It's contradicted by the other sources referenced in this article.
--DustinKP 12:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't remove it. The paragraph is an accurate description of a published, relevant study. Removal would be justified only if the citation did not accurately describe the study, had been retracted by the journal because it had been fabricated, or because it simply is not relevant or important enough for an encyclopedia article. Regardless of your opinion, there has been some controversy over the degree to which the athletic or bodybuilding effects of anabolic steroid may be a matter of subjective expectation or imagination. The study is relevant to this controversy and is not cited in a way that tries to force its conclusion on the reader of our article. I would agree with you that it stands awkwardly by itself and needs to be placed in context, perhaps by noting there has been such a dispute. If you disagree with its implications, cite the evidence that contradict this one. Nevertheless, other well-designed studies (cite, cite) have demonstrated (increased muscle strength or whatever) at similar doses. PS: Please don't put solid lines in the middle of your comments; they make the page confusing and difficult to follow. alteripse 12:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Again, the point being made has some validity: much of the published material about anabolic steroids is based on anecdotes of questionable validity, and some of the published studies were of poor quality. You make your point by modifying the sentence to read something like, Much of the published information about the use and abuse of anabolic steroids is based on anecdotal evidence. Well-designed research on athletic, bodybuilding, and anti-aging use has been hampered by social taboos or legal restrictions on use in the United States and many other areas. Do you see the difference? alteripse 12:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Dustin, if you dont understand the difference between published information and research studies, please stop editing on medical/technical/scientific topics. I mean it, you have no business re-interpreting or re-arranging this information if you do not understand the distinction. Secondly, don't thumb your nose at the style customs here. You are going to find yourself in unnecessary, avoidable conflict with experienced editors real fast. alteripse 18:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alteripse, We're talking in a scientific context. In a scientific context "Published information" is the same as "Research". There is no published info that isn't researched. You made the claim that "Most research into anabolic steroids is anecdotal". This is as i've stated numerous times before..Blatantly false. There are HUNDREDS of scientific studies done on anabolic steroids since they are so widely used in the medical field.  You're being too vague by arguing about "published info" vs "Research info". I asked if you were refering to info published in the media opposed to info published by scientific studies in scientific journals and you didn't specify. You just insulted me.
Second of all.. I don't care what these so called "Experienced editors" do or how they talk on the talk pages. All I know is it's much simpler and easier to do it with lines seperating posts and i've already explained why. If you want to be a baby about how the talk page is formated or how I format my posts then we can do it your way. No skin off my chin. If simplicity isn't what you like then I say "whatever".--DustinKP 22:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Take it as an insult if you must, but don't misquote me. Read the damn note above: I did not say "most research is anecdotal" and in this context there is certainly a huge difference between research and "published material": on this point I am 100% in agreement with Skookum. Much of the problem with this article that people criticise was created precisely by well-intentioned editors who dont understand the difference between published material and good research. And use whatever style you want. I was trying to be helpful, but if you already know better than everyone here, I will gladly cease and butt out. It's all yours. alteripse 23:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alterprise. What's the difference between "Published material" and "Research"? You seem to be changing the goal post. Since first you said "Published research" and "Experimental Research" were the same. Now you're saying"Published 'material'" and "Research". Not that it even matters. I think you're just trying to complicate things.
If you have a problem with the article then start a new topic and we can discuss it there. Otherwise I don't see the purpose in continuing this little discussion.--DustinKP 23:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I assure you I am not "just trying to complicate things". Briefly, published material about anabolic steroids includes antidrug propaganda, feature articles in sports magazines or muscle magazines or Time magazine, news stories about anabolic steroid scandals, "educational" material published for high school students, advertising copy, the Underground Steroid Handbook, 10,000 websites and discussion forums, government policy statements, legal reviews and editorials and commentaries by doctors, "consensus statements" by panels of doctors or scientists, an encyclopedia article, or even a Wikipedia article. In other words, published material can be accurate or inaccurate, based mostly on evidence or mostly on opinion. My claim is that much of the published material on the topics of athletic, bodybuilding, and anti-aging use, both pro-steroid and anti-steroid, relies heavily on anecdotes, opinion, and very weak evidence. In contrast, a research report is a paper published in scientific journal by someone who presumably tried to design the study to obtain some accurate information. Well-designed and good research, honestly conducted and reported, is the strongest evidence we have about "how the natural/material world works" Not all research is of the same quality, and research studies may be poorly controlled and tainted by bias. Sometimes they show something that appears to contradict "what everybody knows", and they must be replicated and confirmed and then they often force a revision of the conventional wisdom (obviously the study that offended what you are certain you know about steroids is a perfect example: it is either very important or flawed and misleading). Now do you understand why the difference is so important? You are welcome. I will be signing off this article for a couple of weeks of diabetes camp. Do what you will with it. alteripse 00:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I know what you're saying. However you're moving the goalpost from "research" what you said to begin with and "material" what you're saying now.--DustinKP 02:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (patiently). No, I did not "change the goalpost". If you read what I said you will see that I have not mixed up the two. When I said published information or material I meant published information or material. When I said published research or research studies I meant published research studies. If you "know what I'm saying" you would not make that accusation. Both kinds of information have a place in an article like this, and both should be referenced, but it should be made clear to the reader what kind of source material is being described or alluded to. If you go back and look at my first messages to you, you will see that you were not distinguishing the two. Show us you can from now on. Good luck. alteripse 11:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing part of the research section. 

message: I noticed "matt" someone edited it to just male users as if to imply female users don't experience increased aggression while using AAS. It seems like i'm the only one editing this page who knows anything about the scientific research behind anabolic steroids, But I have to ask. Does anyone know of any Studies showing an increase of aggression in female users aswell? If no one provides a study then we'll just keep it like it is and specify just male users. --DustinKP 22:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or add "no studies on female users have been done..." (if none can be found).  I've sure known some bossy female bodybuilders in my time, no names named, but as with r-r it could have to do with pre-extant personality type than the effect of the drugs; and in either gender IMO a lot of the contest-prep bitchiness has a lot more to do with the diet than synthetic hormones....Skookum1 23:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if none have been done or not. I won't state "None have been done" just because I can't find any. That's why I asked if anyone knew of any. I'm sure some have been done. I just can't find them anywhere. --DustinKP 23:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aggression in just male users or male/female users? 

message: I just added a new misconception concerning Arnold Schwarzenegger's heart problem. Explaining how his condition was a genetic condition in which he was born with(2 cusps opposed to the normal 3 in his heart) which caused him to get surgery to correct it. People often claim Anabolic steroids caused his heart problems which is false. --DustinKP 23:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added new "misconception". 

message: Is there any truth to the claim that steroid use can make your skull larger (a la Barry Bonds' allegations)? Is that a real result of using steroids? --cal, 7/28/06
:No--DustinKP 01:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excessive amounts of GH, though?Skookum1 16:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt administration of HGH will change your skull shape or size. I have never seen any studies concluding this and I know dozens of people who have been using excessive amounts of HGH for years without any change in their skull or jaw shape. So I would highly doubt it.--DustinKP 20:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, something causes skull/skeletal changes in advanced bodybuilders; I've seen guys faces change, and they often comment their hands/knuckles etc become thicker-boned, or seem to.  Or is it just increased muscularity that transformed guys like Aaron Maddron and Branch Warren from their novice-condition appearance to their pro appearance?  IGF-1, or some other "secret ingredient"?Skookum1 22:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How did these people you are refring to change in a way you would suspect it was caused by HGH? Provide pictures of their facial features from when they were younger and current photographs.--Wikidudeman 03:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  True effect? 

message: I am changing "Unwanted side effects" to "Possible unwanted side effects" since many of the side effects listed aren't found in some studies but are found in others creating a contradiction of the evidence supporting them. Some showing increase in bad cholesterol others showing no increase or others concluding the increase shown isn't casual. Changing it from what it was implies that the side effects don't happen in 100% of users opposed to happening 100% of the time in all users which was implied before. http://atvb.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/11/2/307?ijkey=c4a616ea1ca966021ee63232b1203dbb30d870d9&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha
--Wikidudeman 04:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changing "Unwanted side effects" to "Possible unwanted side effects" 

message: The article says that AAS can stunt growth by fusing growth plates in children however it also says AAS is used to jumpstart delayed puberty in children. So which one is it? How can they both be true? If AAS causes fusion of growth plates and stunted growth how can it be used to jumpstart growth and puberty? Does anyone have any studies done on this? Are different substances used? Testerone doesn't fuse growth plates? --Wikidudeman 04:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Puberty in males is affected mainly by testosterone, that's how it's used. Estradiol (produced in men mainly by aromatization of T) fuses growth plates, or rather makes cartilage mature into bone. Jack Daw 15:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So if Testosterone is used to increase puberty and growth in children, And if Testosterone also aromatizes into "Estradiol" which fuses the growth plates then shouldn't we conclude that use of testosterone for growth actually stunts growth? That doesn't really make a bit of sense.--Wikidudeman 02:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure it does. Testosterone promotes growth, the "by-product" estradiol fuses growth plates. I would assume then that testosterone used with aromatase inhibitors would not result in stunted growth. Try asking User:alteripse, a pediatric endocrinologist. Jack Daw 18:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: So basically you're saying that giving a child Testosterone treatment will increase their height but only because it increases onset of puberty but increasing onset of puberty will intself limit his final adult height?--Wikidudeman 07:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Inducing puberty early will rob a child of a couple of years of prepubertal growth, thus preventing attainment of maximum adult height. alteripse 21:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Internal contradiction in article... 

message: Someone continues to change the comment on 'Gingival overgrowth' stating that the overgrowth in steroid users actually causes increased amounts of plaque in users. This is false according to the study as linked in the site posted.
I quote..."Results: Although there were no statistical differences between the plaque index (P >0.05) and gingival index (P >0.05) scores of the study group and the control group, the AAS abusers had statistically higher scores of gingival thickness, extent of gingival encroachment, and total gingival enlargement scores (P <0.001 each) compared to non-users."
Journal of Periodontology
http://www.joponline.org/doi/abs/10.1902/jop.2006.050389
The study above is the study linked in the source posted on the page.
http://www.perio.org/consumer/steriods.htm
Therefor I am removing the claim that the Gingival overgrowth in Steroid uses "Allows plaque bacterias to create periodontal infection."--Wikidudeman 02:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry Wikidudeman, I should have read the source more carefully. That was me. We all make mistakes once in a while. Thanks for the enlightenment. Steroid Expert 00:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a problem.--Wikidudeman 06:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stop changing comment on "Gingival overgrowth". 

message: I am deciding wether the thing stating the article doesn't represent a worldwide view should be removed or not. Who thinks it should be removed? Who thinks it shouldn't? Those who think it doesn't..Please explain why and I will try to fix the problem of USAcentric bias.--Wikidudeman 02:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been away in other parts of WikiWorld, as well as in the high mountains....the internet and the northern lights just don't go together well.  Anyway, yes there are objections; the laws discussed and much/most of the medical reports here are entirely USAcentric, as is the general tone of "steroids are bad for you" that's built into the article, as well as into the selection of scientific reports; those that are from outside tend to be IOC-biased (and the IOC is VERY biased).  The complaint about scientific reports is more difficult to pin down as USAcentric, but clearly the absence of information on the breadth and variety of laws in "other" countries (I'm a Canadian, and even our laws our different, though still restrictive) is not represented; nor is the notion in many countries that what a person does with their own body is their business, i.e. where the steroid witch-hunt isn't so much of a national obsession as it has become in the US (the Canseco hearings et al).Skookum1 16:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all..The article and sources imply "Steroids are bad for you?" I don't see that at all. I've tried to make this article as unbias as possible. I've included a "misconceptions" area explaining how steroids are not as dangerous as is commonly believed ect ect. I don't know what you're talking about when you say the article is bias....Also just because we mention USA laws doesn't make it "USA centric". USA centric would mean we imply those laws are worldwide. On the contrary I clearly explain when we're talking about the USA and when we aren't. If you have real objections then be specific.Wikidudeman 13:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also....If you think the laws of other countries should be mentioned then find a credible source for those laws and we'll add it to the article.--Wikidudeman 13:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing of "World wide view bias" at the top of the page. 

message: I am planning on removing the tidbit about the "Enlargement of the heart" unless someone provides a scientific study showing anabolic steroid use can cause an Enlargement of the heart. Right now I have been searching for several days and have found nothing.--Wikidudeman 23:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's fairly well known that AAS can cause left ventricle hypertrophy. --Bk0 (Talk) 01:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well known based on what? Where is the scientific evidence? Where are the scientific studies? Ok Wikipedia we must provide evidence of claims in the form of "scientific studies". Unless something is cited with evidence, We can't take it seriously and must be skeptical of it. So unless somoene provides some scientific evidence that Anabolic Steroids do indeed cause "left ventricle hypertrophy", I say it should be removed.--Wikidudeman 06:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 30 seconds worth of searching turns up this: Karila TAM, Karjalainen JE, Mantysaari MJ, Viitasalo MT, Seppala TA. Anabolic Androgenic Steroids Produce Dose-Dependent Increase in Left Ventricular Mass in Power Athletes, and this Effect is Potentiated by Concomitant Use of Growth Hormone. Int J Sports Med 2003; 24: 337-343. I'm sure there's more but I don't have serval days to search. As was pointed out above, it's fairly well known that left ventricle hypertrophy can result from steroid/gh usage. Yankees76 15:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've already added a source for it. Do you have a link to this study?Wikidudeman 14:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yankees76 16:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of "Enlargement of the heart" unless citation is provided.