To be honest jef, the interaction as demonstrated above between your world view and mine is a prolonged version of what I've been through before with a young steroid user (and is replicated in many other settings with patients when they have some knowledge but not the medical training to tie it together, but boy do some people hold onto views even when good evidence is presented to them). In the case of a steroid user, they don't come away with a changed opinion, and perhaps even mistrust medical professionals more because something about the underground information or short term benefits to body image appeal to them. Neither do most drug users, or defensive smokers, or people in other situations related to denial.

Your approach of advising people may be harmful, as it hasn't been the subject of a trial either. It may be that better advice from someone like you that has more understanding of steroid use than most would be to actually avoid them completely. Maybe that would be the best possible educational message you could provide, and since it is compliant with the law I'd say it is the default position that you should have to prove against.

 

john, really? do you want me to go throught what id consider a safe cycle in mg dosage and length? if you want i will.

we both have opinions, some from real life some from sposnsered medical journals

we can agree to disagree, im not interested in a tit for tat.

what i have is ten years of physical eveidence of those directy invovled, what you have by your own admission is 2 or 3 sessions with cocncerned AAS users, youve posted parts of articles that dont even dicsclose the hormone invovled?
youve quoted in excess of what id say was a sensible cycle?

youve quoted studies of 41 individuals - with no mention of the hormone used or even amounts used or for what period??

they mention "stacking drugs" what does that mean, what drugs, what doses, what lengths?

and im still to hear your comment regarding my apparant disillusion between the relationship between AAS and nutrition. im looking forward to that.

really you want me to take that as evidence? honestly?

 

I am 52 & understand where you are coming from.

Basically I went to my local GP when I was 50 & was prepared to pay private for a full body MOT, he said I would be wasting my money. He advised to see him once a year for usual tests & conversation in surgery & send me for blood test which are amazing in terms of diagnosing the state of certain internal organs eg. liver, heart, kidneys etc.

One has to keep a check on the obvious like exercise, food intake, weight, alcohol consumption which again is more about balance & moderation. I must admit I am fitter now than at any time in my life which is a great motivator & energiser.

I guess it all depends on your outlook on life, my perspective is that my life is a gift from God therefore I choose to look after my body but not just physically.

Hope this helps mate

 

tbh john your displaying a mild form of dismissive arrogance.

im open to new learning, as most people like me are, new techniques are welcomed, trialed and reported on.
we havent ven delved into peptide bonded hormones, myostatin inhibitors, or other research chemicals that are currently unclassified within legality, igf1-lr3, igf-des ect ect

youd rather id just point blank refuse to offer some sensible advise, for a potential user to then contact unscropulous suppliers with income generation at heart to then advise on effective use?
or even question the atrocious advice being handed out by local authorities?

firstly you assume im an *** user then at that i display characteristics of a young steroid user?
i do not use steroids john.

im not sure if you realise but not all medical training remians relevant forever. times changes, attitudes and thinking can change.

being quite an emotive and also increasing issue id rather be at the fore front of uderstanding and education, where as youd semingly have me ignoring people seeking some clarification?

is that the way to educate? not in my opinon tbh.

again its tit for tat it seems

you hold your professional veiw, i hold my unprofessional view.

your the doc discouraging guys, given it seems no guidnace due to to law, im the person trying to help people that will use regardless of mediacal advice to use in as safe a manner as possible.

although unbeknown to you my guidance is 95% nutritional, 5 % hormonal

 

 

I think someone has already said it, but you just have to love the wide spectrum of chat on SN ! :-)

I also must say how well Jef and John are discussing thier issues. Usually after page 2 personal insults would be traded, so well done for keeping it civil. John, reading your comments, I have to re-read them slowly, you come across as one clever dude. I do hope my son or daughter becomes a Dr.

Many of us have been users of gear in the past, many have tried and often failed at bodybuilding. I wasnt 100% religious to it but had some impressive gains / looks. I for one used to love using gear, but did notice a terrible moood swing in me. I used to do kickboxing at the same time, mixed with gear, well Fri / Sat nights were night to go out fight / drink. So so so stupid.

I got hooked on ECA stacks which screwed up my sperm count, and it took me ages to create my children. The mentally issues of coming off the gear, ECA, etc etc, I felt weak, unattractive and really played with my mind for a while, so I suppose there are physical and mental issues with all this.

The thing that I never touched, and saw as a real iffy product was growth hormone. Many old friends used this to grow as there were never any truely proven tests about it. The general belief was if there wasnt a test to prove it was wrong, then it must be right, which was madness. Many of the guys that used it, and Im talking a good 10 / 15 years ago now have either had heart attacks, a few have liver cancer.

Im not saying this was due to the use of it, or could of been the drinking smoking, but if I think now of all the guys that I used to train with, the ones that really used GH or gear, all of them either look well used, old, ill, etc.

The reason Im mentioning this, although I havent read, or could even understand the medical threads / reports, from my own personal experiences, and Ive been around many gyms, bodybuilders, gear heads, GH users, druggies, doorman, boxers ( Man I used to love the dark underworld of life when younger ), I have seen what happens. The body has a determined number of life units, taking all these stuff seems to burn these up quicker. So, burn brighter for shorter period of time, or burn less and last for longer.

When ever you use, make sure its real, tons of rubbish out there !

SBK

 

Thanks Tony for geting this thread back on track. Its amazing how you change as you get older. At one time i would think nothing of having a few bags of crisps in my work break, now i haven't had one for nearly three years. I exercise regularly, hardly ever drink and try to eat healthily. Wether it will make up for 20 years of doing the opposite, time will tell.
All i want to do is stay healthy, nothing more.

I've had the normal blood pressure tests, etc. So far so good. My grandad reached 94, that is my target. (Just over half way)

 

Ive been considering the MOT test via Bupa for a while now. Im 40, bit over weight, I dont smoke, or drink, eat rubbish, but since having two children have become aware of my health.

Cancer has taken out many in my family, so am so wondered that I will get this. I have a stressful job, and have 3 dependants on me.

Someone above mention a £500 test via Bupa, okay I understand that some tests give results that unless measured arent a true representation, but surely its better than nothing.

SBK

 

It seems the advice from two doctors via this thread is they are not worth it. I totally see where you are coming from though. We get our teeth checked annually, our cars,boilers, etc, but the thing that is more valuable than anything (our health) never gets checked unless something go's wrong.

 

jef, I've spent enough time going into this already and you are just derailing the thread further from its original topic, it appears that other posters don't want it overtaken by your steroid agenda either.

There comes a point with patients too when you realise that you're not going to be able to forcefeed them a medical education during a brief contact and because of this you just have to give your advice and leave it at that.

You are not a registered medical practitioner and you are advocating the use of controlled drugs and then wrapping it up in a nutritional package as though you have some health benefits to offer. I am a registered medical practitioner and can legally prescribe controlled drugs. Your advice is not evidence based, mine is and there is further depth to back up most of the points you find contentious but the full text of the articles is copyright. That is where I'm leaving it.

 

paulr, some argue about the evidence for annual dental checks (IIRC there isn't any for the general population), annual boiler checks and annual pet vaccinations either.

It is very appealing to prevent illness, but there are still some things that are not detectable by the screening methods that are offered. To focus more on screening criteria, then Wilson developed seven screening criteria, the following of which is a good summary and should be applied to screening tests offered:

http://www.ganfyd.org/index.php?titl...#39;s_criteria

Some have argued that breast cancer screening doesn't meet the criteria, but that is a minority view. Likewise, for monogamous non-smoking women some argue that the cervical screening programme is excessive when it is HPV related.

The biggest thing is smoking, if someone asks for an MOT and they smoke I bring it right back to their smoking and try to constructively help them with that as that is the single most significant intervention that can be made in the population.

 

Interesting article on this very topic, "If you perform screening mammography in 2500 women over 10 years you will prevent one death from breast cancer - you will also find 6 to 10 women with breast cancer who will be treated for it but who would not have been harmed by their 'cancer'"....


"And here we come to the 'popularity paradox'. If we find abnormalities taht were never going to harm, patients may be pleased to find themselves cured after the 'treatment' has been administered. Yet all this patient stands to gain are the side effects of medical interventions, not benefits. The worse a screening test is, the more over-diagnosis is created, and the more people who believe their life has been saved because of it. But when women get the facts about breast screening, many realise their treatment may not have been necessary."

My take on this: the golden goose of breast screening is under fire, but the work done on that compared with the screening talked about in this thread is in another league.

Maybe this helps to explain my cynicism. Much of the skill in my job is not finding abnormalities or making diagnoses, but knowing when to watchfully wait before doing more harm than good.

Author goes on to say this, "The problems of over-diagnosis occur in many types os screening, not just breast screening. Of course, the private screening sector is also culpable - for all the CT scans, MRI or ultrasound done on well people, and the abnormalities of uncertain significance that will be found as a result. It is up to the Government to lead in ensuring NHS screening is cost-effective. It simply isn't possible to go on as we are, and the sooner we give ethically sound information about screening and make clear it's a choise, not a stipulation, the better."

 

john your taking almost everything i say either out of context and insinuating ive a hidden agenda, and almost trying to be-little me, youve made a few incorrect assumptions about me along the way. Discussion was goign well, until you became a little dismissive and chose ill methods to try and re-inforce your opinion. - that said i still thank you for your time.
from the start my point was regarding getting real education to those who have already decided to go down there chosen route - and there isnt any. which is what i find so sad.

your right its going no-where, no-0one heres particularly interested - ive seen and heard enough to make a reasonably educated assessment as to where problems can arise from. and also where they could be improved on. its not hard to see.

im out, and back to the O.P's

apologies for the ever so slightly lengthy hi-jack lol

 

Jef - Some information or knowledge has to take precedence in these things. What you've tried to say is that your knowledge is as good, if not better, than that of the medical profession and the scientific method. Maybe it is or it isn't, but there will be a degree of what you consider to be 'belittling' in that; it's unavoidable by its very nature.

When linking cause and effect, surely the most rigorous and critically-thought-out scientific method has to take precedence? Two completely different methods, one clearly inferior, cannot sit side by side.

 

I had a medical at a Harley St practice a few years ago.

Worse thing I ever done !!!!!!!!


All us guys have at least one pair of pants / boxers that we have had for half our lives and guess what I wore

I was asked to strip down to my underwear. Off came the shirt and as my trousers fell to my ankles it was then that I realised I had put on a pair of grey boxers that I had owned for many years.

The front section of my boxers didn't exist !! ....... I'm talking nothing there, not even ragged edges to pull over the gentlemans sausage.

I looked a right nonce !

 

GK honestly i dont wish to go further openly here,

i could write essay after essay after essay mate explaining my thought, processes, extensive personal experience, literature read, positive and negative.

the truth is as real testing is unethical the true results are very hard to come by - whats actually happening is people are self administrating and providing results, and have been doing so for decades(with information that may include some use but masses of hear-say, half truths and outright lies). - so results will come from this with the addition of persoanl health implications due to lack of knowledge and understanding - id rather as much as possible proven information got to those people to limit any harm.

the media and authorities cant allow this to happen due to lack of public understanding and interest

john has to stick within his medical associations guidlines - or jepordise his situation, id never ask that of anyone

if your really interested we can take it to pm, to stop spamming the thread.

 

I'm going to start a new thread on this because it is interesting but really is completely unrelated to this thread. I hope it is OK how I have titled it: https://www.scoobynet.com/non-scooby...l#post10587384