Dissecting "Political" Science in Anabolic Steroid Research

by Rick Collins, J.D., CSCS. and Jack Darkes, Ph.D. -- Once there was a time when the hallmarks of science were objectivity and dispassionate analysis. Serious men of science were unmoved by the political winds of the day, searching instead for enduring truths. Findings and conclusions flowed naturally, free of manipulation, from the data. When it comes to anabolic steroids (AAS), that time is long gone, if it ever existed. Today, what passes for AAS research is mostly either funded by organizations with vested agenda-driven interests or conducted by researchers with preexisting negative attitudes and an interest in shaping policy. When objectivity and dispassionate analysis take a back seat, the literature becomes tainted with potentially misleading studies best described as "political" science.

Steroids + Narcotics = Fuzzy Math

by Jack Darkes, Ph.D. and Rick Collins, J.D., CSCS. -- Just when you thought social control agencies had run out of ways to demonize anabolic steroids, along comes a new study out of Stockholm, Sweden. Funded in part by grants from the intensely anti-steroid World Anti-Doping Agency (although the authors allege that "WADA had no further role in study design; in the collection, analysis and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; and in the decision to submit the paper for publication"), the study is a prime example of the process by which the public’s perception about anabolic steroids (more accurately, "anabolic-androgenic steroids" or "AAS") is shaped by misleading "research."

Muscle Profiling - Is Muscularity Evidence of a Crime?

by Jack Darkes, Ph.D. -- Muscularity (mesomorphy) has a long-time alleged association with negative characteristics such as assertiveness or even criminality (e.g., Sheldon, 1942). The modern pursuit of muscle has also been demonized via allegations of association with undesirable behaviors; condemnations that seem destined to produce a more formal muscle profiling.

Modern "muscle profiling" finds support from Harrison Pope, a psychiatrist with widely-known positions on what he considers pathologies related to inappropriate desire for muscle, dedication to working out, and AAS use. His assertion that "…if a man is fairly lean, has an FFMI greater than about 25, and claims that he has achieved this physical condition without the use of steroids, he is almost certainly lying" casts the veneer of science over muscle profiling, presaging the advent of muscularity as suggestive of AAS use. In a climate of condemnation of both muscle and AAS use, such assertions demand scrutiny.

Demonization of Anabolic Steroids - What Makes These Hormones So Evil?

by John Williams, J.D. -- n the United States, anabolic-androgenic steroids (AAS) have always been considered drugs. Contrary to what today's young athletes may believe, these substances were never stocked on the shelves of the corner grocery store. However, only within the last decade have these drugs been classified as "controlled substances," thereby placing them in the same general category as more infamous drugs, including heroin, cocaine, LSD, and methamphetamine. The purpose of this article is to examine some of the social, medical and legal forces which have driven these changes and which continue to influence the use, abuse, and prohibition of anabolic-androgenic steroids.

Anabolic Steroids Control Act - The Wrong Prescription

by Rick Collins, J.D. -- According to the body of common knowledge, anabolic steroids are dangerous and deadly drugs. The mainstream media have thoroughly vilified these hormones for several decades. The use by mature adults of any amount of anabolic hormones to enhance physical appearance is invariably labeled anabolic steroid "abuse" and, consequently, the average American lumps the athletic steroid user into the same depraved category as the heroin or cocaine user. Law enforcement agents and prosecutors readily proceed accordingly in furtherance of our national "War on Drugs." Only the most progressive physicians accept the legitimacy of anabolic steroid use for any but the most limited medical purposes. Understandably then, the proposition that our current approach to the non-medical use of anabolic steroids is flawed, failing and in need of reform is provocative to many.

The Chris Benoit Tragedy - Anabolic Steroids, Aggression & Violence

by Jack Darkes, Ph.D. -- In events like the Chris Benoit family tragedy the alleged perpetrator’s characteristics inevitably suggest hypotheses and the search for confirming evidence begins. Anabolic steroids or anabolic-androgenic steroids (AAS) were blamed before prescription steroids were found, as researchers and commentators alike called forth the popular roid rage connection. If anabolic steroids are blamed and the richness of these lives ignored, then the opportunity to prevent such rare events goes unrealized. Singling out a drug to blame leads to fiery rhetoric, congressional hearings, prohibition and scare tactics; none of these have succeeded in curbing drug use, especially among those at greatest risk for harm. Most steroid users do not experience negative effects and hence distrust the message and the messengers, perhaps most notably among those who should listen. Research has shown this many times.

Anabolic Steroids and Suicide - Taylor Hooton and Rob Garibaldi

by Jack Darkes, Ph.D. -- Discussions of the potential role of anabolic-androgenic steroids (AAS) in suicide surfaced recently when AAS and their use among professional athletes were blamed for several suicides of young adult males. These allegations inspired a congressional investigation and renewed anti-steroid rhetoric, but little dispassionate evaluation. The testimony of experts and grieving parents notwithstanding, the role of AAS in suicide is not clear. The recent tragedies of Taylor Hooton and Rob Garibaldi that spurred these investigations involved late adolescent males, yet provoked widespread condemnations of AAS. Problems among adolescent drug users cannot inform issues of adult use (or vice-versa); adolescents are not simply younger adults. Efforts to ascribe such events to a single cause can distract attention from other important indicators that need to be noted.

 

Prostate Cancer and Steroids

by Jesse Haggard, NMD. -- Testosterone therapy does not increase the risk of prostate cancer. Evidence suggests that testosterone therapy does not increase the risk of developing prostate cancer nor that it converts indolent prostate disease into clinically significant disease. “This historical perspective reveals that there is not now--nor has there ever been--a scientific basis for the belief that testosterone causes prostate cancer to grow” (Morgentaler 2006). “There is no clinical evidence that the risk of either prostate cancer or benign prostate hyperplasia increases with testosterone replacement therapy”(Morley 2000). “No evidence exists that appropriate androgen administration with knowledgeable monitoring carries significant or potentially serious adverse effects on the prostate gland” (Morales 2005). These medical journal research reviews unanimously agree that testosterone does not cause prostate cancer.

Anabolic Steroid Induced Hypogonadism (ASIH)

by Michael Scally, M.D. -- While the use of AAS by physicians has become more prevalent, this class of medicines is not without their inherent problems. AAS have been shown to induce hypogonadotropic hypogonadism. This condition typically results from an abnormality in the normal functioning of the hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axis (HPTA), either from an over-or underproduction of one of the hormone secreting glands, causing a cascading unbalance in the rest of the axis. Declining, or suppressed, circulating testosterone levels as a result of either pathophysiological or induced hypogonadal conditions can have many negative consequences in males. Declining levels of testosterone have been directly linked to a progressive decrease in muscle mass, loss of libido, decrease in muscular strength impotence, oligospermia or azoospermia, increase in adiposity and an increased risk of osteoporosis.

Dr. Michael Scally's Goes to Court to Appeal Revocation of Medical License for Prescribing Steroids

by Michael Scally, M.D. -- The appeal process is reaching a critical point. The appeal is now at the Appellate level. The Texas State Board of Medical Examiners is using an imaginary science to find conclusions to revoke the license. At issue is the therapy administered to the patients directed to restoring the HPTA. These treatments were supported by reading into testimony from over 200 peer-reviewed scientific articles. The Board admits they know of no literature that refutes the literature depended upon for the treatments. As most of you know, I have published the treatment to restore the HPTA after stopping AAS. In those situations where a patient HPTA restoration is not maintained, I successfully developed a treatment based on a short duration AAS administration followed by therapy to avoid steroid-induced hypogonadism.

The Michael Scally Case: How Political Subversion of the Law Reaches the Professions through the Anti-Steroid Crusade

by Philip Sweitzer, J.D. -- The selective prosecution of police officers for steroid use and selective parading out of beefed-up baseball players share several features with the topic this article will explore, i.e., the professional decertification of Dr. Michael C. Scally by the Texas State Board of Medical Examiners.  My interest in Dr. Scally’s case is a natural extension of my interest in the topic of politicized steroid “prosecutions” generally. The imposition of the sanction of professional decertification functions in much the same way as the imposition of sentence in a criminal proceeding: its purported design is to protect public safety. It also, however, makes the sanctioned person a social and professional pariah.

In the author’s view, Dr. Scally – like police officers – is being selectively targeted for professional discipline, because he challenges the foundational policy upon which current therapeutic, legislative and enforcement practice is shakily built: that anabolic steroids are unqualifiedly “bad” drugs without legitimate therapeutic application. Put more bluntly, his research and work does not conform to the doctrinaire mindlessness of current dogma. His professional disciplinary proceeding also served specific political ends for the Texas State Board of Medical Examiners, political ends that portend to pose a tyranny of a highly misinformed majority, guided by an unchecked executive, upon the discretionary, professional practice of medicine, the kind of autocratic authority bicameral representative government and an independent judiciary is supposed to prevent. .