Bruce Kneller arrested - could Anthony Roberts be next?

[Deacon]

Why not after all he is doing the same thing Kneller did? Promoting the use of anabolic steroids to the public. With his "in your face" approach to promoting his book he could well be on the Fed's target list.

And I sincerely believe that alot of us MOD's and VET's who give out daily cycle and other advice could be next on the food chain some day.

this whole deal with Kneller really makes you think - or at least it should.

 

[Bob Smith]

Why not after all he is doing the same thing Kneller did? Promoting the use of anabolic steroids to the public. With his "in your face" approach to promoting his book he could well be on the Fed's target list.

While I have absolutely no doubt that govt agents monitor all of the AAS boards, I also have no doubt that they keep an eye on guys like Kneller and others whos job it is to write about AAS (proximity to the action) and also help develop legal (or semi-legal) OTC products.

The common thread among the recent arrests is involvement in production and distribution of AAS. Just look at PA and BK.

 

[SWALE]

When you are de facto Practicing Medicine Without a License...

...even those who DO have a Medical License cannot prescribe steroids, as there are no medical indications for the attainment of massive amounts of muscle. IMPO, it would also be unethical for physicians to give advice on how to use steroids.

 

[Tkarrde]

I think the issue is not writing about AAS (if it were Lewellyn, Brink etc would have problems), but developing/selling 'legal' counterparts.

 

[Bob Smith]

...even those who DO have a Medical License cannot prescribe steroids, as there are no medical indications for the attainment of massive amounts of muscle. IMPO, it would also be unethical for physicians to give advice on how to use steroids.

Doc, one thing that has always bugged me about docs is in regard to this very issue. A doctor can, and usually will, refuse service for a patient that uses AAS, yet the exact same doctor will more than happily treat the hundreds of patients he has that smoke. IMO, its complete hypocrisy.

 

[Deacon]

Doc, one thing that has always bugged me about docs is in regard to this very issue. A doctor can, and usually will, refuse service for a patient that uses AAS, yet the exact same doctor will more than happily treat the hundreds of patients he has that smoke. IMO, its complete hypocrisy.

thats a good point -

 

[Millard]

Doc, one thing that has always bugged me about docs is in regard to this very issue. A doctor can, and usually will, refuse service for a patient that uses AAS, yet the exact same doctor will more than happily treat the hundreds of patients he has that smoke. IMO, its complete hypocrisy.

IMO, physicians *should* engage in a "harm reduction" relationship even when there patient persists in a behavior that the physician determines may be detrimental to the patient's health. It is a form of discrimination accompanying the "steroid use" stigma. I guess it is legal for doctors to post signs that state "WE DO NOT ACCEPT PATIENTS WHO USE STEROIDS" although it doesn't seem much different than saying "WE DO NOT ACCEPT PATIENTS WHO DO NOT EXCERCISE" or "WE DO NOT ACCEPT PATIENTS WHO PLAY FOOTBALL" or any other behavior that may compromise a person's health and well-being.

 

[Bob Smith]

IMO, physicians *should* engage in a "harm reduction" relationship even when there patient persists in a behavior that the physician determines may be detrimental to the patient's health. It is a form of discrimination accompanying the "steroid use" stigma. I guess it is legal for doctors to post signs that state "WE DO NOT ACCEPT PATIENTS WHO USE STEROIDS" although it doesn't seem much different than saying "WE DO NOT ACCEPT PATIENTS WHO DO NOT EXCERCISE" or "WE DO NOT ACCEPT PATIENTS WHO PLAY FOOTBALL" or any other behavior that may compromise a person's health and well-being.

Exactly.

 

[SWALE]

No, that is not the point. Your true analogy would be if the doctor were telling the patient to smoke, and providing cigarettes to the patient. See?

 

[Millard]

No, that is not the point. Your true analogy would be if the doctor were telling the patient to smoke, and providing cigarettes to the patient. See?

Huh?

It sounds like you're assuming most steroid users obtain their drugs from a doctor? I think this is the exception rather than the rule.

 

[Bob Smith]

No, that is not the point. Your true analogy would be if the doctor were telling the patient to smoke, and providing cigarettes to the patient. See?

No, I dont see.

What I see is a specific hypocrisy when doctors pick and choose who they want to treat because of something they may not agree with. A dont will knowingly deny medical treatment/advice to an AAS user, yet will treat a smoker - of which millions and millions of people have died because of. But in their mind AAS is worse, so it doesnt deserve their medical attention. IMO, that is being derelict of their duties as a medical professional.

I know of people who have been harassed by doctors after the doc was told, by the patient, that they used AAS. I dont know of any smokers who received multiple phone calls after telling the doc that they smoke. The doctors acted like the AAS user was going to keel over and die that afternoon.

 

[Bob Smith]

I realize that this is an education issue with doctors and I realize, Swale, that your goal is to educate doctors on the benefits of TRT. Most doctors, IMO and also probably in your own experience, have virtually zero knowledge of the different types of AAS and their side effects. They are ignorant in this subject area. They believe and spout the same medically inaccurate nonsense that is printed in the newspaper and broadcast on tv.
We all know there are certain risks associated with AAS usage. The degree of risk is much less than many of the drugs that are prescribed by these anti-AAS docs, but AAS users are treated like heroin addicts with three heads.

there are no medical indications for the attainment of massive amounts of muscle.

And there are no medical indications for the use of botox, liposuction, or butt implants, yet cosmetic surgery is a multi-billion dollar a year industry.

 

[Deacon]

my problem with current doctors is that they have no clue when it coems to AAS yet they want to lecture people about it's use

ever listen to a doctor talk about gear use? most are worse than the senate hearings where our so called representatives of our country were the worse informed body of men I have ever seen!

 

[thick]

unfortunately they are not on equal terms

IMO, physicians *should* engage in a "harm reduction" relationship even when there patient persists in a behavior that the physician determines may be detrimental to the patient's health. It is a form of discrimination accompanying the "steroid use" stigma. I guess it is legal for doctors to post signs that state "WE DO NOT ACCEPT PATIENTS WHO USE STEROIDS" although it doesn't seem much different than saying "WE DO NOT ACCEPT PATIENTS WHO DO NOT EXCERCISE" or "WE DO NOT ACCEPT PATIENTS WHO PLAY FOOTBALL" or any other behavior that may compromise a person's health and well-being.

 

[gymrat1977]

Does anyone see a problem by ordering from ag-guys? Any danger with them right now?

 

[solo47]

Does anyone see a problem by ordering from ag-guys? Any danger with them right now?

"The danger zone is everywhere." (Ray Charles)

Solo

 

[Bob Smith]

"The danger zone is everywhere." (Ray Charles)

Especially when you cant see where youre going.

 

[Millard]

What I see is a specific hypocrisy when doctors pick and choose who they want to treat because of something they may not agree with. A dont will knowingly deny medical treatment/advice to an AAS user, yet will treat a smoker - of which millions and millions of people have died because of. But in their mind AAS is worse, so it doesnt deserve their medical attention. IMO, that is being derelict of their duties as a medical professional.

Exactly.

Should patients be denied effective medical treatment or monitoring solely because there medical condition(s) are the result of their AAS use?

How many smokers are denied effective medical treatment or monitoring when their medical condition(s) are the result of nicotine and mode of administration?

How many AAS have experienced gynecomastia (a medical condition) as a result of their AAS use? Yet it is practically impossible for an AAS to find any doctor that will provide effective medical treatment for gyno when they learn it is the result of illicit AAS use!

These doctors' decision to refuse to administer effective treatment for AAS-induced gyno is inevitably some variation of the following claim:

"To treat such a medical condition because it would be akin to condoning illicit AAS use. Therefore treatment is categorically refused."

At best, they suggest "watchful waiting" in spite of the fact that there is zero scientific evidence that this is an effective treatment for such a medical condition.

At worst, they refuse to see you again unless AAS use is discontinued. So, the long-term AAS user who persists in their choice to continue their drug use must endure any resulting medical conditions indefinitely. They are S.O.L. This is undeniably "dereliction of duty".

Contrast this with smokers, whose medical conditions resulting from their smoking are given effective medical treatments on a regular basis by practically every physician in the U.S.

If doctors were consistent in their logic and less hypocritical, they would deny effective medical treatment for smoking-related medical conditions due to the same logic:

"Providing effective medical treatment would be akin to condoning smoking."

How many times does a doctor recommend "watchful waiting" as the treatment of choice for smoking-related conditions? How often do doctors refuse to treat smokers unless they quit smoking? Of course, the answer is all the time. Yeah, right!

(Interestingly, doctors often prescribe the drug nicotine to help smokers stop smoking. Just a little bit more hypocrisy...)

 

[Deacon]

Does anyone see a problem by ordering from ag-guys? Any danger with them right now?

their service is completely safe and discreet - you can trust them bro

 

[Millard]

my problem with current doctors is that they have no clue when it coems to AAS yet they want to lecture people about it's use

Yeah, no doubt. I know BS and I are giving doctors a hard time, but really it is not all their fault. Even if they wanted to provide their patients with effective medical treatment for conditions resulting from illicit AAS use, they risk being reprimanded by the Medical Examiners Board or even risk losing their license. AAS use is highly stigmatized and politicized, and Boards are known to be influenced by politics over scientific evidence or optimal patient care.

I've been looking over a case where a doctor who chose to treat AAS-induced hypogonadism had his license revoked based on the testimony of two "expert" witnesses who were physicians who had never treated a single patient suffering from such a condition nor had prescribed any of the drugs in question, Testosterone, Nolvadex, Clomid, HCG and apparently were unfamiliar with the scientific literature relevant in the case.

So, not only is it a case of uninformed doctors lecturing patients; but uninformed bureacrats/doctors (with regulatory control over the practice of medicine) lecturing knowledgeable doctors with experience and qualifications in this area!