Republicans Against HRT?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
1

A gentleman on T-Nation took notice (and offense) to my repeated use of the phrase “Steroid phobic republican doctor.” The regulars of the over 35 section will recognize this as a phrase I borrowed from KSman. I found it both funny and I thought accurate in describing the typical conservative, fearful approach to HRT most doctors have, including dosing, not giving an A.I., HCG, and many other aspects (like refusing to treat a T level of 270).

However, this Republican is on HRT and supports it, and was surprised that some in his party might be against it. He asked for names, and apparently has political connections, and wants to do his part in keeping HRT from being more over-regulated or killed.

In all fairness, even though the Republicans are leading the charge against steroids as a whole (i.e. John McCain), I could not find a Republican on record publicly denouncing HRT on the internet. 

Some of you guys are a lot better than me at finding stuff on the net and posting links. See what you guys can find. Who knows, there might be enemies in the Democrat ranks.                                           Doc
2

I think it will work like this:

[quote] Richard Paey Speaks

An interview with the paraplegic man sentenced to 25 years in prison for treating his own pain.

Nonone will address HRT directly.[/quote]

It will just so work out that the possession of a certain amount of AAS, prescribed by a doctor or not, plus mandatory minimums and uninformed jurors coupled with DAs that are first and foremost interested in their careers will make this a nightmare.

3

[quote]orion wrote:
It will just so work out that the possession of a certain amount of AAS, prescribed by a doctor or not, plus mandatory minimums and uninformed jurors coupled with DAs that are first and foremost interested in their careers will make this a nightmare. [/quote]

I don’t think so.

There is a new wave coming. FDA has just approved far more lenient dosing protocols for HGH. Ironically, this came just a couple of weeks before Operation Raw Deal, and at the request of big pharma. Why? Big Pharma saw the amount of money it was losing out on in the HGH market.

There are many, many 30+ year-old males out there that are looking to seither stay young, or extend their quality of life. As the umber of people in the 30+ demo swell, you will see a much, much higher demand for not only HGH, but other HRT remedies as well.

Money talks. And there is a shit-pile of it to be made prescribing test, HGH, and other HRT remedies.

May take a few years, but it will happen.

Then again - I could be wrong.

4

[quote]rainjack wrote:
orion wrote:
It will just so work out that the possession of a certain amount of AAS, prescribed by a doctor or not, plus mandatory minimums and uninformed jurors coupled with DAs that are first and foremost interested in their careers will make this a nightmare.

I don’t think so.

There is a new wave coming. FDA has just approved far more lenient dosing protocols for HGH. Ironically, this came just a couple of weeks before Operation Raw Deal, and at the request of big pharma. Why? Big Pharma saw the amount of money it was losing out on in the HGH market.

There are many, many 30+ year-old males out there that are looking to seither stay young, or extend their quality of life. As the umber of people in the 30+ demo swell, you will see a much, much higher demand for not only HGH, but other HRT remedies as well.

Money talks. And there is a shit-pile of it to be made prescribing test, HGH, and other HRT remedies.

May take a few years, but it will happen.

Then again - I could be wrong. [/quote]

I though tabout the political pull of Big Pharma, but that does not seem to help chronical pain patients.

However, the youth/health/vanity market is of course much bigger than simply treating pain.

5

[quote]orion wrote:
I though tabout the political pull of Big Pharma, but that does not seem to help chronical pain patients.

However, the youth/health/vanity market is of course much bigger than simply treating pain.[/quote]

Exactly. The chronic pain market is a drop in the bucket compared to the plastic surgery/viagra popping/make me younger crowd.

6

Yeah, it’s ironic that the demographic of people who would need HRT fits very nicely with the majority of politicians; fat, out of shape, estrogen ridden sedentary men who need help getting it up. But will the more Republican dominated fear of steroids as a whole impact their decsion making when it comes to HRT? It think it’s a hidden conflict right now.
Doc

7

[quote]rainjack wrote:
orion wrote:
It will just so work out that the possession of a certain amount of AAS, prescribed by a doctor or not, plus mandatory minimums and uninformed jurors coupled with DAs that are first and foremost interested in their careers will make this a nightmare.

I don’t think so.

There is a new wave coming. FDA has just approved far more lenient dosing protocols for HGH. Ironically, this came just a couple of weeks before Operation Raw Deal, and at the request of big pharma. Why? Big Pharma saw the amount of money it was losing out on in the HGH market.

There are many, many 30+ year-old males out there that are looking to seither stay young, or extend their quality of life. As the umber of people in the 30+ demo swell, you will see a much, much higher demand for not only HGH, but other HRT remedies as well.

Money talks. And there is a shit-pile of it to be made prescribing test, HGH, and other HRT remedies.

May take a few years, but it will happen.

Then again - I could be wrong. [/quote]

I agree that big pharma is probably wanting to push more of a very expensive drug, while the DEA is killing off the [underground] competition. In any other area of commerce this would be an obvious and illegal monopolistic act.

Yes, THE issue really is quality of live VS simply being alive. Only available for those with lots of money if they go through the legal medical monopoly; where the monopoly is big pharma acting against underground commerce. Optimal well-being is not a right and is only available for those who can afford it. But that is totally consistent with basic medical care in this country.

In the USA you have the inalienable right to suffer pain or death if you can’t pay the monopoly. There are some similarities to the mafia… it is a protection racket.

HGH is enormously expensive through the legal medical channels. hGH is not expensive to produce. Cows get growth hormones to increase milk production. The cost of the drug to treat those huge body masses is less than the revenue from the incremental increase in raw milk production. Note that the growth hormone will also increase other costs such as more feed. Farmers do not get much money for raw milk compared to the sticker cost in the grocery. The costs of production of bovine and human GH are similar. But drug reps selling bovine GH are not driving $100,000 cars.

While the federal laws and regulations that affect hGH use may be getting more favourable, most of this will be triumphed by state medical boards who have the power to severely black-ball any physician that they want to. Many states and medical boards have created rules and regulations that are very complicated and onerous. Perhaps these hGH by at the federal level will have very little trickle down effects. And, surprise, party politics have infiltrated state medical boards.

Many state laws and state medical board regulations and pressures are shaped, not only by politics, but by insurance companies. BCBS is so wide spread, that they as a common brand and with a common interest to restrict the scope of “medically necessary” to avoid paying for many things. Insurance companies do shape the membership of state medical boards and their actions.

We have a problem from the combined effect of politics and insurance companies which controls state legislature and medical boards.

Am I political enough?

8

[quote]Dr.PowerClean wrote:
Yeah, it’s ironic that the demographic of people who would need HRT fits very nicely with the majority of politicians; fat, out of shape, estrogen ridden sedentary men who need help getting it up. But will the more Republican dominated fear of steroids as a whole impact their decsion making when it comes to HRT? It think it’s a hidden conflict right now.
Doc[/quote]

This has gone beyond politics and reason.

Everything about this is more like a fundamentalist religion. Anyone in politics who would attempt to fight these developments would be [politically] burned at the stake or stoned to death [rendered impotent]. Logic and facts are now far removed as agents of democracy in situations like this.

The bottom line is that we are seeing the erosion of logical and facts a means of governance. This a huge loss of democracy… when the president justifies his actions with statements of faith and belief. This is not in any way different than the actions of a dictatorship, just different window dressing. We are so freaked out with “freedom of religion” that we cannot criticize the actions of anyone who cloaks/shields his actions with “statements of faith”. When Bush ran the house and senate, the dictator ship was complete. And he also used the cloak of “support our troops” to shield himself from opposition.

9

Are you people kidding me, or just yourselves?

The FDA and federal governmental control of foods, drugs and cosmetics is the product of the progressive era. The Progressives - liberals, in case you were wondering - pushed through the regulation of these areas because of concerns about the danger of the free market:

See: http://www.fda.gov/oc/history/historyoffda/section2.html

The DEA came together in the 70s, with Nixon and a Democratic congress -

http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/history/index.html

but federal enforcement activities against drugs has a far longer pedigree:

The long, proud, and honorable tradition of federal drug law enforcement began in 1915 with the Bureau of Internal Revenue. In the following decades, several federal agencies had drug law enforcement responsibilities. By the 1960s, the two agencies charged with drug law enforcement were the Bureau of Drug Abuse Control (BDAC) and the federal Bureau of Narcotics (FBN).

Here is an interesting post on the history of marijuana prohibition in the U.S.:

http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stories/2003/12/22/whyIsMarijuanaIllegal.html

The current DEA and FDA behave the way they do because that is what they were set up to do. The regulatory mission of the FDA is to remove risk from the medical supply, food supply and cosmetics supply. The regulatory mission of the DEA is to enforce prohibitions against controlled substances. There are at least two internal factors driving every bureaucracy, which are related to one another: get more funding and get more power. Occasionally, the lack of funding can quell the push to expand the reach of an agency, but if the funding is there, there is always the internal push to expand.

W/r/t pharmaceutical companies, why wouldn’t they want drugs they could sell for large profits to be legally available for purchase?

W/r/t insurance companies, I wouldn’t be surprised if they didn’t want more things included in the list of items they need to pay for - particularly if the market largely consists of people who want to use them but don’t need them. Ridiculous state-level regulations mandating insurance companies pick up the tab for all sorts of items is one reason (among many) why health insurance is so expensive.

10

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Are you people kidding me, or just yourselves?

The FDA and federal governmental control of foods, drugs and cosmetics is the product of the progressive era. The Progressives - liberals, in case you were wondering - pushed through the regulation of these areas because of concerns about the danger of the free market:

See: http://www.fda.gov/oc/history/historyoffda/section2.html

The DEA came together in the 70s, with Nixon and a Democratic congress -

http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/history/index.html

but federal enforcement activities against drugs has a far longer pedigree:

The long, proud, and honorable tradition of federal drug law enforcement began in 1915 with the Bureau of Internal Revenue. In the following decades, several federal agencies had drug law enforcement responsibilities. By the 1960s, the two agencies charged with drug law enforcement were the Bureau of Drug Abuse Control (BDAC) and the federal Bureau of Narcotics (FBN).

Here is an interesting post on the history of marijuana prohibition in the U.S.:

http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stories/2003/12/22/whyIsMarijuanaIllegal.html

The current DEA and FDA behave the way they do because that is what they were set up to do. The regulatory mission of the FDA is to remove risk from the medical supply, food supply and cosmetics supply. The regulatory mission of the DEA is to enforce prohibitions against controlled substances. There are at least two internal factors driving every bureaucracy, which are related to one another: get more funding and get more power. Occasionally, the lack of funding can quell the push to expand the reach of an agency, but if the funding is there, there is always the internal push to expand.

W/r/t pharmaceutical companies, why wouldn’t they want drugs they could sell for large profits to be legally available for purchase?

W/r/t insurance companies, I wouldn’t be surprised if they didn’t want more things included in the list of items they need to pay for - particularly if the market largely consists of people who want to use them but don’t need them. Ridiculous state-level regulations mandating insurance companies pick up the tab for all sorts of items is one reason (among many) why health insurance is so expensive.
[/quote]

I appreciate a dissenting opinion, and the history lesson. However, I have two strong issues with this post. First, saying the DEA and FDA operate they way they do now is because of how they were set up is like saying our current government acts the way it does now because of the way the Constitution was drawn up. Years and years of epic socio-political change combined with profound corruption causes major organizations to sometimes act in ways FAR REMOVED from their original mandates.

Secondly, as a doctor interested in Age management medicine, I can tell you first hand that most AMM docs have to get special medico-legal counsel, often from steroid-expert lawyers ironically enough, because of the intense pressure many experience from the DEA and AMA. I am talking about good, honest docs who just want to treat hormone deficient, symptomatic older people who need HRT. This is a very real issue which you apparently missed. I am not blaming it solely on one political party, I am trying to understand what the hell we can do about it.        Doc
11

[quote]Dr.PowerClean wrote:

I appreciate a dissenting opinion, and the history lesson. However, I have two strong issues with this post. First, saying the DEA and FDA operate they way they do now is because of how they were set up is like saying our current government acts the way it does now because of the way the Constitution was drawn up. Years and years of epic socio-political change combined with profound corruption causes major organizations to sometimes act in ways FAR REMOVED from their original mandates.[/quote]

That’s not what I meant - though eventually any group of people will eventually figure out how to subvert a given set of written rules by exploiting its faults. I’m talking incentives, and I am paraphrasing one of the guru’s of Silicon Valley development: Organizations have the types of problems they are designed to have.

Specifically, if you set up a bureaucracy with a “goal” to solve, you have practically guaranteed one things: The “goal” will never be attained - if it were, the bureaucracy would die - thus mission creep for successful agencies. Thus more new dangerous drugs need to be contained by the DEA, and the FDA supposedly needs to regulate tobacco (though luckily that last one didn’t occur).

These two agencies, the DEA and FDA, are suffering from exactly that issue - their incentive, combined with their goal.

And then there’s the problem of incentives of the individual enforcement agents. Generally, a bureaucrat’s incentive is to avoid personal responsibility - and the easiest way to do that is to apply his enforcement power exactly according to the letter of the guidelines/policy he gets. Irrespective of how stupid those guidelines are (example: principals (who are just bureaucrats) suspending kids for hugging or drawing pictures of guns as a result of “zero tolerance” policies).

Politician scaremongering is another problem altogether - and it leads to “mission creep” too - what better way for a bureaucracy to get more funding and more power than to focus on something in the public eye.

Of course, the politicians don’t create the issues on which they scaremonger. That’s the media’s job… politicians just climb on and ride the momentum. Seriously, would Congress have cared at all about steroids in pro sports if it weren’t for the media barrage of stories claiming that these “role models” were “seducing the children” into taking these “dangerous” drugs?

The unresponsiveness of unelected agencies like the DEA and FDA to people is a huge structural issue - it should have been unConstitutional for the Congress to effectively delegate lawmaking authority to unelected bureaucrats in agencies. But large, specific issues can still be handled by pressure to the legislature (more below).

[quote]Dr.PowerClean wrote:

Secondly, as a doctor interested in Age management medicine, I can tell you first hand that most AMM docs have to get special medico-legal counsel, often from steroid-expert lawyers ironically enough, because of the intense pressure many experience from the DEA and AMA. I am talking about good, honest docs who just want to treat hormone deficient, symptomatic older people who need HRT. This is a very real issue which you apparently missed. I am not blaming it solely on one political party, I am trying to understand what the hell we can do about it.        Doc

[/quote]

No, I saw the issue - I was addressing some of the more ridiculous claims flying around on this thread.

IMHO, the best - and perhaps only - way to get this addressed is likely through political pressure on the agencies. The same idea that created the DEA pressure, used in reverse. Get the interested docs together, and tap the old people as the political base and get the Congress’ attention in an election year. The Congress can then exempt HRT - or at least get it classified as an age-restricted OTC substance, like psuedo-ephedrine in cough syrup (which is also subject to other restrictions due to its use in making crystal meth).

12

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Dr.PowerClean wrote:

I appreciate a dissenting opinion, and the history lesson. However, I have two strong issues with this post. First, saying the DEA and FDA operate they way they do now is because of how they were set up is like saying our current government acts the way it does now because of the way the Constitution was drawn up. Years and years of epic socio-political change combined with profound corruption causes major organizations to sometimes act in ways FAR REMOVED from their original mandates.

That’s not what I meant - though eventually any group of people will eventually figure out how to subvert a given set of written rules by exploiting its faults. I’m talking incentives, and I am paraphrasing one of the guru’s of Silicon Valley development: Organizations have the types of problems they are designed to have.

Specifically, if you set up a bureaucracy with a “goal” to solve, you have practically guaranteed one things: The “goal” will never be attained - if it were, the bureaucracy would die - thus mission creep for successful agencies. Thus more new dangerous drugs need to be contained by the DEA, and the FDA supposedly needs to regulate tobacco (though luckily that last one didn’t occur).

These two agencies, the DEA and FDA, are suffering from exactly that issue - their incentive, combined with their goal.

And then there’s the problem of incentives of the individual enforcement agents. Generally, a bureaucrat’s incentive is to avoid personal responsibility - and the easiest way to do that is to apply his enforcement power exactly according to the letter of the guidelines/policy he gets. Irrespective of how stupid those guidelines are (example: principals (who are just bureaucrats) suspending kids for hugging or drawing pictures of guns as a result of “zero tolerance” policies).

Politician scaremongering is another problem altogether - and it leads to “mission creep” too - what better way for a bureaucracy to get more funding and more power than to focus on something in the public eye.

Of course, the politicians don’t create the issues on which they scaremonger. That’s the media’s job… politicians just climb on and ride the momentum. Seriously, would Congress have cared at all about steroids in pro sports if it weren’t for the media barrage of stories claiming that these “role models” were “seducing the children” into taking these “dangerous” drugs?

The unresponsiveness of unelected agencies like the DEA and FDA to people is a huge structural issue - it should have been unConstitutional for the Congress to effectively delegate lawmaking authority to unelected bureaucrats in agencies. But large, specific issues can still be handled by pressure to the legislature (more below).

Dr.PowerClean wrote:

Secondly, as a doctor interested in Age management medicine, I can tell you first hand that most AMM docs have to get special medico-legal counsel, often from steroid-expert lawyers ironically enough, because of the intense pressure many experience from the DEA and AMA. I am talking about good, honest docs who just want to treat hormone deficient, symptomatic older people who need HRT. This is a very real issue which you apparently missed. I am not blaming it solely on one political party, I am trying to understand what the hell we can do about it.        Doc

No, I saw the issue - I was addressing some of the more ridiculous claims flying around on this thread.

IMHO, the best - and perhaps only - way to get this addressed is likely through political pressure on the agencies. The same idea that created the DEA pressure, used in reverse. Get the interested docs together, and tap the old people as the political base and get the Congress’ attention in an election year. The Congress can then exempt HRT - or at least get it classified as an age-restricted OTC substance, like psuedo-ephedrine in cough syrup (which is also subject to other restrictions due to its use in making crystal meth).
[/quote]
BostonBarrister, this is a well-thought out, respectful response to the critical post I made to you. A refresing departure from the in vogue flame war style. You gave me much to ponder.
Personally, I am guilty of political apathy, born out of years of frustration and repressed rage at the impotence and hypocrisy of our government and political system. However, individual issues which affect me or my loved ones will motivate me to care. HRT is one of these issues. Perhaps there are many that share this asterisk to their apathy, and in numbers there is always power. Doc

13

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

IMHO, the best - and perhaps only - way to get this addressed is likely through political pressure on the agencies. The same idea that created the DEA pressure, used in reverse. Get the interested docs together, and tap the old people as the political base and get the Congress’ attention in an election year. The Congress can then exempt HRT -
[/quote]

Doctors who dare challenge the republican positions will have their standard of care reviewed by republican controlled State medical boards. There will be questions asked and the doctors will buckle as they see that the medical board brings up more issues as they attempt to defend themselves. They will be quietly told that if the drop their activities, the review will stop and they will be able to retain their license.

This is a confidential warning. There will be nothing written that the doctor could use to prove that the medical board was abusive of power or politicised. One threat will be followed through to removal of a license to practice medicine [from a democratic doctor]. That will get national news coverage, just like a dead wrestler on CNN, [dump] blond bitch and all, and all doctors will get the message and if they do not, their interaction with their state medical boards will include a reference to what happened to “that other doctor”. And why would the IRS then be auditing those individuals?

For some odd reason, all republican newspapers pick up the story to exercise their “freedom of the press” rights enshrined in the 1st Amendment.

Old people as a group are totally ignorant of the facts. Informed individuals are a small fraction of the “gray power” base.

If this got started, the republican party would polarize the attempt as a misguided democratic program which is an example of how the democrats cannot be trusted with political power or government policy. Once the house is divided on this issue, progress is very unlikely, and with Bush, he would veto and a veto override in the house would be impossible after the issue becomes split along party lines. This is “divide an conquer”.

The republicans would look for dirt, politicians on TRT or a family member with any “steroid crimes”. They have lists of names from busted “pharmacies” and doctors and will be looking for names of anyone involved with an attempt to “liberalize” any aspect of steroids. Those in such a situation would fold after one anonymous phone call. If such charges were made, there would be huge press coverage and if the charges were dropped, there would be no news all to provide the truth.

Isn’t democracy great? We get an opportunity to vote for our own dictator.

I don’t think that we will see much political debate, unless there is an attempt to make things worse [one sided political debate]. For that action, you might be looking for a proctologist afterwards.

14

So Republicans control ALL the state medical boards. I didn’t realize how dastardly they were.

And the newspapers are Republican as well? I’m shocked - that is the opposite of what I would have expected - but thank you for shedding light on this dangerous Republican media monopoly. And I hope someone lets the rest of the media know about this so they can publicize this scandal - unless the Republicans control them as well? Say it ain’t so?

Still, I’m slightly confused as to how it is that the Democrats, who have won a few elections over the years since steroids were declared illegal, haven’t managed to either fight against or publicize this horrible Republican conspiracy?

15

[quote]Dr.PowerClean wrote:

BostonBarrister, this is a well-thought out, respectful response to the critical post I made to you. A refreshing departure from the in vogue flame war style. You gave me much to ponder.

Personally, I am guilty of political apathy, born out of years of frustration and repressed rage at the impotence and hypocrisy of our government and political system. However, individual issues which affect me or my loved ones will motivate me to care. HRT is one of these issues. Perhaps there are many that share this asterisk to their apathy, and in numbers there is always power. Doc

[/quote]

Thanks Doc,

I really hope that people get together on this. A group of motivated individuals can do a lot in a sea of apathy – how do you think we ended up with our sugar subsidy and import restriction laws? =-)

Anyway, if you care enough to really work for it, I’d bet you could accomplish a lot in this area.

Best,

BB

16

Normally, I stay out of political and religious debates, because they used to drive me insane (more insane). But this one I care about, and we have a T-Nation legend involved (KSman) and a Republican lawyer (I assume you’re Republican, BB, correct me if I’m wrong).
Thrash this one out, guys. I’ll play along, even though I’m a political lightweight due to my years of apathy.
My opinion, so far on your posts. I agree with KSman’s near-paranoid stance on the dangers doctors face if the republican-dominated Anti-steroid platform has what BB calls “mission creep”. In other words, if republicans fail to make a clear and concious effort to separate out HRT as a valid and vital part of medicine, it will get absorbed into their current platform. If this happens (and I believe it already has to some degree), doctors work in fear, and are subject to unwarranted loss of personal freedoms, and unwarranted scrutiny and pressure from the DEA, AMA and others. If they are in any way connected to a T user who is not HRT appropriate, they will be crucified.
However, BB is correct in pointing out the media is predominantly controlled by the liberals, other than FOX news. However, the Democrats/liberals have shown no interest in using the Anti-steroids platform to take an alternative point of view, emphasizing personal liberty is at stake here. Odd how they have gone to sleep on this issue, since they call up the ACLU, Al Sharpton. George Soros and everyone else whenever anyone is potentially being manhandled by the Republican henchmen.
And I don’t think the Democrats WILL care enough about HRT to want to get in the ring on this one-as KSman points out, the demographic of people who intelligently grasp it is currently very small, not this giant older population who take their Lipitor, Insulin, Celebrex, Zoloft etc religiously but wouldn’t even know what T deficiency syndrome is. Many of T-Nations posters don’t even know the difference!
In my experience being a doctor for twenty five years, and being involved in many boards, committees, State psychiatric associations, etc., there is no question the prevailing power brokers in many if not most established medical organizations are Republican. Whether its the Republican platform of lower taxes for the wealthy, the Republican protection of the status quo, or something else, they do seem to outnumber the Democrats in this arena. I’m sure this may vary in certain geographic areas which are heavily democratic, like Massachusetts. But it has been obvious to me that the Republicans in these medical positions of power are for the large part fighting against the medical develoments which in any way violate their “high road morality platform” (i.e. stem cells, medical marijuana, cloning for medical research, and on down the line). I fear HRT will meet similar if not worse condemnation. Doc

17

Well, when every thing goes to sh1t and people start to ask why, some one will note that Bush was against abortion, if only to piss off the democrats and against steroids. Now that is really a great way to run a country. Not impressed that people voted for those principles of governance. Bush did not get into office by himself. Given his command of the English language, he could not have talked himself into that.

And what price are we going to pay for those guiding principles of leadership? The economic slide has started. As the dollar goes lower, oil becomes more expensive to buy in US dollar, we are being out bid by stronger currencies. The impact of this and the liquidity crisis are just getting started. In the end, Bush will have his name on it just as Colin Powell told Bush before invading Iraq “if you break it you own it”. Logically, Colin was off the stage quite fast after that.

We just recovered from the Junk Bond crisis really not that long ago and we are going trough the same crap again. Thank god that we have a lasse fare ethic and are not constrained by regulations. We are free to make the same stupid mistakes over and over again. That is a great freedom. Makes me want to protest out side of abortion clinics to solve or most pressing problems.

Lasse fare means “I am getting rich and do not want to change the system.”

Corporations flounder from mismanagement and improper goals. Counties and economies are not any different.

Things would be different if attacking Iraq was not a family tradition. What principles are we fighting for, bringing democracy to that region… when we are destroying so much of our own interests, killing our soldiers and maiming countless others, mothers with dead husbands (and a flag) and children with no fathers. Pursuit of happiness and personal freedom are now at risk at home. Some parts of the world only are stable when there is a strong man in control. Remove the strong man and the population starts to attack itself.

What if all of that money spent on the war had been spent on creating huge solar energy projects in the SW desert area. We could have done better, but if you make munitions, you have had a very nice time of it. I wonder if that money could have funded the replacement of all aged interstate bridges in the country? Vast things could have been done. How many modern green and safe nuclear electric plants could we have built?

I have been through many economic recessions and knew they were coming before they hit. I smell something big coming along that will will be compounded by many other new factors. Don’t even ask about the stock market. Guess what the computer operated trading platforms are going to do. Last one out is a rotten egg.

Many will not allow that I could be right but time reveals all. I will be thrilled to be able to say that I was completely wrong!

18

[quote]KSman wrote:
Well, when every thing goes to sh1t and people start to ask why, some one will note that Bush was against abortion, if only to piss off the democrats and against steroids. Now that is really a great way to run a country. Not impressed that people voted for those principles of governance. Bush did not get into office by himself. Given his command of the English language, he could not have talked himself into that.

And what price are we going to pay for those guiding principles of leadership? The economic slide has started. As the dollar goes lower, oil becomes more expensive to buy in US dollar, we are being out bid by stronger currencies. The impact of this and the liquidity crisis are just getting started. In the end, Bush will have his name on it just as Colin Powell told Bush before invading Iraq “if you break it you own it”. Logically, Colin was off the stage quite fast after that.

We just recovered from the Junk Bond crisis really not that long ago and we are going trough the same crap again. Thank god that we have a lasse fare ethic and are not constrained by regulations. We are free to make the same stupid mistakes over and over again. That is a great freedom. Makes me want to protest out side of abortion clinics to solve or most pressing problems.

Lasse fare means “I am getting rich and do not want to change the system.”

Corporations flounder from mismanagement and improper goals. Counties and economies are not any different.

Things would be different if attacking Iraq was not a family tradition. What principles are we fighting for, bringing democracy to that region… when we are destroying so much of our own interests, killing our soldiers and maiming countless others, mothers with dead husbands (and a flag) and children with no fathers. Pursuit of happiness and personal freedom are now at risk at home. Some parts of the world only are stable when there is a strong man in control. Remove the strong man and the population starts to attack itself.

What if all of that money spent on the war had been spent on creating huge solar energy projects in the SW desert area. We could have done better, but if you make munitions, you have had a very nice time of it. I wonder if that money could have funded the replacement of all aged interstate bridges in the country? Vast things could have been done. How many modern green and safe nuclear electric plants could we have built?

I have been through many economic recessions and knew they were coming before they hit. I smell something big coming along that will will be compounded by many other new factors. Don’t even ask about the stock market. Guess what the computer operated trading platforms are going to do. Last one out is a rotten egg.

Many will not allow that I could be right but time reveals all. I will be thrilled to be able to say that I was completely wrong!
[/quote]

I do not even know where to begin with this - I think he managed to cover every single thread ever effected on the politics forum… The internal logic is a wonder to behold though - interesting from a stream-of-consciousness perspective, but I really don’t have the time or inclination to do a point-by-point response to a series of claims.

One small point because it’s annoying me: It’s “laissez-faire”: Laissez-faire - Wikipedia

19

[quote]Dr.PowerClean wrote:
Normally, I stay out of political and religious debates, because they used to drive me insane (more insane). But this one I care about, and we have a T-Nation legend involved (KSman) and a Republican lawyer (I assume you’re Republican, BB, correct me if I’m wrong).[/quote]

I am a libertarian-leaning conservative, or a conservative-leaning libertarian, depending on the issue and on whom you ask. I generally vote Republican because I generally favor it to the alternative, but there’s something to be said for divided power. I’m for an original-intent judiciary w/r/t Constitutional questions. I also despise conspiracy theories and am a huge fan of Occam’s Razor: Occam's razor - Wikipedia

[quote]Dr.PowerClean wrote:
Thrash this one out, guys. I’ll play along, even though I’m a political lightweight due to my years of apathy.
My opinion, so far on your posts. I agree with KSman’s near-paranoid stance on the dangers doctors face if the republican-dominated Anti-steroid platform has what BB calls “mission creep”. [/quote]

I still don’t know why you think it’s all the Republicans. That’s a conclusion that needs some validation.

For example, these are just the first two articles I found in on the first page of my Google search that weren’t editorials:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,150800,00.html

[quote]Dr.PowerClean wrote:
In other words, if republicans fail to make a clear and concious effort to separate out HRT as a valid and vital part of medicine, it will get absorbed into their current platform.[/quote]

In other words, if politicians don’t carve it out from their anti-steroid agenda, then it will definitely end up getting covered by one or both of the agencies (DEA and FDA) in the form of extra restrictions (such as the restrictions surrounding the use of opiate painkillers for research/pain management) - or banned.

[quote]Dr.PowerClean wrote:
If this happens (and I believe it already has to some degree), doctors work in fear, and are subject to unwarranted loss of personal freedoms, and unwarranted scrutiny and pressure from the DEA, AMA and others. If they are in any way connected to a T user who is not HRT appropriate, they will be crucified.[/quote]

The problem is the regulation. Of course they will be subject to punishment for violating the regulatory requirements - that’s not special to HRT, nor is it problematic in the case of good law/regulation. The key is carving out HRT from the restrictions. I think your best bet is trying to educate people/the media on the benefits of HRT and how many people suffer from conditions that could be alleviated with HRT.

[quote]Dr.PowerClean wrote:
However, BB is correct in pointing out the media is predominantly controlled by the liberals, other than FOX news. However, the Democrats/liberals have shown no interest in using the Anti-steroids platform to take an alternative point of view, emphasizing personal liberty is at stake here. Odd how they have gone to sleep on this issue, since they call up the ACLU, Al Sharpton. George Soros and everyone else whenever anyone is potentially being manhandled by the Republican henchmen.
And I don’t think the Democrats WILL care enough about HRT to want to get in the ring on this one-as KSman points out, the demographic of people who intelligently grasp it is currently very small, not this giant older population who take their Lipitor, Insulin, Celebrex, Zoloft etc religiously but wouldn’t even know what T deficiency syndrome is. Many of T-Nations posters don’t even know the difference!

In my experience being a doctor for twenty five years, and being involved in many boards, committees, State psychiatric associations, etc., there is no question the prevailing power brokers in many if not most established medical organizations are Republican. Whether its the Republican platform of lower taxes for the wealthy, the Republican protection of the status quo, or something else, they do seem to outnumber the Democrats in this arena. I'm sure this may vary in certain geographic areas which are heavily democratic, like Massachusetts. But it has been obvious to me that the Republicans in these medical positions of power are for the large part fighting against the medical develoments which in any way violate their "high road morality platform" (i.e. stem cells, medical marijuana, cloning for medical research, and on down the line).  I fear HRT will meet similar if not worse condemnation.      Doc

[/quote]

Just another note questioning the position that it’s all the evil Republicans. I think this is an issue of bipartisan stupidity.

I don’t really have any particular knowledge in the area, but I’d be willing to wager that there are quite a few local and state-level medical boards that are controlled by Democrats - who may or may not be putting forth the type of pressure that worries you. It does seem to me that certain states seem very welcoming to HRT clinics, including the Republican-leaning states of Nevada and Arizona (from what I’ve read).

The AMA is hardly a Republican institution - it’s a trade guild or glorified union that takes positions in doctors’ economic interests (like the ABA does for lawyers). So to the extent that Republicans supported limiting malpractice claims (which they generally do) and socializing medicine (which would involve capping doctor salaries), the AMA supported those positions.

I’ll repeat my bottom-line position from above:

I think your best bet is trying to educate people/the media on the benefits of HRT and how many people suffer from conditions that could be alleviated with HRT.

20

BB,

  1. “Libertarian leaning” -I like that
  2. “Bipartisan stupidity”-check
  3. “key is carving out HRT”-check
  4. “try to educate people/media”-check

I could play the debate game, like picking out a quote or phrase you used I could take issue with (like why you keep stating that I STATE its only the Republicans-I only said “Republican dominated”: the highest ranking politician making this a strong policy issue was in your first link-President Bush, State of the Union, 2004).

I let others debate whether Republican politics are ruining the country. I'm just focused on HRT. And you have pointed out that several key Democrats are dangerous enemies-like this Durbin idiot that tried to add "herbal remedies" to this anti-steroids bill. He got rid of ephedra-I'm sure that was killing more Americans than obesity, right? What's next, tribulus?         Doc