Taking A Stand Against Dangerous DHEA Supplements

[Mark Thors]

Quoting from: http://grassley.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fus-
eAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=eed69d81-0916-73-
4a-1869-2b173175b19f&Month=12&Year=2007

Senator Grassley's proposal (S.2470) addresses the growing
prevalence of another substance that is being used for its
performance-enhancing properties, dehydroepiandrosterone
(DHEA). DHEA is a naturally-occurring precursor to
testosterone, and a dietary supplement that some athletes are
turning to as an alternative to illegal anabolic steroids.
Although many people use DHEA as an "anti-aging" supplement,
it is being marketed online to young athletes as a good way to
increase muscle mass. When taken in high doses over time,
DHEA, like its other relatives in the steroid family, may
cause liver damage and cancer. S.2470 will address this issue
by making it illegal to sell DHEA without a prescription to
anyone under the age of 18.

[trigonomet]

On Dec 19, 1:57 pm, Mark Thorson <nos...@sonic.net> wrote:
> Quoting from:http://grassley.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fu-
> seAction=PressReleases....
>
> Senator Grassley's proposal (S.2470) addresses the growing
> prevalence of another substance that is being used for its
> performance-enhancing properties, dehydroepiandrosterone
> (DHEA). DHEA is a naturally-occurring precursor to
> testosterone, and a dietary supplement that some athletes
> are turning to as an alternative to illegal anabolic
> steroids. Although many people use DHEA as an "anti-aging"
> supplement, it is being marketed online to young athletes as
> a good way to increase muscle mass. When taken in high doses
> over time, DHEA, like its other relatives in the steroid
> family, may cause liver damage and cancer. S.2470 will
> address this issue by making it illegal to sell DHEA without
> a prescription to anyone under the age of 18.

Big nanny Government. God and big drug forbid any middle age
female get a nonprescription androgen for lidibo or any older
person use DHEA to promote bone density. All a teen will get
from excess DHEA is more acne and bitch tits.

This reveals Mark Thorsons real agenda: making every
supplement a prescription item, IMO.

[drceephd]

On Dec 19, 4:57 pm, Mark Thorson <nos...@sonic.net> wrote:
> Quoting from:http://grassley.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fu-
> seAction=PressReleases....
>
> Senator Grassley's proposal (S.2470) addresses the growing
> prevalence of another substance that is being used for its
> performance-enhancing properties, dehydroepiandrosterone
> (DHEA). DHEA is a naturally-occurring precursor to
> testosterone, and a dietary supplement that some athletes
> are turning to as an alternative to illegal anabolic
> steroids. Although many people use DHEA as an "anti-aging"
> supplement, it is being marketed online to young athletes as
> a good way to increase muscle mass. When taken in high doses
> over time, DHEA, like its other relatives in the steroid
> family, may cause liver damage and cancer. S.2470 will
> address this issue by making it illegal to sell DHEA without
> a prescription to anyone under the age of 18.

Well, that certainly makes sense. We cannot have anyone
without an MD license to be issuing drugs that might kill you.

After all, MD = murdering doctor...but only if you can get
another MD to testify to it in court.

DrCee

[Steve Youn]

<trigonometry1972@gmail.com> wrote

> On Dec 19, 1:57 pm, Mark Thorson <nos...@sonic.net> wrote:

>> Quoting from:http://grassley.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?
>> FuseAction=PressReleases....

>> Senator Grassley's proposal (S.2470) addresses the growing
>> prevalence of another substance that is being used for its
>> performance-enhancing properties, dehydroepiandrosterone
>> (DHEA). DHEA is a naturally-occurring precursor to
>> testosterone, and a dietary supplement that some athletes
>> are turning to as an alternative to illegal anabolic
>> steroids. Although many people use DHEA as an "anti-aging"
>> supplement, it is being marketed online to young athletes
>> as a good way to increase muscle mass. When taken in high
>> doses over time, DHEA, like its other relatives in the
>> steroid family, may cause liver damage and cancer. S.2470
>> will address this issue by making it illegal to sell DHEA
>> without a prescription to anyone under the age of 18.

> Big nanny Government. God and big drug forbid any middle age
> female get a nonprescription androgen for lidibo or any
> older person use DHEA to promote bone density. All a teen
> will get from excess DHEA is more acne and bitch tits.

and a male over 40, not exercising prudence, would see some
cute little "bitch tits", in a *hurry* ;(

> This reveals Mark Thorsons real agenda: making every
> supplement a prescription item, IMO.

I'm afraid so,... and that's so counter productive to the
spirit of this newsgroup :(x

[Dave]

On Dec 19, 7:06 pm, trigonometry1...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Dec 19, 1:57 pm, Mark Thorson <nos...@sonic.net> wrote:
>
> > Quoting from:http://grassley.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?-
> > FuseAction=PressReleases....
>
> > Senator Grassley's proposal (S.2470) addresses the growing
> > prevalence of another substance that is being used for its
> > performance-enhancing properties, dehydroepiandrosterone
> > (DHEA). DHEA is a naturally-occurring precursor to
> > testosterone, and a dietary supplement that some athletes
> > are turning to as an alternative to illegal anabolic
> > steroids. Although many people use DHEA as an "anti-aging"
> > supplement, it is being marketed online to young athletes
> > as a good way to increase muscle mass. When taken in high
> > doses over time, DHEA, like its other relatives in the
> > steroid family, may cause liver damage and cancer. S.2470
> > will address this issue by making it illegal to sell DHEA
> > without a prescription to anyone under the age of 18.
>
> Big nanny Government. God and big drug forbid any middle age
> female get a nonprescription androgen for lidibo or any
> older person use DHEA to promote bone density. All a teen
> will get from excess DHEA is more acne and bitch tits.
>
> This reveals Mark Thorsons real agenda: making every
> supplement a prescription item, IMO.

I don't even know why someone like Thorson would "hang out"
here. What's the motivation, just to be disruptive? One forum
reader wrote me and suggested we all just ignore him. Maybe
he'll go away.

The last thing I want is someone else, Thorson or Government,
deciding what supplement I can take.

Dave

[Mark Thors]

Dave wrote:
>
> The last thing I want is someone else, Thorson or
> Government, deciding what supplement I can take.

Yes, that is the position you can be expected to take, in
order to please the supplement companies you wish to have as
sponsors of your commercial blogspot web site. The supplement
companies wish to be free to sell anything, without regard to
safety, efficacy, or sanitary manufacturing practices.

And, as is prefectly predictable, you are opposed to the
legislative action to restrict sales of DHEA to minors. The
proposed legislation would not affect adults. It would only
affect minors, often ordering through Internet web sites. But
that would harm the bottom line of the companies you want to
have as sponsors, and so you must oppose anything that would
interfere with the ability of minors to order harmful
supplements over the Internet. You don't care that children
and teens could suffer harmful or fatal health consequences
as a result. You only care about the bottom line, getting
your share of the multi-billion dollar supplement market. You
are amoral.

[trigonomet]

On Dec 19, 7:15=A0pm, "Steve Young"
<bowtieATbrightdslDOTnet> wrote:
> <trigonometry1...@gmail.com> wrote
>
>
>
> > On Dec 19, 1:57 pm, Mark Thorson <nos...@sonic.net> wrote:
> >> Quoting from:http://grassley.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?
> >> FuseAction=3DPressReleases.... Senator Grassley's
> >> proposal (S.2470) addresses the growing prevalence of
> >> another substance that is being used for its
> >> performance-enhancing properties, dehydroepiandrosterone
> >> (DHEA). DHEA is a naturally-occurring precursor to
> >> testosterone, and a dietary supplement that some athletes
> >> are turning to as an alternative to illegal anabolic
> >> steroids. =A0Although many people use DHEA as an
> >> "anti-aging" supplement, it is being marketed online to
> >> young athletes as a good way to increase muscle mass.
> >> When taken in high doses over time, DHEA, like its other
> >> relatives in the steroid family, may cause liver damage
> >> and cancer. S.2470 will address this issue by making it
> >> illegal to sell DHEA without a prescription to anyone
> >> under the age of 18.
> > Big nanny Government. God and big drug forbid any
> > middle age female get a nonprescription androgen for
> > lidibo or any older person use DHEA to promote bone
> > density. All a teen will get from excess DHEA is more
> > acne and bitch tits.
>
> and a male over 40, not exercising prudence, would see some
> cute little "bitch tits", in a *hurry* ;(

Oral DHEA does tend to raise the Estradiol levels in males.
Even a dose of 75 mgs will cause symptoms of excess E2 in a
middle aged male. Part of this is that the oral route has the
first pass effect which causes the liver to convert much of
the DHEA into E2. I'd suggest a lower dose and by the
transdermal route would have benefits at least in some
especially women. Interestingly DHEA raises the androgen level
more in women than men which is a good thing.

What is needed is public research money directed into research
on the topic. The problem is that the resulting uses would
compete with both current drug products and proposed drug
products. And then the publicly directed research's products
should or could or might in a more ideal world be marketed by
a limited profit publicly controlled drug organization
something like a rural public power association. A vastly more
successful model than the bloated greedy private power
companies. Further to make such a structure work, there would
need to be a separate drug approval organization (DAO) for
these public drug associations. One owned and controlled by
not the public but these public drug associations. Rather like
Big Pharma has in the current FDA except without the
destructive executive appointments.

So I am a serious or is this proposal a parody or
perhaps both?

>
> > This reveals Mark Thorsons real agenda: making every
> > supplement a prescription item, IMO.
>
> I'm afraid so,... and that's so counter productive to the
> spirit of this newsgroup =A0:(x

Well Mark is part of the spirit here on MHA for better of
worse. He represents one of the the several camps that
post here.

[trigonomet]

On Dec 19, 7:15=A0pm, "Steve Young"
<bowtieATbrightdslDOTnet> wrote:
> <trigonometry1...@gmail.com> wrote
>
>
>
> > On Dec 19, 1:57 pm, Mark Thorson <nos...@sonic.net> wrote:
> >> Quoting from:http://grassley.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?
> >> FuseAction=3DPressReleases.... Senator Grassley's
> >> proposal (S.2470) addresses the growing prevalence of
> >> another substance that is being used for its
> >> performance-enhancing properties, dehydroepiandrosterone
> >> (DHEA). DHEA is a naturally-occurring precursor to
> >> testosterone, and a dietary supplement that some athletes
> >> are turning to as an alternative to illegal anabolic
> >> steroids. =A0Although many people use DHEA as an
> >> "anti-aging" supplement, it is being marketed online to
> >> young athletes as a good way to increase muscle mass.
> >> When taken in high doses over time, DHEA, like its other
> >> relatives in the steroid family, may cause liver damage
> >> and cancer. S.2470 will address this issue by making it
> >> illegal to sell DHEA without a prescription to anyone
> >> under the age of 18.
> > Big nanny Government. God and big drug forbid any
> > middle age female get a nonprescription androgen for
> > lidibo or any older person use DHEA to promote bone
> > density. All a teen will get from excess DHEA is more
> > acne and bitch tits.
>
> and a male over 40, not exercising prudence, would see some
> cute little "bitch tits", in a *hurry* ;(

Oral DHEA does tend to raise the Estradiol levels in males.
Even a dose of 75 mgs will cause symptoms of excess E2 in a
middle aged male. Part of this is that the oral route has the
first pass effect which causes the liver to convert much of
the DHEA into E2. I'd suggest a lower dose and by the
transdermal route would have benefits at least in some
especially women. Interestingly DHEA raises the androgen level
more in women than men which is a good thing.

What is needed is public research money directed into research
on the topic. The problem is that the resulting uses would
compete with both current drug products and proposed drug
products. And then the publicly directed research's products
should or could or might in a more ideal world be marketed by
a limited profit publicly controlled drug organization
something like a rural public power association. A vastly more
successful model than the bloated greedy private power
companies. Further to make such a structure work, there would
need to be a separate drug approval organization (DAO) for
these public drug associations. One owned and controlled by
not the public but these public drug associations. Rather like
Big Pharma has in the current FDA except without the
destructive executive appointments.

So I am a serious or is this proposal a parody or
perhaps both?

>
> > This reveals Mark Thorsons real agenda: making every
> > supplement a prescription item, IMO.
>
> I'm afraid so,... and that's so counter productive to the
> spirit of this newsgroup =A0:(x

Well Mark is part of the spirit here on MHA for better of
worse. He represents one of the the several camps that
post here.

[trigonomet]

On Dec 21, 5:38=A0am, Mark Probert
<markprob...@lumbercartel.com> wrote:
> ch...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >> The last thing I want is someone else, Thorson or
> >> Government, deciding what supplement I can take.
>
> > The solution is very simple - allow controversial
> > supplements to be sold with Big A$s warning-labels,
> > cigarette-style. The manufacturer can cite all the
> > possible benefits and research, and the warning label all
> > the possible risks. There is approx 0% health benefit from
> > smoking, but tobacco is still sold. Why not let other
> > substances be sold w/ a possible 1%-5% health benefit?
>
> Why repeat a mistake?

The current mistake with tobacco is that the government is
more addicted to it. than even the smokers. Government and it
providers (the elected) would go into withdrawal from those
green leaves with pictures of presidents on them.

DHEA is not addictive to the consumer ; whereas, tobacco is.

Indeed, cheap and legal addictive drugs might have some merits
to the social structure. The current structures of society
leads to both Big Pharma and big illegal drug cartels. Cheap
legal locally grown drugs would go a long way in taking care
of the Afgan problem;-)

[Mark Thors]

trigonometry1972@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Well Mark is part of the spirit here on MHA for better of
> worse. He represents one of the the several camps that
> post here.

Some people want to suppress the information I provide because
it may hurt the sales of supplements that they promote. They
even wish to prevent me from warning about hazards which could
cause harm (such as the recent bad advice from the blogspot
spammer which could have led to cases of infant botulism).
These people have no moral compass -- they are only guided by
their personal ambitions for money, without regard to any harm
they may cause.

[Mark Thors]

trigonometry1972@gmail.com wrote:
>
> The current mistake with tobacco is that the government is
> more addicted to it. than even the smokers. Government and
> it providers (the elected) would go into withdrawal from
> those green leaves with pictures of presidents on them.

It sounds like you read this article:
http://www.washingtonian.com/articles/people/5856.html

It is indeed a shameful history.

> DHEA is not addictive to the consumer ; whereas, tobacco is.
>
> Indeed, cheap and legal addictive drugs might have some
> merits to the social structure. The current structures of
> society leads to both Big Pharma and big illegal drug
> cartels. Cheap legal locally grown drugs would go a long way
> in taking care of the Afgan problem;-)

And you can also make rope out of the stalks.

[Mark Probe]

chatw@my-deja.com wrote:
>> The last thing I want is someone else, Thorson or
>> Government, deciding what supplement I can take.
>
>
> The solution is very simple - allow controversial
> supplements to be sold with Big A$s warning-labels,
> cigarette-style. The manufacturer can cite all the possible
> benefits and research, and the warning label all the
> possible risks. There is approx 0% health benefit from
> smoking, but tobacco is still sold. Why not let other
> substances be sold w/ a possible 1%-5% health benefit?

Why repeat a mistake?

[T]

"Mark Thorson" <nospam@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:476C0E49.8CA5F436@sonic.net...
> trigonometry1972@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> Well Mark is part of the spirit here on MHA for better of
>> worse. He represents one of the the several camps that
>> post here.
>
> Some people want to suppress the information I provide
> because it may hurt the sales of supplements that they
> promote. They even wish to prevent me from warning about
> hazards which could cause harm (such as the recent bad
> advice from the blogspot spammer which could have led to
> cases of infant botulism). These people have no moral
> compass -- they are only guided by their personal ambitions
> for money, without regard to any harm they may cause. OK, so
> Mark, why do you not attack and warn about pharm drugs that
> are dangerous and harm many? You do know that there are very
> likely many more of them than supplements. Is it because the
> pharm giants have enough money to cause you much trouble? Or
> is it that you have some investments that you have not
> mentioned here? Please do tell us.
Keep in mind that such investments can be traced. It takes a
bit of work , but it can be done. So please be truthful, ok?

[Mark Probe]

trigonometry1972@gmail.com wrote:
> On Dec 21, 5:38 am, Mark Probert
> <markprob...@lumbercartel.com> wrote:
>> ch...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>>> The last thing I want is someone else, Thorson or
>>>> Government, deciding what supplement I can take.
>>> The solution is very simple - allow controversial
>>> supplements to be sold with Big A$s warning-labels,
>>> cigarette-style. The manufacturer can cite all the
>>> possible benefits and research, and the warning label all
>>> the possible risks. There is approx 0% health benefit from
>>> smoking, but tobacco is still sold. Why not let other
>>> substances be sold w/ a possible 1%-5% health benefit?
>> Why repeat a mistake?
>
>
>
> The current mistake with tobacco is that the government is
> more addicted to it. than even the smokers. Government and
> it providers (the elected) would go into withdrawal from
> those green leaves with pictures of presidents on them.

That is another mistake. Your point is well taken.

Now, extend it slightly and realize that with a flat rate
sales tax on gasoline, you'll never get lower prices.

> DHEA is not addictive to the consumer ; whereas, tobacco is.
>
> Indeed, cheap and legal addictive drugs might have some
> merits to the social structure. The current structures of
> society leads to both Big Pharma and big illegal drug
> cartels. Cheap legal locally grown drugs would go a long way
> in taking care of the Afgan problem;-)