Steroid Hysteria: Little Girls Too?
I am not a fan of anabolic steroids. Even if they were legal, I wouldn't use them. Being the biggest, fastest, strongest man in town simply isn't that important to me. I don't believe their use should be tolerated in the Olympics or competitive sports. I would never advise anyone to take them.
This being said, the negative publicity surrounding steroids and their potential health damaging effects is so overblown that it is scary. It's scary because there are many other sports supplements that could suffer the same fate if no one dares stand up and ask...
Next on the list? My bet is on creatine. It has exhibited all the early warning signs...
But then, can you name a product that can't produce negative side effects when used improperly? If government continues to further its role of protecting us from ourselves, protecting the minority of morons by eliminating the freedoms of the majority, what exactly will be able to legitimately remain on the shelves of stores?
Perhaps a system should be set up whereby a person would have to demonstrate a level of common sense in order to purchase products. They would have to show that they would not use weed whackers to trim their toenails, gargle gasoline, combat a headache with 44 Tylenol tablets, and down 200 grams of creatine a day (while even that hasn't been shown to be mortally dangerous, it is known to be a waste of perfectly good creatine).
If such a system were proposed, it wouldn't have a shot of making it through congress. Clearly, too many members of congress wouldn't be able to pass such a test.
What has the US congress been up to lately? Making this a better, safer country to live in and, more importantly, holding hearings on the disturbing problem of teenage girls using steroids. If you haven't heard, a Center for Disease Control (CDC) study found that 7.3% of ninth-grade girls have used steroids. So, if you went to the mall today, you likely saw a couple hundred little girls fresh off testosterone injections.
It is a shocking number. If you have some common sense, you probably want to know the methodology used to come up with such a number. Was it based on school nurse reports, drug test results or hospital statistics? No, it was based on an anonymous survey.
I remember being thirteen and I remember taking those anonymous surveys. I remember the conversations afterward going a little like this...
All this study showed was that a good percentage of little girls think such surveys are a joke. Probably about 7.2% of them.
What ends up being disturbing about the survey is the legitimacy so many major media outlets have given to the statistic. In an effort not to kill the shock value (news value) of the story, they have pretty much ignored the dissenting opinion. Yes, many doctors and experts have stood up to state the obvious: the study is bunk. Other studies with sounder methodologies have told different and more believable stories.
Congress too seemed unmoved by the "emperor has no clothes on" opposition. Liberally (very liberally) paraphrasing a Harvard psychiatry professor who testified before congress...
It turns out arguing that congress shouldn't be making laws to protect us from ourselves is really the wrong argument. They shouldn't be making laws to protect themselves from themselves and making the rest of us suffer because they are incapable of rational thought.
For those of you with HBO, the program Real Sports has an excellent story currently running on steroids, The Contrarian View.
For a recap of what is presented in that story, check out Ted Sillanpaa's column, Don't believe the hype: steroids might not be so dangerous.
Will Brink's funny article about the mixed up information about steroids ("Walking the Walk and Talking the Talk"> can be read on my site on the page, Steroids: How the Facts Get Confused.
Questionable coverage (one of many examples) on the CDC survey can be seen here.
An excellent article exposing the poor media coverage of the CDC survey Steroids and Teenage Girls. This article is from George Mason University's STATS, an organization that monitors the media's use of science and statistics, an excellent orgainzation with an excellent site.
JP Clifford
This being said, the negative publicity surrounding steroids and their potential health damaging effects is so overblown that it is scary. It's scary because there are many other sports supplements that could suffer the same fate if no one dares stand up and ask...
"Um, excuse me, is there any proof documenting your contention that the substance in question actually will cause death, destruction and general mayhem if not immediately banned?"Because seemingly, that is exactly what happened with steroids - someone said they were killers, it became common knowledge, and no one (no one with any clout at least) bothered to check facts. It happened to steroids little brother, prohormones, and it happened to ephedra too.
Next on the list? My bet is on creatine. It has exhibited all the early warning signs...
- It actually works
- It is popular
- It has been linked to deaths in major media reports (forget the fact that it was later determined that creatine played no role in those deaths and it has safety record that would be the envy of just about any OTC drug in any medicine cabinet).
But then, can you name a product that can't produce negative side effects when used improperly? If government continues to further its role of protecting us from ourselves, protecting the minority of morons by eliminating the freedoms of the majority, what exactly will be able to legitimately remain on the shelves of stores?
Perhaps a system should be set up whereby a person would have to demonstrate a level of common sense in order to purchase products. They would have to show that they would not use weed whackers to trim their toenails, gargle gasoline, combat a headache with 44 Tylenol tablets, and down 200 grams of creatine a day (while even that hasn't been shown to be mortally dangerous, it is known to be a waste of perfectly good creatine).
If such a system were proposed, it wouldn't have a shot of making it through congress. Clearly, too many members of congress wouldn't be able to pass such a test.
What has the US congress been up to lately? Making this a better, safer country to live in and, more importantly, holding hearings on the disturbing problem of teenage girls using steroids. If you haven't heard, a Center for Disease Control (CDC) study found that 7.3% of ninth-grade girls have used steroids. So, if you went to the mall today, you likely saw a couple hundred little girls fresh off testosterone injections.
It is a shocking number. If you have some common sense, you probably want to know the methodology used to come up with such a number. Was it based on school nurse reports, drug test results or hospital statistics? No, it was based on an anonymous survey.
I remember being thirteen and I remember taking those anonymous surveys. I remember the conversations afterward going a little like this...
"So what are you on?"We had never even seen those things or known anyone who had seen those things.
"Well, I shoot up heroin daily, but I only use cocaine on a monthly basis. Amphetamines weekly, and LSD yearly."
Laugh, Laugh, Laugh.
All this study showed was that a good percentage of little girls think such surveys are a joke. Probably about 7.2% of them.
What ends up being disturbing about the survey is the legitimacy so many major media outlets have given to the statistic. In an effort not to kill the shock value (news value) of the story, they have pretty much ignored the dissenting opinion. Yes, many doctors and experts have stood up to state the obvious: the study is bunk. Other studies with sounder methodologies have told different and more believable stories.
Congress too seemed unmoved by the "emperor has no clothes on" opposition. Liberally (very liberally) paraphrasing a Harvard psychiatry professor who testified before congress...
"The study is flawed. I can't believe you people are actually seriously considering its findings to be indicative of anything. You are being duped. Hundreds of thousands of teenage girls are now giggling at your ignorance. Not even they can believe you are so gullible. Its nothing more than a practical joke. Hello? Is anyone listening?"No one is listening. Common sense is not a requirement for congress.
It turns out arguing that congress shouldn't be making laws to protect us from ourselves is really the wrong argument. They shouldn't be making laws to protect themselves from themselves and making the rest of us suffer because they are incapable of rational thought.
For those of you with HBO, the program Real Sports has an excellent story currently running on steroids, The Contrarian View.
For a recap of what is presented in that story, check out Ted Sillanpaa's column, Don't believe the hype: steroids might not be so dangerous.
Will Brink's funny article about the mixed up information about steroids ("Walking the Walk and Talking the Talk"> can be read on my site on the page, Steroids: How the Facts Get Confused.
Questionable coverage (one of many examples) on the CDC survey can be seen here.
An excellent article exposing the poor media coverage of the CDC survey Steroids and Teenage Girls. This article is from George Mason University's STATS, an organization that monitors the media's use of science and statistics, an excellent orgainzation with an excellent site.
JP Clifford
posted by JP Clifford at 12:28 AM
1 Comments:
Thank you for your research and comments. I think many of us are afraid to be noticed saying what we feel is probably true. Is this hysteria or is there an effort to overplay some issues that have a
taboo to the culture.
Post a Comment
<< Home