Continued attacks on TRT

[OdinsOtherSon]

https://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/article/948701/177

Interestingly enough, none of the “studies” were directly referenced. Only an editorial referencing some guidelines were ever mentioned. I simply can’t understand the continued prejudice against TRT and its well documented benefits for males.

[Gallowmere]

https://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/article/948701/177

Interestingly enough, none of the “studies” were directly referenced. Only an editorial referencing some guidelines were ever mentioned. I simply can’t understand the continued prejudice against TRT and its well documented benefits for males.

Because they keep giving it to people who are already fucked up, treat their bodies like shit, and are on their way out.
If we applied to same logic to other treatments as we do TRT, Metformin would cause death in T2Ds.
The whole thing is absurd, but can pretty much entirely be laid at the feet of the “steroids is the devil” nonsense that’s been around for several decades.

[kelkel]

Completely ridiculous article.

[KINGKONG]

Where there is one study claiming this there will be another claiming that..it’s majority populations ignorance on steroids and sides and long term effects..then trt gets pigeon holed into that dark corner..it’s just the same amount of test you had as a young man..I mean, who would wanna feel 20 again? Lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Cornish]

Honestly, I didn't read the article. I don't want to. It's all the same bullshit anti-masculinity propaganda. The doc who implanted me with pellets told me how flawed the studies are...and he doesn't even have 10% of the knowledge some of the guys on this board have. I hate media of all types. I think I've found a home here.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using Tapatalk

[C27H40O3]

Don’t believe the hype. It’s agenda driven.

Just as with the crazy anti-opioid hysteria, follow the money. You will find out all you need to know.

That link was to a thrice-removed source. The original document in question is here:

https://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/2...374.1578607286

“Testosterone Treatment in Adult Men With Age-Related Low Testosterone : A Clinical Guideline From the American College of Physicians”


Just as with the opioid “reefer madness” style hysteria, those involved in writing the literature have a financial interest in its conclusions. Many of the authors and contributors are involved in the field known as “evidence based health”. This is a code word for creating “research” to support the practice of cutting costs of medical care delivery by denying services or medication to patients, under the guise of finding them ineffective.

Think about it, when would it be encouraged for patients to self inject their medication at home unsupervised, rather than use a cream or gel? When it is admittedly much cheaper to provide injectables for self administration. Look at a quote from the original document:

“”ACP suggests that physicians consider intramuscular rather than transdermal formulations when initiating testosterone treatment to improve sexual function because the costs are considerably lower for the intramuscular formulation and clinical effectiveness and harms are similar.
The annual cost in 2016 per beneficiary for testosterone replacement therapy was $2,135.32 for transdermal and $156.24 for the intramuscular formulation according to paid pharmaceutical claims provided in the 2016 Medicare Part D Drug Claims data.
“Most men are able to inject the intramuscular formulation at home and do not require a separate clinic or office visit for administration,” said Dr. McLean.””

They clearly want to make it difficult for patients to connect with this kind of treatment. The majority of the population are not young weightlifters, who are going to be comfortable self injecting medication at home.

Most professional medical study research papers have an attachment that lists any possible professional or financial conflicts the authors have. This way a reader can judge for themselves. You can look and see the conflicts involving this paper here:

Disclosures and Conflicts list:

http://<br /> <br /> https://www.acp...nes/9-3-19.pdf

One author is a fiduciary officer for The Washington State Medical Association (WSMA), which is a “professional organization providing tangible support of medical practice and access to physician services; promoting quality, cost effective care; and being a respected voice in the public arena.”

Another had Contract with ICER to perform evidence reviews and assist with cost analyses for new drugs and other medical innovations.


Another worked mainly for Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, focuses on cutting healthcare costs for services provided by eliminating certain treatments.

Several work for the Veterans Administration, which we know generally gives vets a hassle regarding TRT. It’s clear they would welcome any pseudo research that would justify this.

That trend toward “Evidence based health practices” is growing in this age of rationed health care. More and more bureaucrats are making health care decisions instead of medical professionals.


Here are some good arguments against EBHP:

https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/fu...lthaff.24.1.18

The field went into overdrive a couple of years ago, which left us with the egregious anti-opioid agenda we see today. The push to criminalize patients and doctors pushed a generation from legit drugstore pharmaceuticals to street heroin.

I was in my family doctor for my throat issues, and I saw a poster on the wall with guidelines for internists who prescribe opioids. At the very bottom, I see it was supplied by the “National association of Medicaid Directors”. This function of this organization is to help state Medicaid programs cut delivery of services and medication to patients to save money. A little research shows that they funded a bunch of studies demonizing opioids. They realize that opioids are at or near the top in prescribed medication in states all over the the country.

“Opioid Painkiller Is Top Prescription In 10 States”. https://khn.org/news/graphic-opioid-...-in-10-states/

They fund studies, and those conducting the research know ahead of time what their findings are going to be, and if they don’t fit the agenda, they will not get any more grants. It’s like the tobacco industry funding cigarette studies in the 1950’s that concluded that cigarettes are actually beneficial for you.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[C27H40O3]