Now LOW T more likely to cause heart attacks

[davidtheman100]

I think most sane people would agree, with anything you put into your body, natural or otherwise, there is a potential for risks. The argument, at least the important one, is are the risks manageable and do the potential benefits outweigh the risks? The two studies that started all the recent law suits, the studies imply that taking testosterone increases cardiovascular incidence - it makes no effort to discuss if risks can be reduced by managed care.

I don't think the studies were needed to start the law suits. They have testimonials who experienced the problems first hand. There are no more questions as to whether it's 100% true or not because it HAPPENED!

These people were evaluated thoroughly by doctors and experts in their field. It was not poor managed care that caused the problem. The article had the decency to not point out the obvious and say "They were looked at by a professional in the field while being given TRT."

Again, here is the denial. You're saying that "Yes" there IS risks associated with it, then you're pointing to something else that's already in-check as if it's causing the problem and it's not the product they're being given is the problem. They were 100% under medical supervision and still ran into problems. It is not even close to 100% safe.

Can it be beneficial? Yes it can, ESPECIALLY in the short term. Long term has NOT been studied or tested thoroughly enough to see whether it is good or bad. Hence why people feel like they're being a guinea pig.

I'd just like to say for the record that i have NEVER met someone over the age of 61 on TRT. Just me, personally.

[thisAngelBites]

These people were evaluated thoroughly by doctors and experts in their field. It was not poor managed care that caused the problem. The article had the decency to not point out the obvious and say "They were looked at by a professional in the field while being given TRT."

Again, here is the denial. You're saying that "Yes" there IS risks associated with it, then you're pointing to something else that's already in-check as if it's causing the problem and it's not the product they're being given is the problem. They were 100% under medical supervision and still ran into problems. It is not even close to 100% safe.

Medical errors are like the third or fourth cause of death in the US, so I wouldn't put too much stock in patients that were 100% medically supervised. Physicians are just people and are subject to all the vagaries thereof, such as not being as well educated as they could be, practicing in areas where they are not up to date and not doing the highest quality continuing education etc. And some of those people design medical studies. You really have to look at the individual studies and their methodologies in order to draw conclusions about its validity (or find someone who knows how to read them and can sum them up for you). Just going by the fact that doctors were involved is a very blunt tool.

[davidtheman100]

Medical errors are like the third or fourth cause of death in the US, so I wouldn't put too much stock in patients that were 100% medically supervised. Physicians are just people and are subject to all the vagaries thereof, such as not being as well educated as they could be, practicing in areas where they are not up to date and not doing the highest quality continuing education etc. And some of those people design medical studies. You really have to look at the individual studies and their methodologies in order to draw conclusions about its validity (or find someone who knows how to read them and can sum them up for you). Just going by the fact that doctors were involved is
a very blunt tool.

So then on top of the fact that the treatment itself poses risks, you also have to deal with the fact that you're dealing with doctors that account for the 3rd or 4th most deaths in American people. Proving my point further

[kelkel]

I don't think the studies were needed to start the law suits. They have testimonials who experienced the problems first hand. There are no more questions as to whether it's 100% true or not because it HAPPENED!

These people were evaluated thoroughly by doctors and experts in their field. It was not poor managed care that caused the problem. The article had the decency to not point out the obvious and say "They were looked at by a professional in the field while being given TRT."

Again, here is the denial. You're saying that "Yes" there IS risks associated with it, then you're pointing to something else that's already in-check as if it's causing the problem and it's not the product they're being given is the problem. They were 100% under medical supervision and still ran into problems. It is not even close to 100% safe.

Can it be beneficial? Yes it can, ESPECIALLY in the short term. Long term has NOT been studied or tested thoroughly enough to see whether it is good or bad. Hence why people feel like they're being a guinea pig.

I'd just like to say for the record that i have NEVER met someone over the age of 61 on TRT. Just me, personally.

Did you even read the study? Or the rebuttal by virtually the entire medical community?
Remember, when your time comes for TRT and you're suffering from all the symptoms, be sure to say "no thanks" it's not safe and just live with it.

Question for you. Say you develop a pituitary tumor or another issue that shuts down your testosterone. Will you refuse treatment? Or will you accept it under competent medical care?

[davidtheman100]

Did you even read the study? Or the rebuttal by virtually the entire medical community?
Remember, when your time comes for TRT and you're suffering from all the symptoms, be sure to say "no thanks" it's not safe and just live with it.

Question for you. Say you develop a pituitary tumor or another issue that shuts down your testosterone. Will you refuse treatment? Or will you accept it under competent medical care?

I would accept it. Because i feel that low T is worse than having medically administered test. Even if i wasn't right about that, i would rather not feel shitty tired, and unable to build muscle all of the time. I would just know that there are some big risks involved. You're putting me in a situation where i kind of have to say yes though, so i don't know your point.

[kelkel]

I would accept it. Because i feel that low T is worse than having medically administered test. Even if i wasn't right about that, i would rather not feel shitty tired, and unable to build muscle all of the time. I would just know that there are some big risks involved. You're putting me in a situation where i kind of have to say yes though, so i don't know your point.

Not really putting you in that situation. Aging will do that by itself. I'm glad that you would choose it though. It's been a life saver for many of us.
Interesting conversation Dave.

[Metalject]

I don't think the studies were needed to start the law suits. They have testimonials who experienced the problems first hand. There are no more questions as to whether it's 100% true or not because it HAPPENED!

These people were evaluated thoroughly by doctors and experts in their field. It was not poor managed care that caused the problem. The article had the decency to not point out the obvious and say "They were looked at by a professional in the field while being given TRT."

Again, here is the denial. You're saying that "Yes" there IS risks associated with it, then you're pointing to something else that's already in-check as if it's causing the problem and it's not the product they're being given is the problem. They were 100% under medical supervision and still ran into problems. It is not even close to 100% safe.

Can it be beneficial? Yes it can, ESPECIALLY in the short term. Long term has NOT been studied or tested thoroughly enough to see whether it is good or bad. Hence why people feel like they're being a guinea pig.

I'd just like to say for the record that i have NEVER met someone over the age of 61 on TRT. Just me, personally.

The testimonies of those individuals come from the men in the aforementioned studies. That's what started the recent (past year) argument, the two studies that came out. However, as kelkel said, the studies have been shot down by a large portion of the medical community, even the FDA (who almost never supports testosterone) stated the studies presented flawed data. One of the biggest things that was flawed, the men who had some type of cardiovascular incident, most had already had a previous cardiovascular incident.

The above studies are akin to this IMO: I'm 300lbs, obese and I eat crap every day. I then have a heart attack, no surprise. After my recovery I begin low testosterone treatment - nothing else in my life changes, I still eat like crap. I then, now using testosterone, have another heart attack. Would you say the testosterone caused my heart attack? Would I have had the heart attack anyway? I do have a history of heart attacks...did the testosterone increase the risk? All of these things have to be considered but often are not.

Further, saying someone is under medical supervision because they were prescribed isn't medical supervision if there's no monitoring of blood work, which is exactly the case that started these law suites. Again, one of the reasons even the FDA frowned on the studies.

Lastly, risk or no risk, no one is making these men take testosterone - this isn't the former Soviet Union and we are responsible for ourselves. Sure, we can argue that people should be able to trust their doctor, good argument but the problem with it is it's not the argument. People should have the right to undertake risk and poor information, biased information or spin shouldn't be part of the decision making process. And you can say spin comes from both sides, and you'd be right, it does. People often see what they want to see. As for myself, if TRT ends up killing me and I'm dead wrong about testosterone, I was still free to make my own choice. And hopefully the years I had left, although cut short, were better than they would have been without. IMO, no sane individual can argue that testosterone doesn't improve ones life, which is the foundation of the argument by the opposing crowd.