PDA

View Full Version : Re: Lance Armstrong's drug use may have caused his cancer


ilan
September 18th 06, 01:59 AM
Strictly speaking, which is to say the correct scientific approach,
you cannot make a conclusion for a single case, no
matter what the general statistical correlation. For example, it is
incorrect
to say, in a single instance, that a person developed lung cancer from
smoking. This applies to almost all forms of cancer, except perhaps
some special cases having to do with exposure to Plutonium, for
example.

Apart from this, the statement in the Subject of this thread is most
likely correct, because it follows from a false premise and any
implication
from a false premise is true.

-ilan


spoke in the wheel wrote:
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,213881,00.html
>
> Lance Armstrong's Self-Inflicted Cancer?
>
> Thursday , September 14, 2006
>
> By Steven Milloy
>
> Did the use of performance-enhancing drugs cause seven-time Tour de
> France winner Lance Armstrong's testicular cancer? That's what a
> Sports Illustrated columnist suggested this week. It's a provocative
> comment that warrants scrutiny from a scientific perspective.
>
> In E.M. Swift's article entitled, "The truth is out there: Smoking gun
> may finally be catching up with Lance," Swift described testimony
> given by former Armstrong teammate Frankie Andreu and Andreu's wife in
> a lawsuit between Armstrong and a sponsor that refused to pay
> Armstrong a $5 million bonus because of doping allegations.
>
> Andreu testified that while visiting Armstrong in the hospital for
> treatment of testicular cancer in 1996, Andreu overheard Armstrong
> tell his oncologist that he had used "steroids, testosterone,
> cortisone, growth hormone and EPO [an illegal performance-enhancing
> drug]."
>
> Although both Armstrong and the physician disputed the testimony and
> the case was settled out of court in Armstrong's favor, Swift
> nonetheless commented, "Which testimony is more credible? The Andreus'
> or Armstrong's? Ask yourself which party had the most to gain by
> lying. And why is that particular testimony significant? Because one
> of the possible side effects of prolonged steroid use is testicular
> cancer."
>
> Swift continued, "It's impossible to prove, but if what the Andreus
> testified to under oath is true, that Lance Armstrong, role model and
> hero to so many cancer survivors, may very well have helped bring
> about his own cancer through his use of performance-enhancing drugs.
> Young athletes tempted to go down that road need to know if that's the
> case."
>
> Certainly Swift's sensational charge that alleged steroid use by
> Armstrong may have caused his testicular cancer has a certain
> intuitive feel. After all, both endogenous and exogenous hormones are
> known to be involved in the development of various cancers. Science,
> however, is based on systematic observation of events, not a sports
> columnists' "makes sense to me" mode of thinking.
>
> A recent review published in the journal Current Sports Medicine
> Reports associated steroid use with liver and kidney cancers. Some
> studies have linked steroid use with prostate cancer. But no published
> study links steroids use with testicular cancer in humans or
> laboratory animals. I couldn't find a study that even suggested such a
> linkage. It's not clear where Swift got the notion for his claim that
> "one of the possible side effects of prolonged steroid use is
> testicular cancer" - he cited no expert or study.
>
> Keep in mind that steroids have been used and abused, particularly by
> bodybuilders and other strength athletes, for more than 30 years. If
> they caused testicular cancer, that association would likely have been
> documented, or at least hinted at, in the scientific literature by
> now.
>
> Further, no published studies link the other performance enhancing
> drugs mentioned by Swift - that is, testosterone, cortisone, human
> growth hormone, and EPO - with testicular cancer. Exogenous
> testosterone may increase the risk of prostate cancer in older men and
> growth hormone has been associated with increased risk of colorectal
> cancer in patients with acromegaly, but none of these associations
> supports Swift's supposition about Armstrong.
>
> The fact is that no one knows what causes testicular cancer. A number
> of potential risk factors have been identified - including undescended
> testicles, family history of testicular cancer, age, race, and body
> size - but the origins of the disease are unknown. The good news,
> however, is that testicular cancer can be treated and, very often,
> cured.
>
> None of this is said to justify the use of steroids or other
> performance enhancing drugs. Aside from the ethical questions
> surrounding their use, the abuse of steroids, growth hormone and
> testosterone by athletes is associated with a number of serious
> adverse health effects - not testicular cancer, however.
>
> It's been a rough time for cycling. The second- through fifth-place
> finishers of the 2005 Tour de France were excluded from the 2006 race
> under a cloud of suspected drug use. Floyd Landis, the winner of the
> 2006 race, has had his title stripped because he failed a drug test
> administered immediately following one of the most amazing one-day
> performances in the Tour's history. Just this week, former Armstrong
> friend Andreu and another former Armstrong teammate admitted they used
> EPO in 1999 - the year Armstrong won his first Tour title.
>
> Swift may very well be correct that "the truth" may catch up to Lance
> Armstrong. Only time will tell. In the meantime, he ought to stay
> focused on the facts rather than fueling the creation of sensational,
> but junk science-based myths.

Curt James
September 18th 06, 02:16 AM
ilan wrote:
[...]

> Apart from this, the statement in the Subject of this thread
> is most likely correct, because it follows from a false premise
> and any implication from a false premise is true.

Top-posting, schmop-posting, I think ilan's got the inside track for
the September humor award.

--
Curt

Robert Schuh
September 18th 06, 05:58 AM
ilan wrote:

> Strictly speaking, which is to say the correct scientific approach,
> you cannot make a conclusion for a single case, no
> matter what the general statistical correlation. For example, it is
> incorrect
> to say, in a single instance, that a person developed lung cancer from
> smoking. This applies to almost all forms of cancer, except perhaps
> some special cases having to do with exposure to Plutonium, for
> example.
>
> Apart from this, the statement in the Subject of this thread is most
> likely correct, because it follows from a false premise and any
> implication
> from a false premise is true.
>
> -ilan

THE most important fact here is that if Lance had used every drug that this
moron claimed he did, none of them could give you cancer of any kind. I
would LOVE to know how having more Testosterone, Growth Hormone or
Erythropoietin could cause cancer. They give EPO to dialysis patients and
patients on Chemo. Before EPO, they gave dialysis patients Deca Durabolin,
an anabolic steroid. The person who came up with the theory that Lance's
alleged drug use gave him cancer is nothing short of a moron and knows
NOTHING about any of those drugs.



>
>
> spoke in the wheel wrote:
> > http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,213881,00.html
> >
> > Lance Armstrong's Self-Inflicted Cancer?
> >
> > Thursday , September 14, 2006
> >
> > By Steven Milloy
> >
> > Did the use of performance-enhancing drugs cause seven-time Tour de
> > France winner Lance Armstrong's testicular cancer? That's what a
> > Sports Illustrated columnist suggested this week. It's a provocative
> > comment that warrants scrutiny from a scientific perspective.
> >
> > In E.M. Swift's article entitled, "The truth is out there: Smoking gun
> > may finally be catching up with Lance," Swift described testimony
> > given by former Armstrong teammate Frankie Andreu and Andreu's wife in
> > a lawsuit between Armstrong and a sponsor that refused to pay
> > Armstrong a $5 million bonus because of doping allegations.
> >
> > Andreu testified that while visiting Armstrong in the hospital for
> > treatment of testicular cancer in 1996, Andreu overheard Armstrong
> > tell his oncologist that he had used "steroids, testosterone,
> > cortisone, growth hormone and EPO [an illegal performance-enhancing
> > drug]."
> >
> > Although both Armstrong and the physician disputed the testimony and
> > the case was settled out of court in Armstrong's favor, Swift
> > nonetheless commented, "Which testimony is more credible? The Andreus'
> > or Armstrong's? Ask yourself which party had the most to gain by
> > lying. And why is that particular testimony significant? Because one
> > of the possible side effects of prolonged steroid use is testicular
> > cancer."
> >
> > Swift continued, "It's impossible to prove, but if what the Andreus
> > testified to under oath is true, that Lance Armstrong, role model and
> > hero to so many cancer survivors, may very well have helped bring
> > about his own cancer through his use of performance-enhancing drugs.
> > Young athletes tempted to go down that road need to know if that's the
> > case."
> >
> > Certainly Swift's sensational charge that alleged steroid use by
> > Armstrong may have caused his testicular cancer has a certain
> > intuitive feel. After all, both endogenous and exogenous hormones are
> > known to be involved in the development of various cancers. Science,
> > however, is based on systematic observation of events, not a sports
> > columnists' "makes sense to me" mode of thinking.
> >
> > A recent review published in the journal Current Sports Medicine
> > Reports associated steroid use with liver and kidney cancers. Some
> > studies have linked steroid use with prostate cancer. But no published
> > study links steroids use with testicular cancer in humans or
> > laboratory animals. I couldn't find a study that even suggested such a
> > linkage. It's not clear where Swift got the notion for his claim that
> > "one of the possible side effects of prolonged steroid use is
> > testicular cancer" - he cited no expert or study.
> >
> > Keep in mind that steroids have been used and abused, particularly by
> > bodybuilders and other strength athletes, for more than 30 years. If
> > they caused testicular cancer, that association would likely have been
> > documented, or at least hinted at, in the scientific literature by
> > now.
> >
> > Further, no published studies link the other performance enhancing
> > drugs mentioned by Swift - that is, testosterone, cortisone, human
> > growth hormone, and EPO - with testicular cancer. Exogenous
> > testosterone may increase the risk of prostate cancer in older men and
> > growth hormone has been associated with increased risk of colorectal
> > cancer in patients with acromegaly, but none of these associations
> > supports Swift's supposition about Armstrong.
> >
> > The fact is that no one knows what causes testicular cancer. A number
> > of potential risk factors have been identified - including undescended
> > testicles, family history of testicular cancer, age, race, and body
> > size - but the origins of the disease are unknown. The good news,
> > however, is that testicular cancer can be treated and, very often,
> > cured.
> >
> > None of this is said to justify the use of steroids or other
> > performance enhancing drugs. Aside from the ethical questions
> > surrounding their use, the abuse of steroids, growth hormone and
> > testosterone by athletes is associated with a number of serious
> > adverse health effects - not testicular cancer, however.
> >
> > It's been a rough time for cycling. The second- through fifth-place
> > finishers of the 2005 Tour de France were excluded from the 2006 race
> > under a cloud of suspected drug use. Floyd Landis, the winner of the
> > 2006 race, has had his title stripped because he failed a drug test
> > administered immediately following one of the most amazing one-day
> > performances in the Tour's history. Just this week, former Armstrong
> > friend Andreu and another former Armstrong teammate admitted they used
> > EPO in 1999 - the year Armstrong won his first Tour title.
> >
> > Swift may very well be correct that "the truth" may catch up to Lance
> > Armstrong. Only time will tell. In the meantime, he ought to stay
> > focused on the facts rather than fueling the creation of sensational,
> > but junk science-based myths.




--
Robert Schuh
"Everything that elevates an individual above the herd and
intimidates the neighbour is henceforth called evil; and
the fair, modest, submissive and conforming mentality,
the mediocrity of desires attains moral designations and honors"
- Nietzsche

http://www.hardbopdrums.com/

gk
September 18th 06, 11:39 PM
This applies to almost all forms of cancer, except perhaps
> some special cases having to do with exposure to Plutonium, for
> example.
>

asbestos is the obvious one....

A.
September 19th 06, 12:24 AM
Robert Schuh wrote:
> ilan wrote:
>
> > Strictly speaking, which is to say the correct scientific approach,
> > you cannot make a conclusion for a single case, no
> > matter what the general statistical correlation. For example, it is
> > incorrect
> > to say, in a single instance, that a person developed lung cancer from
> > smoking. This applies to almost all forms of cancer, except perhaps
> > some special cases having to do with exposure to Plutonium, for
> > example.
> >
> > Apart from this, the statement in the Subject of this thread is most
> > likely correct, because it follows from a false premise and any
> > implication
> > from a false premise is true.
> >
> > -ilan
>
> THE most important fact here is that if Lance had used every drug that this
> moron claimed he did, none of them could give you cancer of any kind. I
> would LOVE to know how having more Testosterone, Growth Hormone or
> Erythropoietin could cause cancer. They give EPO to dialysis patients and
> patients on Chemo. Before EPO, they gave dialysis patients Deca Durabolin,
> an anabolic steroid. The person who came up with the theory that Lance's
> alleged drug use gave him cancer is nothing short of a moron and knows
> NOTHING about any of those drugs.

I know nothing about the effects of EPO on various cancers, but there
are _certainly_ tumors that eat testosterone as their favorite food, so
to
speak. I thought everyone knew that. The testosterone would not cause
the cancer - but you might have one cancerous cell in your testicles
right
now, and the sweeper cells are currently removing it, or some other
aspect
of your immune system might operate to stop the process. It might sit
there, and then eventually become two cells. Then four. But, if it is
given
extra T, it will grow faster and more quickly become invasive. So, if
you're
going to take T or E., be aware either hormone makes some cancers
grow more quickly - different than causation, but perhaps not the kind
of
thing you'd like to have happen in your body.

Anabolic steroids effect different people, differently. We'd have to
know
whether this was simultaneous use, as well. It's also possible there
are
other drugs we don't know about, possible mutagens. But since you're
an expert - do they use EPO on pregnant women? Is it a possible
mutagen? Is cancer a mutation? Where are the studies on all this? -
I'd
like to read them.

At any rate, here are some folks at Harvard who devised a study that
disagrees with you:

http://www.health.harvard.edu/fhg/updates/update1004a.shtml

And here are some people who studied the specific effects of
testosterone on prostate cancer:

http://patient.cancerconsultants.com/prostate_cancer_news.aspx?id=30385

There's bunches more where that came from. And these ARE
about causation. The data are suggestive enough to make the AUA
conclude that T is a risk for both the development and the growth
rate of testicular cancer. Isn't that what Lance had?

You might want to check facts more frequently, as things change. The
relationship between higher T levels and other things is showing up.

A.
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > spoke in the wheel wrote:
> > > http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,213881,00.html
> > >
> > > Lance Armstrong's Self-Inflicted Cancer?
> > >
> > > Thursday , September 14, 2006
> > >
> > > By Steven Milloy
> > >
> > > Did the use of performance-enhancing drugs cause seven-time Tour de
> > > France winner Lance Armstrong's testicular cancer? That's what a
> > > Sports Illustrated columnist suggested this week. It's a provocative
> > > comment that warrants scrutiny from a scientific perspective.
> > >
> > > In E.M. Swift's article entitled, "The truth is out there: Smoking gun
> > > may finally be catching up with Lance," Swift described testimony
> > > given by former Armstrong teammate Frankie Andreu and Andreu's wife in
> > > a lawsuit between Armstrong and a sponsor that refused to pay
> > > Armstrong a $5 million bonus because of doping allegations.
> > >
> > > Andreu testified that while visiting Armstrong in the hospital for
> > > treatment of testicular cancer in 1996, Andreu overheard Armstrong
> > > tell his oncologist that he had used "steroids, testosterone,
> > > cortisone, growth hormone and EPO [an illegal performance-enhancing
> > > drug]."
> > >
> > > Although both Armstrong and the physician disputed the testimony and
> > > the case was settled out of court in Armstrong's favor, Swift
> > > nonetheless commented, "Which testimony is more credible? The Andreus'
> > > or Armstrong's? Ask yourself which party had the most to gain by
> > > lying. And why is that particular testimony significant? Because one
> > > of the possible side effects of prolonged steroid use is testicular
> > > cancer."
> > >
> > > Swift continued, "It's impossible to prove, but if what the Andreus
> > > testified to under oath is true, that Lance Armstrong, role model and
> > > hero to so many cancer survivors, may very well have helped bring
> > > about his own cancer through his use of performance-enhancing drugs.
> > > Young athletes tempted to go down that road need to know if that's the
> > > case."
> > >
> > > Certainly Swift's sensational charge that alleged steroid use by
> > > Armstrong may have caused his testicular cancer has a certain
> > > intuitive feel. After all, both endogenous and exogenous hormones are
> > > known to be involved in the development of various cancers. Science,
> > > however, is based on systematic observation of events, not a sports
> > > columnists' "makes sense to me" mode of thinking.
> > >
> > > A recent review published in the journal Current Sports Medicine
> > > Reports associated steroid use with liver and kidney cancers. Some
> > > studies have linked steroid use with prostate cancer. But no published
> > > study links steroids use with testicular cancer in humans or
> > > laboratory animals. I couldn't find a study that even suggested such a
> > > linkage. It's not clear where Swift got the notion for his claim that
> > > "one of the possible side effects of prolonged steroid use is
> > > testicular cancer" - he cited no expert or study.
> > >
> > > Keep in mind that steroids have been used and abused, particularly by
> > > bodybuilders and other strength athletes, for more than 30 years. If
> > > they caused testicular cancer, that association would likely have been
> > > documented, or at least hinted at, in the scientific literature by
> > > now.
> > >
> > > Further, no published studies link the other performance enhancing
> > > drugs mentioned by Swift - that is, testosterone, cortisone, human
> > > growth hormone, and EPO - with testicular cancer. Exogenous
> > > testosterone may increase the risk of prostate cancer in older men and
> > > growth hormone has been associated with increased risk of colorectal
> > > cancer in patients with acromegaly, but none of these associations
> > > supports Swift's supposition about Armstrong.
> > >
> > > The fact is that no one knows what causes testicular cancer. A number
> > > of potential risk factors have been identified - including undescended
> > > testicles, family history of testicular cancer, age, race, and body
> > > size - but the origins of the disease are unknown. The good news,
> > > however, is that testicular cancer can be treated and, very often,
> > > cured.
> > >
> > > None of this is said to justify the use of steroids or other
> > > performance enhancing drugs. Aside from the ethical questions
> > > surrounding their use, the abuse of steroids, growth hormone and
> > > testosterone by athletes is associated with a number of serious
> > > adverse health effects - not testicular cancer, however.
> > >
> > > It's been a rough time for cycling. The second- through fifth-place
> > > finishers of the 2005 Tour de France were excluded from the 2006 race
> > > under a cloud of suspected drug use. Floyd Landis, the winner of the
> > > 2006 race, has had his title stripped because he failed a drug test
> > > administered immediately following one of the most amazing one-day
> > > performances in the Tour's history. Just this week, former Armstrong
> > > friend Andreu and another former Armstrong teammate admitted they used
> > > EPO in 1999 - the year Armstrong won his first Tour title.
> > >
> > > Swift may very well be correct that "the truth" may catch up to Lance
> > > Armstrong. Only time will tell. In the meantime, he ought to stay
> > > focused on the facts rather than fueling the creation of sensational,
> > > but junk science-based myths.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Robert Schuh
> "Everything that elevates an individual above the herd and
> intimidates the neighbour is henceforth called evil; and
> the fair, modest, submissive and conforming mentality,
> the mediocrity of desires attains moral designations and honors"
> - Nietzsche
>
> http://www.hardbopdrums.com/

A.
September 19th 06, 12:28 AM
A. wrote:
> Robert Schuh wrote:
> > ilan wrote:
> >
> > > Strictly speaking, which is to say the correct scientific approach,
> > > you cannot make a conclusion for a single case, no
> > > matter what the general statistical correlation. For example, it is
> > > incorrect
> > > to say, in a single instance, that a person developed lung cancer from
> > > smoking. This applies to almost all forms of cancer, except perhaps
> > > some special cases having to do with exposure to Plutonium, for
> > > example.
> > >
> > > Apart from this, the statement in the Subject of this thread is most
> > > likely correct, because it follows from a false premise and any
> > > implication
> > > from a false premise is true.
> > >
> > > -ilan
> >
> > THE most important fact here is that if Lance had used every drug that this
> > moron claimed he did, none of them could give you cancer of any kind. I
> > would LOVE to know how having more Testosterone, Growth Hormone or
> > Erythropoietin could cause cancer. They give EPO to dialysis patients and
> > patients on Chemo. Before EPO, they gave dialysis patients Deca Durabolin,
> > an anabolic steroid. The person who came up with the theory that Lance's
> > alleged drug use gave him cancer is nothing short of a moron and knows
> > NOTHING about any of those drugs.
>
> I know nothing about the effects of EPO on various cancers, but there
> are _certainly_ tumors that eat testosterone as their favorite food, so
> to
> speak. I thought everyone knew that. The testosterone would not cause
> the cancer - but you might have one cancerous cell in your testicles
> right
> now, and the sweeper cells are currently removing it, or some other
> aspect
> of your immune system might operate to stop the process. It might sit
> there, and then eventually become two cells. Then four. But, if it is
> given
> extra T, it will grow faster and more quickly become invasive. So, if
> you're
> going to take T or E., be aware either hormone makes some cancers
> grow more quickly - different than causation, but perhaps not the kind
> of
> thing you'd like to have happen in your body.
>
> Anabolic steroids effect different people, differently. We'd have to
> know
> whether this was simultaneous use, as well. It's also possible there
> are
> other drugs we don't know about, possible mutagens. But since you're
> an expert - do they use EPO on pregnant women? Is it a possible
> mutagen? Is cancer a mutation? Where are the studies on all this? -
> I'd
> like to read them.
>
> At any rate, here are some folks at Harvard who devised a study that
> disagrees with you:
>
> http://www.health.harvard.edu/fhg/updates/update1004a.shtml
>
> And here are some people who studied the specific effects of
> testosterone on prostate cancer:
>
> http://patient.cancerconsultants.com/prostate_cancer_news.aspx?id=30385
>
> There's bunches more where that came from. And these ARE
> about causation. The data are suggestive enough to make the AUA
> conclude that T is a risk for both the development and the growth
> rate of testicular cancer. Isn't that what Lance had?
>
> You might want to check facts more frequently, as things change. The
> relationship between higher T levels and other things is showing up.
>
> A.

Oops - that was a definite connection between T and PROSTATE
cancer, not testicular cancer (although there are data on that, as
well,
but the AUA hasn't published that as its viewpoint, as they think
there's way more on the prostate issue).

I can't remember, of course, what Lance had.

No one will ever know exact causation in any one case, but it certainly
isn't foolish to entertain the hypothesis that using multiple kinds of
drugs in these categories might foul you up somehow.

Seems to me, it's a no-brainer.

A.
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > spoke in the wheel wrote:
> > > > http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,213881,00.html
> > > >
> > > > Lance Armstrong's Self-Inflicted Cancer?
> > > >
> > > > Thursday , September 14, 2006
> > > >
> > > > By Steven Milloy
> > > >
> > > > Did the use of performance-enhancing drugs cause seven-time Tour de
> > > > France winner Lance Armstrong's testicular cancer? That's what a
> > > > Sports Illustrated columnist suggested this week. It's a provocative
> > > > comment that warrants scrutiny from a scientific perspective.
> > > >
> > > > In E.M. Swift's article entitled, "The truth is out there: Smoking gun
> > > > may finally be catching up with Lance," Swift described testimony
> > > > given by former Armstrong teammate Frankie Andreu and Andreu's wife in
> > > > a lawsuit between Armstrong and a sponsor that refused to pay
> > > > Armstrong a $5 million bonus because of doping allegations.
> > > >
> > > > Andreu testified that while visiting Armstrong in the hospital for
> > > > treatment of testicular cancer in 1996, Andreu overheard Armstrong
> > > > tell his oncologist that he had used "steroids, testosterone,
> > > > cortisone, growth hormone and EPO [an illegal performance-enhancing
> > > > drug]."
> > > >
> > > > Although both Armstrong and the physician disputed the testimony and
> > > > the case was settled out of court in Armstrong's favor, Swift
> > > > nonetheless commented, "Which testimony is more credible? The Andreus'
> > > > or Armstrong's? Ask yourself which party had the most to gain by
> > > > lying. And why is that particular testimony significant? Because one
> > > > of the possible side effects of prolonged steroid use is testicular
> > > > cancer."
> > > >
> > > > Swift continued, "It's impossible to prove, but if what the Andreus
> > > > testified to under oath is true, that Lance Armstrong, role model and
> > > > hero to so many cancer survivors, may very well have helped bring
> > > > about his own cancer through his use of performance-enhancing drugs.
> > > > Young athletes tempted to go down that road need to know if that's the
> > > > case."
> > > >
> > > > Certainly Swift's sensational charge that alleged steroid use by
> > > > Armstrong may have caused his testicular cancer has a certain
> > > > intuitive feel. After all, both endogenous and exogenous hormones are
> > > > known to be involved in the development of various cancers. Science,
> > > > however, is based on systematic observation of events, not a sports
> > > > columnists' "makes sense to me" mode of thinking.
> > > >
> > > > A recent review published in the journal Current Sports Medicine
> > > > Reports associated steroid use with liver and kidney cancers. Some
> > > > studies have linked steroid use with prostate cancer. But no published
> > > > study links steroids use with testicular cancer in humans or
> > > > laboratory animals. I couldn't find a study that even suggested such a
> > > > linkage. It's not clear where Swift got the notion for his claim that
> > > > "one of the possible side effects of prolonged steroid use is
> > > > testicular cancer" - he cited no expert or study.
> > > >
> > > > Keep in mind that steroids have been used and abused, particularly by
> > > > bodybuilders and other strength athletes, for more than 30 years. If
> > > > they caused testicular cancer, that association would likely have been
> > > > documented, or at least hinted at, in the scientific literature by
> > > > now.
> > > >
> > > > Further, no published studies link the other performance enhancing
> > > > drugs mentioned by Swift - that is, testosterone, cortisone, human
> > > > growth hormone, and EPO - with testicular cancer. Exogenous
> > > > testosterone may increase the risk of prostate cancer in older men and
> > > > growth hormone has been associated with increased risk of colorectal
> > > > cancer in patients with acromegaly, but none of these associations
> > > > supports Swift's supposition about Armstrong.
> > > >
> > > > The fact is that no one knows what causes testicular cancer. A number
> > > > of potential risk factors have been identified - including undescended
> > > > testicles, family history of testicular cancer, age, race, and body
> > > > size - but the origins of the disease are unknown. The good news,
> > > > however, is that testicular cancer can be treated and, very often,
> > > > cured.
> > > >
> > > > None of this is said to justify the use of steroids or other
> > > > performance enhancing drugs. Aside from the ethical questions
> > > > surrounding their use, the abuse of steroids, growth hormone and
> > > > testosterone by athletes is associated with a number of serious
> > > > adverse health effects - not testicular cancer, however.
> > > >
> > > > It's been a rough time for cycling. The second- through fifth-place
> > > > finishers of the 2005 Tour de France were excluded from the 2006 race
> > > > under a cloud of suspected drug use. Floyd Landis, the winner of the
> > > > 2006 race, has had his title stripped because he failed a drug test
> > > > administered immediately following one of the most amazing one-day
> > > > performances in the Tour's history. Just this week, former Armstrong
> > > > friend Andreu and another former Armstrong teammate admitted they used
> > > > EPO in 1999 - the year Armstrong won his first Tour title.
> > > >
> > > > Swift may very well be correct that "the truth" may catch up to Lance
> > > > Armstrong. Only time will tell. In the meantime, he ought to stay
> > > > focused on the facts rather than fueling the creation of sensational,
> > > > but junk science-based myths.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Robert Schuh
> > "Everything that elevates an individual above the herd and
> > intimidates the neighbour is henceforth called evil; and
> > the fair, modest, submissive and conforming mentality,
> > the mediocrity of desires attains moral designations and honors"
> > - Nietzsche
> >
> > http://www.hardbopdrums.com/

Curt James
September 19th 06, 12:31 AM
DZ wrote:
> Robert Schuh wrote:
[...]

> > <snip> I would LOVE to know how having more Testosterone,
> > Growth Hormone or Erythropoietin could cause cancer.
>
> Increased GH is linked to an increased rate of cancers. It is not a
> simple correlation. When acromegaly patients are treated for the
> increased GH, the cancer rates drop to that of the general
> population. Moreover, in acromegaly, the the post-treatment GH level
> is by far the strongest predictor of mortality.

Pfft! You expect anyone to take the word of... what was it?

(Googles)

Oh, yes, here it is...

http://groups.google.com/group/misc.fitness.weights/msg/abf7cf9d15df30a2


You expect anyone to take the word of an "anonymous pussy"??? D'OH!

--
Curt

Pete
September 19th 06, 06:42 PM
"DZ" > schreef:

> Increased GH is linked to an increased rate of cancers. It is not a
> simple correlation. When acromegaly patients are treated for the
> increased GH, the cancer rates drop to that of the general
> population. Moreover, in acromegaly, the the post-treatment GH level
> is by far the strongest predictor of mortality.

I dont think you can compare AcroMegaly patients to athletes who use Gh.

They use it in cycles, not years on end...

----
Pete

Kyle Legate
September 19th 06, 09:06 PM
A. wrote:
>
> Oops - that was a definite connection between T and PROSTATE
> cancer, not testicular cancer (although there are data on that, as
> well,
> but the AUA hasn't published that as its viewpoint, as they think
> there's way more on the prostate issue).
>
> I can't remember, of course, what Lance had.
>
I think Lance had brain cancer.

> No one will ever know exact causation in any one case, but it certainly
> isn't foolish to entertain the hypothesis that using multiple kinds of
> drugs in these categories might foul you up somehow.
>
> Seems to me, it's a no-brainer.
>
So even Lance should get it.

Steph
September 20th 06, 02:45 AM
"Kyle Legate" > wrote in message
...
> A. wrote:
>>
>> Oops - that was a definite connection between T and PROSTATE
>> cancer, not testicular cancer (although there are data on that, as
>> well,
>> but the AUA hasn't published that as its viewpoint, as they think
>> there's way more on the prostate issue).
>>
>> I can't remember, of course, what Lance had.
>>
> I think Lance had brain cancer.

No he had testicular cancer with mets to the brain

Curt James
September 20th 06, 04:28 AM
DZ wrote:
[...]

> Actually, there are examples when intermittent exposure is
> riskier than heavy but constant, or even than total exposure -
> like the risk of melanoma as a function of sun exposure.
> There was a similar observation on smokers who smoke
> heavy but with periods of abstinence - that pattern increases
> the risk of lung cancer.

!!!

Aren't you just a ray of sunshine? ;o)

--
Curt

Robert Schuh
September 20th 06, 05:28 AM
Kyle Legate wrote:

> A. wrote:
> >
> > Oops - that was a definite connection between T and PROSTATE
> > cancer, not testicular cancer (although there are data on that, as
> > well,
> > but the AUA hasn't published that as its viewpoint, as they think
> > there's way more on the prostate issue).
> >
> > I can't remember, of course, what Lance had.
> >
> I think Lance had brain cancer.
>
> > No one will ever know exact causation in any one case, but it certainly
> > isn't foolish to entertain the hypothesis that using multiple kinds of
> > drugs in these categories might foul you up somehow.
> >
> > Seems to me, it's a no-brainer.
> >
> So even Lance should get it.

PLEASE get facts before you post.


--
Robert Schuh
"Everything that elevates an individual above the herd and
intimidates the neighbour is henceforth called evil; and
the fair, modest, submissive and conforming mentality,
the mediocrity of desires attains moral designations and honors"
- Nietzsche

http://www.hardbopdrums.com/

Kyle Legate
September 20th 06, 08:11 PM
Steph wrote:
> "Kyle Legate" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>A. wrote:
>>
>>>Oops - that was a definite connection between T and PROSTATE
>>>cancer, not testicular cancer (although there are data on that, as
>>>well,
>>>but the AUA hasn't published that as its viewpoint, as they think
>>>there's way more on the prostate issue).
>>>
>>>I can't remember, of course, what Lance had.
>>>
>>
>>I think Lance had brain cancer.
>
>
> No he had testicular cancer with mets to the brain
>
>
>
So in other words he had brain cancer.