> The sciences of psychology and forensic psychiatry recognize the phenomenon of transgenerational trauma transmission: Traumatic experiences can be passed along to the children. From research conducted into other victim groups that suffered a similar fate, we know that the transgenerational transmission of trauma leads to the handing down of specific symptoms and can go hand in hand with significant risks – not just psychological and social, but also genetic.
The genetic/epigenetic effects of intergenerational trauma are on super shaky ground.
The effects they have found are basically if you break an individual through trauma that can cause them to sometimes be a shittier parent. For instance if you have anger issues or alcoholism from ptsd that will definitely hamper ability to raise a child.
But there are also a lot of confounds in the literature which probably exaggerate this effect. (basically some of the ability to recover from and avoid trauma is genetic, and therefore passed down)
"vitamin supplements", per the article. And some were children as young as seven years old. You're working hard to blame the victims here.
We place a lot of trust in medical professionals. Your doctor gives you a prescription for something - for most people, you take it on the assumption they know what they're doing. (Yes, I realize there's likely a sub-contingent of the HN crowd that Googles everything they take -- but there was no Google back then, and particularly not in East Germany, where almost all of the information you got was carefully controlled). Witness how easy it was for Larry Nassar to perpetuate years of abuse against over 250 children, and that's today in the US.
Even if the trust was simply "hey, this will help you perform better and it's safe", and the "it's safe" part is a lie, it's still abuse. And the things described in the article are actually far worse than just that.
From my understanding a lot of it was pills too. Turinabol, an oral steroid, was invented in East Germany and to my knowledge used heavily during the doping years
If you didn't know this nor the effects of vitamins specialized for you, would you be able to tell the difference? If you were simply told it was medicine to help you, would you be able to tell the difference between steroids and something else?
I've only taken high-dose steroids for a medical condition once. I could tell at the higher levels, but not much at the lower levels. If someone started off slow and slowly increased the dosages, it is quite possible that it would be missed. And that's with adults, not necessarily children.
I have been on high doses of prednisolone 40mg a day and as I knew what the side effects where I could tell the short term and long term effects not sure if an innocent kid would know
I defiantly knew what the effects where - you feel like you can run though walls and pushes your aggression through the roof.
I've had them in an IV - they made me hallucinate, and tapered off with the same pills, higher than you had at first. I had no aggression, but was quite energetic and could barely sleep. I go soooo much done once I got out of the hospital Let me be the first to tell you that hospitals are quite boring when you have the energy between the doses and couldn't sleep. And sure, I felt effects, but I was warned about them as well.
We are both lucky to not have been lied to and have the internet. Pre-internet and the doctor telling me the vitamins do that? I'm not sure I could have known any differently without some knowledge of this stuff as an adult, and agreed - not as a child either.
I never got the psycho active effects - how ever later on I was told that a well known uk author was on pred and wrote a book very quickly whilst under the influence - not one of there best I am told :-)
You're responding as if you didn't read the article and don't realize how widespread it was. We don't consider a child's consent as valid even if they were told the correct facts about what they were taking, which they weren't.
Conveniently leaving out the experiments performed by the US military, for example, in the sixties. I chose the US because that's the most prominent anti-pole to the USSR, not because they did anything unique that no other country has done or would do.
I don't like whataboutism as much as the next guy, but if you put on blinders to only see what fits your world view I think it's okay to put things into perspective. Humans don't always care about other humans, that was, is and will be true and has nothing to do with "communism" or whatever name you happen to despise the most.
By the way, I grew up in East Germany and participated in the protests end of the eighties, so I know quite a bit about the bad parts, but also about the good ones. I also lived in the US for nearly a decade (back in Germany now).
There are many other things one could consider, for example that now people do bad things to their own bodies as part of work culture when they go to work even though they are sick. A lot less pressure on yourself to do that in East Germany (yes, we did not produce nearly as much but I don't think it was because people actually stayed at home when they were sick). Another example, from an East German perspective the discussion about "free range kids". We were all "free range" in East Germany and often sent on our ways all alone even when still very young. Who would have thought, culture is complex and the system is only one of many variables, and regardless of the system people will be people and all kinds of stuff develops in a culture that you cannot attribute to some "system" identified by a word.
That's a good point, but there's a crucial difference you're not considering. In US, programs like MK Ultra were actually trying to be secret and had a severe public outlash as they were published. Now, these programs are widespread knowledge and you won't find a reasonable US person who would defend them.
In USSR, on the other hand, state-backed violence was only "save face" secret that everybody was more or less aware of. Solzhenitsyn's revelations made a much bigger splash outside of the USSR than within exactly because he didn't reveal anything most of the population wasn't already aware of - but the people themselves didn't mind that much. Even today, most Russians would say that state-sponsored violence of USSR, which affected tens of millions of people, was a good thing, and leaders who perpetrated it are still viewed favorably.
> he didn't reveal anything most of the population wasn't already aware of - but the people themselves didn't mind that much
The scope of purges was such that it was impossible not to know. When the book went out, Soviet union was much safer place to live in, simply because main purge already ended. After communism fell, he was also not only one to write about these things or talk about them, bookstores were full of memoirs.
Current support for those things has a lot to do with both contemporary politics and propaganda and with the way young democracy was mishandled.
Are you out of your f...ing mind??? What distortions of mind are necessary - on a Trump-like level - to try to twist it until the US looks good no matter what shit you guys do? You will surely come up with some good justifications for anything as long as it's done by "your" country. From all its many many wars and killings to internal things like asset forfeiture or biased sentencing of the poor to for-profit prisons.
Yes, if you got the money and don't belong to the wrong group you can live quite nicely in the US of A.
You're using a prevalent concept - near total state control over persons in the former Soviet Union - and contrasting it with examples that were rare. That's why your retort is invalid. It's fundamentally why people aren't shocked at what the USSR did to people during its existence, and are shocked when they find out about some of the US military's experiments, such as the army's test of airborne dispersion of germs in St. Louis and other cities:
For those just passing by, the study in question did not involve dispersing germs but a traceable chemical that was not known to be and remains unproven to be hazardous.
Experiments performed by the US military are not relevant to East German doper lifespan. The parent explained while are these considered victims and not to be blamed for the doping in question. Because they were children and because saying no might put them at risk.
You came in complaining that the parent did not also mentioned whole history of every injustice in western world since second world war and all the good things including Tolstoy. That is not even whataboutism, that is completely changing the topic.
Lastly, if doing x in a culture y puts people at risk, people will avoid doing x and it totally have to do with the culture itself. Even if things-similar-to-x happen in different cultures for different reasons.
I always find interesting to read comments from people who actually lived in the former eastern block countries, like the DDR. Most of what you can read about socialism in english-speaking communities like this one comes only from people who knew about socialism from television or films.
I assure you that I don't need to read about "socialism" anywhere, grew up in it. And it was even worst than East Germany. What people need to understand is that the state had the hammer and the nail, you had no recourse. They had a thousand options to force you to do whatever they wanted to; including to rat on your family members. If you did something "subversive" your entire extended family suffered, and you were blamed by them too.
I know, although I don't think prosecuting dissidents was invented by the 20th century socialists. By the way, may I know which was that place you grew up in?
So just like the US today, for example when you become the victim of asset forfeiture.
The very first time I visited the US a few years after German reunification after two and a half months on the road (literally) my final thought was "beautiful, but what a police state". Yes, the "free" US of A. I chose to live there later - a contradiction? Not really, it was a compromise I was willing to make, up to a point - I did return to Europe in the end when I could have stayed, a Green Card was possible.
So many butt-hurt STUPID Americans here, stupid little children like your president, who isn't an aberration but exactly a picture of American state of mind. Anything not praising the US through the roof is treated with hate and downvotes. Morons.
You may not like it you morons, but even after my first 2+ months tour of the US only a few years after German reunification, so with GDR experiences very fresh, one of my most memorable conclusions about it was "what a police state".
Conveniently leaving out the experiments performed by the US military, for example, in the sixties. I chose the US because that's the most prominent anti-pole to the USSR, not because they did anything unique that no other country has done or would do.
I don't like whataboutism as much as the next guy, but if you put on blinders to only see what fits your world view I think it's okay to put things into perspective. Humans don't always care about other humans, that was, is and will be true and has nothing to do with "communism" or whatever name you happen to despise the most.
read the article, please, instead of spreading nontruths.
my parents’ parents were facing the choice to either let their children go into these ‘sports clubs’ and let their bodies be destroyed. i personally know survivors of these tactics who had their entire lives altered by unethical medicinal practices. look up caren mahn for example.
I was oringally put off by the ‘victim’ terminology, however I was unaware that children were systematically given PEDs and told they were vitamins! This is horrific, and I’m glad some light is being shed on the long term effects this has had on those affected.
Yeah this wasn't a Lance Armstrong case. The east German athletes were not told anything about the shit they were given. None of them got million dollar book contracts or sponsorship deals.
East Germany was a totalitarian system - people were coerced their entire lives through it. Definitely athletes as they were a major tool of foreign policy: 'Superior athletes' were to be a validation to the world of the 'superior system' they had created in E. Germany and the Soviet sphere of influence.
When you're nabbed by the state at a young age and raised to do one thing, wherein there are zero prospects beyond the role given to you, and the real possibility of retribution - you do as you're told in all manner of things. It's not just 'doping' , it's basically a submission to the system on most levels.
'Doping' would have been one of the many things those people would have been effectively required to do as a function of their responsibilities, aware of it or not.
In America, you could argue children are coopted by their parents, but by the time of adulthood, it's entirely reasonable for people to break free of that. Even most children have the ability to rebel on some level. Tiger Woods seemed to love Golf long after he was good. Michael Jackson obviously didn't fare so well ...
Lance Armstrong made a choice, but any athlete in such an authoritarian system is not making many choices.
I'd like to see the compounds used, dosages used, and the actual affects on biochemistry afterwards. I'd also like to know if the long term damage is mostly age related since they did not have developed endocrine systems yet. This article isn't particularly scientific.
I don't know a ton about most anabolic steroids (typically derivatives of testosterone) - but testosterone is known to be highly beneficial in dosages that bring a man up to around 700-900ng/dl. Aka, around the levels of a very healthy 20-something-year-old. This is well studied.
There is a really well done study where they gave a large number of healthy men 500mg testosterone per week for I believe 12 weeks. That put them at about 2000-3000ng/dl, or three times a normal males levels. The results showed only one or two participants had a significant side affect and all participants recovered fine.
Remember, anabolic androgenic steroid (AAS) just means a growth promoting "anabolic" male sex characteristic related "androgenic" molecule with 17 carbon atoms "steroid".
Most people don't realize this, but testosterone IS an AAS. It's a bioidentical hormone.
You probably think it's bad to take, because of bad media. But what do you think is in birth control? Most birth control is a pill full of estrogen and progesterone, two other bio-identical sex hormones. A large percentage of the female population in the USA is on birth control, and they don't seem to be dying any quicker from what a quick search shows.
In consideration of the confidence with which you're asserting your claims are "well-studied", I think you should cite some of the specific research you're thinking of.
In particular, I don't find your arguments, "because of bad media" and "But what do you think is in birth control?" very convincing.
That birth control pills contain hormones is not exactly a revelation. Another very common term for them is "hormonal contraception". They are not benign; their side effects can be pretty brutal, and they alter cancer risks (some forms increased, some decreased).
(Some women are also prescribed hormonal contraceptive pills to mitigate problems like endometriosis.)
TL;DR it's not settled issue but many adverse effects seem to be transitory. Long term usage has risks. Abuse and dependence is an health issue of course.
ps. As a interesting side note. When you visit hospitals, pay attention to the musculature of male doctors. I'm sure they are gym rats with good genes, but many of them are muscular and low fat above age 40 in a way that requires something extra. They have ways to get quality stereoids and they can monitor their liver enzyme levels etc. If anyone can dope safely, it's MD.
Funny though, I remember hearing that their were rumours a while back about female junior doctors drawing their own blood as a way to control their weight.
For the side effects you're talking about, what are the relative and absolute increases or decreases in risk? Do you have any recommended reading? My wife uses hormonal contraception so I have a vested interest in this research.
I see this more and more in the fitness community of people thinking it is perfectly normal to be on TRT after 30. I personally think it's insane, a normal healthy male doe not have his libido disappear after 30 and does not need TRT.
There was recently a post here about that most ED cases are psychological (stress etc. ) and not necessarily a problem with hormones.
Decline in T causes you to become more sensitive to stress with respect to erectile function. It’s entirely possible that both are correct.
A sixteen year old going through puberty with hormones through the roof has no problem getting it up, stress or not (even when they don't want it, as every teenage boy knows). A 30 or 40 year old will have lower T levels, enough so that psychological issues can take the forefront and cause ED. It is still fair to ask if raising T levels can cause them to still perform while working stressful jobs, as we all have to do.
Normal and healthy are different. In an environment full of xenoestrogens, TRT is possibly the only way to attain “normal” levels of T measured against a non-xenoestrogenic environment. That doesn’t imply it’s a good idea, but it might imply you should do it anyway.
Or, to put that another way: in an environment that causes >20% of the population to be near-sighted, are glasses “normal”? Are they “healthy”? Do either of these questions even make sense?
The real questions there, of course, are whether nearsightedness is “normal” and/or “healthy.”
And so: is having (diagnosed) low testosterone normal? Healthy?
Hormonal birth control does terrible things to your health. But pregnancy is deadlier and harder on the body, and hormonal birth control is generally more reliable than other forms of birth control. So women who know it is really wracking them up do it anyway because it is better than having ten kids and being trapped in permanent poverty because of it, dying in child birth, being repeatedly maimed by the process of bringing a child into the world, etc.
I don't actually know. I have never looked into that. But I have read of some cases where an early hysterectomy robbed the individual of their sex drive and their energy levels, among other things. And with any major surgery of that sort, you can always die from it or have complications.
My personal opinion: The least invasive tubal ligation you can arrange is probably the least worst answer in most cases where permanent birth control is desired because it doesn't interfere with the body's own hormone production and less invasive is less risky. Second best would be a hysterectomy that leaves the ovaries in place.
But what’s the best solution when the goal is not prevention of pregnancy, but rather to reduce the symptoms of “choppy” hormone production, or hormone imbalance (e.g. PCOS)?
AFAIK, the “best” solution for that (that is rarely pursued) is complete hysterectomy + HRT; with regular dual-hormone birth control pills or patches being a distant second, and nothing else helping at all.
I'm not an expert on PCOS. I don't actually know the answer to that.
(Assuming you are looking for personal advice, which you may not be:)
I am someone who has pursued a lot of "alternative" health stuff. I had terrible PMS and awful, painful periods in my youth and I accidentally discovered that cleaning up my diet mitigated it. I wasn't trying to mitigate it. When my husband was given orders for a war zone on short notice and we did a lot of eating out and stuff and generally partied before he left, my symptoms came back. That proved to me how much of an effect diet can have.
If I had PCOS, I would start a food diary, especially get picky about meat and dairy products because those can contain animal hormones, research which plants also have hormonal impact (I believe soy can do so) etc.
Diet would be the first thing I would work on and see how much it does. There is really a lot of info out there and if your goal is to alleviate your own symptoms and that's all you care about and you don't care what other people think, there are quite a lot of people getting remarkable results for various health issues by doing their own research, keeping their own records and so forth. It only is problematic if you then try to argue it in a forum. ;)
I would also join a chelation group. My recollection is metal poisoning interferes with hormonal stuff as well.
I would also look for literature from other countries. At one time, I had a book about women's health written by a woman who, IIRC, had fibroids and had lived in both France and America. Treatment options in France were vastly different from the US and she preferred how they handled it. They were willing to surgically remove fibroids in France, even quite large ones, where in the US they basically tell you to suffer or get a hysterectomy. (Again: IIRC.)
> Birth control has a lot of bad side effects and many women actually avoid it because of them.
Side effects like lower cervical cancer rates and reduced menstrual cramping?
Of all the women I know the reproductive habits of, I know of many who choose a hormonal birth control because of the benefits. I know of exactly zero who choose otherwise because of negative side effects.
But, that's anicdata. So in all seriousness, what side effects? I’m curious.
Mood changes, personality swings and the like are what I saw happen to my friend, it almost destroyed her multi-year relationship. Switching to the ring for birth control was like night and day, plus its still very effective.
Taking something for 12 weeks is very different than years. Also when you look at men on trt they have a much higher risk of cardiovascular events than matched individuals who opted to not take trt. This is pretty well established at this point.
Not to mention we have the epidemiological data that men don't be live as long as women.
And they've also found similar issues with HRT for women in menopause.(increased risk of stroke)
But 10-12 years is probably a gross exaggeration. I wouldn't be surprised if this result is plagued with confounds( I don't think they did a survey of everyone). And these kids experienced a ton of non-doping related trauma.
Not to mention the individual interviewed sounds more like an advocate than a scientist.
I mean, all you’re saying here is that there are disadvantages to being male / masculinized. All you’re doing by signing up for TRT is signing up for the longevity of the average man vs. the longevity of the average woman or eunuch.
Are you suggesting that everyone who naturally produces testosterone (i.e. is on a constant dose of “endogenous anabolic androgenic steroids”) would be better off if they stopped doing so? If not, then there’s got to be a genetic profile + dose level at which the advantages of TRT outweigh the costs.
We are not just talking about healthy young men when it's about GDR doping victims. You really think the benefits you'd consider "highly beneficial" in a man in his 20s are useful for girls and boys starting to take this stuff from 10-15 years old on? Liver failure, infertility, overly masculine features (more a problem for the women of course), injuries due to non-muscle parts of the body not being appropriately developed for the weight-lifting the muscles now can sustain, ...
You can not use claims that steroids can be safely used to argue that "it wasn't so bad" for victims of criminal misuse of them, and your post dangerously sounds like trying to downplay it that way.
What's inconsistent to me is how if you want to become a more masculine male - just a more enhanced version of yourself in one aspect - the consensus view is psychiatric disorder, body dysmorphia, and it's illegal for you to self-medicate whereas if you want to be the complete opposite of your gender the verdict is trapped in the wrong body, here's state funded mutilation surgery and lifelong medication to facilitate your delusion.
70 comments
[ 0.25 ms ] story [ 124 ms ] thread> The sciences of psychology and forensic psychiatry recognize the phenomenon of transgenerational trauma transmission: Traumatic experiences can be passed along to the children. From research conducted into other victim groups that suffered a similar fate, we know that the transgenerational transmission of trauma leads to the handing down of specific symptoms and can go hand in hand with significant risks – not just psychological and social, but also genetic.
The effects they have found are basically if you break an individual through trauma that can cause them to sometimes be a shittier parent. For instance if you have anger issues or alcoholism from ptsd that will definitely hamper ability to raise a child.
But there are also a lot of confounds in the literature which probably exaggerate this effect. (basically some of the ability to recover from and avoid trauma is genetic, and therefore passed down)
If the athletes had no knowledge of the doping, I’d agree they were victims. I suspect most/all of them knew.
We place a lot of trust in medical professionals. Your doctor gives you a prescription for something - for most people, you take it on the assumption they know what they're doing. (Yes, I realize there's likely a sub-contingent of the HN crowd that Googles everything they take -- but there was no Google back then, and particularly not in East Germany, where almost all of the information you got was carefully controlled). Witness how easy it was for Larry Nassar to perpetuate years of abuse against over 250 children, and that's today in the US.
Even if the trust was simply "hey, this will help you perform better and it's safe", and the "it's safe" part is a lie, it's still abuse. And the things described in the article are actually far worse than just that.
I've only taken high-dose steroids for a medical condition once. I could tell at the higher levels, but not much at the lower levels. If someone started off slow and slowly increased the dosages, it is quite possible that it would be missed. And that's with adults, not necessarily children.
I defiantly knew what the effects where - you feel like you can run though walls and pushes your aggression through the roof.
We are both lucky to not have been lied to and have the internet. Pre-internet and the doctor telling me the vitamins do that? I'm not sure I could have known any differently without some knowledge of this stuff as an adult, and agreed - not as a child either.
> That's the worst part about it. In extreme cases, the children were only 7 years old.
In most cases they weren’t much older. “Victim” is the right word.
Conveniently leaving out the experiments performed by the US military, for example, in the sixties. I chose the US because that's the most prominent anti-pole to the USSR, not because they did anything unique that no other country has done or would do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentatio...
I don't like whataboutism as much as the next guy, but if you put on blinders to only see what fits your world view I think it's okay to put things into perspective. Humans don't always care about other humans, that was, is and will be true and has nothing to do with "communism" or whatever name you happen to despise the most.
By the way, I grew up in East Germany and participated in the protests end of the eighties, so I know quite a bit about the bad parts, but also about the good ones. I also lived in the US for nearly a decade (back in Germany now).
There are many other things one could consider, for example that now people do bad things to their own bodies as part of work culture when they go to work even though they are sick. A lot less pressure on yourself to do that in East Germany (yes, we did not produce nearly as much but I don't think it was because people actually stayed at home when they were sick). Another example, from an East German perspective the discussion about "free range kids". We were all "free range" in East Germany and often sent on our ways all alone even when still very young. Who would have thought, culture is complex and the system is only one of many variables, and regardless of the system people will be people and all kinds of stuff develops in a culture that you cannot attribute to some "system" identified by a word.
In USSR, on the other hand, state-backed violence was only "save face" secret that everybody was more or less aware of. Solzhenitsyn's revelations made a much bigger splash outside of the USSR than within exactly because he didn't reveal anything most of the population wasn't already aware of - but the people themselves didn't mind that much. Even today, most Russians would say that state-sponsored violence of USSR, which affected tens of millions of people, was a good thing, and leaders who perpetrated it are still viewed favorably.
The scope of purges was such that it was impossible not to know. When the book went out, Soviet union was much safer place to live in, simply because main purge already ended. After communism fell, he was also not only one to write about these things or talk about them, bookstores were full of memoirs.
Current support for those things has a lot to do with both contemporary politics and propaganda and with the way young democracy was mishandled.
Yes, if you got the money and don't belong to the wrong group you can live quite nicely in the US of A.
https://www.livescience.com/23795-large-area-coverage-danger...
You came in complaining that the parent did not also mentioned whole history of every injustice in western world since second world war and all the good things including Tolstoy. That is not even whataboutism, that is completely changing the topic.
Lastly, if doing x in a culture y puts people at risk, people will avoid doing x and it totally have to do with the culture itself. Even if things-similar-to-x happen in different cultures for different reasons.
The very first time I visited the US a few years after German reunification after two and a half months on the road (literally) my final thought was "beautiful, but what a police state". Yes, the "free" US of A. I chose to live there later - a contradiction? Not really, it was a compromise I was willing to make, up to a point - I did return to Europe in the end when I could have stayed, a Green Card was possible.
You may not like it you morons, but even after my first 2+ months tour of the US only a few years after German reunification, so with GDR experiences very fresh, one of my most memorable conclusions about it was "what a police state".
Conveniently leaving out the experiments performed by the US military, for example, in the sixties. I chose the US because that's the most prominent anti-pole to the USSR, not because they did anything unique that no other country has done or would do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentatio....
I don't like whataboutism as much as the next guy, but if you put on blinders to only see what fits your world view I think it's okay to put things into perspective. Humans don't always care about other humans, that was, is and will be true and has nothing to do with "communism" or whatever name you happen to despise the most.
my parents’ parents were facing the choice to either let their children go into these ‘sports clubs’ and let their bodies be destroyed. i personally know survivors of these tactics who had their entire lives altered by unethical medicinal practices. look up caren mahn for example.
When you're nabbed by the state at a young age and raised to do one thing, wherein there are zero prospects beyond the role given to you, and the real possibility of retribution - you do as you're told in all manner of things. It's not just 'doping' , it's basically a submission to the system on most levels.
'Doping' would have been one of the many things those people would have been effectively required to do as a function of their responsibilities, aware of it or not.
In America, you could argue children are coopted by their parents, but by the time of adulthood, it's entirely reasonable for people to break free of that. Even most children have the ability to rebel on some level. Tiger Woods seemed to love Golf long after he was good. Michael Jackson obviously didn't fare so well ...
Lance Armstrong made a choice, but any athlete in such an authoritarian system is not making many choices.
I don't know a ton about most anabolic steroids (typically derivatives of testosterone) - but testosterone is known to be highly beneficial in dosages that bring a man up to around 700-900ng/dl. Aka, around the levels of a very healthy 20-something-year-old. This is well studied.
There is a really well done study where they gave a large number of healthy men 500mg testosterone per week for I believe 12 weeks. That put them at about 2000-3000ng/dl, or three times a normal males levels. The results showed only one or two participants had a significant side affect and all participants recovered fine.
Remember, anabolic androgenic steroid (AAS) just means a growth promoting "anabolic" male sex characteristic related "androgenic" molecule with 17 carbon atoms "steroid".
Most people don't realize this, but testosterone IS an AAS. It's a bioidentical hormone.
You probably think it's bad to take, because of bad media. But what do you think is in birth control? Most birth control is a pill full of estrogen and progesterone, two other bio-identical sex hormones. A large percentage of the female population in the USA is on birth control, and they don't seem to be dying any quicker from what a quick search shows.
In particular, I don't find your arguments, "because of bad media" and "But what do you think is in birth control?" very convincing.
Affects of high dosage testosterone for short intervals in healthy young men: https://www.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/ajpendo.2001.281...
Testosterone levels and mortality rates: http://jaha.ahajournals.org/content/ahaoa/2/6/e000272.full.p...
There is plenty out there, you just have to look around
(Some women are also prescribed hormonal contraceptive pills to mitigate problems like endometriosis.)
Medical Issues Associated with Anabolic Steroid Use: Are They Exaggerated? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3827559/
Anabolic-androgenic Steroid use and Psychopathology in Athletes. A Systematic Review https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4462035/
TL;DR it's not settled issue but many adverse effects seem to be transitory. Long term usage has risks. Abuse and dependence is an health issue of course.
ps. As a interesting side note. When you visit hospitals, pay attention to the musculature of male doctors. I'm sure they are gym rats with good genes, but many of them are muscular and low fat above age 40 in a way that requires something extra. They have ways to get quality stereoids and they can monitor their liver enzyme levels etc. If anyone can dope safely, it's MD.
Of course, it can be beneficial if you want to keep a baseline that's important for your health.
Otherwise, something that's very risky if taken in the younger years.
There was recently a post here about that most ED cases are psychological (stress etc. ) and not necessarily a problem with hormones.
A sixteen year old going through puberty with hormones through the roof has no problem getting it up, stress or not (even when they don't want it, as every teenage boy knows). A 30 or 40 year old will have lower T levels, enough so that psychological issues can take the forefront and cause ED. It is still fair to ask if raising T levels can cause them to still perform while working stressful jobs, as we all have to do.
Or, to put that another way: in an environment that causes >20% of the population to be near-sighted, are glasses “normal”? Are they “healthy”? Do either of these questions even make sense?
The real questions there, of course, are whether nearsightedness is “normal” and/or “healthy.”
And so: is having (diagnosed) low testosterone normal? Healthy?
Yes, I think giving birth control to non-consenting people, especially children, is just as bad.
But I didn't need the bad media to come to that view.
> But what do you think is in birth control? Most birth control is a pill full of estrogen and progesterone, two other bio-identical sex hormones.
Birth control has a lot of bad side effects and many women actually avoid it because of them.
https://hormonesbalance.com/articles/pill-can-seriously-affe...
http://goingoffthepill.org/hormonal-birth-control-risks-side...
My personal opinion: The least invasive tubal ligation you can arrange is probably the least worst answer in most cases where permanent birth control is desired because it doesn't interfere with the body's own hormone production and less invasive is less risky. Second best would be a hysterectomy that leaves the ovaries in place.
AFAIK, the “best” solution for that (that is rarely pursued) is complete hysterectomy + HRT; with regular dual-hormone birth control pills or patches being a distant second, and nothing else helping at all.
(Assuming you are looking for personal advice, which you may not be:)
I am someone who has pursued a lot of "alternative" health stuff. I had terrible PMS and awful, painful periods in my youth and I accidentally discovered that cleaning up my diet mitigated it. I wasn't trying to mitigate it. When my husband was given orders for a war zone on short notice and we did a lot of eating out and stuff and generally partied before he left, my symptoms came back. That proved to me how much of an effect diet can have.
If I had PCOS, I would start a food diary, especially get picky about meat and dairy products because those can contain animal hormones, research which plants also have hormonal impact (I believe soy can do so) etc.
Diet would be the first thing I would work on and see how much it does. There is really a lot of info out there and if your goal is to alleviate your own symptoms and that's all you care about and you don't care what other people think, there are quite a lot of people getting remarkable results for various health issues by doing their own research, keeping their own records and so forth. It only is problematic if you then try to argue it in a forum. ;)
I would also join a chelation group. My recollection is metal poisoning interferes with hormonal stuff as well.
I would also look for literature from other countries. At one time, I had a book about women's health written by a woman who, IIRC, had fibroids and had lived in both France and America. Treatment options in France were vastly different from the US and she preferred how they handled it. They were willing to surgically remove fibroids in France, even quite large ones, where in the US they basically tell you to suffer or get a hysterectomy. (Again: IIRC.)
Side effects like lower cervical cancer rates and reduced menstrual cramping?
Of all the women I know the reproductive habits of, I know of many who choose a hormonal birth control because of the benefits. I know of exactly zero who choose otherwise because of negative side effects.
But, that's anicdata. So in all seriousness, what side effects? I’m curious.
[1] https://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/features/the-pill-an...
Not to mention we have the epidemiological data that men don't be live as long as women.
And they've also found similar issues with HRT for women in menopause.(increased risk of stroke)
But 10-12 years is probably a gross exaggeration. I wouldn't be surprised if this result is plagued with confounds( I don't think they did a survey of everyone). And these kids experienced a ton of non-doping related trauma.
Not to mention the individual interviewed sounds more like an advocate than a scientist.
Are you suggesting that everyone who naturally produces testosterone (i.e. is on a constant dose of “endogenous anabolic androgenic steroids”) would be better off if they stopped doing so? If not, then there’s got to be a genetic profile + dose level at which the advantages of TRT outweigh the costs.
[1] https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/mens-health/exp...
[2] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullar...
You can not use claims that steroids can be safely used to argue that "it wasn't so bad" for victims of criminal misuse of them, and your post dangerously sounds like trying to downplay it that way.