The North Texas study was quoted above because of misinformation being presented prior to its quoting, and not as an endorsement, although, there has been much science done that points the same direction as the single study quoted. In fact, the vast majority of evidence points that direction. It's no coincidence that no agency recommended any of the AAS, or even GH, be controlled, including the AMA, DHS, and DEA (all easily verifiable). Good science speaks otherwise.
As someone who spent 11 years in commercial broadcast news, I know the importance of doing more than "fluff."
That's why it's important that truthful information be put forth.
When someone lies in their presentation, a scientific rebuttal is a good rebuttal.
Any person can go googling for real life studies on anti-aging, strength training, weight management, wasting disease, and so on.
It's a huge disservice for quacks to spread false information. Much like "Reefer Madness" of the 70's is what I've seen here. An informed, and fully-qualified, decision is what's important, rather than hearsay, upon hearsay, by folks who have neither the science, personal experience, nor the academic qualifications to quantify their misleading statements.
I'm unbothered by the personal attacks. I understand that some folks are like that, and it is what it is.
There is tons of scientific information and study, on any number of bodybuilding boards about using insulin, AAS, and so on. All that science is used daily by millions, without serious consequence.
Statins, NSAIDS, ACE inhibs, are all very much more unhealthy than a bit of extra testosterone (not toxic at virtually any level), going anabolic on some insulin.
If a person is truly interested in what they put into their bodies, and I'd like to think someone asking the question is, they need to take days, hours, months, and even years in the study of it. Apples to apples, and oranges to oranges, is the best comparison. Any good bodybuilding board will have study after study listed, or you can find them by simply googling. Watching Real Sports Episode 99 is a good starter.
With regard to diabetic coma, one would have to take upwards of 3 to 8 cc (nearly the whole jug, to induce that state). To spread such nonsense is crazy. As little as 4 grams of sugar (glucose tabs) and bring blood glucose up enough to prevent shakes, etc. Most diabetic folks, or muscleheads, using insulin rarely do over 10IU (that's 1/10 of 1 cc). Making unqualified statements is very unbecoming.
My belief is not that everyone should be on anti-aging, but, that they should be availed of the fact that they don't have to feel like crap, be weak, die of stupid diseases, get Alheizmer's or Parkinson's. Those diseases are easily preventable in an anti-aging regimen. Weekly, I speak to folks in the gym who've had a renewed lifestyle and health because of good anti-aging medicine. And...there are the studies to back it up. There are NO, that's ZERO, studies that point to increased mortality on those in an anti-aging regimen. And...that's in 60 years of study, by the military and by the AMA.
It's my strongly held belief that at some point truth prevails, in disregard of any misinformation campaigns. "Reefer Madness" is considered laughable by most folks these days. (The truth prevailed, despite a misinformation campaign.) "Reefer Madness" was, at best, poor entertainment.
At the core, most people are lazy, undisciplined, and weak-minded. In this case, there was an unqualified statement made, which I rebutted with a published survey done right here at UNT. That hardly constitutes an endorsement. Anyone can go searching on The Internet for truth. Many folks, however, are just plain lazy.
With regard to saving lives, everyone knows the number one killer: fat people. The DHS says that roughly 6.5 MILLION folks die prematurely, annually, because of diseases of obesity.
Tonight, at the gym, I spent quite a bit of time visit with an ER doctor, that has a practice just up the road from where I live. He said, "Chuck, I bet your numbers are near perfect aren't they?" I said, "Yep, 'cept for my cholesterol being a bit on the low side." He said, "don't worry about it. You're amazing at 47."
As someone who grew up as the son of a livestock grower, and as someone who used to buy AAS over the counter (you still can buy AAS over the counter for livestock), and as someone who literally knows hundreds of high level athletes, at many ages, and as someone who has been in studies, and as someone who studies himself, and just about everything around him, I know the truth about many things. It's a tragedy to see some nut spouting off what are clearly untruths.
I hope, that...the reader is smart enough to research stuff, in depth, for themselves. It's all out there for the reading.
Every time the anti performance folks get on their pulpit, it's funny. Lyle Alzedo: American Cancer Society said "(his) brain cancer no more came from AAS than little green apples make babies. Chris Benoit's Dad on Larry King, "Chris got dinged on the head one to many times. It wasn't (AAS).) And so on, time and again. Now, they (was is the DEA or some org..I forget)just found out DHEA lowers test levels.
The point being: life is hazardous. Being fat, taking tylenol, or smoking a cig is way more dangerous than being in great shape and being on an anti-aging routine. Most medical doctors will concur, off record, about it, but...at the end of the day. What I stick, or someone else...sticks in their ass, should not be a legal matter.
What should be a legal matter is when you endanger the public, steal, lie, and so on.
Since you probably aren't going to be making babies, why worry about that? And the shrinkage is temporary. As is the depression of your natural test production. It may take a while after a cycle to come back, and maybe not too 100% right away, but endogenous production won't be permanently stopped. 
