CNN has crossed the line into propaganda-machine

[Longhorn85]

During the first Gulf War CNN was the shit as far as cable news stations. They lost a lot of credibility though because of their anti-american reporting and excessive criticism. Remember Peter Arnett? The were called the Communist News Network by some. Later the Clinton News Network.

Now CNN has competition from FOX, MSNBC and others, and is getting it's ass kicked in the ratings war. I think the owners are being careful not to emerge from this war with a bad rep like it did last time.

 

[SSAlexSS]

Re: Re: CNN has crossed the line into propaganda-machine

You probably are the only one who sees this...considering obviously the British and Spanish government want to ass rape Saddam as well.

80 % of british, our closest allies are against the war.

Only blair and his few henchmen support this war. The rest laugh blair off!!!

 

[BangedUp]

When wasn't CNN a propaganda machine?

Jesus Christ! I can't believe you are just now realizing this.

 

[buddy28]

No steroid has ever been conclusively linked to cancer. Anadrol has some linkage to liver tumors, but likely due to excessive dosages.

Not sure what your point is here.

I know excessive steroid application in laboratory animals *causes* malignant tumors.

Scientists have found sustained steroid application inhibits effective operation of thymus - the 'master gland of the immune system'.

Researchers have also established reduced effectiviness of the immune system indirectly causes cancer, although the specific mechanisms havent been established yet.

For example, take a look at aids patients. Most never die from HIV itself, but rather ancillary diseases, sometimes including systemic cancers, which pervade the body because the immune system has been rendered largely inoperable by HIV.

But as for the quantity of steroids used in experiments just cited and their possible equivlents for human use, im not sure.

Because of the ethical consequences of exposing human subjects to possible harmfull enviroments, its unlikely definitive proof will ever be available as to the consequences of steroid use in humans. Even if sustained steroid use is harmfull for humans.

The best we can go on is experiments using animals having a relativily similar physiology to humans, and they suggest excessive steroid use depletes the effectiviness of the subjects immune system.

 

[Frackal]

That is virtually irrelevant buddy until:

1. Dosages are kown...anti-oxidants become pro-oxidants in exessive amounts

2. "Some Anabolic-Androgenic Steroids (A-ASs) stimulate the Immune System (note that different A-ASs stimulate the Immune System to different extents):

- Caution: the use of A-ASs for the Immune System is presently still experimental and in some regions it is illegal. - Methenolone stimulates some aspects of the Immune System. - Nandrolone Decanoate stimulates some aspects of the Immune System. - Oxandrolone stimulates some aspects of the Immune System. - Stanozolol stimulates some aspects of the Immune System. "

http://www.pandamedicine.com/rt_health/71-1.html


Your linking is pretty specious buddy... stress depresses the immune system as well... steroids are not carcinogenic.

Also, what exactly are the details behind 'excessive steroid application' and what and where were the 'malignant tumors' formed?

 

[p0ink]

im not talking shit here or bitching guys, but how did steroids come up in this? i dont care, im just curious.

 

[Frackal]

buddy was implying (what i gathered from it) that CNN is not a propaganda machine because he said that steroids cause cancer as well as ephedra is used to make meth....the latter may be true, the former is specious at the very best

 

[Testosterone boy]

No steroid has ever been conclusively linked to cancer. Anadrol has some linkage to liver tumors, but likely due to excessive dosages.

Not sure what your point is here.

Anadrol was the fav steroid subscription for AIDS patients. They took very large doses, non stop, for years. Of course there were liver complications.

Personally I doubt that 50mg of anadrol is significantly more liver toxic than 50mg of most any other oral steroid.

 

[Frackal]

Or anymore toxic than long term dosages of various NSAIDS

 

[buddy28]

Your linking is pretty specious buddy... stress depresses the immune system as well... steroids are not carcinogenic.

Also, what exactly are the details behind 'excessive steroid application' and what and where were the 'malignant tumors' formed?

Based on my limited knowledge, I was wrong to imply all steroids inhibit the effectiveness of the immune system via the thymus gland in animals.

I should have been more precise. Long term effects of sustained corticosteroid application suppress immune system response in lab rats, resulting in a significant increase in the onset of terminal disease.

The immunosuppressive effects of corticosteroids on the thymus gland is theorized to decrease long term ability of the thymus to produce thymic hormones, inhibiting efficient function of the immune system.

To be honest frackal, i dont know a whole lot about endocrinology, except what i studied in university.

But responding to your comment that steroids are not carcinogenic (in humans? or animals? or both?). I dont know if id go this far.

The relevance of what i said in my earlier post still holds. The overwhelming majority of reliable experiments investigating long term effects of steroid use is limited to studies using animal subjects.

I suppose this can be interpreted both ways. But the 'experiments' investigating long term effects of steroid use in humans, to my knowledge, are fraught with methodological aberrations, which makes any claims resulting from these experiments, highly dubious.

After reading your response, i found a webpage called toxnet which has a database of chemicals and their associated toxicology rating, carcinogenic properties, ect.

http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/htmlgen?Multi

The database includes listings for both anabolic and catabolic steroids. Relevant animal toxicology studies accompany information listings about certain steroids, with some experimental abstracts indicating said steroid exhibit carcinogenic characteristics.

To be thorough we'd have to go over the experimental methodology of the studies in question, and then assess how valid these results are to humans in light of differing physiology of the subjects used.


I know this post is getting kinda long. But the points were touching upon in our conversation reminded me of a long time ago, when I used to be really pro E and was popping hits twice or three times a month.

Neuroscientists started saying E caused brain damage. I scoffed. How could they know? They have no casual evidence suggesting such a link, and reliable experimental studies conducted used animals whose physiology differs from humans.


After going through the relevant experiments using subjects from rats to primates, and seeing similar effects all the way through, it dawned on me, I was supporting a position not because the data suggested it, but because i wanted to believe it.