Talk:Prohormone
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Reverted Edits
Alteripse reverted a my edits over complains i removed important content. The content i removed was:
- A third dimension of deceit involves their legal classification: most "prohormones" are sold as dietary supplements to avoid the much tighter efficacy and safety requirements of the Food and Drug Administration which apply to prescription hormones.
- Prohormones are legally sold in most parts of the world and are classified in the United States by the FDA as dietary supplements because they consist of compounds that occur naturally in the human body; however their use remains quite controversial and side effects are not uncommon.
In my view the content above is no longer justified since (as the article says) prohormones were made illegal in the united states.
And i also added:
- Prohormones are also illegal in many European countries.
- It is also marketed as a form of anti-aging and for those who wish to lose weight.
Ok - so maybe you didn't agree with me moving the text around but was just attempting to make it easier to understand and read.
Please explain why the content i removed is required and why what i added is not relavent or true.
johnSLADE (talk) 10:31, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
I had no objection to the insertion of either statement. There were 2 principal reasons I reverted. First, the continuity made less sense to go right from a paragraph describing the general concept of a prohormone, to a mention of a localized law restricting sale of a product based only tenuously on the general concept. A better organization is:
- General definition of prohormone and biological examples
- The specialized cultural use of the term prohormone in the context of bodybuilding.
- Specific details about this type of prohormone, including the unproven efficacy and fraud issues, and legal aspects of use in various locations.
- The specialized cultural use of the term prohormone in the context of bodybuilding.
My second objection was your removal of the sentence describing the marketing of prohormones as dietary supplements as a form of misleading marketing. I realize some might disagree, but removing a sentence like that without explanation or justification is likely to produce reversion.The banning in a sense supports the inference of misleading marketing but I am confident we will see products marketed the same way that are no better or more honest than the banned ones. I had no objection to insertion of a paragraph on the new law, or your other facts, so feel free to replace them without the deletion.
Does that make sense? alteripse 21:48, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
