by
Michael C. Scally, M.D.
Author of
"Anabolic Steroids - A Question of Muscle: Human Subject Abuses in Anabolic Steroid Research "
Harvard Medical School - M.D.; Harvard-M.I.T. Program In Health Science & Technology
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, B.S. Chemistry/Life Sciences
A Letter from Michael Scally, M.D.
It has been over five years since I last
wrote regarding the Texas Medical
Board. In 2004, my medical license was revoked for prescribing anabolic steroids
(AAS). This summarizes what is a much larger issue for the revocation. The
conclusions of the Board are the prescribing of AAS is outside the standard of
care regardless of a patient’s diagnosis. Moreover, the Board concluded the
patients were addicted to AAS.
Both of these are contradictory and irreconcilable to the existing science
and practice of medicine. First, anyone who practices medicine and even for the
layperson it is common knowledge that when prescribing medicines it must be done
within the context of the patient’s health, i.e. a diagnosis. To do otherwise,
would be an indiscriminate, arbitrary, and dangerous treatment. Yet, this is
exactly what the Board argues. Secondly, the Board argues for AAS addiction
without citing from any supporting scientific literature, admitting there is no
literature that supports this disorder, and without even stating what factors
demonstrate dependency/addiction. The obvious fact is the Board is using an
imaginary science to find conclusions to revoke the license.
The therapy administered to the patients was directed to restoring the HPTA.
These treatments were supported by reading into testimony from over 200
peer-reviewed scientific articles. Further, the Board admits they know of no
literature that refutes the literature depended upon for the treatments. As most
of you know, I have published the treatment to restore the HPTA after stopping
AAS. In those situations where a patient HPTA restoration is not maintained, I
successfully developed a treatment based on a short duration AAS administration
followed by therapy to avoid steroid-induced hypogonadism.
The appeal process is reaching a critical point. The appeal is now at the
Appellate level. At this level, the submission of an amicus brief is helpful. An
amicus brief is a friend of the court brief in support of an important issue
before the court. There are two important issues. One is that the Board must use
expert testimony based on reliable scientific evidence. The other is physical
facts present within the patient records can not be denied, in this case, the
successful treatment of steroid-induced hypogonadism.
The appeal process has been prohibitively expensive. Independent parties must
do the writing of the amicus brief. I need your help and assistance. Meso will
be setting up a mechanism to contribute to the writing of the amicus brief.
Also, the website www.asih.net welcomes donations to help defray the cost of
defending the appeal. Please help, no matter how small the contribution. Emails
of encouragement are welcomed at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Michael Scally, M.D.
My recently completed book is available on Amazon.com: "Anabolic Steroids - A Question of Muscle: Human Subject Abuses in Anabolic Steroid Research"
(Paperback)
The book is also for sale from the website www.asih.net.
|
