US federal regulators said Friday they were investigating products containing testosterone after recent studies suggested a higher risk of strokes and heart attacks in men being treated with the hormone.
The Food and Drug Administration stressed, however, that it has “not concluded that FDA-approved testosterone treatment increases the risk of stroke, heart attack or death.”
“FDA is providing this alert while it continues to evaluate the information from these studies and other available data,” it said in a safety alert, referring to two related studies.
Patients undergoing testosterone therapy should not stop their treatment without consulting their physician first, the FDA recommended.
Health care professionals were also asked to consider whether the benefits of FDA-approved testosterone treatment were likely to outweigh the possible risk of treatment.
The announcement followed publication of a study on Wednesday by the PLOS ONE science journal suggesting that men aged 65 and older being treated with testosterone were twice as likely to suffer heart attacks in the month after they began treatment.
The study, which analyzed findings from 56,000 men in the United States between 2008 and 2010, also revealed a sharply increased risk among younger men with a history of heart disease.
In November, a separate clinical study in the Journal of the American Medical Association reported that older men using testosterone, including many with a history of heart problems, faced a 30 percent greater chance of mortality, heart attack or cardiovascular event.
A US government-funded study to determine whether men using testosterone gel to build muscle and increase strength was halted in 2009 after the high rate of cardiovascular problems related to the treatment.
[Image via Agence France-Presse]
Watergate’s John Dean thinks Trump wrote part of his legal team’s brief — because it’s so terrible
Former White House counsel for Richard Nixon, John Dean, explained that the legal brief out of President Donald Trump's White House was so bad that it had to have been dictated by Trump himself.
Saturday evening, Trump's legal team, chaired by Trump lawyer Jay Sekulow and White House counsel Pat Cipollone, filed their own form of a legal brief that responded to the case filed by Democrats ahead of Tuesday's impeachment trial.
The document called the proceedings “constitutionally invalid” and claims House Democrats are staging a “dangerous attack” with a “brazen and unlawful attempt to overturn the results of the 2016 election and interfere with the 2020 election.”
WATCH: Prince Harry explains why he and Meghan are leaving the royal family — but promises ‘a life of service’
Prince Harry posted a video from an HIV/AIDS fundraiser his mother once supported, where he explained his methodology for leaving his profile role as a royal.
"I will continue to be the same man who holds his country dear," said Harry.
He went on to say that he doesn't intend to walk away and he certainly won't walk away from his causes and interests. "We intend to live a life of service."
In the speech, he thanked those who took him under their wing in the absence of his mother
"I hope you can understand that it's what it had come to," he said for why their family intends to step back.
‘You cannot expect anything but fascism’: Pedagogy theorist on how Trump ‘legitimated a culture of lying, cruelty and a collapse of social responsibility’
The impeachment of Donald Trump appears to be a crisis without a history, at least a history that illuminates, not just comparisons with other presidential impeachments, but a history that provides historical lessons regarding its relationship to a previous age of tyranny that ushered in horrors associated with a fascist politics in the 1930s. In the age of Trump, history is now used to divert and elude the most serious questions to be raised about the impeachment crisis. The legacy of earlier presidential impeachments, which include Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, provide a comparative historical context for analysis and criticism. And while Trump’s impeachment is often defined as a more serious constitutional crisis given his attempt to use the power of the presidency to advance his personal political agenda, it is a crisis that willfully ignores the conditions that gave rise to Trump’s presidency along with its recurring pattern of authoritarian behavior, policies, and practices. One result is that the impeachment process with its abundance of political theater and insipid media coverage treats Trump’s crimes as the endpoint of an abuse of power and an illegal act, rather than as a political action that is symptomatic of a long legacy of conditions that have led to the United States’ slide into the abyss of authoritarianism.