Talk:HGH controversies/Archive 1

Archive 1

Removed information until verified

I've removed the following text from the HGH quackery main article. Designed as a page about HGH quackery, it seems doubly ironic that it had been modified to include questionable HGH quackery. Also, a single case is hardly worth inclusion on this page. A scientific study with a double-blind completely randomized design would impress me, a subjective experience article hardly does so.

It is indisputable that growth hormone declines with age. Growth hormone is responsible for so many processes in the body that accepting a decline of growth hormone when a known and safe therapy exists is perhaps more dangerous than attempting replacement under the care of a doctor. Replacing with a physiological dose under the care of a qualified medical doctor results in almost immediate health benefits, including more energy, a loss of body fat, and a vast improvement of mood.

...

Rejuvenation, a plausible anti aging program including injectible HGH

--ABQCat 09:12, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Further removal for re-formatting/moving to main article

I've removed the following text from the HGH quakery page. It's somewhat useful, but does not accurately belong on a page about the claims made about HGH quakery in its current form. I believe that a list of things to look our for, would be beneficial in determining what is or is not an HGH quacky claim. However, the text I removed doesn't address that issue, but rather is redundant information from the main HGH therapy article.

You may recognize that an advertisement is quackery if it lists all the benefits of injectible growth hormone, but then it "switches" to say these benefits all exist BUT... 1) Growth hormone costs many thousands of dollars per month (in fact, as little as $100 per month of authentic injectible growth hormone will give you some benefits) 2) It is very painful because it must be injected (in fact the insulin-type syringes used for subcutaneous injection are almost entirely 'painless'.) 3) You risk horrible side effects such as "acromegalia" (giantism) and "carpal tunnel syndrome" etc. In fact, acromegalia is out of the question at the physiological doses recommended by doctors, and is impossible unless you overdose for at least six months on a dose 15 times the usual standard physiological dose.

After this they tell you to buy their preparation, usually a spray or powder or "homeopathic growth hormone". Beware these products, they are NOT authentic growth hormone. Authentic growth hormone can ONLY be injected. At the time this is written, there is no authentic growth hormone except injectible growth hormone. HGH cannot be taken by spray or powder form nor can it be absorbed through the skin or mucous membranes.

If it can be reformatted in a way that makes sense in the context of the current page (I'm not doing it as I'm content with the content of the page as it currently stands), I'd have no objection to its inclusion. To clarify my points for removal, the removed text has a pro-HGH perspective which is unwarranted and very POV. Risks of HGH therapy would indeed be worth including as would the mode of ingestion of HGH, though instead of on the quackery page, on the main HGH page. It's also badly written and whatever returns to the quackery article needs to be re-written. --ABQCat 01:04, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

moved text

After expanding the text and making sure to include the following points, I have moved the old text here for review. The style was enough different that I rewrote instead of writing around it. I disagree with only 2 points: I tried to supply reliable information rather than claim it's daunting. -- see what I have attached to the article. I also think the point about Hodgkins disease and colon cancer is misrepresented: there was a report of a few extra cases of these cancers in an uncontrolled retrospective survey of hypopituitary adults in the UK who received cadaver growth hormone in childhood. The findings have not been confirmed and even if real, there are other possible explanations in addition to a late side effect of GH treatment. Apologies for any offense. alteripse 14:11, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As a result of the increased business interest, finding reliable, clinically established knowledge of the administration, effects, risks, benefits, availability, and cost of GH, is now a daunting task. In order to find reliable medical information, one must separate the real knowledge from the profit-motivated hype (see pseudoscience).

Therapeutic administration of Human Growth Hormone and other supplements MAY provide health advantages, but there will always be money to be made in exaggerating such advantages. The incidence of HGH quackery will probably continue until such time that reliable knowledge of the use of GH becomes widespread in the consumer marketplace.

To aid the consumer in recognizing quackery from scientific and medical fact, consumers should look for publications on HGH to include mention of some of the following health risks healthy seniors may experience when taking an overdose of HGH:

• Edema (retention of fluids)
• Carpal tunnel syndrome
• Hypertension
• Diabetes and other glucose metabolism imbalances

And in other users, increases in muscle mass have not been accompanied by increases in muscle strenghth.

Important Note Chronic use of hGH is not well studied, except in children who took it for growth deficiencies. A long term increase in colon cancer and Hodgkin's Disease has been observed.

Reliable, medical Internet sites can be an easy way to determine what is true from what is not.

Some reputable sites for more information include

• WebMD (search for HGH)
• [1] Rejuvenation, an 8 point plausible anti-aging program (includes nutrition, exercise, vitamins, and various hormones replacement therapy)
• [2] Rejuvenation, an Anti-Aging Forum (open to everybody who wants to learn more) for doctors and patients who use authentic, injectible, growth hormone (eg, Humatrope, Saizen, Norditropin, Genotropin, etc.) Also includes discussion of testosterone, insulin, erithropoyetin (EPO), other hormones, and other anti-aging therapies such as Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy, EDTA chelation, etc.

Cost of HGH

In the article it is stated:

Ironically, only a fraction of severely deficient adults are willing to take growth hormone injections.

Diagnosed with 'profound GH deficiency' 4 years ago, I was informed that the cost of growth hormone injections could amount to between A$6,000.00 and A$12,000.00 per annum, depending on the dosing regime. I would suggest that severely deficient adults would be very willing to take the injections, but, as in my own case, are unable to afford them

• I agree that this factor deserves mention and added it to the article. Nevertheless, a surprising proportion of adults with good drug coverage decline it or discontinue it. I have heard a rumor of pharmaceutical company statistics that the average duration of treatment of an adult with deficiency is only 7 months. Statistics for countries with health systems that remove the cost factor might give us an indication of relative distributions of reasons that many deficient adults do not get it. It's a shame that those who want it don't always have the same opportunity as those who don't. I hope your endocrinologist has already investigated the grant programs for patients without coverage. One aspect of GH marketing in the US is that most of the GH companies have programs to supply it at minimal cost to patients without coverage (...partly, if you don't think the reasoning too cynical, to keep doctors from thinking of the high price as an impediment to prescribing). alteripse 12:30, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

• I assume the A$ is intended to differentiate the US Dollar from the Canadian, but since A$ could also mean the Australian dollar, it would be helpful if the ISO Currency code currency code was used. Ravendarque 09:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

While I agree with the content of this article, the style is heavily biased, and the credibility suffers as a result. For example, Klatz's credentials are presented as an ad hominem. There are ways to get the same information across with a more neutral style. --Leifern July 1, 2005 12:46 (UTC)

I don't understand what POV you think is not fairly represented? Those who intend to misrepresent? I changed the phrasing of the description of Klatz's credentials, but it is a relevant piece of information in this topic. An NPOV tag needs more justification than you have provided. alteripse 15:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The entire article reads like an expose of a practice that is probably true, but it needs to be phrased that way. The neutral description would be that HGH quackery refers to allegations that biosynthetic human growth hormone and related substances are recommended for anti-aging and other uses, although the medical community, etc., disavows such an effect. The case that it is quackery has to be made carefully. Referring to Quackwatch discredits the entire article - this website is at best a blog, at worst an uninformed rant. There are plenty of serious objections to this in credible sources. Also, the endocrinologists do refer to somatropin as HGH all the time informally. --Leifern 15:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I must respectfully disagree with you on several points. Quackwatch is a more reliable site than any critic I have seen; and I have looked at the Quackwatch information about growth hormone and it is factually accurate (I wrote most of this article before they had a page on GH so I did not take from that site much of anything except the background info on Klatz). Some people feel that the Quackwatch criticism of chiropractic is harsher than warranted but that is not related to this issue. The site offers perspectives and information you can't get elsewhere; if you have an alternative to suggest I am open, but your characterization of it tells me much about your medical knowledge and ability to judge accuracy of medical information. I will also contradict your assertion about HGH: I have spent my working career since the NPA days around endocrinologists, and I cannot off the top of my head recall any of them ever referring to it as "HGH" informally-- we simply call it growth hormone. You will find the HGH abbreviation in much of the older growth hormone medical literature, and I am sure you can find some example somewhere of a real endocrinologist using the term after 1990, but as for "all the time informally", your assertion again tells me more about your willingness to make unfounded assertions than about endocrinologists.

I have no problem with specific suggestions about rephrasing some of the sentences, and I appreciate the three you have offered, but please notice you have in one paragraph offered a more unsupportable POV than this article contains. If you have factual corrections or additions, please offer, but otherwise I would appreciate it if you would not keep replacing the POV tag. (name accidentally omitted) alteripse 18:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC) 16:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I have consulted to a leading pharmaceutical company on two of its outcomes research programs related to a branded form of somatropin and will put my interaction with leading endocrinologist against anyone's. The technical term most often used is biosynthetic human growth hormone. In various presentations I have seen it referred to as hGH, its brand name(s), and GH. I am not disputing that Barrett has good information on some topics, but because he is a hack on so many others, quackwatch is not a credible source in general. If you look at the websites of the various branded somatropin products you'll see that they all refer to it as "human growth hormone" - see Genentech; Eli Lilly refers to it as "growth hormone" [3]; Novo Nordisk refers to it as "growth hormone" [4]; Pfizer refers to it as "human growth hormone" [5]. So 2 out of 4 more or less randomly selected pharma companies are equally clueless? --Leifern 17:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

You missed my point: it is still officially "human growth hormone" (often abbreviated hGH) in pharmaceutical literature, but endocrinologists do not use the initials "HGH" and never informally (your claim). If you search "HGH" and "biosynthetic human growth hormone" you get an entirely different spectrum of sites and very different ratios of reliable info to fraudulent nonsense. In the real internet world, the terms are not used by the same sets of people. Have you not noticed this? None of your citations disagree with my assertion or support your original one. alteripse 18:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

At this point, we only have your assertion that endocrinologists never use the term. What we do have is that the literature uses the term GH and HGH interchangeably. I am not insisting that my experience should form the basis for usage here, as that would be original research; nor can you insist that yours be used for the same reason. As a result, we should simply delete the section on usage, as we can only contend with what is documented. --Leifern 18:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I am flabbergasted at this. The whole point of this article, as it says in the opening sentence, is that the use of HGH is a common marker of this whole class of communication. All you have to do to confirm this is google HGH and google synthetic growth hormone. The difference in the first 20 hits for each term is obvious. And you have the arrogance to tell me you know what terms endocrinologists use and I shouldn't make that claim? This is not constructive criticism, this sounds like someone so unable to accept evidence that doesnt match his prejudices that no amount of evidence will be good enough. Is that you? See below for response to your next messages. alteripse 02:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

How to make this article neutral

• Any characterization of off-label use of biosynthetic human growth hormone as "fraudulent, unfounded, or exaggerated aspects of the claims, products, and businesses" must be qualified as to who makes those charges and on what basis.

**The statements of fact are referenced. Nothing in this article is my solitary opinion. As far as I know, there is no credible source opposing what I and these other sources have written here..

• The article should really be retitled with a redirect, probably to something like Controversial uses of HGH or something along those lines.

**The title is concise and appropriate. It accurately tells people what the content is. There are many other controversial uses that are true controversies, but have not been saturated and overpowered with the truly misleading and dishonest claims. We can make clear that a certain amount of the understanding of declining GH with aging and benefit of treatment is legitimately unsettled, as I indicated in one reference, but none of the other controversial uses (like ISS or PW) are encrusted with so much genuine dishonesty and consumer fraud..

• Terms like "real endocrinologist" must be modified, lest the article be accused of the "appeal to authority" fallacy. A person's qualifications, degrees, etc., do not make his/her statements true; nor does a "mere" DO degree make a person's statements less true.

**Distinguishing people with training and expertise from those without it is something any intelligent person thinks is relevant in weighing sources. The point isnt MD versus DO; there are lots of good DO endocrinologists. It is that most reasonable people might weigh endocrine information coming from someone with training and experience in endocrinology over claims coming from someone with a DO who will publicly use a diploma mill MD degree to enhance his marketability. This single fact epitomizes the whole field that is the subject of this article..

• We have to differentiate between the basis for allegations of quackery. As is correctly pointed out, these fall into two groups - one is promoting HGH for purposes that are unproven; the other is promoting products as HGH that are something else.

**As you say, the article states that those are not the same thing. I have painstakingly tried to distinguish between real growth hormone and the fraudulent products, and between real endocrinologists and those who mislead, hype, exaggerate or simply defraud. I will look again and if you think I havent been clear enough I will try to make it clearer.

• We have to remove the "consumer guide" flavor to the article. This is an encyclopedic article, not a lecture on "quackery."

**This is an article about quackery. We dont have to pretend that making false claims and misleading people or actually defrauding them is the other side of a valid controversy. There is nothing wrong with giving practical advice on how to tell the difference. Similar information should be included in an article on counterfeit money. I have had two people tell me they found the article well written and useful. But short of removing the "indicators of fraud" section, what do you have in mind?.

• We should rely on credible rather than convenient sources. Barrett is such a biased source that he is no longer credible, no matter how good some of his articles may be.

**Barrett is biased against fraud as a policeman is biased against crime. It doesn't mean we don't use him as a source. I used Barrett a couple of times and published medical articles about 10 times and there is zero disagreement between the two. I am sorry you have an irrational POV against Barrett, but he is the source for Klatz' background and unless you can demonstrate his info to be false, it is a highly relevant source.

• • I would question Barrett's credentials, his motivation, and his use of sources, but that isn't even the point - the point is that his blog - because that's what it is - has a serious bias, which is "anything but what is taught in medical schools is more or less quackery." That perspective does not lend credibility to the article.
• In other words, a serious rewrite - I'd advise consulting other medical articles (Diabetes is pretty good) for tone, factuality, etc. Wikipedia related to Quackery are horrendous, and we do our readers a disservice if we use the tone promoted there. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. --Leifern 17:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

**The diabetes article has nothing but criticisms and complaints on its talk page. It is uneven, disorganized and out of date. The only consensus is that it needs a complete overhaul. It is a poor choice of a model.

• • • It is still much better than this one. Much much better.

You would define removing the NPOV tag as VANDALISM?!! That helps me understand what I am dealing with. I have been unfailingly civil and have assumed good faith and taken your criticisms seriously even as you offer increasingly unsupportable assertions and indicate with every post that your understanding of this issue and ability to understand neutral POV is poorer and poorer than I had initially assumed.

Wikipedia frowns on removing tags such as this. If it isn't vandalism, it certainly is problematic behavior. --Leifern 23:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

We can take this to comment, but let's make the issues clear.

1. The whole point of the article is that most products sold on the internet, in lay magazines, and in health food stores with the initials HGH are either fraudulent or marketed misleadingly or based on misrepresentation of medical research or exaggerated claims of efficacy or selective use of information to suggest a greater degree of medical consensus and evidence about GH use for aging and other complaints of adults. Are we clear on that? Because your post above suggests you still haven't grasped that basic message. If I have written unclearly I would like to make it clearer, so I will try to buff the opening paragraph, but it says pretty much what I just said.

You have expressed your views on this issue very clearly, and you're probably right on most of what you write. But if this is to read like an encyclopedic article, it must be possible even for those who are behind the marketing you find so horrendous to not dispute the fact basis.

1. The evidence for every assertion in this article was offered, reference by reference. The sources of the whole HGH business are traced, with impeccable references. None of this is "original research".

May be - but you still have to present the assertions in a way that doesn't immediately reveal your point of view.

1. You have not pointed out a single false assertion or misleading reference. You have not offered a single piece of rebuttal evidence. I will try to respond to anything remotely resembling a constructive criticism you have offered, but I am increasingly unimpressed with the value of your suggestions.
2. I will revise this over the next few days. The NPOV tag can remain until I am ready to remove it because I dont do revert wars. When I am ready I will remove it with community support and you may stick your accusations of "vandalism" into your orifice of choice. alteripse 02:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Ultimatums really don't impress me. --Leifern 23:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Page move

I've moved this to "HGH controversies" after a complaint to Wikimedia relating to one of the people mentioned in this article. I think they have a strong point, the previous title is intrinsically biased, and doesn't allow full, NPOV, discussion of the subject. Obviously this action is up for review by other users, but please don't move it back without discussion taking place first. I suggest a listing on Requests for Comment to get a wider range of user's opinion -- sannse (talk) 23:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Where is the complaint? Was it a complaint of inaccuracy? alteripse 23:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The complaint was via email to the Wikimedia foundation. The main complaint was of innacuracy and bias, and in particular the title (which I very much agree is a problem). There are other issues, which I'm working on resolving. Obviously we don't want to be dictated to by people writing to us, but we do need to take such mail seriously and look carefully at the articles involved -- sannse (talk) 00:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I am willing to take it seriously and have no intention of providing misleading or inaccurate information. alteripse 02:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Intro change

What is the controversy? Your new paragraph refers to it but doesnt even describe it. Leave the accurate original until we have something better. alteripse

Alterelipse, try to understand that every article in Wikipedia, no matter how self-evident its point is, must be neutral if there are multiple points of view. Just take a look at Holocaust and you'll see that the editors have gone to great length to write things neutrally, even to the point of accomodating what I think are despicable people. It this article reads like a polemic - no matter how well argued or reasoned - it instantly loses credibility. I'll give you another example: I think Kevin Trudeau is full of s&%$, but after I read Barrett's "expose" - which was such a ridiculous rant - I honestly started wondering whether Trudeau had more merit than I thought. A neutral, factual presentation of the allegations, who made them, and what the controversy is all about is much more effective than an article with a title that begs the question. --Leifern 00:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Please fix the wording if you are unhappy, rather than replacing with an introduction that doesn't fit the title any more. Quackery is a pejorative word, there must be a better way of describing the exact problem -- sannse (talk) 00:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The phenomenon described by this article is a unitary topic in the sense that it describes the misleading marketing of products referred to as HGH. The spectrum of "misleading" ranges from unproven claims of efficacy and safety for off-label use of an honest product, to exaggerated claims, to outright fraud (the product isn't what the buyer thinks it is and won't do what the buyer bought it for). The article outlines clear examples of both "hype" and "fraud" but also describes products, practices, and claims that fall in between. Quackery seemed like exactly the right term, as it is a vague term referring to the misleading practice of medicine or selling of drugs, and covers everything misleading from hype to fraud.

My problem with "controversy" is that it really refers to only part of the topic, and there is no valid "other side" to misleading people that we need to represent. Whether there is more benefit than risk when an old man takes real growth hormone is a controversy worth a separate article; while a mouth spray labeled HGH sold to people who think it is growth hormone is simply fraud, not a controversy. We could try to separate unproven and exaggerated from blatantly dishonest, but if you start investigating "HGH" online I think you will come to the conclusion that they are inextricably linked. It is hard to draw a line between "barely legal hype" and unequivocal fraud, since on both sides of that line there are lots of marketers trying to blur the distinctions and persuade you that you can buy HGH in some form for $20, $200, $2000, or $20000 -- they have a product for every pocketbook. alteripse 04:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I assume that those who sell this stuff would say they are going so validly, including that side (in proportion) is what NPOV is about. Using a pejorative word as the title, takes up a position before the article starts. That's fine for an editorial, but not for a Wikipedia article. -- sannse (talk) 15:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Removed text

I have removed a sentence for verification [6]. Please only replace this is you can provide full verification in the form of a valid source. If you find a source, if may be better to phrase the sentence in the for "according to [source] blah blah". Thanks -- sannse (talk) 00:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I had thought this a sidelight, but let's make it more prominent. In his book nearly every single doctor is described as Joe Blow M.D., except nowhere is Dr Klatz described as anything except "Dr. Klatz". This is usually a dead give-away to someone who wants to conceal the fact that he has no MD, but how's this for documentation: [7], an entire consent order from the Illinois Department of Professional Regulation directing him and an associate to stop describing themselves as MDs because they were not authorized to do so:

"On December 6, 2000, osteopathic physicians Ronald Klatz, D.O., and Robert Goldman, D.O., agreed to pay $5,000 each to the State of Illinois and to stop identifying themselves as M.D.s in Illinois unless authorized to do so by the Illinois Department of Professional Regulation. The agreement indicates that each acquired an "M.D." degree from the Central America Health Sciences University School of Medicine in Belize but was not licensed to use the credential in Illinois. The agreement also permits them to list the credential in their curriculum vitae as long as it does not closely follow their name.

Klatz and Goldman have been associated for many years in activities related to "anti-aging medicine" and the promotion of dietary supplements. The agreements, reproduced below, were identically worded except for their names and license numbers and the final sentence of Klatz's agreement, which is not in Goldman's agreement."

Curious about that "last sentence"? Here it is: "It is understood by the Department that Respondent has authored numerous books and other publications which are in print and in which the M.D. designation is used. Respondent is under contract with several different publishers relating to these books and publications. These contracts generally provide the publisher with the right to reprint books as well as provide the publishers with paperback and other rights. The use of the M.D. designation in any books or publications already in print as of the date of this Order, including reprints of said books and publications occurring after the date hereof, shall not constitute a violation of this Order. In addition, the terms of this Order shall not apply to the book "What's Eating You? " which is already under contract as of the date of this Order."

This consent order makes it pretty clear that this was a mail order MD from an unrecognized school acquired solely for the purposes of marketing his books. He already had a valid, perfectly good license to practice medicine based on his DO degree. Does this not seem a valid part of the story? One more bit of misleading marketing that epitomizes the misrepresentation of the whole subject matter.

How about if we say this: The second influential publication was quite different in several ways. In 1997, Dr. Ronald Klatz published Grow Young With HGH: The Amazing Medically Proven Plan To Reverse the Effects Of Aging (New York:Harper-Collins, 1997). The author was not an endocrinologist, but an osteopath who in 2000 was fined and ordered by the Illinois Department of Professional Regulation to stop claiming an M.D. degree which was obtained from an unaccredited medical school in Belize. The book itself was an uncritical touting of GH as the answer to aging. Again, although marketers of fraudulent "HGH products" cite the book incessantly, Klatz was referring only to real growth hormone. alteripse 02:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, this is incredibly slanted text. You are using words designed to lead the reader into making a conclusion: "uncritical touting", "incessantly", "stop claiming". And again there are unsourced allegations: "an unaccredited medical school" (unaccredited by whom? where is the reference for this?). What the document you linked actually says is that the school is "an institution approved by the World Health Organization." and "However, said degree was never properly licensed through this Department" - so it's not that the school is unaccredited, but that the degree was not properly processed.

I haven't the time to go through all the details like this (got to get on to the next legal threat ;) but this really has to be done right. I 'strongly suggest getting more eyes on this with a Request for Comment. -- sannse (talk) 15:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with sannse. The purpose of a Wikipedia article is to be neutral and not lead readers to a conclusion through loaded words. However, there appears to be published criticism of Klatz and his Academy, that can be included, if properly attributed--I have done some of this. There is this story from The Times, and Olshansky's petition of scientists about anti-aging "quackery" appears in Scientific American here, though the full article text is not available online. Material from the SciAm article would be a very good replacement for an evaluation of "the industry", while Olshansky and Perls's published criticisms of Klatz, Goldman and the Academy is a good replacement for some of the criticism that exists now. Klatz has rebutted Olshansky's criticisms, indeed, they have filed a lawsuit to the effect, and information about that should be included as well. If this controversy section starts dominating the article, it can be broken out into an article of its own. Demi ^T/_C 19:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

<AOL>Me too</AOL>. I tidied it up a little, hopefully without changing the balance, but given the creation of no less than six articles on purported HGH "miracle cures" today I am strongly in favour of getting this sorted out properly. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 14:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

removal

I restored the article to the state before I put in the material that clearly expressed the POV that the reader deserved a detailed account of what is misleading about the people, claims, and products covered by this topic. I have been told I was wrong, and that misrepresenting yourself, your products, and their efficacy should be represented as a legitimate point of view. I yield. alteripse 21:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

False claim

"Chronic use of hGH is not well studied, except when used in children for acute growth deficiencies."

Totally false. There have been multiple studies into both paediatric and adult use, and the latter not for acute growth deficiencies. 86.17.210.229 12:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

there is actually no such thing as an acute growth deficiency alteripse 01:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

With respect, although you are correct in asserting that there is no such thing as an "acute" GHD when you consider the medical definition of the term "acute" (as opposed to alternative, non-medical but relevant definitions of the word, such as "severe"), I think you are missing the point. The claim is that chronic use of GH is not well studied, except ... etc. This is incorrect. Long-term use by children and adults - for various reasons not just including growth deficiencies - has been studied extensively over many years. I myself was part of one such study of GH use for adult-onset GHD at UCL (London), for several years. I still inject daily and am frequently hauled in by neuroendocinologists and scientists for tests (I've given more blood than a white-dressed pale-skinned virgin in Transylvania). 86.17.210.229 23:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course the assertion is incorrect. I was pointing out that even the terms in the sentence were nonsensical. alteripse 01:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• • • If you already knew the assertion was incorrect, why didn't you delete it before? It's been there for over a month. 62.25.106.209 18:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I rewrote this whole article but as you can see if you review the history, certain parties insisted that the facts I outlined were too "POV" because I think the content of the article should focus on all the misleading and fraudulent aspects of "HGH" promotion. To those who think we should never point out fraud or quackery even when it is patently and demonstrably such, that is too strong a POV. I finally got tired of the bad faith arguments and simply reverted to the version preceding my rewrite. What you are balking at is simply one relatively minor mistake in a generally well-intentioned but vague article that tries hard not to offend anyone or provide the reader with any real details or perspective. Rewrite it yourself but remember that HGH misrepresentation is just another POV and there is no such think as fraud and quackery, just another equally respectable POV. alteripse 22:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Robert Bohen's contribution

I am worried about Robert Bohen's replacing the complete text of the article. I wonder if there is a conflict of interests. The signature in the bottom of the new text says that Robert is a president of an anti-aging research company. The company's web site promotes an HGH oral spray product.

The following critical references were removed:

• A June 2005 FTC consumer alert.
• An abstract of a June 2006 Endocrine Society meeting, stating "there is little evidence to suggest that it reverses aging".
• A 2004 abstract of a Hormone Research article on the increased cancer risk in patients taking HGH.

The previous version of the article in question summarized arguments for and against HGH as an anti-aging treatment.

ilgiz 22:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree, and have reverted the article. Regardless of his own personal affiliations - which I confess I hadn't noticed - such radical changes in a disputed article are grossly inappropriate. Specifically:

• Replacement of much of the article with poorly formatted, disorganised text which is not wikified giving the impression that this is a cut-and-paste job, quite possibly of a sales pitch of some sort.
• Removal of Wikipedia:NPOV and Expert tags without consultation.
• Addition of extravagant, completely unsourced claims: "Science has demonstrated with thousands of clinical studies on tens of thousands of people that HGH can positively impact ones process of aging or quality of life span. The verdict may always be out." The HGH literature does not run to thousands of articles - a search for "HGH" on pubmed turns up 3,604 articles, but the majority are not in relation to its effects on aging. "HGH aging" turns up a mere 64 articles. In addition, the above statement is unsure of itself - does HGH impact on aging, or quality of life span? What, come to that, is "quality of life span"? How secure are these putative conclusions when the next sentence is "The verdict may always be out"?
• Addition of POV, unreferenced material: "It is the author’s opinion that HRT, including HGH is an investment to quality of life span."
• Poor grasp of science. e.g. "Amino acids “mock” HGH to the liver causing an IGF-1 response." Putting words in inverted commas is not a substitute for understanding what you're talking about.
• Inability to spell scientific terms, e.g. "albumen", suggests a scientific basis which is at best shaky.

In short, the version of the article I've restored may be limited in scope, but it is reasonably coherent, properly referenced, relatively NPOV, and for those reasons I recommend that any additions to it are carefully discussed on this page in advance. Nmg20 23:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Robert Bohen's Contribution...

Dear editor(s),

I submitted a request two days ago to "modify" this page due to request for an "expert". I din't receive a reply. I assumed if I "posted", that I would get a response. Thank you for responding.

This was my request.

"Hello,

I need your guidance and help. I am brand new to this and an associate requested that I represent myself as an "expert" in HGH or human growth hormone. I founded a certain aspect of the HGH industry, and I am an expert in this field and I do not want to appear as if I have an agenda with what I write. I need someone to review it for me before it gets pulled because I did not follow protocol. Furthermore, our corporate site is science based and deeply informational and I would love to have a link pointing to on of the key information pages. To increase PR if that is possible.

I want to be very up front because I believe I can serve well and stand for the facts and expose fallacious behavior.

Who should I communicate with so I may do this right?

Thank you in advance..."

The simple truth is my staff and I have dedicated ten years to researching hormones and HGH. We want to assist; if you want assistance. We have witnessed in the last ten years it's positive effect on many people.

That being said, my primary intention is to provide "objective" information for Wikipedia. This is difficult to purely do since I do profit from this work. However, I recognize the primacy of such reporting. More importantly, we have extensively researched all forms of "HGH", from injections to many fraudulent products labeled as "HGH". We believe that it is very critical for the consumer to know what is happening. We hear from people quite frequently that they get "burned”.

This actually came in via email today at 1:03 PM PST:

"Dear Sir , Ive found many sites advertising hgh and it was my misfortune to order off one which appeared to be genuine and it was a fraud .How can i be sure that the product your advertising is genuine and give me confidence to place an order with you ? . Potentially a new customer, Yours Sincerely,

Jeffrey Parry."

This is what and to whom I wish to contribute. Helping people like Mr. Parry. Please try to grasp how pervasive this fraudulent and criminal activity is.

For example, consumers are being told that IGF is a good thing and then they seek to take it in various forms thinking it is beneficial. IT IS NOT. It is dangerous. I have talked to people who have attempted to raise their IGF levels by taking IGF or IGF extracts and suffered permanent damage to their isles of Langerhans and became type 1 diabetic or prompted an auto-immune disorder such as fibromyalgia. This must be stopped. If I can help one person by contributing here, that is my ultimate agenda and I have done my job. If in the process Wikipedia permits a link to our site; thanks very much, but it is not at all important. What is important is the truth as we see it and helping people like Mr. Parry.

Therefore my request is simple. I wish to assist with the truth as I understand it, so others may benefit and quality of lives can be saved. I do not need it tied back to our company, I am not looking for glory or profit here; only the truth.

Do you have any advice or feedback?

BTW, please forgive my spelling or other errors or omissions on what I posted. I have a business to run that consumes my attention span. This is why I request your editing assistance if you believe I can make a contribution.

Again, I am unsure of the protocol. I can be contacted at 888-AntiAging (268-4244) ext 221 or at robertbohen@antiagingresearch.com. Thank you for your consideration.

Robertbohen 01:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Bohen,

Thank you for your extremely reasonable and courteous response, and I do appreciate your aims, the difficulties inherent in your position, and your honesty in raising it up-front.

In terms of feedback, the article as it stands is shorter than it would ideally be, and could use details of any additional research you feel able to put in. However, before adding anything, it would be worth checking how sources should be cited, which sources are appropriate for inclusion, and how to add references to Wikipedia. For instance, the last reference in your article should be entered (where you wish the footnote placeholder to appear) as:

<ref>Ghigo E, Arvat E, Camanni F. Orally active growth hormone secretagogues: state of the art and clinical perspectives. Ann Med. 1998 Apr;30(2):159-68. PMID 9667794</ref>. This will produce something like this.

The advantages this has are numerous: the references can easily be jumped to and from within the article, and crucially it will link to the abstract on Pubmed, allowing other editors direct access to the article source.

It's worth commenting as well that "signing" your additions in the text is inappropriate. Wikipedia policy mandates that additions are not based on original research,and that they are attributable to a reliable published source. In short, this means articles which:

(1) Have been published in peer-reviewed sources, and reviewed and judged acceptable scholarship by the academic journals.

(2) Preferably, items that are recommended in scholarly bibliographies.

(3) Preferably, items that are signed.

I hope this helps, and thank you for your time. Nmg20 08:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleted page for your review...

I posted the deleted page here for you to critique or assist in editing. If you believe I can contribute.

HGH, human growth hormone, somatotropin

Human growth hormone claims:

There are many controversies around the claims, products, and businesses related to the use of growth hormone as a life extension anti-aging therapy. Most of this controversy falls into two categories:

Claims of exaggerated, misleading, or unfounded assertions that real growth hormone treatment slows or reverses the effects of aging or HGH may be an effective tool to boost well being and manage the aging process.

HRT Hormone replacement therapy

These claims need to be closely examined. There is a mountain of evidence that bio-identical hormone replacement in humans (estrogen, testosterone, progesterone, HGH etc.) has a significant affect in overall “vitality” that would appear to overwhelm the negative reports. This suggests an apparent deference of menopause and andropause (male menopause) symptoms. One could then make the sequitur leap in the absence of aging symptoms that HGH and other hormones are “antiaging” hormones. Logic furthermore, suggests that HRT before menopause and andropause symptomology is proactively addressing the cause. Many would agree that quality of life supersedes length of life. Some are willing to risk the “unknown” for a better quality of life now. So, as with a rather controversial subject filled with both protagonists and antagonists, the complete evidence may never be fully available.

It is interesting to note that over 10,000 clinical studies have been done with HGH (somatotropin), most with quite favorable results when taken in acceptable dosages. What an acceptable dose is however, has much controversy. There is great concern that current dosage admonitions are in excess. Although users indicate many positive affects of well being, stamina, sex drive, appearance and the dissipation of age related onset, there is controversy about the dosage causing atrophy of the pituitary gland or at minimum, a relative refractory period of recovery. Additionally, termination may actually accelerate aging.

OTC HGH products

One clear fact is undeniable. HGH cannot be swallowed in any form, since the amino acid peptide would be destroyed by the stomach acid. It must be injected or absorbed. So, if it is a pill or capsule or anything that perpetrates to be HGH that is swallowed and digested, it cannot provide a therapeutic value.

Some believe that HGH supplementation should be much more in alignment with nature and the current methodology of other forms of HRT, low dose, high frequency. There is currently a micro-dilution non-injectable strength available that claims to more closely emulate the pituitary’s natural nanogram pulsatile output. One injection of growth hormone may contain over 500,000 ng for one I.U.

Therefore oral spray growth hormone may be a safe guard since it's virtually impossible to overdose on only 2000 to 5000 ng per day and again may more closely emulate nature, low dose, high frequency, if it the molecule in these sprays can get in without being digested.

There is much controversy about HGH spray products due to the very large size of the HGH molecule. The current recognized inventor of the micro-dilution strength claims that the conical cross-linking nature of the HGH molecule allows it to be “stretched”. This is a common process in other molecules known as molecular folding. This folding process supposedly allows for the absorption of the molecule via the buccal ducts (under the tongue) to the dissolve once in the blood stream and release the HGH molecule (bulk degradation).

Another challenge is the HGH molecule, once in a hydrophilic state (constituted with water) begins to immediately break down due to oxidization. According to the manufacturer the molecular folding and encapsulation process protects the HGH molecule from oxidation via encapsulating each HGH molecule in an ionized polymer known as a delivery vector.

How does HGH work in aging humans? Why do people who have used it make such claims?

HGH increases osmotic pressure (cellular hydration) and an increase of albumen production. This along with reported mitotic regeneration may be why claims of diminishing wrinkles are commonly reported. This increase in osmotic pressure is also the reason edema (water retention), high blood pressure and carpal tunnel syndrome occurs. It appears however, by the reduction of dosage, these side effects immediately disappear.

HGH also demonstrates mitotic regeneration (protein synthesis). Some research indicates this cellular regeneration has a healing effect on organs, cartilage and tissue. Some users complain of a “memory effect”, where one experiences pain or a dull ache in the area of an old injury. This “memory effect” seems to disappear after time and some users claim that these “old injuries” have completely “healed” as if “the injury never occurred”..

HGH has been frequently referred to as the master hormone. Clinical studies demonstrate that elevation of HGH causes a corresponding elevation in other hormones and nero-peptides that have declined due to age related decline. In the past much HRT (hormone replacement therapy) has been attempted with many non-bio-identical compounds from pregnant mare urine extracts to animal derived hormones. These foreign substances can cause a systemic response and compromise the immune system. This possible compromise can be from cancers to auto-immune disorders such as fibromyalgia.

What about HGH pills, capsules and homeopathic remedies? The sale of “HGH products” that fraudulently or misleadingly purport to be growth hormone or to increase the user's own secretion of natural human growth hormone to a beneficial degree?

There is a preponderance of products that claim to elevate HGH with various amino acid, et al “supplements” in the form of pills, capsules, effervescents, etc. Research dictates these amino acid “formulations” at the dosages marketed, known as “secretegogues”, “precursors” “stimulators”, etc., clearly are ineffective. The majority of these products are either arginine or ornithine compounds with other essentially “inert” ingredients relative to HGH stimulation.

Amino acids “mock” HGH to the liver causing an IGF-1 response. IGF-1 is a marker to test for HGH in serum, but must be considered with many other markers. IGF-1, determined by a somatomedin C test by itself is essentially useless. Consequently, many unscrupulous marketers have capitalized on the uneducated consumer to deceive them with a reference to “clinical studies” done with just the stand alone test for IGF-1.

Arginine and ornithine at dosages ten to twenty times the potency of these “formulations” have demonstrated to actually increase the production of HGH for up to six weeks and then rapidly drop off. The concern with these dosages is they are clearly unsafe and cause excessive taxation to liver and kidney function. Scientifically, the claims of increasing HGH from these products based on these formulations are clinically fraudulent. If IGF-1 testing were no longer used as a co-marker for measuring HGH, there would be no ability to make these erroneous, deceptive and potentially harmful claims and the consumer would ultimately be limited to a small number of ways to raise growth hormone levels in the bloodstream. The Federal Trade Commission has been attempting to crack down on misleading claims about these products and marketers. http://www.antiagingresearch.com/faq_igf.shtml

It should be further noted that human anatomy and the endocrine system are all about ratios and balance known as bio-stasis. Elevated IGF-1 without corresponding elevation of HGH has been shown to cause cancers, diabetes, auto-immune disorders and other maladies. There are several documented cases of people taking pure IGF or extracts such as deer antler that have experienced these negative side effects.

Homeopathic HGH is another common form of marketing “HGH”. Many homeopathic preparations do appear to have some purpose. However the very law of homeopathy does not permit or allow the processing of an HGH molecule.

It seems impossible for homeopathic HGH to provide any therapeutic value since it violates almost every aspect of accepted known medical science. For instance, the probability of finding only one HGH molecule inside of a one ounce bottle of a homeopathic 30x HGH preparation are literally trillions to one. This ration is equivalent to a container of alcohol, water or glycerin more than 30 million times the volume of our solar system’s sun containing one single HGH molecule.

Additionally, alcohol (ethanol) fractures and will destroy the moderately delicate growth hormone molecule. Most homeopathic "formulations" use alcohol as their base. Therefore, even if there was any HGH in the homeopathic, the alcohol would render it further useless.

What about side effects and cancer?

Following a study in 1990 by Daniel Rudman, "Effect of human growth hormone in men over 60 years old," which showed fat loss, muscle mass increase and maintenance of healthy skin from the administration of growth hormone in elderly men, there has been a burgeoning industry surrounding the sale and administration of HGH and its purported anti-aging effects.

The Rudman studies were indeed noteworthy and many clinical studies have validated the original research, and invalidated it as well. It would appear that HGH is not as anabolic (muscle building) as initially thought. It is now believed the increase in muscle mass may actually have been water retention.

Some of the side effects reportedly seen in previously healthy mature patients after taking HGH include:

• Edema (retention of fluids) in extremities
• Arthralgia (joint pain)
• Carpal tunnel syndrome
• Hypertension
• Diabetes and other glucose metabolism imbalances
• Gynecomastia (enlargement of male mammary gland
• Acromegaly or gigantism with pronounced forehead, jaw line, and larger nose and feet.

Most of these side effects have been attributed to abusively higher doses (ten times the Rudman doses) and most subside upon reduction.

Does HGH cause cancer?

The research says absolutely not. Dr. Edmund Chin and L. Cass Terry's researched over 800 people ranging in age from 40 to 74 for six years, all had cancer statistics much lower than the norm in all 800 people.

According the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, August 1998, Volume 83, In acromegaly with excessive levels of HGH in their system present during most of their life. "The overall cancer incidence rate (new cancers at any site in the body including breast, thyroid, colon, lung, or prostate) was lower than that in the general population. The overall mortality death rate was not increased when compared to the general population, it was decreased.

The most convincing study completed in June of 1999 regarding the use of growth hormone and the lack of the presence of cancer, came from Japan where over 32,000 patients were treated with human growth hormone for 22 years.

The symptoms of aging may be somewhat more palatable by improving age related hormone level decline. People who produce little or no HGH because they've had their pituitary gland removed or have pituitary tumors that are deficient in HGH, age rapidly. They claim to experience a reduced sense of well being, lower energy, vitality and capacity for work. They clinically exhibit poor memory, mood swings, anxiety, and depression. Their body fat increases, especially around the waist. They have an accelerating decrease in muscle mass and wrinkled, thin, prematurely damaged or aged skin.

Science has demonstrated with thousands of clinical studies on tens of thousands of people that HGH can positively impact ones process of aging or quality of life span. The verdict may always be out.

It is the author’s opinion that HRT, including HGH is an investment to quality of life span. How it is administered and how much is yet to be determined, if ever.

Robert Bohen is the President of AntiAging research Laboratories www.antiagingresearch.com robertbohen@antiagingresearch.com

References

New England Journal of Medicine, Volume 323 July 5, 1990 Number 1 EFFECTS OF HUMAN GROWTH HORMONE IN MEN OVER 60 YEARS OLD Daniel Rudman, M.D., Axel G. Feller, M.D., Hoskote S. Nagraj, M.D., Gregory A. Gergans, M.D., Pardee Y. Lalitha, M.D., Allen F. Goldberg, D.D.S., Robert A. Schlenker, Ph.D., Lester Cohn, M.D., Inge W. Rudman, B.S., and Dale E. Mattson, Ph.D.

Grow Young With hGH by Dr. Ronald Klatz, President of the American Academy of Anti-Aging, published in 1997 by Harper Collins

Use of amino acids as growth hormone-releasing agents by athletes Joseph A. Chromiak PhDa, , and Jose Antonio PhDb Department of Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Sport, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, Mississippi, USA Rexall Sundown, Boca Raton, Florida, USA

Bucci L, Hickson JF, Pivarnik JM, Wolinsky I, McMahon JC. Ornithine ingestion and growth hormone release in bodybuilders. Nutr Res. 1990;10:2

Marcell TJ, Taaffe DR, Hawkins SA, Tarpenning KM, Pyka G, et al. Oral arginine does not stimulate basal or augment exercise-induced GH secretion in either young or old adults. Journal of Gerontology. 1999;54A(8):M395-399.

Surninski RR, Robertson RJ, Goss FL, et al. Acute effect of amino acid ingestion and resistance exercise on plasma growth hormone concentration in young men. Int J Sport Nutr. 1997;7:48-60.

Diagnosis of growth-hormone deficiency in adults. Hoffman DM, O'Sullivan AJ, Baxter RC, Ho KK Garvan Institute of Medical Research, St Vincent's Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia.

Serum Levels of Insulin-like Growth Factor-I (IGF-I) and IGF Binding Protein-3 (IGFBP-3) in Idiopathic Tall Basketball Players

Nijland EA; Strasburger CJ; Popp Snijders C; van der Wal PS; van der Veen EA Department of Endocrinology, Free University Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Eur J Endocrinol, 1998 Oct, 139:4, 395-401

Defining growth hormone deficiency in adults. Ho KK, Hoffman DM Garvan Institute of Medical Research, St. Vincent's Hospital, Sydney, Australia.

The measurement of insulin-like growth factor I: clinical applications and significance. Teale JD, Marks V

Nutritional regulation of insulin-like growth factor-I. Ketelslegers JM, Maiter D, Maes M, Underwood LE, Thissen JP Department of Internal Medicine, School of Medicine, Catholic University of Louvain, Brussels, Belgium.

Insulin-like growth factor 1 and prostate cancer risk: a population-based, case-control study. Wolk A, Mantzoros CS, Andersson SO, Bergstrom R, Signorello LB, Lagiou P, Adami HO, Trichopoulos D Department of Medical Epidemiology, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden. Alicja.Wolk@mep.ki.se

Insulin-like growth factor 1 in relation to prostate cancer and benign prostatic hyperplasia. Mantzoros CS, Tzonou A, Signorello LB, Stampfer M, Trichopoulos D, Adami HO Department of Epidemiology and Harvard Center for Cancer Prevention, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts 02115, USA.

The insulin-like growth factors and breast cancer--revisited. Yee D University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, 78284-7884, USA. yeed@uthscsa.edu

Circulating concentrations of insulin-like growth factor-I and risk of breast cancer. Hankinson SE, Willett WC, Colditz GA, Hunter DJ, Michaud DS, Deroo B, Rosner B, Speizer FE, Pollak M Channing Laboratory, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA.

Orally active growth hormone secretagogues: state of the art and clinical perspectives. Ghigo E, Arvat E, Camanni F Department of Internal Medicine, University of Turin, Italy. Robertbohen 01:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Much of this deleted text seems to be reasonable and uncontroversial. Properly formatted, wiki-linked, with inline references, much of this could go into the article. Of course, the above also contains a number of controversial statements, but with a slow-moving and careful extension of the article, I think much of this could, and should go in. linas 01:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

If someone can go through and establish precisely which parts are supported by appropriate references, I absolutely agree parts of this could be useful. The references given above look like a bit of a mixed bag to me, but I'm happy to review them as and when someone has a chance to decide how they'd like to use them. Nmg20 09:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 16:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1