Talk:Growth hormone therapy

Terminology
There is a chemical entity known as growth hormone. This does differ chemically between species (bovine, ovine, human Growth Hormone). Human Growth hormone is a single chemical entity, and there is no difference between the growth hormone secreted by the pituitary, cadaver growth hormone, or any of the commercial brands currently available. They may differ in source or contaminants, or in the solutions used to dilute them for injection, but the hormone is identical. The formerly available met growth hormone was chemically different, but not biologically different. Be cautious of any site or person using the plural and saying "growth hormones". There are other hormones involved in growth, such as insulin, thyroxine, and testosterone, but it is misleading to refer to these as "GROWTH HORMONES", and this pharase is often used to hide the fact that you are not getting human growth hormone at all, but some other hormone. There is no "natural" growth hormone, and this term is a throwback to vitalism. A substance either is or is not growth hormone.Pustelnik 14:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * To be nitpicky, there is at least one important difference between secreted and recombinant GH. GH is secreted by the pituitary in a variety of isoforms (the two major ones are 22 and 20 kD) whereas recombinant products are a single 22 kD isoform. The importance of this is that GH in the blood can be measured, and detection of an abnormal ratio of 22 to 20 is the most promising method for detecting athletic doping. alteripse 14:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

to whoever wants to emphasize cost inflation
I agree with including the criticism of continued high cost of human GH. I changed the wording for a couple of reasons. "Extremely inflated" is a value judgement and I would rather provide enough info for a reader to decide.
 * Can you provide a ballpark price per mg for animal GH?
 * I have not heard of any animal GH but bovine. Are you sure that synthetic GH is being given to poultry and you are not confusing GH with steroids or antibiotics?
 * I suspect it is not entirely true to claim that production costs for human and animal products are the same, as the FDA has fairly detailed rules on pharmaceutical plants, safety trials for new indications, and such processes as record keeping that are not applicable to animal products but are legitimately part of the production price. alteripse 06:05, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I receive daily injections of recombinant GH. According to my endocrine nurse it costs (the NHS) approximately £3,000 Sterling per annum. One must then factor in the cost of monitoring the condition. 80.6.30.24 23:20, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Well I take humatrope (somatropin (rDNA origin) as injections and every month I get (3) 24mg boxes and they cost close to $4000 per month!

effects

 * Does growth hormone treatment have any readily visible effects? Weight loss aside, I know that it is supposed to help restore reduced bone density, cholesterol levels, blood pressure, etc., but does it have many visible/noticeable superficial benefits? (For instance, in increasing bone mass, would it make a person look simply bigger/larger/bulkier/thicker; would it make a person's skull and skeleton bigger?) - March 27, 2006
 * No immediate visible effects. Over several months it will cause an obvious increase in a deficient child's appetite, can visibly reduce subcutaneous fat, and can cause obvious growth (a cm a month or so, making it obvious the child is outgrowing clothes). Effects in adults are not as well documented and I am speculating somewhat: no immediate effects would be visible during the first months of treatment of a deficient adult, but occasionally there is a mild reduction of excess body fat. Effects in a non-deficient adult would probably be even more subtle. Prolonged use of excessive doses (over years) would presumably begin to thicken soft tissue (hands, feet, nose, etc) and perhaps coarsen the jawline and cause other features of acromegaly.
 * then do anabolic steroids increase the body's size (skeletally, that is), muscle mass apart?

Jintropin
This is a huge story and the article is incomplete without it's mention. As has been the case in so many other industries (automotive is likely next), the Chinese have built a lower-cost mousetrap. Jintropin is about 1/10th the cost and is readily available on the internet. It's the FIRST significant price drop EVER since gH became the drug d'jour for the anti-aging set.

As an example, someone said they paid 4 grand for THREE 24mg boxes. Google "Jintropin" and you'll see numerous suppliers offering the equivalent of greater than FOUR 24mg boxes for $500.

Question:If a 15 year old kid with the body weight of 68kg and his height is 172 cm tall,what would be the effects to his body?if he taken these gh and after a while he stoped what would happen?Would he shrink?get a disfunctioned body?If he did have kids wen he was older, would the effect of his son or daughter be normal or different to other kids?Would they disabilities to thier body's?These are questions i do not no....it would be a great help to me if u got answer them...please...thank you.

At that height and weight, he probably should not take growth hormone at all. Jintropin states that it is recombinant, but it is sold in "units" not milligrams. I'm not sure what the conversion factor is, but with the NPA growth hormone, a "unit" was approximately 0.5 milligrams,Pustelnik 13:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Better answers to anonymous questions: 1 Can't tell possible growth response without bone age and pubertal data. 2 He would have less of whatever good or bad things the GH had been doing; effect on growth would depend on BA. 3 Yes he would shrink, but usually not until after age 40 unless he had severe untreated deficiency and osteoporosis. 4 There is no known effect of GH on offspring. alteripse 14:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC) PS Units are still commonly used in Europe-- North American doctors changed to mg about 1985. alteripse 14:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The head of the Chinese FDA just got sentenced to death for corruption. The makers of Jintropin have not submitted any safety or efficacy data to the US FDA or the equivalent in the European Union, have they? Since the vast majority of people buying Jintropin over the internet are not GH deficient, and have no doctors monitoring their responses, how do you know what is in those vials? I sure as hell would not give it to my child if he had only a few years of remaining growth. Add it to the article when the company begins to play by the rest of the first world's rules. alteripse 14:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

A question?
"If we treat a child to protect him from the disadvantages of social heightism, is that like lightening skin or straightening hair to protect from racism?" Why is this a significant question/issue, isn't the answer obvious? This is a social issue at best, and has nothing to do with Growth hormone treatment. Not to mention this could easily be restated as fact 'If we treat a child to protect him from the disadvantages of social heightism, that *is* like lightening skin or straightening hair to protect from racism.' ANONYMOUS COWARD0xC0DE 04:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No analogy matches all points unless it is a tautology. There are many laws and social customs to inhibit racism or reduce its effects. There are almost none to reduce the effects of "heightism". Since this is in fact the most common reasons parents seek treatment with growth hormone, this issue has everything to do with Growth hormone treatment. alteripse 23:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * "lightening skin" and "changing height" are both actions, "heightism" and "racism" are both forms of discrimination, if these assumptions are taken to be true then they are both similar in that each is an action to prevent discrimination, and thus the analogy is true via shared abstraction, and if the statement is true then it is a tautology. ANONYMOUS COWARD0xC0DE 06:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * "This is a social issue at best, and has nothing to do with Growth hormone treatment." ANONYMOUS COWARD0xC0DE "[...] this issue has everything to do with Growth hormone treatment." alteripse I agree, my statement was incorrect. ANONYMOUS COWARD0xC0DE 06:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

If there are no further complaints, I will remove this question.ANONYMOUS COWARD0xC0DE 19:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Removing Question ANONYMOUS COWARD0xC0DE 21:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Replacing question. It belongs there and is a legitimate ethical question about which reasonable people might differ. alteripse 23:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you find the analogy to be false? Perhaps you are not referring to the article's question as a question? The answer is yes with regard to shared abstraction, however if the question is more like "is hightism (like/less important than/more important than) racism", then I would rephrase the question to be more direct or insert an additional sentence to make the meaning of the question more clear. ANONYMOUS COWARD0xC0DE 08:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I simply do not understand your fixation on this question. The question is one of a series of rhetorical questions briefly posing ethical issues for which reasonable people might differ on the answer. Many parents seek treatment for their children to reduce social disadvantages of anti-shortness prejudice (termed "heightism" by others). Other people think we should consider shortness as part of normal variation and teach short children to deal with social prejudice in other ways, not by feeling like they have to change themselves. What part of this don't you get? alteripse 12:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I enjoy constructive arguments. There is only one question we are dealing with, and I am not concerned with the ethical issues at the moment.  You may disagree with my view that there is only one correct answer to this question.  However, the logical answer to this question is "yes", as I have already demonstrated.  I believe that most reasonable people would not differ on this assessment, but it does not mater what most people believe to be true, if the common answer can be disproved.  I do not understand how anyone can come to the conclusion that the answer to this question is "no".

The question "If we treat a child to protect him from the disadvantages of social heightism, is that like lightening skin or straightening hair to protect from racism?" is a well formed question, but it is a redundant question as it is a recognizable yes/no question with a decidable and verifiable answer. ANONYMOUS COWARD0xC0DE 02:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, now I understand. You were not quibbling over ethics but over the syntax of how the issue was described. Now that you point it out, I agree, the only answer is "yes, it is like that". I will rephrase it. alteripse 20:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Question:If a boy at the age of 15 and at the height of 172cm and his weight was 69kg,what would be the effect to his body if he'd taken growth hormones?

If he had taken them and then stoped taking them after a while,what would be the effects to his body?

If he had kids when he was older,what would happen to his daughter or son in apperance etc?would they be different compared to other kids?would they have disabilites eg:speaking, looking, smelling like those things?Would they have disadvantages...if that man took growth hormones when he was at the age of 15?

If there wasnt any major effect taking growth hormones?Could dna scientists find out if u did take them when you were 15, 10 years later?

where are all the references?
I see one reference on the bottom of the page. Is any of this info legitimate??
 * I found a few internal references that weren't formatted as references, and I remedied that. However, more references are needed.--SidP 10:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

By David 10th of april 2007 12.42am

I notice there's a references needed bar now at the top of the article. How long are these posted until articles or large portions of articles are deleted for lack of references? I would hate to see that happen because obviously a lot of thought has gone into this article but the lack of references is outrageous. Iushad 13:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * When the articles were written, few wikipedia articles were well-referenced. You have a very low threshold for "outrage" if that seems the appropriate descriptor for an accurate and fairly comprehensive, if unreferenced, article. Why don't you put your efforts into adding references instead of complaining that no one else has volunteered to do the work? alteripse 17:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Methylphenidate
I recently started taking methylphenidate (aka ritalin) and I did some reading about the endocrine effects of the drug. In a study by Joyce PR et al in 1986 showed that methylphenidate increased growth hormone levels. This did vary between patients and the increase was higher in men. According to a graph each person had less than 2 ug/l to start and they did say that each person was under 5ug indicating they did not have "elevated GH." After treatment it went up ti 13.2 +-2.8 ug/l in the male patients. They took .3 mg/kg of the drug. For my weight that would be ~25 mg. I am on an extended release dose of 54 mg (concerta). I was just curious if this was enough to notice any physiological difference if I took the drug every day (which I actually don't). Thanks a lot for any insight to this problem.

As a followup question, is this enough that if I or someone else were to take it on a regular basis that it should be somewhat cycled to prevent a deminished GH output after cessation? Or, would having elevated levels throughout the day effect the natural diurnal variation? Thanks again, I really appreciate any input. Rjkd12 16:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Human reproduction
I propose removing this article from Category:Human reproduction. I have proposed narrowing the scope of that category at Category talk:Human reproduction. Please comment on the category talk page. Lyrl Talk C 15:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Go ahead, GH is certainly not necessary for reproduction. alteripse 15:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Sources?
An article such as this one which relies on scientific evidence in discussing medical issues and ethical questions needs to be referenced fully and specifically for the sources of its claims. The section on "Ethical issues" is particularly irritating in this respect because it makes claims that are, in my opinion, both economically and ethically questionable. For example: "A high cost was originally justified by the new technology and unusually extensive clinical trials." Economic liberals could justifiably object that it is only supply and demand which justified the price and patent opponents that it is the monopoly granted by government force which caused, but did not justify, the cost. In other words, it is very far form a factual statement and must be attributed as the opinion of some commentator, bioethicist, or such.

A further problem is that the "Questions and dilemmas" subsection, despite its claim to be based on the "previous facts", asks no questions at all based on the critical 'facts' about pharmaceutical companies but simply takes the high cost of synthetic growth hormone as a fact of life and discusses the ethical implications of that high cost. The paper by Allen and Fost in .pdf format referenced at the end of "Ethical issues" is on topic but supports few, if any, of the claims made in "Ethical issues". Since it does not specifically support this section I think it belongs in the "External links" section at the bottom of the article. I have no special knowledge of this subject myself so the help I can offer is limited to these issues of desirable Wikipedia form. —Blanchette 07:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * There are several meanings of justified, and I deliberately chose that word because more than one meaning may be considered applicable. The GH companies justified the high cost by the research involved and eventually it was accepted and paid for by insurance. Some people felt that such a high cost over production costs for the next 20 years was not justified by the research. It seems clear to me if not to you. So how would you like to express that? As far as your second paragraph, it seems a non-sequitur. If you feel an ethical objection to the high cost is missing, put it in. The issues that are posed are the issues that are currently real, since it does continue to be expensive. alteripse 01:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Growth hormone plasma levels during treatment
I was trying to look up what plasma levels of GH are after treatment for a deficiency and I can't find anything. I can find doses (mg/kg) of GH, I can find IGF-1 levels and how GH effects many other hormone/protein levels execpt the circulating levels of GH. I ask because of the above mentioned ritalin question and curiosity if those levels are high enough to ellicit any physiological changes. If anybody has anything I'd appreciate it. Thanks again, Rjkd12 20:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Lots of studies on levels after therapeutic injection were published in the 1980s. Levels are biphasic: briefly for a few hours above normal, slowly descending into normal range, and below normal by time for next injection in 24 hours. Search pubmed for growth hormone kinetics. However, there is little published about concurrent use of GH replacement and Ritalin; there is no reason to think that one substantially affects the kinetics of the other. alteripse 01:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for responding, I really appreciate it. I was not talking about Ritalin altering the kinetics of GH, but how ritalin, which is a dopamine agonist, increases GH output.  I posted a study above (about methylphenidate and GH) and gave the actual numbers of how much Ritalin increased plasma GH levels.  I was just curious if those increases were enough to alter anything physiologically.  Also, after looking at your talk page you seem very versed in GH.  When I look up old articles/texts most indicate that dopamine antagonists increase GH and dopamine agonists decrease it.  Current texts say the exact opposite.  I was just curious if you knew why or what study created a paradigm shift.  Thanks again, I really appreciate it, Rjkd12 21:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ritalin has a nasty effect on some kids' growth. I am skeptical that any increase of GH is sustained: many things stimulate it in a single dose (e.g. L-dopa or clonidine) but do not continue to do so when the doses are repeated day after day. Give us the PMID for the study you cite above and for the ones you mention that say dopamine agonists suppress it and I will look at the abstracts and interpret for you if you wish. alteripse 21:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. So, you are saying that it probably woulnd't increase GH with repeated doses? The pubmed abstract for the study showing a GH increase with ritalin is http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=3741917&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum I do not have one specific study that says dopamine agnonists supress GH. I asked a professor who lectured about GH and in an older textbook of his it stated that. Also, I've seen references against methylphenidate indicating it stunts growth and they cited studies about how anonists supress growth, but I do not have any of these at my fingertips. I just assumed that this was an outdated and incorrect belief. I did a quick search and found this,http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=14602782&dopt=Abstract I know its not the best example at all, so please don't think that I'm basing everything off of this one study. But, this study does say that somatostatin and DA were additive, and that DA agonists does decrease GH in acromegaly. Maybe this is because in acromegaly there is already so much GH, I am unsure. But, I do know I have read that in older texts. My main question is though, an adult with repeated methyphenidate administration would they continue to see this GH spike with doses, and is that spike enough to elicit any physiological changes? Thanks again, I really appreciate your time.Rjkd12 13:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You can't extrapolate a single dose effect into either (a) a sustained daily effect with repeated administration, or (b) an effect downstream from the hormone measured. Clonidine is an excellent example of both. In a single dose it is a good enough stimulus for GH release that we use it for GH testing. Some investigators tried to exploit this effect by conducting a trial (published in Lancet late 70s or early 80s) of whether daily clonidine for 6 months or a year could stimulate growth in short children. There was no detectable effect. Some single dose effects of a drug lessen with repetition; others accumulate. a review of growth effects of stimulants alteripse 16:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Risks???
There are no recent scientific articles relating cancer and GH treatment. GH treatment is safe if it is made with care. The paragraph of risks is not reliable, therefore I've added:.

Non recombinant GH
I deleted the section of non recombinant GH because it is not used from decades. It is a misleading and false information and it has nothing to do with GH treatment —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.194.65.44 (talk) 12:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

POV and false article
The current article is POV and false, I've tried to put articles that prove the effectiveness of GH treatment against many diseases related to GH/IGF-I deficiency (osteoporosis, fat accumulation, diabetes mellitus, muscle mass losses, depression, excesive HDL cholesterol...), note that GH deficiency is very common (especially in old men), but they were removed making the article false and extremely POV, full of noncitated and false sentences. I hope it will be possible to put the citations again. Probably someone is trying to defend the economical interests of pharmaceutical industries that sell unuseful and uneffective (but of course extremely remunerative) drugs, I also understand that GH treatment is not economically convenient because IS TOO EFFECTIVE (no diseases, no profit). I hope it will be possible to put the citations again in order to make the article more honest and more realistic--250GP (talk) 08:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Bizarre. Growth hormone costs hundreds of times the standard medical recommendations for treatments of osteoporosis, obesity, diabetes, poor muscle mass, depression, etc, is made by at least 8 pharmaceutical companies now, and has one of the highest profit margins for a drug in existence, but you seem to claim anyone who expresses skepticism about widespread and off-label uses must be a tool of the pharmaceutical industry? What does that make you? alteripse (talk) 14:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Further discussion at talk:HGH controversies please. alteripse (talk) 14:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Absurd...SCIENTIFIC ARTICLES are made by university and hospital and are NOT financed by pharmaceutical industries, the pharmaceutical industries are NOT INTERESTED in GH (downward the reasons), if I were the director of some pharmaceutical industries I did not sell GH in big quantities.

GH is very expensive for pharmaceutical industries (it means it is not convenient), and it is TOO EFFECTIVE! If a man take GH or better IGF-I have not osteoporosis, dementia, diabetes mellitus (IGF-I only), baldness, erectile disfunction and so on (each of this diseases is cured by many ineffective and damaging drugs as in example metformin and calcium salts), therefore make the people sane, which is NON REMUNERATIVE FOR PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES.

Do not believe to the scientific articles? Take it and you will see if it cures the diseases or not.

If a man has good IGF-I and testosterone levels can not take chronic diseases. Have you ever seen a diabetic man with good muscles or with good sexuality? Simply impossible...--250GP (talk) 16:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Article is proceeding happily
My brother recently asked me about hGH as a way to "restore vitality" which made me aware of the huge number of sites making claims about "HGH releasing" dietary supplements, and so I started paying attention to this page. I am very happy with the way everybody is shaping this page to make very clear what is known about HGH and what is speculation, or still experimental. Clear wiki pages that explain the science and medicine in ways that the public can understand are very important to help people weed through the unsubstantiated claims made by the dietary supplement industry. So, thanks everybody! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jytdog (talk • contribs) 13:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

And as for the unhappy comment above about article being POV... I do believe that you are well-intentioned, but the truth is, that you just cannot say that a given use for a substance is indeed helpful and not too harmful (effective and safe) until a double-blinded clinical trial is done. Surprising things do happen in clinical trials! For instance lots of people think some antioxidants can prevent cancer. So the government (the national cancer institute) paid for a big clinical trial to see if Vitamin E could prevent prostate cancer. They ended up stopping the trial because patients in the treatment arm -- the ones getting Vitamin E - got cancer more often than patients in the untreated arm. Crazy right? http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/28/disappointing-news-on-vitamin-e-and-selenium/

So.. you just can't know until it is tested in a double-blinded study.

SO thanks everybody! Jytdog (talk) 13:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

It is not possible to compare antioxidants and GH, somatotropin is an hormone therefore it has a powerful action on the body, antioxidants do not (or in minor extent), I also would like to say that there are no scientific articles that state consuption of antioxidants significantly improve health, instead there are many studies who report significant benefits on health. Wikipedia can not deny to report that studies.--Moscone (talk) 18:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

There are indeed many studies - small ones that are not statistically powered to be generalizable, showing limited benefits of HGH, in limited patient populations;  there has never been a large randomized clinical trial showing very broad benefit for anybody who takes it. People make wildly broad claims based on narrow, small studies that had modest results. Indeed, Wikipedia cannot deny the studies! Jytdog (talk) 01:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Small studies? Modest effects? There are large studies about the results (some of them even listed). Sorry but loss of fat mass, growth of muscle and bone mass, improved of memory and cardiocirculatory parameters are definitlely not modest effects (do you know other traditional medicines that can do something like this? I do not think so...)...Obviously GH can not do miracles, if somebody wheights 500 kg will not became slim even with somatotropin. GH treatment can not make clever somebody who has Alzheimer's disease (but it can improve his cognitive capacity). Nothing can reverse the situation of somebody who is dying by HIV, neither GH.

Somatotropin like all hormones has a powerful action, and can unequivocally improve the quality of life of many people (do you know how many people have problems with losing muscles, bones, hairs, neurons and getting fat mass? Yes, obviously GH alone can not completely reverse the situation, but even so, it can greatly help). That's clear! It is not me that say this, many studies say unequivocally this.--Moscone (talk) 12:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Moscone, I am talking about the claims you are making, that HGH has these amazing effects in people who are generally healthy. again - there has never been a large randomized clinical trial showing very broad benefit for anybody who takes it. Of course there have been such trials in the indications for which HGH has been approved -- these are for people who are sick and/or significantly lack normal HGH. The studies in normal people have been small and every one of those articles draws careful conclusions -- it is people who like you who go beyond the data and want to generalize. IF you know of a randomized clinical trial showing very broad benefit for anybody who takes it, that is statistically powered to be generalizable, please cite the publication. Really! Cite it!! Otherwise please stop making these claims as they are unsupportable. Making vague references is not good enough -- cite a specific study or studies so we can talk about them. Again "common sense" has nothing to do with it as common sense doesn't apply to biology -- biology (and therefore medicine) constantly surprises us; all that matters is DATA. (Think about it, if making drugs was easy, why would anybody die of any disease? Why do so many drugs fail in clinical trials?  Do you think people who run drug companies are idiots??  Of course they are not. Using all the best science they come up with drug candidates they hope will work and be safe... but they still get surprised all the time when the drug is actually tested in humans.)  All that matters is data. I have looked for studies that support the kinds of claims you are making and I found none. Therefore I ask you - please cite the studies that support the claims you are making, and let's talk about them. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 13:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I alwais cited properly the citations, often I (almost) copied senteces from articles. I've never said that GH treatment give benefits to everybody. I've said that, according to the study, this cure can help people with GH deficience and/or with other diseases, it means that it is not a good option for non deficient people or for sane people.

You can say what you want, but it is clear that GH treatment can give many benefits to many kind of sick people, articles say that, not me. You can not deny this.

Articles are usually reliable, pharmaceutical industries are not. Pharmaceutical industries are interested in profit only, it is clear. Since the pharmaceutical profit is made by sickness only (sick people buy drugs, sane do not), pharmaceutical industries are not interested in improving the health of people. For this reason they give cortisone which is useless for most of the traditional uses, but causes diabetes, hypertension, ictus, osteoporosi, depression (all things that create a huge profit). There are transgenic plants who express HIV antigens, why pharmaceutical industries are not interested about? Because selling drugs is much more economically convenient than selling vaccines. I stop here to talk about pharmaceutical industries, I'm too disgusted.

Anyway we are here for talking about this article, I think that according to the articles we can say that:

1) GH treatment can help adults with GH deficiency and/or with other diseases (osteoporosis, HIV, cachessia, neurodegenerative disorders, excessive abdominal fat, sarcopenia etc.)

2) GH treatment does not help healty people

3) GH treatment must be done under medical control

4) GH products are often fake

5) Oral or nasal GH solutions are fake

6) GH can be harmful if not properly used --Moscone (talk) 17:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for moving toward more concrete statements!

let me respond to each one 1) I agree with "can" help.  The statement you put in the article goes beyond that.  I am going to amend it to tone it down. 2) This is too strong! The point here on a lot of this, is that WE DO NOT KNOW things -- we DO NOT KNOW if GH helps healthy people or not! The world is not yes/no -- very often the answer is "we do not know". 3) yes definitely -- it is a drug. This is a matter of law. 4) Yes also true 5) I personally don't know. I would not be surprised if a company has developed or is developing one.  Just googled -- here is a legitimate nasal formulation under development -- not approved yet: http://www.criticalpharmaceuticals.com/pipeline.php. 6) true of any drug, yes.

Thanks again! Jytdog (talk) 01:03, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I think we found a good agreement. I would like to point out that the words "healthy" and "sick" can have many interpretations, for somebody "sick" means to be about to dye, for others (including me) "sick" means to have some disease, even relatively mild like GH deficiency, osteoporosis, excessive fat mass, sarcopenia etc. Hundred of milions of people have this kind of problems which are connected with age-related diseases. In my interpretation even olderness is a disease, or at least it is strongly connected with other diseases, in this contest GH can really help people to reduce health problems. --Moscone (talk) 15:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Great! Note, when I say I agree that GH "can" help, I mean that in the conditional sense - there is a big difference between "can" help (as in "might help") and DOES help (or just plain "helps"). It is 100% scientifically invalid to say that GH helps (as in, it DOES help) with any specific disease or condition unless there has been a big enough randomized clinical trial to prove it. There is a very bright line between what we know and we don't know. "Can" is on the "we don't know" side. Jytdog (talk) 16:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

"GH can help" does not mean that we do not know, there are many scientific articles that confirm that GH is useful versus many diseases (GH deficiency, osteoporosis, sarcopenia, excessive fat mass, dementia etc.), it means WE KNOW IT! This must be clear: GH helps versus these diseases. It is a question on how much can help. Obviously even if GH helps, it can not do miracles. In the article must be clear that there many scientific studies that confirm that GH give benefits to some diseases. We know that, it is clear. The use in healthy people is another issue, we are speaking about an hormone and a drug, it means it must be taken in case of diseases only. --Moscone (talk) 11:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

moscone, unless a clinical trial is designed to be powered high enough to generalizable, you cannot generalize it to the general patient population. also if it is not double-blinded/randomized, you cannot eliminate the possibility of experimental bias. If you get good results with drug X in indication Y in a small nonrandomized trial, these results are not generalizable enough to say that drug X is safe and effective to treat disease Y.   You can say "in a small nonrandomized study of drug X in indication Y we observed......" All you can do is describe that experiment - it is not medically or scientifically valid to generalize. If you do not understand please see the wiki article on Clinical trial. This appears to be the heart of our disagreement -- I have said this several times and you have never responded. Please respond directly to this. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

If there are thousands of studies that confirm that GH is useful against some diseases it is possible to generalize. It is very expensive to give GH to thousands of people for a single experiment. Anyway yes, I will just mention the studies and their conclusions.--Moscone (talk) 17:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

YES I agree with you 100% that it is expensive, but this is irrelevant. Let's say I want to climb Mt. Everest which is 29029 feet. I cannot, as this is very expensive and difficult. Let's say I climb Mt. Greylock in Massachusetts (3,491 feet), which is relatively do-able, nine times. If you add those up is higher than Everest. Can I say I climbed Everest now? No I cannot. Analogy is perfect. Everest is Everest.... and the kind of knowledge you get from a generalizable clinical trial, you can only get from a generalizable clinical trial. If there are indeed "thousands" of studies for any single disease (How many are there, really, for each of the diseases you mention? This "thousands" is just more vague generality) then adding them up is not simple (see Meta-analysis) nor is it equivalent to a generalizable clinical trial. Jytdog (talk) 12:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

No. It is a bad comparation. If I say there are 100 studies, and each one confiirms that GH give benefits to 10 people with osteoporosis is even more valid that a single study that confirm that GH gave benefits to 1.000 people with osteoporosis. This because a single study (even a great one) is never definitive, this because it is necessary to evaluate a compound under many conditions (different concetrations, durations etc) and this is not possible with a single study. Moreover great studyies are important for statistics but less for biology, it is clear a small study can evaluate better the patients, instead if you see usually great study are not very well made (they often use non scientific-questionaries). Anyway the subject between small and great study is the same (in this example people with osteoporosis). Instead Climbing Mt. Greylock has nothing to do with climbing Mt. Everest under many points of view (altitude, climate, climbing strategy, logistics etc.), the subject is completely different. If you think that articles are small is a your personal opinion, a non meta-analisis study does not mean a small study. In some cited study tens of people were used, it is definitely not a small study (think that there are even case-report), maybe not great but even not small. Anyway I'm agree to cite the articles.--Moscone (talk) 13:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Moscone it is a matter of statistics. An n of 10 is just sufficiently powered to be generalizable, and there are significant problems with respect to adding up 10 studies each with an n of 10. I don't know if you read the Meta-analysis article or not? Again you are applying some kind of "common sense" logic here but it is not valid -- we are talking about statistics. If you don't experiment on enough people so that you reflect the general population you want to target you cannot see all the possibilities -- good and bad (and the bad are just as important a la Vioxx) -- and if you are not double-blinded then the chances are too high for placebo effect and investigator bias to ruin the results. You really have to be careful drawing conclusions of meta-analysis of many small studies   -- more importantly, you actually have to DO the meta-analysis -- you cannot just wave your hands and say oh look there are many small positive studies so it must be effective and safe - it is just not scientifically/medically valid to do so and is irresponsible to the public that uses Wiki. If you can cite meta-analytical articles or do it yourself and publish it, then you can, cautiously, do the kind of generalizing you are doing. It is fine with me if you cite the articles with the small studies, but please do not push the conclusions. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 14:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

If there are no meta-analysis does not means that it is false that GH give benefits because there are medium or small sized studies. It means it is true but it is necessary to investigate better. A single meta-analysis can not be completely reliable (even if it involves one milion people), because the results can drastically change with doses, durate of treatment, definition of "benefits", expectations and so on. For example one citation of wikipedia says that GH does not improve the athletic performaces because the athletes involved on it, did not improve their body performaces after a 3 weeks long low-dose GH treatment, so you may be agree with the study, but it is clear that to build muscles and improve performance can be necessary months of GH treatment, not 3 weeks. It is also necessary to use effective doses. This is just to say that a single study, alone, is never completely reliable. I agree that a meta-analysis or double blinded study is important, but surely it will not revert the result of the current study, it will just better evaluate the percentage of people that can have benefits from GH assumption, and the extent of this health improvement. Moreover I repeat, alone, it will not be conclusive. In medicine there is often a great discordance among results, this is not (or should not) be due to dishonesty but to different experimental methods and evaluation of results (i.e. maybe you are a doctor, so if the patiens say you that they do not feel pain anymore for you is a good result, instead for me, as biologist, is a null result because pain it is not an objective health parameter).

What I say does not reflect "common sense" but solid scientific articles.

It is necessary to evaluate fairly the benefits of GH treatment, since right now there are people say that it is harmful and ineffective (false), and people that say that it can cure all the diseases (false too). I think that we can say that many studies confirm that GH can give benefits toward some diseases, but obviously it is necessary to better investigate and evaluate its curative effectiveness. Scientific articles say this, and this can not be denied. --Moscone (talk) 15:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

moscone... What are you arguing about?Large studies often do contradict smaller studies-- it happens all the time that drugs that appeared safe and effective in a Phase II trial, turn out to not be safe, or not be effective, in the larger Phase IIII. It happens all the time. If you google "phase III failure" you get 15 million hits -- take some time and review if you do not believe me. This is a fact -- you cannot generalize from a small trial to the general population -- if you could, then Phase III trials would never fail. Bottom line -- it is irresponsible to generalize from a small study. You cannot say it a drug IS safe and effective, nor can you say it IS ineffective or harmful, in the general population, based on a small study -- all you can do is report the results of the small study. Really, there can be no debate about this! What are you arguing about? We agree it is OK to report the results of the small study and note it is a small study. Enough already. Jytdog (talk) 17:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Large studies do contradict smaller studies when the last ones are few or when subjective parameters (pain, wellness etc.) are taken in consideration, not when are thousands of "small studies" and nor with objective parameters (ie. muscle, fat and bone mass, memory, LDL cholesterol levels, hair mass etc.).

Moreover the cited studies are not small (some of them involves even tens of patients, a considerable number if we consider the cost of GH), or at least it is a your personnal opinion. I'm agree on reporting current GH treatment studies, I'm agree on saying that are not meta-analysis, I'm not agree on the use of term "small study" since there are no citations which say "the cited study is a small study" or that unequivocally say the definitions of "large study" and "small study". --Moscone (talk) 14:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

You are just not getting this.. a small study can be perfectly conducted and still not be generalizable. Many small studies cannot be simply lumped without careful analysis. When analyzing data all that matters is the data - the cost of getting the data is irrelevant. It is a question of statistics, not competence or money. (I am baffled as to why you keep bringing up the cost of the drug and corresponding difficulty of doing large trials. It doesn't matter why big-enough trials have not been done, all that matters is that they have not been done for many indications and so we do not have the data to back support broad, definitive statements about the use of HGH in those indications.  Science demands that the statement fit the data in hand, not the data you wish you had.)     You said you are a biologist -- don't you do experiments then? Don't you understand that if you don't have a big enough n, that you cannot generalize the results? Maybe what you don't understand is that doing experiments on humans (e.g. clinical trials) involves an enormous amount of uncontrolled variables, and so the need for more numbers goes up and up?? But maybe you are not an experimental biologist. I don't know. Anyway this is apparently a futile discussion because you are denying reality with respect to the role that statistical analysis plays in science and medicine. Just know that if you make edits that are general statements based only on small studies, I will edit them to make the claims appropriately fit the data. There are way too many wild, broad claims out there about HGH (and so called HGH releasing supplements), and it is dangerous for the public if wiki falls prey to the same. If we get into an edit war and eventually need to take this to mediation, that will be fine. If you do not have a statistical basis to support a broad statement, the statement will not stand in any objective forum. Best regards, jytdog. Jytdog (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC).

Instead I'm excactly experimental biologist...I mean if one study try a compound in one milion people it can get some results but if another trial try the same compound in another milion people it can get completely different results, many times even meta-analysis contradict themselves (right?), this may be due to different experimental methods (doses, people sensitivity, quality of compound, durate etc.).

Wikipedia obviously must not have commercial, and it is necessary to avoid claims about "miracoulos effects" of GH, but it has to be honest and can not deny the benefits that some people can have taking GH. It can not even deny all the articles about this issue.

I'm very busy, but in july I will find other studies and I will try to make the article more accurate and as less POV as possible.

You can not delete the results of the studies, because according to the scientific studies GH can give benefits toward some diseases. You can not even use the term "small studies" because simply they are not. You can just say that it is necessary to better evaluate (by meta-analysis in example) these benefits.

It is not a question of commercial, it is a question of honesty and deleting the result of studies is POV and unhonest.--Moscone (talk) 15:46, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

You keep making unsubstantiated, broad claims! Please provide citations of two trials, each in a million people (which is not just large but is enormous!), of the same drug for the same indication, with contradictory results. Please show provide two meta-analyses of the same studies that contradict each other. I do not believe you can provide either. I did not say I would "delete" anything, I said that if you make statements that go beyond the data, that I would modify your posting to make the statement fit the data. Jytdog (talk) 11:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

And I do not believe you because you are trying to deny the fact, that thousands of studies and milions of users show that unequivocally GH can give benefits versus some diseases. How many drugs (some antidepressants in example) were sold after great studies and then it was seen that they were uneffective and very harmful (in this case is also necessary to say that, due to huge economical interests medical studies are often not reliable, especially the great ones, but I do no want to speak about this now)? Even in the more honest non-medical sciences sometimes great studies did mistakes, for example it was believed (after many years of experiments of great experiments) that it was impossible to degradate polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in anaerobiosis, but then (under proper experimental methods) it was seen that it is possible. Sometimes even a detail can drastically change the result.--Moscone (talk) 18:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Jytdog's point is that the studies you cited do not demonstrate the points you want to make. Your references are not good enough. You need to find better references for the article. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 22:16, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced claims
The article contains unsourced claims (most of them clearly false), is it possible to delete them in order to improve the article?--Moscone (talk) 15:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Can i suggest that you either: a) add a "citation needed" tag and/or b) bring them here one by one for discussion?

Thanks for wanting to improve the article! Jytdog (talk) 02:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I deleted some unsourced claims, I also wrote in other unsourced claims. I think that now the article is definitely better, with less unsourced (and unsourcable) claims. I will find other articles later in order to make it more scientifically correct :) --Moscone (talk) 17:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Hgh
Can hgh help to slow down the progression of multiple sclerosis? Leacregg (talk) 03:57, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Human growth hormone (HGH): Does it slow aging?
'''Human growth hormone is described by some as the key to slowing the aging process. Get the facts about these claims. ''' By HGHFITSTORE Staff

Growth hormone fuels childhood growth and helps maintain tissues and organs throughout life. It's produced by the pea-sized pituitary gland — located at the base of the brain. Beginning in middle age, however, the pituitary gland slowly reduces the amount of growth hormone it produces. This natural slowdown has triggered an interest in using synthetic human growth hormone online buy (HGH) as a way to stave off some of the changes linked to aging, such as decreased muscle and bone mass.

If you're skeptical, good. There's little evidence to suggest HGH can help otherwise healthy adults regain youth and vitality. Alternatively, HGH treatments may increase the risk of other medical conditions. But still experts recommend especially using HGH serostim 6 mg online, genotropin online and others to treat aging or age-related and weight loss conditions.

Do some adults need HGH treatment? Adults who have a growth hormone deficiency — not the expected decline in growth hormone due to aging — might be prescribed synthetic HGH by their health care provider.

Growth hormone deficiency is usually caused by a benign tumor on the pituitary gland (pituitary adenoma) or by treatment of an adenoma with surgery or radiotherapy.

For adults who have a growth hormone deficiency, injections of HGH can:Bold text

Increase exercise capacity Increase bone density Increase muscle mass Decrease body fat HGH treatment is also approved to treat adults with AIDS- or HIV-related growth hormone deficiency that causes irregular distribution of body fat.

How does HGH treatment affect healthy older adults? Studies of healthy adults taking human growth hormone are limited and contradictory. Although it appears that human growth hormone can increase muscle mass and reduce the amount of body fat in healthy older adults, the increase in muscle doesn't translate into increased strength. It isn't clear if human growth hormone provides other benefits to healthy adults.

What are the risks of HGH treatment? HGH treatment might cause a number of side effects for healthy adults, including:

Carpal tunnel syndrome Increased insulin resistance Type 2 diabetes Swelling in the arms and legs (edema) Joint and muscle pain For men, enlargement of breast tissue (gynecomastia) Increased risk of certain cancers Clinical studies of HGH treatment in healthy older adults have been relatively small and short in duration, so there's little to no information about the long-term effects of HGH treatment.

Does HGH come in pill form? HGH treatment is approved in the United States only for treatment of growth hormone deficiency — and related problems associated with HIV infection. HGH is only effective if administered as an injection.

There's no pill form of human growth hormone available. Some dietary supplements that claim to boost levels of HGH come in pill form, but research doesn't show a benefit.

HGH is considered a controlled substance by the Food and Drug Administration. Using HGH for a condition that isn't approved, such as building muscle or as an anti-aging treatment in older adults, is illegal.

What's the bottom line? If you have specific concerns about aging, ask your health care provider about proven ways to improve your health. Remember, healthy lifestyle choices — such as eating a healthy diet and including physical activity in your daily routine — can help you feel your best as you get older. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.72.153.223 (talk) 11:25, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Human Growth Hormone (HGH) and Aging
The human growth hormone Canada (HGH) is a hormone that is made by your body in the pituitary gland and many claim that it has anti-aging properties. It is often marketed as an anti-aging hormone for adults. In children, it is important for normal growth. In adults, HGH helps regulate and maintain your tissues and organs. Children sometimes receive HGH injections because a lack of the hormone in their body is impacting their growth rate.1

HGH and Aging Like many hormones, HGH levels decrease as a person gets older. This is a normal part of aging. HGH is becoming a popular anti-aging supplement.2﻿ Because the hormone is only available in injection form (other forms of HGH have not been proven effective) it must be given by a doctor. The saddest part is that there has been little research on the hormone and aging.

Benefits and Costs While human growth hormone is not the fountain of youth that people claim, there are some HGH benefits supplementation. Of course, anyone whose body lacks the ability to make the hormone would benefit from this medical treatment. HGH also increases muscle mass (but not strength like humatrope HGH for bodybuilding muscle mass ).1﻿ Some people claim to have more energy and feel better on HGH supplementation, but no study has been done to rule out the placebo effect.

Why All the Buzz? In 1990, an article appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine by Rudman that showed HGH improved the muscle tone and body composition of 12 older men.3﻿ That tiny piece of research led to an unexpected boom in quacks and “anti-aging” doctors selling HGH-based “Cures for Aging.” Today, there are oral formulas of HGH, injections and even inhaled versions of human growth hormone. Other studies since 1990 have given mixed results. The only firm conclusion is that going to the gym can provide more benefits than HGH (if there are any benefits of HGH at all) with far less cost and risk.

Side Effects The side effects of HGH are serious. They include diabetes, swelling, high blood pressure, and even heart failure.4﻿ Inflammation can also occur, causing joint pain and carpal tunnel syndrome.

Bottom Line At the moment, there is not all agree as enough evidence to recommend HGH for anti-aging supplement. These risks, dangers, and costs are far too great for anyone to be experimenting with human growth hormone. If you talk with a doctor who knows the importance of HGH and doesn't to recommends HGH for anti-aging and immune system strengthen, find another doctor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.72.153.223 (talk) 11:59, 19 May 2022 (UTC)