Talk:HGH controversies

Untitled

This page should be watched for addition of information or material for advertising purposes by any of the many web-vendors. Check links and try to maintain NPOV especially if "factual" information is added on the subject.

Liu, H., et al. (2006)

The article references this study for many claims, but there is no link or DOI and I cannot find a journal "Endocrine Society meeting"; I think it was just some conference. Upon a google search, the article appears to be published in Ann Intern Med. 2007 Jan 16;146(2):104-15. The study was purely bibliometric and that makes me fairly uncomfortable, especially given the range of claims made. For instance, the Wikipedia article claims HGH causes gynecomastia, because this bibliometric study combined 3 small studies to find 6 total people observed with gyno. But this sounds like an apples to oranges comparison as gyno is often hidden under body fat. You'd have to put all the subjects on a diet to see who really has gyno or not. Otherwise you could just be observing a side effect of ordinary fat loss.

I'd be more comfortable if the article referenced more focused studies that were not bibliometric hodgepodges.CHF (talk) 16:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Rambo

Sylvester Stallone indicates that everyone over 40 should check into it and that it significantly improves quality of life for older males here:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,325767,00.html - AbstractClass (talk) 22:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Creutzfeldt Jakob

Nothing about Creutzfeldt Jakob disease ? In the article about the C-JD, it's written "The defective protein can be transmitted by human growth hormone (hGH) products". talk 18:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

This is only relevant for human growth hormone manufactured from human pituitaries, as it was prior to 1985. Creutzfeld-Jacob Disease has not been described after growth hormone made by recombinant DNA technology. Pustelnik (talk) 23:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Citation 3

Citation 3 is not reliable because it is related to a low dosage (2/3 mg per day, athletes use about 4/10 mg) and also the duration is very low (21 days). For that reasons I request its deletion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.194.65.44 (talk) 13:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorce 4

Source 4 is also non reliable, it is related to pills and other non GH products (GH is for parenteral use only) and non scientific claims —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.194.65.44 (talk) 13:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Request of complete deletion

This article is absolutely misleading and false, there are NO controversies on GH use (at least from a scientific point of view). GH is very efficient to recover osteoporosis, chronic renal and heart failure, baldness and so on, because GH increases IGF/I which give that effects.

According to the new scientific article there are NO links between cancer and GH treatment, moreover GH (due to its immunogenic action) may play a role in CANCER PREVENTION because many cancers are caused by viruses (i.e. papillomavirus, leukemia...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.194.65.44 (talk) 09:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I removed the article for its complete lack of reliability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.194.67.40 (talk) 14:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Deletion is accomplished via community discussion at WP:AfD. I have reverted your blanking. 66.57.4.150 (talk) 16:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Our anonymous IP "contributor" is either badly misinformed or dishonest. alteripse (talk) 19:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you cite some scientific article (peer review only) about such controversies??? GH is a cure to be used in nanism, osteoporosis, hair loss, but it has also side/effect (not cancer of course, otherwise young people should take cancer and old ones should be protected). You are disones ok Alteripse? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.194.67.40 (talk) 16:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• Bartke A (2008). "Growth hormone and aging: a challenging controversy". Clin Interv Aging. 3 (4): 659–65. PMC 2682398. PMID 19281058.
• Jenkins PJ, Mukherjee A, Shalet SM (2006). "Does growth hormone cause cancer?". Clin. Endocrinol. (Oxf). 64 (2): 115–21. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2265.2005.02404.x. PMID 16430706. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Ogilvy-Stuart AL, Gleeson H (2004). "Cancer risk following growth hormone use in childhood: implications for current practice". Drug Saf. 27 (6): 369–82. PMID 15144231.

I suppose the third possible explanation besides being dishonest or misinformed is that we are not both using the same English language. The articles provided immediately above state that cancer risk is still unsettled: that is exactly what a controversy is. I have seen no credible evidence that GH is a treatment for hair loss. While people with GH deficiency have poor bone density that improves with GH treatment, the ordinary meaning of your assertion is the that GH is a good treatment for ordinary osteoporosis: it is not and you cannot provide such a citation. I stand by my assertion that cancer concerns have not been laid to rest by current evidence, and that GH is not a treatment of well-proven efficacy for the body changes of ordinary aging. Controversy in fact is far too generous a word for much of the downright dishonesty and quackery with which some commercial products and services are marketed. alteripse (talk) 03:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

GH treatment does not cause cancer, no reviews say that! GH treatment does not cause cancer, since people treated with it have no higher cancer risk (according to your citation too), therefore the claims of the articles must be removed, GH treatment is absolutely safe if well performed. There are many scientific reviews stating the effectiveness (then I will insert them, now I have no time) against ORDINARY osteoporosis, hair loss, renal or hearth failure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.194.67.40 (talk) 14:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Although the data are currently incomplete, you should read the literature. To quote two reviews, Jenkins et. al. 2006 - "Extensive epidemiological data exist that also support a link between GH/IGF-1 status and cancer risk." and Ogilvy-Stuart et al. 2004 "A recent follow-up of pituitary GH recipients has suggested an increase in colorectal cancer. In addition, follow-up of oncology patients has suggested an increase in second neoplasms in those who also received GH therapy." Tim Vickers (talk) 17:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Slight increase of colorectal cancer (not with other kinds of cancer), GH deficiency is related with high increase of cancer risk, since this patology is conneted with strong immunodepression and therefore viral cancers (ie HPVs,leukemia...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.194.67.40 (talk) 10:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. There is no published research that backs up your claims. alteripse (talk) 11:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I think we're done here. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

You don't think I should offer it any more troll food? You are probably right. alteripse (talk) 18:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

False and POV article

I've inserted the articles, nevertheless I hope this article will be removed--250GP (talk) 15:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The original version of this article explained how quacks fraudulently misuse research articles on the benefits of GH therapy for deficient adults and misrepresent them as evidence of benefit for non-deficient adults. The shoe is exactly your size, I believe, and the claim of "no side effects" is the quack's signature. alteripse (talk) 00:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I do not know why it is not possible to put citations, the citations prove what I say, of course it is necessary to use GH when it occurs a deficiency (usually enderly men HAS a GH/IGF-I deficiency). The current article is false and extremely POV.--250GP (talk) 08:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

GP250, there are numerous problems with your recent contributions: 1. You misrepresent your citations. They do not support your assertions. 2. You do not seem to understand that an encyclopedia is not the place to push nonstandard medical treatments. 3. Either your ideas and writing are sloppy, or you are intellectually dishonest when you equate "safe when used properly" with "no side effects". 4. There are several GH-related articles, carefully designed to deal with different topics. When you insert the same stuff in several of them it defeats the purpose. Combining them would make too large an article. This is the article that addresses the use of GH as an anti-aging treatment. As this seems to be your agenda, can we please confine the argument here. 5. Accusing anyone of rejecting your drug pushing of speaking for the pharmaceutical industry is truly baffling. I assure you that I am not. Let's drop that nonsense.

This article is about the gap between current standard medical understanding and use of GH (e.g., as described in these publications by the Endocrine Society [1] and the Am Assoc of Clinical Endocrinologists [2]) and the claims for the anti-aging benefits of GH treatment. Everything you have inserted suggests you either do not understand the distinction or are deliberately attempting to erase the distinction. Instead, why dont you help us write a good article about the controversy? alteripse (talk) 14:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Alteripe...what you say it is absolutely false:

1) Where the citations are mispresented??? Say me what I wrote which is not in accordance to the citations.

2) The citations confirm what I've written, if you are not agree I can copy the sentences of the articles.

3) I'm perfectly agree that it is necessary to use GH just when GH deficiency occurs (I wrote it even in the articles), but keep in mind that GH/IGF-I DEFICIENCY IS VERY COMMON (especially in old men and in people with diabetes mellitus, osteoporosis, erectile disfunction, dementia, baldness, short height and so on)

4) The current wiki article is false and misleading, it seems that GH treatment has severe side effects (FALSE!!!If used properly. Read the articles instead than say false things...) and with no positive effect (FALSE! According to the scientific articles and to the experience of the people who take it)

5) There are too many wiki articles related to GH with highly redundant material and sentences, therefore I do the same, in order to make the articles less false and POV

6) Wikipedia should not endorse the fully accepted medical therapies (read the most remunerative therapies for pharmaceutical industries), but should present the full knowledge of the topics (in this case with scientific articles)

7) It is not possible to partecipate to wikipedia.en if there are people like you that remove citations and putting false claims. I would recommend you to read better the artcles

DO NOT CHANGE MY SENTENCES AND DON'T CHANGE THE NAME PF THE SECTION!!!!--250GP (talk) 16:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Your citations confirm what I wrote: improvemnts on body composition, bone mineralization and low risks (according to other citations no side effect) if the treatment is administrated properly. This is not what the wiki article says--250GP (talk) 16:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)