Talk:Growth hormone

message: Paragraph 1 spelling correction and improved precision of description of function
GH release does not primarily occur in morning (most reliable peak occurs about an hour after onset of sleep).
I don't understand "salivary absorption." I am guessing author intended "absorption into the body through the mucosal membranes of the mouth after dispersion in saliva" but this is doubtful and I don't think has any demonstrated physiologic effect. If author believes this, it is an assertion that needs referenced documentation (and would be great news to the thousands of people taking GH by injection).
Hypopituitarism only causes "dwarfism" when it occurs in childhood.
GH for human use was previously obtained from human pituitaries, not from pigs. Writer appears to be confusing GH and insulin.
I know of no products purporting to contain "HGH" which contain effective amounts of GH. I suggest reinforcing distinction of GH and HGH. Confusion or conflation aids and abets fraud and nonsense.
Obviously article is incomplete. I included proposed outline and will try to amplify soon. I hope I'm not violating Wikiquette this way (if so let me know). alteripse 10 apr 04
As I have made this article fairly large and intend about another 20% expansion to complete the outlined topics, I am considering splitting this entry into three parts with appropriate cross links.
1  Growth hormone, the current article, would cover GH physiology, concluding with one-paragraph descriptions of diseases of excess and deficiency and links to separate articles on acromegaly (already existing) and deficiency; 
2  Growth hormone deficiency, to contain second portion of this current article;
3  Growth hormone treatment, to contain third portion of this article, which discusses history of GH therapy and use of GH for many other reasons than deficiency, and will include expanded coverage of HGH quackery. 
I'll leave this note for about 10 days for comments & suggestions before I change anything. alteripse 16 apr 04
===anon user, please reconsider your changes or I will===
Anonymous user, much of what you added is erroneous or questionable. You seemed to be intending to add valid content rather than trolling, but there are some problems with some of your assertions.
You changed the categorization of GH therapy for fibromyalgia, muscle building, and aging Uses from considered controversial to "considered controversial by very conservative doctors". This is a simple substitution of your opinion for fact. Most physicians consider these indications controversial. This includes the New England Journal of Medicine (http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/348/9/779), the AACE (http://www.aace.com/clin/guidelines/hgh.pdf), all standard endocrine texts, all insurers, and the FDA. No matter how convinced you are of the value-- and you may be right in your opinion, GH use for these conditions is still considered controversial by mainstream physicians and medical institutions. This is simple indisputable fact and your edit is incorrect.
The products are identical in composition, efficacy, and potency, varying primarily in cost and how they are produced through genetic engineering, most common being through the use of e. coli (a one cell animal commonly found in the human intestine) and mammalian cells originally obtained from the abdomen of small mammals.
You changed a correct statement to an incorrect one. There is little price difference between the GH products available. Even the new chinese brands are priced at about 80% of the american brands when I checked recently. And you removed the mention that formulations and delivery devices are the main differences. Why? Do you know anything about growth hormone products? If you look at their advertising or talk to their reps these are the major features they market as significant differences.
However, more than 12,000 certified medical doctors affiliated to the American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine believe that GH treatment is extremely beneficial in older adults, is an aid to prevent sarcopenia (age related loss of muscle), enhances loss of body fat, and is a reasonable treatment for fibromyalgia.
This statement needs context. Is the Am Acad of Anti-Aging Medicine that large? Do they all support GH use? Is that what defines the purpose of the Academy? More than 12,000 endocrinologists, internists, and other physicians aren't so convinced. GH for aging is probably an important enough topic to have its own article reviewing the evidence with balance: growth hormone for aging, or  something similar. Unfortunately, much of the information available on the internet about this topic is crap and quackery and fraud. Let's see if we can be a bit different and more useful. 
Before I simply revert, do you want to modify some of this? Thanks. Alteripse 05:17, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Explanation of changes

message: Anonymous user, much of what you added is erroneous or questionable. You seemed to be intending to add valid content rather than trolling, but there are some problems with some of your assertions.
You changed the categorization of GH therapy for fibromyalgia, muscle building, and aging Uses from considered controversial to "considered controversial by very conservative doctors". This is a simple substitution of your opinion for fact. Most physicians consider these indications controversial. This includes the New England Journal of Medicine (http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/348/9/779), the AACE (http://www.aace.com/clin/guidelines/hgh.pdf), all standard endocrine texts, all insurers, and the FDA. No matter how convinced you are of the value-- and you may be right in your opinion, GH use for these conditions is still considered controversial by mainstream physicians and medical institutions. This is simple indisputable fact and your edit is incorrect.
The products are identical in composition, efficacy, and potency, varying primarily in cost and how they are produced through genetic engineering, most common being through the use of e. coli (a one cell animal commonly found in the human intestine) and mammalian cells originally obtained from the abdomen of small mammals.
You changed a correct statement to an incorrect one. There is little price difference between the GH products available. Even the new chinese brands are priced at about 80% of the american brands when I checked recently. And you removed the mention that formulations and delivery devices are the main differences. Why? Do you know anything about growth hormone products? If you look at their advertising or talk to their reps these are the major features they market as significant differences.
However, more than 12,000 certified medical doctors affiliated to the American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine believe that GH treatment is extremely beneficial in older adults, is an aid to prevent sarcopenia (age related loss of muscle), enhances loss of body fat, and is a reasonable treatment for fibromyalgia.
This statement needs context. Is the Am Acad of Anti-Aging Medicine that large? Do they all support GH use? Is that what defines the purpose of the Academy? More than 12,000 endocrinologists, internists, and other physicians aren't so convinced. GH for aging is probably an important enough topic to have its own article reviewing the evidence with balance: growth hormone for aging, or  something similar. Unfortunately, much of the information available on the internet about this topic is crap and quackery and fraud. Let's see if we can be a bit different and more useful. 
Before I simply revert, do you want to modify some of this? Thanks. Alteripse 05:17, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: anon user, please reconsider your changes or I will

message: *
This is actually not a bad example of the mixture of reliable and misleading info described in the article HGH quackery. I would not remove it if inserted there with approp description. It doesn't belong in this article. alteripse 00:44, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: apparent spam link removed

message: sth is redirected to this page. Shouldn't there be a disambiguation page as it's also short for "something"? --82.141.48.176 22:49, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Meaning of sth

message: Several friends of mine injected real, synthetic growth hormone in California around 1990. All of them achieved outstanding levels of muscle, lowered bodyfat, and strength far beyond anything they had gained taking steroids. HOWEVER... a few of them developed severe problems due to bone growth. The eyes of one person actually spread apart at least 1 INCH. He became so ugly it was difficult to look at him. Another person began having painful problems with his elbows and knees due to excessive bone growth. And another person came down with a terrible case of diabetes. Growth hormone is no joke and I urge athletes to avoid it at all costs. Even under a doctor's supervision you can run into problems that will last you a lifetime. It's just not worth it.
Thanks for moving this anecdote from the article to the talk page. This kind of well-intentioned, cautionary anecdote is improbable in several ways but impossible to prove or disprove because not enough information is provided. alteripse 15:52, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Growth Hormone and Bodybuilding

message: Thanks to user:Kennethma for a variety of small fixes and additions. I made a number of small changes and reverted a couple of things. Counterfeit GH is a real thing but it is not the right word for the fraudulent HGH products. As mentioned in same section, adult frequency of GH peaks is lower than childhood frequency. I think there is a better correlation between pubertal growth spurt and GH levels than between late puberty and GH levels, especially in girls. There is some variation in known side effect frequency between adults and children but not much variation by indication. Although IGF1 is one of several steps in the diagnosis of GH I removed it mainly because it is no more important than auxologic criteria and other steps not mentioned and the whole process is covered in more detail with ample mention of IGF1 in the article on growth hormone deficiency. Please refrain from simply expanding this article in the areas of deficiency and treatment. A year ago I split the huge and growing GH article into 4 articles:
*growth hormone for an overview and physiology
*growth hormone deficiency for all aspects of diagnosis and treatment
*growth hormone treatment for aspects of medical treatment of children and adults including a detailed history of treatment
*HGH quackery for unproven uses and products related to GH
I put what I considered a skeletal overview of diagnosis and treatment in this but suggest that we put new info about diagnosis and treatment in the appropriate articles, rather than re-expand this already large article with duplicate info. alteripse 14:46, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: reasons for changes

message: What is J B B?
:Vandalism. Fixed now. --Arcadian 03:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  J B B? 

message: The wikipedia article states "1. GH directly stimulates division and multiplication of chondrocytes of cartilage. These are the primary cells in the growing ends (epiphyses) of children's long bones (arms, legs, digits)."
However, the newest edition of Boron et al, Medical Physiology (2005) reports on page 1029 that "GH itself does not have grwoth-promoting action on epiphyseal cartilage", which directly contradicts the information on the wikipedia article. Based on the same book, growth hormone affects growth by stimulating the synthesis of Insulin-Like Growth Factor I (and to a lesser extent II) which is responsible for stimulating division of multiplication of chondrocytes of cartilage.
Therefore, I'm interested in knowing the source of the information provided on the wikipedia article on Functions of GH.
--85.194.224.181 16:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Evidence has been mounting for decades that the direct effects of GH on bone are more important for growth than the effects mediated by the major form of circulating IGF-1 (from the liver). It is the nature of this "direct effect" that is a matter of uncertainty and active investigation. To what extent is this direct GH effect due to locally generated IGF-1 (in the cartilage) and to what extent is it due to IGF-1-independent processes in cartilage cells triggered directly by GH action on the GH receptor. See . alteripse 18:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Functions of Growth Hormone 

message: I think it's important to understand the role GH plays in adults and children, since it is not something that disappears in adults and varies considerably according to the situation. As i understand it, in adults the segregation of GH often increases a response to stress or hunger, and in children may result in growth spurts when children have fever, etc. can anyone document this?
==Cut section -- "HGH quackery"== ................................................................................................................
I cut this section for being POV & unreferenced. I have no particular opinion one way or another, but before it gets put back, let's see some references, folks. -- phoebe/(talk)  22:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Adults vs. Children

message: * how about adding a section to talk about people who use it.
Here is what Stallone said: "Testosterone to me is so important for a sense of well-being when you get older," he says. "Everyone over 40 years old would be wise to investigate it because it increases the quality of your life. Mark my words. In 10 years it will be over the counter."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,325767,00.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by SoilMan2007 (talk • contribs) 15:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Just a thought

message: Why would someone care enough about growth hormone to repeatedly vandalize this page in the past week or two?
--ratsrcute  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratsrcute (talk • contribs) 22:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Why the vadalism?

message: Isn't it really dangerous of wikipedia to write about side effects?
I mean, there are almost no side effects mentioned in the article, 
if people read wikipedia as a reliable source on side effects 
isn't that pretending that wiki is some kind of a medical journal?
for side effects people should go to proper medical sites, NOT wiki!
Wiki should warn in capital letters and redirect ALL their info on side 
effects to proper medical sources or you are bound to kill people inadvertently..  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.3.220 (talk) 01:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Losing people who substitute wikipedia for a doctor's advice wouldn't be much of a trauma to the gene pool. Also, wat?--Lurkmolsner (talk) 16:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  isn't it really dangerous of wikipedia to write about side effects? 

message: If Wikipedia is to be a mouthpiece for the US FDA, then the section is fine.  However, if the intent is to be unbiased and to look at all rational sides of the issue, then it should be rewritten to reference some of the following credible sources:
http://www.antiaging.com
http://www.drcranton.com
http://www.worldhealth.net
All of these sites contain opinions by US certified medical doctors disputing the claims made by the reference listed in the above-referenced section.  Of particular interest is the article by Dr. Ronald M. Klatz at http://www.annals.org/cgi/eletters/146/2/104 wherein he refutes the specific claims made in the meta study by Liu et all and listed as reference [13] in the bibliography.
An excerpt from the article above is included below (this is allowed under the fair use clause in the copyright act):
"In conclusion, it is the position of the A4M that adult GH replacement therapy is safe and efficacious when administered judiciously by a qualified endocrinologist or anti-aging physician. Thousands of controlled research studies conducted over the course of the past fifteen years document the safety and efficacy of adult GH replacement therapy. HGH has an extensive history of rigorous scientific trials and practical clinical application. The American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists has stated that: "The usefulness of GH treatment in adults who have completed their statural growth is based on the roles of GH in: increasing bone density; increasing lean tissue; decreasing adipose tissue; bolstering cardiac contractility; improving mood and motivation; increasing exercise capacity.""
Last, but hardly least, it would also be a good idea to include a reference to the American Association for Clinical Encocrinologists "medical guidelines for clinical practice for growth hormone use in adults and children" at http://www.guideline.gov/summary/summary.aspx?doc_id=3726.  Note in particular the section on clinical practice of GH therapy (for adults).
In summary, the existing section is biased and one-sided because it misleads the reader into believing that current medical opinion is that HGH is not useful and in fact dangerous when used to treat aging (e.g. as a form of hormone replacement therapy).  Obviously, there are a number of qualified medical opinions by reputable doctors and medical organizations which disagree as you can see by checking the references I have provided.
I would be happy to rewrite the section if no one else is interested.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.67.143.192 (talk) 15:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The section on HGH for anti-aging is biased and one-sided 

message: --The use of bovine somatotropin to increase milk production in cattle which makes the meat thicker.
I don't believe that the line on bovine Somatropin is relevant to this article.  bovine Somatropin while similar to human Somatropin is not the same and does not fall under the scope of this article in my opinion.  I am going to cut it out.  user:Deus3xMachina  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deus3xMachina (talk • contribs) 18:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Treatments unrelated to deficiency

message: 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)
replies: text: Let's keep this discussion at talk:HGH controversies. alteripse (talk) 14:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: POV and false article

message: Hi
Recently a friend sent me an add related to HGH releasing dietary supplements related to increasing vitality, which led me to do some reading on GH, which led me to this article.  Along the way I came across many chat boards in which young men were writing and asking questions about getting and use GH for the purpose of athletic enhancement.  
I edited it a lot today, clarifying headers, clarifying what is related to biology (basic science), what is medical,  history of  how the drug is made, and finally, a brief section on dietary supplements claiming relationship to GH.   I also added a brief section on use in raising livestock, for completeness.
The purpose of all this was to clarify the difference between GH itself, which is a drug, and GH releasing supplements, as well as to clarify the difference between medical uses of GH that have been approved by the FDA and uses which are experimental and uses that are... 'recreational' - I didn't use that term in the article, but I don't know how else to call the use for performance enhancement, which if done under the care of a doctor who prescribes it, is legal, but which if done outside that context is illegal, in the US. 
I don't work for pharma or anything.. I just think it is important that this article for the general public is clear about what is legal and what is not, and what is FDA-approved (which I hope people accept means that it has been scientifically tested in a double-blinded clinical trial and found reasonably safe and effective) and what is not.   So many wild claims out there!   Jytdog (talk) 23:10, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes made to today 

message: Edgar is disputing whether we should provide examples of websites that market their "HGH Releasing Supplements"  - he indicated that these are spam sites and are inappropriate.  
I see his point.
However, I do not work for a dietary supplement company and have generally worked via Wikipedia and other public forums to clarify that dietary supplements are not drugs.  I added the whole section on HGH Releasing Supplements in order to clarify this.  I would be happy to not include links to any specific sites that sell their "HGH Releasing Supplements" using the HGH hype but it seems useful both to demonstrate what this section says but also in case anyone questions it.    It is very clear that these sites are not being promoted, as the text itself is saying that these sites are tricky and bury their actual ingredients list.  Edgar if you have some way that you are more comfortable with demonstrating and supporting the statements made here I am all ears.  But I do not want to leave the section open to a "citation needed" complaint. Jytdog (talk) 12:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't think that I have accused you of trying to promote those companies - I'm only questioning the need for linking to those examples.  If you are "happy to not include links to any specific sites that sell their "HGH Releasing Supplements" using the HGH hype", and there is no one contesting the statements these links are being used to support, then there is no need to include links to these sites at this time.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

text: Links that exist just to serve as examples of companies selling dietary supplements don't function well to support claims made in the article. A citation should have content that supports the article, not merely serve as an exhibit. I have copyedited the paragraph in question to tighten up the prose and remove the links. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  showing how "HGH Releasing supplements" are marketed 

message: You write it's sometimes abbreviated as HGH. I'm fairly confident it's supposed to be hGH. 
I guess sometimes it is abbreviated as HGH...but that doesn't make it right  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.70.113.221 (talk) 20:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abbreviation 

message: These are two sentences of the article:
Chapter Structure: 
"Despite marked structural similarities between growth hormone from different species, only human and primate growth hormones have significant effects in humans."
Chapter History:
"Furthermore, growth hormone from other primates was found to be inactive in humans."
I would want to know if primate GH are efective in humans or not.--Miguelferig (talk) 18:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I addressed this in the article.  Thanks for raising the question.Jytdog (talk) 12:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Contradiction?

message: I don't feel I have enough experience with Wikipedia to know how to add this info. There is now a clinical study that shows a natural supplement that enables the body to produce it's own HGH. http://www.mylimitlessww.com/pdf/en/Thrive_Scientific_Study_Poster.pdf I haven't found a non-pdf source for this. It seems like promising and valid information regarding HGH. Fredrc (talk) 20:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi, thanks for making this request.  However this information doesn't belong here for a couple of reasons.  First this wikipedia article is about growth hormone itself, not about supplements that are marketed as boosting GH levels.  Secondly, that poster is not a reliable source and should not be cited in Wikipedia.  Why is that?  Briefly, we cite reviews, not single studies -- see WP:MEDRS.  Secondly, this pdf poster lists no author, no affiliations for those authors... it appears to be a self published source that is simply advertising for a particular supplement, and Wikipedia is not an advertising vehicle.  Please also see WP:USESPS.  But again, thanks for your good intentions.Jytdog (talk) 21:20, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There are two indicators that dishonest advertising blurb is not worth putting in this article. First we have known for 60 years that a meal of mixed amino acids ingested without carbohydrate can stimulate GH release. In England they used a brand of beef bouillon called Bovril. In the US there were a couple of clinical trials testing whether oral amino acids given every day for many months could actually have a GH-like effect (such as raising IGF-1 levels or stimulating growth in short children. They dont. The second big indicator on this particular glossy come-on is that the figure showing the impressive GH rise does not depict the control group of this supposed "double-crossover". Many years ago I wrote a wikipedia article on HGH quackery with references but the forces of pseudoscience and dishonesty here were more persistent and have kept it deleted. I hope you have not invested money in this old tired MLM supplement scheme. But thanks for politely asking. alteripse (talk) 21:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: How to add clinical study info about a supplement?

message: The word sarcolemma should be changed by "cell membrane". The term sarcolemma refers specifically to the cell membrane of muscle cells and not to the membrane of fibroblats, osteoblast or chondroblast. By contrast, the terms "cell membrane" refers generically to the cell membrane of any kind of cells that could be targeted by the growth hormones.
::thanks - doneJytdog (talk) 00:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: recommended fix

message: I just added a wikilink for NREM sleep, and I noticed that the NREM sleep article starts with this: "Non-rapid eye movement, or NREM, is, collectively, sleep stages 1–3, previously known as stages 1–4."
Under Regulation, this article says "Nearly fifty percent of GH secretion occurs during the third and fourth NREM sleep stages."
Do we need an update?
-- Jo3sampl (talk) 13:08, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request 

message: hgh  is calculated in mcg micrograms not  mg  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.66.204.62 (talk) 19:11, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  its mcg not mg 

message: A note to my future self and any other editors who want to improve this article: the review article "Growth hormone-releasing hormone: clinical studies and therapeutic aspects" is cited here, but it's from 1991 - far too old to be used as a medical source. Exercisephys (talk) 01:51, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outdated source 

message: Are you sure that Washington University source on the legal status of off-label prescriptions deserves to go? I found it thorough and interesting, the college has a great reputation, and the author had a J.D. Might it be worth keeping both? Exercisephys (talk) 02:01, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an opinion piece.  Maybe useful on a section about opinions but silly/pointy for trying to simply provide a source for facts. Jytdog (talk) 02:06, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Washington University legal source 

message: Please remove comma in Line 276 between 'Vanity' and 'Fair'  202.87.166.50 (talk) 19:00, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:08, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2016 

message: Gigantism vs shortism Pravesh Rae (talk) 09:36, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  GH 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Growth hormone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110903125813/http://www.fsis.usda.gov/fact_sheets/chicken_from_farm_to_table/index.asp to http://www.fsis.usda.gov/fact_sheets/chicken_from_farm_to_table/index.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:04, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Growth hormone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080111163402/http://www.lib.mcg.edu/edu/eshuphysio/program/section5/5ch2/s5ch2_19.htm to http://www.lib.mcg.edu/edu/eshuphysio/program/section5/5ch2/s5ch2_19.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120311015321/http://www.lemars.k12.ia.us/ag/AgriScience%202%20class/Animal%20Nutrition%20Unit/Growth%20promoters%20in%20AS.pdf to http://www.lemars.k12.ia.us/ag/AgriScience%202%20class/Animal%20Nutrition%20Unit/Growth%20promoters%20in%20AS.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:19, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Source:  https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00000563.htm  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xanikk999 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article should discuss HGH and the link between Fatal degenerative neurological disease as occured before 1985 

message: How can growth hormone be tracked within the human body?
Xengvang (talk) 05:03, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Endocrinology 564 Article Evaluation  

message: The varied use of hGH and HGH in the intro is a bit confusing. From my understanding, their difference is due to the source of their extraction, but this is discussed after the intro and therefore, the varied use in the intro is confusing. Nikolaih☎️📖 19:52, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  hGH vs HGH in intro 

message: Here's an article in Nature indicating that there are hints GH can be used for anti-aging therapy: , . Here's the original study, led by Greg Fahy, in Aging Cell:  --2003:DA:CF0D:A800:99D7:2F3E:7C4C:C089 (talk) 23:16, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Nature''/''Aging Cell'' study 

message: No 112.79.158.161 (talk) 00:27, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Super heroes