Talk:HGH controversies

message: 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)
thread_title: Liu, H., et al. (2006)

message: 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)
thread_title:  Rambo 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Creutzfeldt Jakob 

message: 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)
thread_title: Citation 3

message: 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)
thread_title: Sorce 4

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: Nonsense. There is no published research that backs up your claims. alteripse (talk) 11:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we're done here. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't think I should offer it any more troll food? You are probably right.  alteripse (talk) 18:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Request of complete deletion

message: I've inserted the articles, nevertheless I hope this article will be removed--250GP (talk) 15:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: False and POV article