Talk:Growth hormone therapy

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Terminology

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: to whoever wants to emphasize cost inflation

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Jintropin

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: "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)

text: "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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  A question? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  where are all the references? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Methylphenidate

message: 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)
replies: text: Go ahead, GH is certainly not necessary for reproduction. alteripse 15:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Human reproduction 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Sources? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Growth hormone plasma levels during treatment

message: 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)
thread_title: Non recombinant GH

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: 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)
replies: text: Further discussion at talk:HGH controversies please. alteripse (talk) 14:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: POV and false article

message: 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)
thread_title:  Article is proceeding happily 

message: 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)
thread_title: Unsourced claims

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Human growth hormone (HGH): Does it slow aging? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Human Growth Hormone (HGH) and Aging