Just interested
Team Captain
- Aug 4, 2013
- 544
- 1,347
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
This is around about order, but the reference to the development of the modern Yanqui anti-ageing industry came from this correspondence:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Academy_of_Anti-Aging_Medicine
"It's a longish long read, but in it you can see the genesis of the modern anti-ageing industry, and how its development has turned from ‘treating’ ageing symptomatology, to preventing ageing before any symptoms appear, to promoting hormones etc as supplements sans any symptoms of anything, or any diagnosed illness, disease or condition, to any one who respires. The controversy centres around HGH.
This was how I responded to the youngun’s question of what did I think about his ‘find’.
“Without having read that page before, that's been my understanding for a long time. There are those who have cherry picked credible studies and rushed off to build marketing plans and businesses. HgH is one of the best examples of all.
My key issue with all this remains the failure to acknowledge that therapeutics should NEVER be used without a clinical diagnosis of a condition, disease or illness - all of which come from having either too much of something, or not enough of something. Even if there is a clinical diagnosis of a deficiency, or an excess (like my iron), treatment should never be undertaken without having clinical proof that the proposed treatment works to improve, without the risk of adverse side effects being high enough to potentially outweigh the benefits.
Which leads me to quote 2 bits of the HgH section of the Wiki page:
Firstly, diagnosed deficiencies, treatment in clinical studies and the required acknowledgements of risk:
"Some small studies have shown that low-dose GH treatment for adults with severe GH deficiency, such as that produced after surgical removal of the pituitary gland, produces positive changes in body composition by increasing muscle mass, decreasing fat mass, increasing bone density and muscle strength; improves cardiovascular parameters (i.e. decrease of LDL cholesterol), and improves quality of life without significant side effects.[55][56] The extension of this approach to healthy elderly people is an area of current research, with a 2000 review in Hormone Research commenting that "Clearly more studies are needed before GH replacement for the elderly becomes established." and noting that "safety issues will require close scrutiny".[57]"
Then, what just might be confirmed as proper clinical research is conducted:
"A 2008 review of the controversy surrounding the use of growth hormone in anti-aging medicine which published in Clinical Interventions in Aging noted the opinions of the A4A on this topic, but suggested that high levels of growth hormone might actually accelerate aging.[58] This concern was repeated by the United States National Institute on Aging who stated in 2009 that:[59]
As with other hormones, hGH levels often decline with age, but this decrease is not necessarily bad. At least one epidemiological study suggests that people who have high levels of hGH are more apt to die at younger ages than those with lower levels of the hormone. Researchers have also studied animals with genetic disorders that suppress growth hormone production and secretion and found reduced growth hormone secretion may actually promote longevity in those species that have been tested.
The Clinical Interventions in Aging review also stated that although the decreasing levels of the hormone seen in the elderly might reduce quality of life, this change could protect from age-related diseases and cited evidence linking GH to cancer.[58] This concern was mirrored in a 2008 review published in Clinical Endocrinology, which stated that the risk of increasing the incidence of cancer was a strong argument against the use of this hormone as an "elixir of youth" in healthy adults.[60]"
Pretty much sums it up.
And, let's not forget, it was Doc Robin (Willcourt) who lamented, in an interview on the ABC, that HgH was illegal, 'cos he really wanted to try out his theories on it as the great "elixir of youth", and on all manner of healthy young people, particularly athletes.
But, that very illegality forced an adaptation to the manifesto - using the stacking of HgH fragments and peptides to approximate the impact of HgH, by walking those unapproved and off label drugs through the Swiss cheese like holes in the regulatory system, and straight into the veins and guts of dumb and poorly advised bastards like the E'dopers."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Academy_of_Anti-Aging_Medicine
"It's a longish long read, but in it you can see the genesis of the modern anti-ageing industry, and how its development has turned from ‘treating’ ageing symptomatology, to preventing ageing before any symptoms appear, to promoting hormones etc as supplements sans any symptoms of anything, or any diagnosed illness, disease or condition, to any one who respires. The controversy centres around HGH.
This was how I responded to the youngun’s question of what did I think about his ‘find’.
“Without having read that page before, that's been my understanding for a long time. There are those who have cherry picked credible studies and rushed off to build marketing plans and businesses. HgH is one of the best examples of all.
My key issue with all this remains the failure to acknowledge that therapeutics should NEVER be used without a clinical diagnosis of a condition, disease or illness - all of which come from having either too much of something, or not enough of something. Even if there is a clinical diagnosis of a deficiency, or an excess (like my iron), treatment should never be undertaken without having clinical proof that the proposed treatment works to improve, without the risk of adverse side effects being high enough to potentially outweigh the benefits.
Which leads me to quote 2 bits of the HgH section of the Wiki page:
Firstly, diagnosed deficiencies, treatment in clinical studies and the required acknowledgements of risk:
"Some small studies have shown that low-dose GH treatment for adults with severe GH deficiency, such as that produced after surgical removal of the pituitary gland, produces positive changes in body composition by increasing muscle mass, decreasing fat mass, increasing bone density and muscle strength; improves cardiovascular parameters (i.e. decrease of LDL cholesterol), and improves quality of life without significant side effects.[55][56] The extension of this approach to healthy elderly people is an area of current research, with a 2000 review in Hormone Research commenting that "Clearly more studies are needed before GH replacement for the elderly becomes established." and noting that "safety issues will require close scrutiny".[57]"
Then, what just might be confirmed as proper clinical research is conducted:
"A 2008 review of the controversy surrounding the use of growth hormone in anti-aging medicine which published in Clinical Interventions in Aging noted the opinions of the A4A on this topic, but suggested that high levels of growth hormone might actually accelerate aging.[58] This concern was repeated by the United States National Institute on Aging who stated in 2009 that:[59]
As with other hormones, hGH levels often decline with age, but this decrease is not necessarily bad. At least one epidemiological study suggests that people who have high levels of hGH are more apt to die at younger ages than those with lower levels of the hormone. Researchers have also studied animals with genetic disorders that suppress growth hormone production and secretion and found reduced growth hormone secretion may actually promote longevity in those species that have been tested.
The Clinical Interventions in Aging review also stated that although the decreasing levels of the hormone seen in the elderly might reduce quality of life, this change could protect from age-related diseases and cited evidence linking GH to cancer.[58] This concern was mirrored in a 2008 review published in Clinical Endocrinology, which stated that the risk of increasing the incidence of cancer was a strong argument against the use of this hormone as an "elixir of youth" in healthy adults.[60]"
Pretty much sums it up.
And, let's not forget, it was Doc Robin (Willcourt) who lamented, in an interview on the ABC, that HgH was illegal, 'cos he really wanted to try out his theories on it as the great "elixir of youth", and on all manner of healthy young people, particularly athletes.
But, that very illegality forced an adaptation to the manifesto - using the stacking of HgH fragments and peptides to approximate the impact of HgH, by walking those unapproved and off label drugs through the Swiss cheese like holes in the regulatory system, and straight into the veins and guts of dumb and poorly advised bastards like the E'dopers."




