HGH and Cancer

[shithead]

Anti-Aging Medicine (HGH) increases cancer risks
Press Release 3/14/00

Genetically Engineered Anti-Aging Medication (HGH) Poses Undisclosed Cancer Risks,


Use of the genetically engineered human growth hormone (HGH) for anti-aging medication has become a major growth industry. Suppliers of HGH, including those offering mail order prescriptions, are proliferating on websites and the Internet. The Chicago-based seven-year-old American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine, with over 8000 members, promotes injectable HGH in programs claiming to stop or even reverse aging, including decreasing body fat, and increasing muscle mass and bone density. However, practitioners of this burgeoning "health" industry are either ignorant of or suppress well-documented information on the grave cancer risks of HGH medication.

HGH induces growth promoting and other effects by stimulating the liver to increase production of the natural Insulin-like Growth Factor-1 (IGF-1) whose blood levels normally decline with advancing age. However, there are numerous publications in prestigious peer reviewed scientific journals showing that elevated IGF-1 levels are strongly associated with major excess risks of colon, prostate, and breast cancers; even minor elevations are associated with up to 7-fold increased risks of breast cancer, risks almost as high as those in women carrying genes (BRCA1 and BRCA2) with the strongest hereditary predisposition. Additionally, IGF-1 inhibits the programmed self-destruction (apoptosis) of cancer cells, thus stimulating the growth and invasiveness of small, undiagnosed cancers, besides increasing the resistance of cancers to chemotherapy. For these reasons, anti-aging HGH medication, compounded by failure to explicitly disclose its grave risks, constitutes medical malpractice.


Samuel S. Epstein, M.D.
Cancer Prevention Coalition
University of Illinois at Chicago

[ironwill]

i thought it had to be pre-existing condition....
Im still doin it anyway....:flowers

[shithead]

There are studies that show it doesnt "initiate" cancer, but will help it to proliferate. Thats what the general consensus is.

[shithead]

Does the GH-IGF axis play a role in cancer pathogenesis?
P Cohen, D R Clemmons, R G Rosenfeld
Department of Pediatrics, Mattel Children's Hospital, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1752, USA. hassy@mednet.ucla.edu

Recent case-controlled studies have found increases in the serum levels of insulin-like growth factor-I (IGF-I) in subjects who had, or who eventually developed, prostate or premenopausal breast cancers. Since growth hormone (GH) increases IGF-I levels, concern has been raised regarding its potential role as a cancer initiation factor. The epidemiological studies, which indicate an association between serum IGF-I levels and cancer risk, have not established causality. In fact, several alternative explanations for the elevated serum IGF-I levels in cancer patients may be proposed based on human and animal models. First, an effect of IGF-I causing symptomatic benign tissue hyperplasia may result in an ascertainment bias leading to an initiation of procedures resulting in the diagnosis of asymptomatic cancers. Second, elevated serum IGF-I in cancer patients may originate within the tumor (as suggested by some animal studies). Thirdly, serum IGF-I may actually be a surrogate marker of tissue IGF-I levels or of nutritional factors, which are not under GH control and may be involved in cancer initiation. The role of GH in cancer initiation is further negated by the fact that in acromegaly, the incidence of cancer, other than possibly colonic neoplasia does not appear to be significantly increased. Furthermore, GH transgenic mice, with high IGF-I levels, do not develop breast, prostate, or colonic malignancies. It is known that IGFBP-3 can inhibit IGF action on cancer cells in vitro and also can induce apoptosis via an IGF-independent mechanism. Importantly, in addition to increasing IGF-I levels, GH also increases the serum levels of IGFBP-3 and serum IGFBP-3 levels have been shown to be negatively correlated with the risk of cancer in the above mentioned epidemiological studies and in a similar study on colon cancer. These studies suggest that cancer risk is increased in individuals in whom both high IGF-I levels and low IGFBP-3 levels are present. In subjects treated with GH, IGF-I and IGFBP-3 levels both rise together and are not within the elevated cancer-risk range, based on published studies. Long-term studies are needed to assess the potential risks, including the long-term cancer risk associated with GH therapy. These should take into account several factors, including the duration of exposure, the risk magnitude associated with the degree of serum IGF-I elevation, and the adjusted risk based on a concomitant increase in IGFBP-3 levels. Since GH treated patients often have sub-normal IGF-I serum levels, which normalize on therapy, one might predict that their cancer risk on GH therapy should not increase above the normal population. Until further research in the area dictates otherwise, on-going cancer surveillance and routine monitoring of serum IGF-I and IGFBP-3 levels in GH-recipients should be the standard of care. At present, the data that are available do not warrant a change in our current management of approved indications for GH therapy.

[tiramisu]

So interestingly enough it can be shown that cancer may cause raised IGF levels.
This cause and effect stuff is slippery when doing statistical research.

[RagingRandy]

They used to say that Test caused prostate cancer. They now know this to be false.

[Praetorian]

HGH does not cause cancer. It is only a concern if there are existing tumours present. In fact it has been show to strengthen the immune system thus helping prevent cancer from starting.
P

[O-Train]

Cancer is such a complicated condition. Can't really say HGH causes x so you'll get cancer or HGH helps with y so you won't. Hormones (steroid or peptide) affect the probability of developing cancer. Just like everything else you put in your body. The only difference is hormones are powerful shit and there isn't a person alive that could tell you exactly what they will do.

Like you mentioned Praetorian, the immune system is very important when it comes to preventing cancer. I took an in-depth course on this stuff and the complexity blows my mind. Even "the big picture" of what they know now is insane. I don't think of cancer as a disease, at least not what a disease is traditionally considered. In my mind it's just something that happens. Genetically engineering people to be at decreased risk (and possibly eventually no risk) is possible. I guess genetic manipulation is to cancer what penecilin is to bacterial infections. An unconventional cure for an unconventional condition (maybe).

I'm not trying to offend anyone. Cancer sucks.

[ezturbo]

Sounds like media mumbo jumbo. Exageration. Everything causes cancer one way or another. :D