Zagro
Roids over Foids
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2024
- Posts
- 4,717
- Reputation
- 18,353
Introduction
So I've recently came up against this retarded and pseudo-intellectual subhuman called; @Ahmed88, whom has spread copious amounts of misinformation so I have to put him back in his place, completely fueled by ChatGPT to the brim and hasn't read a singular paper in in his life he literally has no experience or knowledge either.
But what can we expect, we should show empathy and feel sorry for the parents of this creature.
It's disappointing to see people still agree with retards as the likes of "Ahmed88" but I'm sure they just skimmed through right?
Let's start evaluating his posts and his recent biggest claim on rhGH which was the main reason this thread was made, I usually don't really give a fuck as this is a weekly occurrence in .org "HGH DEBUNKED GTFIH" "HGH DESTROYS HEIGHT AND MAKES YOU SHORTER" and more and he did talk bad about me so one more reason.
The Main Thread
The Papers Provided For "GHD":
That covers about the first part of "evidence" he has provided so let's move on his next claim again on GHD:
"VERY Important: These studies are on children who are medically short due to GH deficiency, and do NOT produce enough HGH not normal kids. The effect is correcting a deficiency, not surpassing genetic potential."
Dear Ahmed, you should know that there are a many studies where children surpass their set "genetic potential", although genetic potential is literally a myth you cant estimate or calculate height as it isn't mathematics, it can never be done it's only an estimation.
Validation of Prediction Models for Near Adult Height in Children with Idiopathic Growth Hormone Deficiency Treated with Growth Hormone: A Belgian Registry Study
This study shows that there is a margin of error in predictions, so even if you can tell me that they only reach their "genetic potential" or PAH, the PAH isn't guaranteed to be true it can be overestimated or in some cases underestimated, this means that there are probably lots of children who surpassed their "genetic potential". Also this study proves only a little as the treatment group is small, so the females being accurately estimated can be a coincidence and vice-versa.
The Papers Provided For "ISS":
Finally done with the evaluation and none of them supported your claim and were the most shitty papers I've seen excluding one or two, most were not even the things you claimed they were about and they used WAY different dosages and administration frequencies, but let's move on.
"B-B-But ISS Children Grew Taller why can’t i?
Let’s clarify: ISS children are not short simply because of genetics. ISS is defined as short stature without a known cause, that INCLUDES GENETICS and many children diagnosed as having ISS have partial GH insensitivity (Evidence: Idiopathic short stature)"
I'm having a stroke, "ISS children are not short because of genetics but it is also because of genetics" nice one mate."many children diagnosed as having ISS have partial GH insensitivity" another insanely false take again nice, there is also "ISS" diagnosed patients that are just literally short for no reason at all like legit just short fucks. It's also proven that ISS patiens do reach FAH or NFAH themselves lmao.
Nice evidence aswell random review from 2001, back when rhGH wasn't even available for 95% of the diseases it's used for now.
There are multiple causes found in “ISS”, insensitivities to IGF-1/GH and mutations in genes so its issues at the molecular level which are hard to detect.
I've also never said ISS diagnosed patients are the same as us healthy adolescents, but they are the closest thing we have.
Diagnostic yield of a multigene sequencing approach in children classified as idiopathic short stature
Genetics of Short Stature
The Proof He Has For Why It Wont Work:
My Proof For Why It Can Theoretically Work:
Fucking hell this was draining to write, disappointing that people need to teach things that should be common sense to others. All of the proof he has of clinical trials is when it's dosed at single digits WEEKLY.
The second paper here is found with ChatGPT as I cropped and pasted above and the second and fourth ones are literally the same one but the second one being the full paper.
"Analogy (for conceptual clarity): Imagine a plant with genetically fixed maximum height. Adequate water and nutrients allow it to reach its potential. Adding more water beyond what it can physiologically use does not make it grow taller; it may even disrupt normal growth processes."
I thought extrapolating from trials done on rats were bad but this guy really compared us to plants.
No bro I don't use ChatGPT!!1! - Ahmed88
Summary
What you should understand from this thread is that .org users apart from most prominent users are mostly retarded (I'm no expection) and have no idea what they're talking about, you should always DYOR and not trust some random stranger on a looksmaxxing forum and even if you do make sure to look into it yourself and fact-check their claims.
Wrote this while starving and exhausted so expect some mistakes to be made and I've skipped over a few parts as it's draining, but new threads of mine are in the works
@Razzz
@gymcelld
@Leo
and others who realised he was a retard, shout out to yall.
So I've recently came up against this retarded and pseudo-intellectual subhuman called; @Ahmed88, whom has spread copious amounts of misinformation so I have to put him back in his place, completely fueled by ChatGPT to the brim and hasn't read a singular paper in in his life he literally has no experience or knowledge either.
But what can we expect, we should show empathy and feel sorry for the parents of this creature.
It's disappointing to see people still agree with retards as the likes of "Ahmed88" but I'm sure they just skimmed through right?
Let's start evaluating his posts and his recent biggest claim on rhGH which was the main reason this thread was made, I usually don't really give a fuck as this is a weekly occurrence in .org "HGH DEBUNKED GTFIH" "HGH DESTROYS HEIGHT AND MAKES YOU SHORTER" and more and he did talk bad about me so one more reason.
The Main Thread
The Papers Provided For "GHD":
This is just a decent review on what has been discovered so far proves legit nothing about your claim. They compare past and modern injection frequencies, dosages and criterias, and contains mostly info about weekly administration of rhGH at 0.2 till 0.6 units per kilogram, if we take a hypothetical look at it and say that the patient is at a weight that's statistically average (which is once again not possible as most patients under treatment of rhGH are overweight or underweight) it should equal to 30 units per week and that's insanely low dosed and the worst delivery frequency someone has ever came up with it goes on to evaluate other risks and shit but this literally proves nothing.
"Several reports were published after years of treatment with pit-hGH in which the adult height outcomes achieved in non-acquired GHD (often called IGHD) were described. These results were summarized in reviews (168-170). As exemplified in Table 4, (169, 171–174, 176) these patients had been severely GH deficient (maximum in tests < 7.5 ng/mL) and were relatively old (approx. mean age: 13 yrs) at diagnosis and GH start. These characteristics were not only due to a selection bias, since the oldest patients at start are the earliest to reach their (near) end of growth. On the other hand, the patients treated during the pit-hGH era were very short (mean height at GH start < -4.0 SDS) and were given dosages of about 8-12 IU of pit-hGH from various sources, injected 2-3 times per week i.m., and the total amount of one ampule often contained 4 (2) I.U. After about > 5-6 years of treatment, an adult height of about -3.0 SDS was reached in patients with spontaneous puberty, while those with induced puberty reached a height of about -1.5 SDS. Females tended to be younger and shorter at start but reached a lower adult height."
The clinical trials cited are bullshit aswell dosages of 8-12 units 2-3x weekly will literally do more harm than good and no where near what we should be or are doing in our use-case.
"Several reports were published after years of treatment with pit-hGH in which the adult height outcomes achieved in non-acquired GHD (often called IGHD) were described. These results were summarized in reviews (168-170). As exemplified in Table 4, (169, 171–174, 176) these patients had been severely GH deficient (maximum in tests < 7.5 ng/mL) and were relatively old (approx. mean age: 13 yrs) at diagnosis and GH start. These characteristics were not only due to a selection bias, since the oldest patients at start are the earliest to reach their (near) end of growth. On the other hand, the patients treated during the pit-hGH era were very short (mean height at GH start < -4.0 SDS) and were given dosages of about 8-12 IU of pit-hGH from various sources, injected 2-3 times per week i.m., and the total amount of one ampule often contained 4 (2) I.U. After about > 5-6 years of treatment, an adult height of about -3.0 SDS was reached in patients with spontaneous puberty, while those with induced puberty reached a height of about -1.5 SDS. Females tended to be younger and shorter at start but reached a lower adult height."
The clinical trials cited are bullshit aswell dosages of 8-12 units 2-3x weekly will literally do more harm than good and no where near what we should be or are doing in our use-case.
Another review that doesn't support your claim at all no idea why you keep providing bullshit papers like this, this was written in 2007 and as stated in the article itself at this time the only country that allowed rhGH administration for the treatment of ISS was the United States and it does not even talk about GHD you moron you cant even find specific articles on GHD its stated that there was a 5-7cm increase in final height and normalization of final height has been achieved, this was seen in the treatment of Turner Syndrome, Prader-Willi, IUGR and CRI not even in GHD as the abstract states this paper covers other use-cases than GHD .
.Once again another review which is not only done on GHD as you couldn't specify your needs to papi GPT have you? This report is done on GHD, TS, PWS, CRI, SHOX-D and SGA.
"Children in the rhGH group grew 2.7 cm/year faster than children in the untreated group and had a statistically significantly higher HtSDS after 1 year: -2.3 ± 0.45 versus -2.8 ± 0.45." and it obviously shows growth.
"Girls in one study grew an average of 9.3 cm more than untreated girls. In a study of younger children, the difference was 7.6 cm after 2 years. HtSDS values were statistically significantly higher in treated than in untreated girls." Shows the sex dimorphism in the growth plates that you have no clue about, comparing the results or even how the drug works in a females body to how it does in a male is literally the biggest mistake you could make. So any clinical trial on girls I wont accept.
And at last this review states that longer studies upwards of 2 years almost guarantee the patients reaching FAH or NFAH.
"Children in the rhGH group grew 2.7 cm/year faster than children in the untreated group and had a statistically significantly higher HtSDS after 1 year: -2.3 ± 0.45 versus -2.8 ± 0.45." and it obviously shows growth.
"Girls in one study grew an average of 9.3 cm more than untreated girls. In a study of younger children, the difference was 7.6 cm after 2 years. HtSDS values were statistically significantly higher in treated than in untreated girls." Shows the sex dimorphism in the growth plates that you have no clue about, comparing the results or even how the drug works in a females body to how it does in a male is literally the biggest mistake you could make. So any clinical trial on girls I wont accept.
And at last this review states that longer studies upwards of 2 years almost guarantee the patients reaching FAH or NFAH.
This is a very shitty paper once again, an observational study and I know for a FACT you haven't read a single molecule here
Let's take a quick look at the references shall we?
Growth Hormone Treatment for Growth Hormone Deficiency and Idiopathic Short Stature: New Guidelines Shaped by the Presence and Absence of Evidence
Spontaneous growth and response to growth hormone treatment in children with growth hormone deficiency and idiopathic short stature
Dose-dependent effect of growth hormone on final height in children with short stature without growth hormone deficiency
High dose growth hormone treatment induces acceleration of skeletal maturation and an earlier onset of puberty in children with idiopathic short stature
US Growth Hormone Use in the Idiopathic Short Stature Era: Trends in Insurer Payments and Patient Financial Burden
Interesting enough the paper you provided for GHD has more references for ISS than it does for GHD, like it's hard to even find one reference to a paper on GHD in there
Also before you get your hopes up this proves nothing and is a horrible "evidence" but it's expected as you don't even know what you're sending.
Let's take a quick look at the references shall we?
Growth Hormone Treatment for Growth Hormone Deficiency and Idiopathic Short Stature: New Guidelines Shaped by the Presence and Absence of Evidence
Spontaneous growth and response to growth hormone treatment in children with growth hormone deficiency and idiopathic short stature
Dose-dependent effect of growth hormone on final height in children with short stature without growth hormone deficiency
High dose growth hormone treatment induces acceleration of skeletal maturation and an earlier onset of puberty in children with idiopathic short stature
US Growth Hormone Use in the Idiopathic Short Stature Era: Trends in Insurer Payments and Patient Financial Burden
Interesting enough the paper you provided for GHD has more references for ISS than it does for GHD, like it's hard to even find one reference to a paper on GHD in there
Also before you get your hopes up this proves nothing and is a horrible "evidence" but it's expected as you don't even know what you're sending.
The cohort here exists of GHD, ISS, Turner Syndrome, SGA and many others, so once again not only GHD as this retard does not read the studies he provides. What is this even supposed to prove?
Let's take a quick look on this amazing paper you provided (sarcasm just so you know Ahmed)
"A total of 136 patients met the inclusion criteria, of which 70 received 0.1 U/ (kg·d) (low-dose group) and 66 received 0.2 U/ (kg·d) dose of rhGH treatment (high-dose group)." Mirin high-dose group not even coming close to the doses which are adequate for height growth in individuals without deficiencies as us, these shit are all low dosed but obviously is effective for them.
Interesting thing is that there were no increases in adverse reaction even though the doses were doubled and a very small treatment group aswell, and once again proves literally nothing no idea where we're going with these papers but yeah let's move on
"A total of 136 patients met the inclusion criteria, of which 70 received 0.1 U/ (kg·d) (low-dose group) and 66 received 0.2 U/ (kg·d) dose of rhGH treatment (high-dose group)." Mirin high-dose group not even coming close to the doses which are adequate for height growth in individuals without deficiencies as us, these shit are all low dosed but obviously is effective for them.
Interesting thing is that there were no increases in adverse reaction even though the doses were doubled and a very small treatment group aswell, and once again proves literally nothing no idea where we're going with these papers but yeah let's move on
At last, for the GHD papers this one is competing for the worst place.
"A total of 99 children (64 boys, 35 girls; 61 isolated GHD, 38 multiple pituitary hormone deficiency) were studied." very small treatment group once again + done in multiple pituitary hormone deficiencies so most of these children are hypogonadal and more on top of GHD and girls are included so worthless paper as there is sex dimorphism in the growth plates, you cant even provide half-decent studies.
"A total of 99 children (64 boys, 35 girls; 61 isolated GHD, 38 multiple pituitary hormone deficiency) were studied." very small treatment group once again + done in multiple pituitary hormone deficiencies so most of these children are hypogonadal and more on top of GHD and girls are included so worthless paper as there is sex dimorphism in the growth plates, you cant even provide half-decent studies.
That covers about the first part of "evidence" he has provided so let's move on his next claim again on GHD:
"VERY Important: These studies are on children who are medically short due to GH deficiency, and do NOT produce enough HGH not normal kids. The effect is correcting a deficiency, not surpassing genetic potential."
Dear Ahmed, you should know that there are a many studies where children surpass their set "genetic potential", although genetic potential is literally a myth you cant estimate or calculate height as it isn't mathematics, it can never be done it's only an estimation.
Validation of Prediction Models for Near Adult Height in Children with Idiopathic Growth Hormone Deficiency Treated with Growth Hormone: A Belgian Registry Study
This study shows that there is a margin of error in predictions, so even if you can tell me that they only reach their "genetic potential" or PAH, the PAH isn't guaranteed to be true it can be overestimated or in some cases underestimated, this means that there are probably lots of children who surpassed their "genetic potential". Also this study proves only a little as the treatment group is small, so the females being accurately estimated can be a coincidence and vice-versa.
The Papers Provided For "ISS":
This is a very interesting study actually, its done in children diagnosed with idiopathic short stature which is basically zero hormonal or medical reasons to be -2 HSDS.
Their growth rate is subnormal but they do respond to growth hormone secretagogues normally (as stated in the title), that means that there is no insensitivity or anything similar to the hormones GH or IGF-1.
Another thing is that it's done in girls aswell and only has a treatment group of 91 individuals meaning it's too low. You cant compare us men to women as the responses intracellularly and whatnot are very different to hormones because of obvious reasons you have no clue about.
Here's a few examples of sexual dimorphism in bone tissue and growth plates themselves, we can only extrapolate from here.
Sexual dimorphism in cortical bone size and strength but not density is determined by independent and time-specific actions of sex steroids and IGF-1: evidence from pubertal mouse models
Sexual dimorphism of growth plate prehypertrophic and hypertrophic chondrocytes in response to testosterone requires metabolism to dihydrotestosterone (DHT) by steroid 5-alpha reductase type 1
Their growth rate is subnormal but they do respond to growth hormone secretagogues normally (as stated in the title), that means that there is no insensitivity or anything similar to the hormones GH or IGF-1.
Another thing is that it's done in girls aswell and only has a treatment group of 91 individuals meaning it's too low. You cant compare us men to women as the responses intracellularly and whatnot are very different to hormones because of obvious reasons you have no clue about.
Here's a few examples of sexual dimorphism in bone tissue and growth plates themselves, we can only extrapolate from here.
Sexual dimorphism in cortical bone size and strength but not density is determined by independent and time-specific actions of sex steroids and IGF-1: evidence from pubertal mouse models
Sexual dimorphism of growth plate prehypertrophic and hypertrophic chondrocytes in response to testosterone requires metabolism to dihydrotestosterone (DHT) by steroid 5-alpha reductase type 1
Another retarded clinical trial which doesn't support your claim in any way at all because it does not even come close to how our use-case is, injection-frequency, dosages and other its and bits.
"gr 1 and 2 received 3 and 4.5 IU/m2 b.s. 6 times per week, and gr 3 received 3 IU/m2 in the 1st year and 4.5 IU thereafter." Random ass dosing frequencies such as 6 times weekly and what the fuck are these dosages
It also proves my point which is higher doses being better and even needed for our use-case "the higher dosage appears more effective in terms of predicted adult height, although attained final heights have to be awaited for definitive conclusions."
"gr 1 and 2 received 3 and 4.5 IU/m2 b.s. 6 times per week, and gr 3 received 3 IU/m2 in the 1st year and 4.5 IU thereafter." Random ass dosing frequencies such as 6 times weekly and what the fuck are these dosages
It also proves my point which is higher doses being better and even needed for our use-case "the higher dosage appears more effective in terms of predicted adult height, although attained final heights have to be awaited for definitive conclusions."
This once again proves like nothing?
Only interesting thing is this is the study with one of the highest dosages if I recall correctly "Initially, GH treatment was provided at a dose 0.23 mg/kg/wk for the IGHD subjects and 0.23–0.33 mg/kg/wk for the ISS subjects. The GH dosage for the subjects with ISS was adjusted according to the subject's IGF-1 level in order not to exceed a dose greater than +2 SD.".
But this doesn't matter as the doses are adjusted in a way so that a IGF-1 level greater than +2 SD isn't achieved meaning it's not much different than every other study you provided as in our use-case we should exceed 2 SD greatly.
Only interesting thing is this is the study with one of the highest dosages if I recall correctly "Initially, GH treatment was provided at a dose 0.23 mg/kg/wk for the IGHD subjects and 0.23–0.33 mg/kg/wk for the ISS subjects. The GH dosage for the subjects with ISS was adjusted according to the subject's IGF-1 level in order not to exceed a dose greater than +2 SD.".
But this doesn't matter as the doses are adjusted in a way so that a IGF-1 level greater than +2 SD isn't achieved meaning it's not much different than every other study you provided as in our use-case we should exceed 2 SD greatly.
And at last we have another paper which ONCE AGAIN doesn't support your claim in any way? I mean you just send any review/trial that has ISS or GHD in the title or has been mentioned cause some of them aren't even about the things you claim.
Prime example is this study which covers many use-cases for rhGH, getting bored of these shit ngl
Prime example is this study which covers many use-cases for rhGH, getting bored of these shit ngl
Finally done with the evaluation and none of them supported your claim and were the most shitty papers I've seen excluding one or two, most were not even the things you claimed they were about and they used WAY different dosages and administration frequencies, but let's move on.
"B-B-But ISS Children Grew Taller why can’t i?
Let’s clarify: ISS children are not short simply because of genetics. ISS is defined as short stature without a known cause, that INCLUDES GENETICS and many children diagnosed as having ISS have partial GH insensitivity (Evidence: Idiopathic short stature)"
I'm having a stroke, "ISS children are not short because of genetics but it is also because of genetics" nice one mate."many children diagnosed as having ISS have partial GH insensitivity" another insanely false take again nice, there is also "ISS" diagnosed patients that are just literally short for no reason at all like legit just short fucks. It's also proven that ISS patiens do reach FAH or NFAH themselves lmao.
Nice evidence aswell random review from 2001, back when rhGH wasn't even available for 95% of the diseases it's used for now.
There are multiple causes found in “ISS”, insensitivities to IGF-1/GH and mutations in genes so its issues at the molecular level which are hard to detect.
I've also never said ISS diagnosed patients are the same as us healthy adolescents, but they are the closest thing we have.
Diagnostic yield of a multigene sequencing approach in children classified as idiopathic short stature
Genetics of Short Stature
The Proof He Has For Why It Wont Work:
"GH does not create new growth potential. The growth plates in long bones experience linear growth through their epiphyseal plates. The genetic code determines both number and proliferative capacity of chondrocytes present at these growth plates. GH promotes the growth of chondrocytes and their development into mature cells, yet it cannot boost these cells' genetic-based growth capacity beyond their existing limits."
rhGH does increase growth potential and it's very proven mechanistically, just takes basic knowledge of bone histology to understand that if there are more chondrocytes proliferating so more deviations and more chondrocytes that enlarge bigger in size than they initally are "designed" to be, you will end up with higher FAH. Height isn't a set thing, you can modify all aspects including the resting zone chondrocytes which is the pre-natal "genetic code" you're speaking about which you once again have no clue about. The amoung of IGF-1 you produce, your secretion and receptors are all also genetic, which we can override/change via exogenous rhGH.
rhGH does increase growth potential and it's very proven mechanistically, just takes basic knowledge of bone histology to understand that if there are more chondrocytes proliferating so more deviations and more chondrocytes that enlarge bigger in size than they initally are "designed" to be, you will end up with higher FAH. Height isn't a set thing, you can modify all aspects including the resting zone chondrocytes which is the pre-natal "genetic code" you're speaking about which you once again have no clue about. The amoung of IGF-1 you produce, your secretion and receptors are all also genetic, which we can override/change via exogenous rhGH.
"Height is a polygenic trait which multiple genetic loci control its development. The treatment of GH-sufficient children with GH therapy does not affect their gene expression or the genetic skeletal structure which their genome contains."
Bold of you to assume that, if you administer exogenous rhGH do you think it will only change your GH and IGF-1 levels and not impact anything else? As you said yourself its a polygenic trait and almost everything is linked to eachother, when you change one and increase it to supraphysiological levels there are many other things that can happen. It will impact many height modulating genes positively and with the usage of just an aromatase inhibitor you can reach pretty great results as you will have most of the significant modulators of height growth minimised.
Bold of you to assume that, if you administer exogenous rhGH do you think it will only change your GH and IGF-1 levels and not impact anything else? As you said yourself its a polygenic trait and almost everything is linked to eachother, when you change one and increase it to supraphysiological levels there are many other things that can happen. It will impact many height modulating genes positively and with the usage of just an aromatase inhibitor you can reach pretty great results as you will have most of the significant modulators of height growth minimised.
This is where the cherry-picking begins and this is a VERY funny one lol.
"We report the effect of growth hormone (GH) treatment for 4 to 10 years in 15 prepubertal non-GH-deficient short children (10 boys, 5 girls, aged 7.4 to 13.2 years). In 7 patients, GH was administered at a dosage of 0.5 U/kg per week (group 1: 4 boys, 3 girls) and in 8 patients (group 2: 6 boys, 2 girls) at a dosage of 1.0 U/kg per week."
As we can see a treatment group of 15 patients and 5 of which are girls, in group 1: 7 patients were on a dosage of 0.5IU/kg PER WEEK and in group 2: 8 patients were at a dosage of 1.0IU/kg PER WEEK. This is literally 6-9 units WEEKLY. This thread isn't serious or this guy is a clinically diagnosed retard, if you see growth from these dosages you're non-human.
When confronted about it he still cant comprehend that it's WEEKLY. This RETARD genuinely starts pulling numbers out of the deepest points of his rectum and somehow comes up to the conclusion that 0.5-1.0IU/kg per WEEK correlates to 2-3 fold the dosages we use? How? I'm genuinely speechless and astonished by this high level of intelligence (once again it's sarcasm Ahmed). I mean do I even have to continue onwards from here?
"We report the effect of growth hormone (GH) treatment for 4 to 10 years in 15 prepubertal non-GH-deficient short children (10 boys, 5 girls, aged 7.4 to 13.2 years). In 7 patients, GH was administered at a dosage of 0.5 U/kg per week (group 1: 4 boys, 3 girls) and in 8 patients (group 2: 6 boys, 2 girls) at a dosage of 1.0 U/kg per week."
As we can see a treatment group of 15 patients and 5 of which are girls, in group 1: 7 patients were on a dosage of 0.5IU/kg PER WEEK and in group 2: 8 patients were at a dosage of 1.0IU/kg PER WEEK. This is literally 6-9 units WEEKLY. This thread isn't serious or this guy is a clinically diagnosed retard, if you see growth from these dosages you're non-human.
When confronted about it he still cant comprehend that it's WEEKLY
. This RETARD genuinely starts pulling numbers out of the deepest points of his rectum and somehow comes up to the conclusion that 0.5-1.0IU/kg per WEEK correlates to 2-3 fold the dosages we use? How? I'm genuinely speechless and astonished by this high level of intelligence (once again it's sarcasm Ahmed). I mean do I even have to continue onwards from here?I'm just going to provide one phrase that's directly in the abstract, and nothing else cause this is enough to explain how big of a retard he is
"The effect of GH treatment is reported to be dose-dependent and doses over 0.23 mg/kg/week are reported to be necessary to improve adult height in non-GHD short children. Currently, the GH dose is fixed at 0.175 mg/kg/week in Japan, and we expected to find, and indeed concluded, that ordinary GH treatment in Japanese, non-GHD short children does not improve adult height."
Weekly dosing bro....weekly dosing, no shit it doesn't improve height when they take around 6 units weekly.
"The effect of GH treatment is reported to be dose-dependent and doses over 0.23 mg/kg/week are reported to be necessary to improve adult height in non-GHD short children. Currently, the GH dose is fixed at 0.175 mg/kg/week in Japan, and we expected to find, and indeed concluded, that ordinary GH treatment in Japanese, non-GHD short children does not improve adult height."
Weekly dosing bro....weekly dosing, no shit it doesn't improve height when they take around 6 units weekly.
And we see a pattern here, again only one phrase directly in the abstract once again lol.
"We report the effect of growth hormone (GH) treatment for 4 to 10 years in 15 prepubertal non-GH-deficient short children (10 boys, 5 girls, aged 7.4 to 13.2 years). In 7 patients, GH was administered at a dosage of 0.5 U/kg per week (group 1: 4 boys, 3 girls) and in 8 patients (group 2: 6 boys, 2 girls) at a dosage of 1.0 U/kg per week."
PER WEEK.
"We report the effect of growth hormone (GH) treatment for 4 to 10 years in 15 prepubertal non-GH-deficient short children (10 boys, 5 girls, aged 7.4 to 13.2 years). In 7 patients, GH was administered at a dosage of 0.5 U/kg per week (group 1: 4 boys, 3 girls) and in 8 patients (group 2: 6 boys, 2 girls) at a dosage of 1.0 U/kg per week."
PER WEEK.
My Proof For Why It Can Theoretically Work:
Growth hormone directly and indirectly stimulates articular chondrocyte cell growth
The hypertrophic chondrocyte: To be or not to be.
Response of the growth plate of uremic rats to human growth hormone and corticosteroids
Effects of growth hormone treatment on growth plate, bone, and mineral metabolism of young rats with uremia induced by adenine
Effects of GH/IGF axis on bone and cartilage
Growth factor regulation of human growth plate chondrocyte proliferation in vitro
The hypertrophic chondrocyte: To be or not to be.
Response of the growth plate of uremic rats to human growth hormone and corticosteroids
Effects of growth hormone treatment on growth plate, bone, and mineral metabolism of young rats with uremia induced by adenine
Effects of GH/IGF axis on bone and cartilage
Growth factor regulation of human growth plate chondrocyte proliferation in vitro
Fucking hell this was draining to write, disappointing that people need to teach things that should be common sense to others. All of the proof he has of clinical trials is when it's dosed at single digits WEEKLY.
The second paper here is found with ChatGPT as I cropped and pasted above and the second and fourth ones are literally the same one but the second one being the full paper.
"Analogy (for conceptual clarity): Imagine a plant with genetically fixed maximum height. Adequate water and nutrients allow it to reach its potential. Adding more water beyond what it can physiologically use does not make it grow taller; it may even disrupt normal growth processes."
I thought extrapolating from trials done on rats were bad but this guy really compared us to plants.
No bro I don't use ChatGPT!!1! - Ahmed88
Summary
What you should understand from this thread is that .org users apart from most prominent users are mostly retarded (I'm no expection) and have no idea what they're talking about, you should always DYOR and not trust some random stranger on a looksmaxxing forum and even if you do make sure to look into it yourself and fact-check their claims.
Wrote this while starving and exhausted so expect some mistakes to be made and I've skipped over a few parts as it's draining, but new threads of mine are in the works
@Razzz
@gymcelld
@Leo
and others who realised he was a retard, shout out to yall.
Last edited:
