HGH isnt worth 90% of the time

[slavvicularr]

https://journals.lww.com/pedorthopaedics/abstract/2024/04000/the_effect_of_human_growth_hormone_treatment_on.13.aspx

study above shows that children taking HGH had 3.5× higher risk of developing slipped capital femoral epiphysis (SCFE) compared to those not taking HGH

Final height of short normal children treated with growth hormone - PubMed

Long-term therapy in this group of children appears safe but the small increment in final height, approximately 2.8 cm in boys and 2.5 cm in girls, does not justify the widespread use of r-hGH for short normal children.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

this study above shows that its more or less safe BUT shows that growth in normal children is only ~2cm

Short- and long-term (final height) data in children with normal variant short stature treated with growth hormone - PubMed

An increment in height prediction was observed during the first 2 years of GH treatment and maintained thereafter. However, there was only a minor increase in final height over predicted height which does not justify the general use of GH in children with normal variant short stature.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

this study shows the same thing


just food for thought and proof that HGH isnt as good and effective.

I would even say that HGH isnt worth it considering the probable long and short term health problems

 

[JOTAROSON]

https://journals.lww.com/pedorthopaedics/abstract/2024/04000/the_effect_of_human_growth_hormone_treatment_on.13.aspx

Приведенное выше исследование показывает, что у детей, принимавших гормон роста, риск развития эпифизеолиза головки бедренной кости был в 3,5 раза выше по сравнению с детьми, не принимавшими гормон роста.

Final height of short normal children treated with growth hormone - PubMed

Long-term therapy in this group of children appears safe but the small increment in final height, approximately 2.8 cm in boys and 2.5 cm in girls, does not justify the widespread use of r-hGH for short normal children.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Приведенное выше исследование показывает, что это более или менее безопасно, НО показывает, что рост у здоровых детей составляет всего около 2 см.

Short- and long-term (final height) data in children with normal variant short stature treated with growth hormone - PubMed

An increment in height prediction was observed during the first 2 years of GH treatment and maintained thereafter. However, there was only a minor increase in final height over predicted height which does not justify the general use of GH in children with normal variant short stature.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Данное исследование подтверждает то же самое.


Просто пища для размышлений и доказательство того, что гормон роста не так хорош и эффективен.

Я бы даже сказал, что гормон роста не стоит того, учитывая вероятные проблемы со здоровьем как в краткосрочной, так и в долгосрочной перспективе.

Growth hormone is the worst thing to use for growth.

 

[India lover 52]

this u btw?

 

[slavvicularr]

this my hb

this u btw?View attachment 4799834

 

[6footislaw]

can someone ban this fucker already

 

[Zagro]

Wowww good job mate you learnt how to use GPT

 

[Zagro]

“Subcutaneous r-hGH dose ranged between 12.2 and 21.0 U/m2 per week” even if this somehow correlates to daily which isn’t stated anywhere it means like 2-3 units a day

“group 1 (n = 6) 3 IU/m2 per day, group 2 (n = 6) 4.5 IU/m2 per day and group 3 (n=5) 3 IU/m2 per day in the 1st year and 4.5 IU/m2 per day thereafter” 3-4.5 units a day

 

[slavvicularr]

can someone ban this fucker already

View attachment 4799945

niggas when someone states an opinion that doesnt align with their and uses studies to back it up

 

[6footislaw]

niggas when someone states an opinion that doesnt align with their and uses studies to back it up

ok u retarded fucker


look at ur ugly ass face u fucking manelet u fcking retard kys faggot

https://looksmax.org/threads/ahmed88-intellectually-disabled-or-trolling.1889868/page-2#post-27193490

creds to @Zagro






Spoiler: Short and Long-Term Effects of Growth Hormone in Children and Adolescents With GH Deficiency
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.
Spoiler: Use of growth hormone in children
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 .
Spoiler: Recombinant human growth hormone for the treatment of growth disorders in children: a systematic review and economic evaluation
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.
Spoiler: National Cooperative Growth Study: 25 Years of Growth Hormone Data, Insights, and Lessons for Future Registries
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.
Spoiler: Safety and Efficacy of Pediatric Growth Hormone Therapy: Results From the Full KIGS Cohort
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?

Spoiler: Effect of different doses of recombinant human growth hormone therapy on children with growth hormone deficiency: a retrospective observational study
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
Spoiler: Long-term Response to Recombinant Human Growth Hormone Therapy in Indian Children with Growth Hormone Deficiency
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.

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":
Spoiler: Long-term results of growth hormone therapy in children with short stature, subnormal growth rate and normal growth hormone response to secretagogues. Dutch Growth Hormone Working Group
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
Spoiler: THE IMPACT OF DOSAGE ON THE EFFECT OF GROWTH HORMONE THERAPY IN CHILDREN WITH IDIOPATHIC SHORT STATURE
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."
Spoiler: Effect of growth hormone treatment on children with idiopathic short stature and idiopathic growth hormone deficiency
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.
Spoiler: Effect of growth hormone treatment on children with idiopathic short stature (ISS), idiopathic growth hormone deficiency (IGHD), small for gestational age (SGA) and Turner syndrome (TS) in a tertiary care center
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
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:
Spoiler: "Proof" 1
"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.
Spoiler: "Proof' 2
"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.
Spoiler: Final height after growth hormone therapy in non-growth-hormone-deficient children with short stature
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?
Spoiler: No Improvement of Adult Height in Non-growth Hormone (GH) Deficient Short Children with GH Treatment
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.
Spoiler: Final height after growth hormone therapy in non-growth-hormone-deficient children with short stature
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.
My Proof For Why It Can Theoretically Work:
Spoiler: My Proof
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

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.

 

[6footislaw]

I would also try coping when i looked like this dirty fucker

 

[vi24v_]

ok u retarded fucker


look at ur ugly ass face u fucking manelet u fcking retard kys faggot

https://looksmax.org/threads/ahmed88-intellectually-disabled-or-trolling.1889868/page-2#post-27193490

creds to @Zagro






Spoiler: Short and Long-Term Effects of Growth Hormone in Children and Adolescents With GH Deficiency
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.
Spoiler: Use of growth hormone in children
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 .
Spoiler: Recombinant human growth hormone for the treatment of growth disorders in children: a systematic review and economic evaluation
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.
Spoiler: National Cooperative Growth Study: 25 Years of Growth Hormone Data, Insights, and Lessons for Future Registries
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.
Spoiler: Safety and Efficacy of Pediatric Growth Hormone Therapy: Results From the Full KIGS Cohort
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?

Spoiler: Effect of different doses of recombinant human growth hormone therapy on children with growth hormone deficiency: a retrospective observational study
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
Spoiler: Long-term Response to Recombinant Human Growth Hormone Therapy in Indian Children with Growth Hormone Deficiency
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.

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":
Spoiler: Long-term results of growth hormone therapy in children with short stature, subnormal growth rate and normal growth hormone response to secretagogues. Dutch Growth Hormone Working Group
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
Spoiler: THE IMPACT OF DOSAGE ON THE EFFECT OF GROWTH HORMONE THERAPY IN CHILDREN WITH IDIOPATHIC SHORT STATURE
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."
Spoiler: Effect of growth hormone treatment on children with idiopathic short stature and idiopathic growth hormone deficiency
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.
Spoiler: Effect of growth hormone treatment on children with idiopathic short stature (ISS), idiopathic growth hormone deficiency (IGHD), small for gestational age (SGA) and Turner syndrome (TS) in a tertiary care center
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
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:
Spoiler: "Proof" 1
"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.
Spoiler: "Proof' 2
"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.
Spoiler: Final height after growth hormone therapy in non-growth-hormone-deficient children with short stature
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?
Spoiler: No Improvement of Adult Height in Non-growth Hormone (GH) Deficient Short Children with GH Treatment
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.
Spoiler: Final height after growth hormone therapy in non-growth-hormone-deficient children with short stature
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.
My Proof For Why It Can Theoretically Work:
Spoiler: My Proof
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

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.

Nigga wrote a fucking essay inside a thread lmao

 

[slavvicularr]

View attachment 4800029

I would also try coping when i looked like this dirty fucker

i dont look like that but whatever you say folk

 

[6footislaw]

i dont look like that but whatever you say folk

still cant come up w a response u fucker

i hate mfs like u who discourage manlets like urself to take hgh when ur growing

like "yea js stay 5'6 and protect ur health" when it clearly doesnt do anything bad like i stated

fucking retard ur doing devils work

kys fag go delete ur acc

 

[slavvicularr]

still cant come up w a response u fucker

i hate mfs like u who discourage manlets like urself to take hgh when ur growing

like "yea js stay 5'6 and protect ur health" when it clearly doesnt do anything bad like i stated

fucking retard ur doing devils work

kys fag go delete ur acc

"clearly doesnt do anything bad"

The HGH cohort had an increased risk of SCFE compared with the no-HGH cohort (RR: 3.5, 95% CI: 2.073, 5.909, P<0.001) and had an increased hazard of developing SCFE (hazard ratio: 2.627, 95% CI: 1.555, 4.437, P<0.001). Patients with higher exposure to HGH (defined as >10 prescriptions) had an RR of 1.914 (95% CI: 1.160, 3.159, P=0.010) when compared with their counterparts with ≤10 prescriptions.

according to this study

https://journals.lww.com/pedorthopaedics/abstract/2024/04000/the_effect_of_human_growth_hormone_treatment_on.13.aspx

also im not 5'6 im 4'3

 

[6footislaw]

"clearly doesnt do anything bad"

The HGH cohort had an increased risk of SCFE compared with the no-HGH cohort (RR: 3.5, 95% CI: 2.073, 5.909, P<0.001) and had an increased hazard of developing SCFE (hazard ratio: 2.627, 95% CI: 1.555, 4.437, P<0.001). Patients with higher exposure to HGH (defined as >10 prescriptions) had an RR of 1.914 (95% CI: 1.160, 3.159, P=0.010) when compared with their counterparts with ≤10 prescriptions.

according to this study

https://journals.lww.com/pedorthopaedics/abstract/2024/04000/the_effect_of_human_growth_hormone_treatment_on.13.aspx

also im not 5'6 im 4'3

ur so fucking retarded


u js said "chatgpt gimme bad things ab hgh" and it gave u this


Theres 0.17% chance u get SCFE while running hgh

Absolute Risk (HGH): 171 per 100,000 (0.17%).

https://journals.lww.com/pedorthopaedics/abstract/2024/04000/the_effect_of_human_growth_hormone_treatment_on.13.aspx#:~:text=HGH%2C%20growth%20hormone.-,Risk%20of%20SCFE%20With%20HGH%20Administration,be%20seen%20in%20Figure%202.&text=Swipe%20left%20or%20right%20to%20view%20entire%20table.&text=HGH%20indicates%20growth%20hormone;%20SCFE%2C%20slipped%20capital%20femoral%20epiphysis.&text=HGH%20indicates%20growth%20hormone;%20SCFE,SCFE%2C%20slipped%20capital%20femoral%20epiphysis.

all ur studies indicate a lower dose which is around 3-4 iu

“Subcutaneous r-hGH dose ranged between 12.2 and 21.0 U/m2 per week”

“group 1 (n = 6) 3 IU/m2 per day, group 2 (n = 6) 4.5 IU/m2 per day and group 3 (n=5) 3 IU/m2 per day in the 1st year and 4.5 IU/m2 per day thereafter” 3-4 units per day

Lmao

js fucking end urself u manlet

 

[slavvicularr]

ok u retarded fucker


look at ur ugly ass face u fucking manelet u fcking retard kys faggot

https://looksmax.org/threads/ahmed88-intellectually-disabled-or-trolling.1889868/page-2#post-27193490

creds to @Zagro






Spoiler: Short and Long-Term Effects of Growth Hormone in Children and Adolescents With GH Deficiency
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.
Spoiler: Use of growth hormone in children
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 .
Spoiler: Recombinant human growth hormone for the treatment of growth disorders in children: a systematic review and economic evaluation
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.
Spoiler: National Cooperative Growth Study: 25 Years of Growth Hormone Data, Insights, and Lessons for Future Registries
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.
Spoiler: Safety and Efficacy of Pediatric Growth Hormone Therapy: Results From the Full KIGS Cohort
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?

Spoiler: Effect of different doses of recombinant human growth hormone therapy on children with growth hormone deficiency: a retrospective observational study
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
Spoiler: Long-term Response to Recombinant Human Growth Hormone Therapy in Indian Children with Growth Hormone Deficiency
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.

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":
Spoiler: Long-term results of growth hormone therapy in children with short stature, subnormal growth rate and normal growth hormone response to secretagogues. Dutch Growth Hormone Working Group
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
Spoiler: THE IMPACT OF DOSAGE ON THE EFFECT OF GROWTH HORMONE THERAPY IN CHILDREN WITH IDIOPATHIC SHORT STATURE
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."
Spoiler: Effect of growth hormone treatment on children with idiopathic short stature and idiopathic growth hormone deficiency
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.
Spoiler: Effect of growth hormone treatment on children with idiopathic short stature (ISS), idiopathic growth hormone deficiency (IGHD), small for gestational age (SGA) and Turner syndrome (TS) in a tertiary care center
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
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:
Spoiler: "Proof" 1
"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.
Spoiler: "Proof' 2
"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.
Spoiler: Final height after growth hormone therapy in non-growth-hormone-deficient children with short stature
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?
Spoiler: No Improvement of Adult Height in Non-growth Hormone (GH) Deficient Short Children with GH Treatment
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.
Spoiler: Final height after growth hormone therapy in non-growth-hormone-deficient children with short stature
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.
My Proof For Why It Can Theoretically Work:
Spoiler: My Proof
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

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.

youre writing a shitton about dosing and theory, but you're not actually addressing the strongest parts of what I said whichis the safety risks.

one of the main points I brought up was the increased risk of Slipped Capital Femoral Epiphysis (SCFE) in children treated with growth hormone.
the 2024 study from the journal of pediatric orthopaedics reported roughly a 3.5× higher risk of SCFE in children receiving HGH compared to those who weren't.
you literally ignored that shi.

You started talm bout some dosing differences and theoretical shi, but none of that removes the fact that the risk increase exists. Arguing for higher than medical dosing will obviously increase risk, not reduce it.


So unless you can show evidence that higher dosing somehow lowers SCFE risk, im stilll correct


Another issue is your assumption that higher dosing automatically means better final height results, which isnt proven .


Most pediatric endocrinology protocols intentionally use conservative dosing because higher doses are known to increase skeletal maturation speed,risk of joint and growth plate issues and risk of early growth plate closure


You keep saying that studies don't apply because the doses were too low but medical dosing isnt very high for safety reason not just because.


If higher dosing actually produced large height gains safely there would be strong clinical evidence showing it.


You also dismissed multiple studies using reasoning that doesn't make sense

For example:


Saying studies are useless because they include girls doesn't invalidate them. Most pediatric endocrinology research includes both sexes, and results are analyzed statistically.
Saying a study is small or observational doesn't automatically make it worthless -that's common in pediatric research because longterm randomized trials are hard to run and therefore there isnt many or none at all so i cant use it as source
Calling older studies wrong without explaining flaws isn't a real critique either.


Yes — HGH stimulates chondrocyte activity.
Yes — IGF-1 plays a role in bone growth.

But that doesn't automaticaly mean that more GH = more final height because bone maturation and growth plate closure also accelerate under high hormonal stimulation.


That's basic endocrinology.

Also, the claim that genetic height potential is basically meaningless isn't true.

Height prediction models aren't perfect, but genetics still strongly influences: growth plate lifespan and timing of puberty and skeletal maturation

HGH can and usualy will help children who are deficient or medically short, but the evidence for large height increases in normal adolescents is weak.

Most real-world studies in non-deficient or ISS populations show increased short-term growth rate, not large increases in final height and typically only a few centimeters on average

going back to the safety issue since that's the part you're ignoring

The increased risk of SCFE is clinically recognized and not theoretical.
It's one of the known orthopedic complications associated with HGH therapy, especially during rapid growth periods.

So the real question isn't whether HGH affects growth mechanisms since we already know it does.

The real question s are:

How do you explain the documented increase in SCFE risk in GH-treated children?

What high-quality human clinical trials show large final height increases in healthy, non-deficient adolescents using supraphysiological dosing?

Where is the long-term safety data supporting those higher doses?

Because right now, most of your argument depends on theoretical biology, criticism of dosing and dismissal of clinical studies

 

[6footislaw]

one of the main points I brought up was the increased risk of Slipped Capital Femoral Epiphysis (SCFE) in children treated with growth hormone.
the 2024 study from the journal of pediatric orthopaedics reported roughly a 3.5× higher risk of SCFE in children receiving HGH compared to those who weren't.
you literally ignored that shi.

i can literally see the chatgpt in ur shit lmao u fucking retard

ok, u want me to adress that 3.5x elevated risk in childern



even 3.5x risk is absolutely fucking low in children.
Roughly 2 to 13 cases per 100,000 children per year
That’s: 0.002% to 0.013% per year

Apply the 3.5× increase​

Multiply that baseline:


Low end:
2 × 3.5 = 7 per 100,000 → 0.007%
High end:
13 × 3.5 = 45.5 per 100,000 → 0.0455%

the risk is 3.5x higher but its still under 0.5% percent lmfao

Source

A nationwide cohort study of slipped capital femoral epiphysis | Archives of Disease in Childhood

Slipped capital femoral epiphysis: an epidemiological Nationwide study in Italy from 2001 to 2015 - BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders

Background Slipped capital femoral epiphysis (epiphysiolysis of the femoral head, SCFE) is the most common pediatric hip disease in 10–14 years old children. The most used procedure to correct a stable form of SCFE is in situ pinning. Instead, the proper treatment for unstable forms is...

link.springer.com

ur faggot ass got nerfed in height and iq

u fucking retard shoulda picked better parents lmao

 

[Zagro]

youre writing a shitton about dosing and theory, but you're not actually addressing the strongest parts of what I said whichis the safety risks.

one of the main points I brought up was the increased risk of Slipped Capital Femoral Epiphysis (SCFE) in children treated with growth hormone.
the 2024 study from the journal of pediatric orthopaedics reported roughly a 3.5× higher risk of SCFE in children receiving HGH compared to those who weren't.
you literally ignored that shi.

You started talm bout some dosing differences and theoretical shi, but none of that removes the fact that the risk increase exists. Arguing for higher than medical dosing will obviously increase risk, not reduce it.


So unless you can show evidence that higher dosing somehow lowers SCFE risk, im stilll correct


Another issue is your assumption that higher dosing automatically means better final height results, which isnt proven .


Most pediatric endocrinology protocols intentionally use conservative dosing because higher doses are known to increase skeletal maturation speed,risk of joint and growth plate issues and risk of early growth plate closure


You keep saying that studies don't apply because the doses were too low but medical dosing isnt very high for safety reason not just because.


If higher dosing actually produced large height gains safely there would be strong clinical evidence showing it.


You also dismissed multiple studies using reasoning that doesn't make sense

For example:


Saying studies are useless because they include girls doesn't invalidate them. Most pediatric endocrinology research includes both sexes, and results are analyzed statistically.
Saying a study is small or observational doesn't automatically make it worthless -that's common in pediatric research because longterm randomized trials are hard to run and therefore there isnt many or none at all so i cant use it as source
Calling older studies wrong without explaining flaws isn't a real critique either.


Yes — HGH stimulates chondrocyte activity.
Yes — IGF-1 plays a role in bone growth.

But that doesn't automaticaly mean that more GH = more final height because bone maturation and growth plate closure also accelerate under high hormonal stimulation.


That's basic endocrinology.

Also, the claim that genetic height potential is basically meaningless isn't true.

Height prediction models aren't perfect, but genetics still strongly influences: growth plate lifespan and timing of puberty and skeletal maturation

HGH can and usualy will help children who are deficient or medically short, but the evidence for large height increases in normal adolescents is weak.

Most real-world studies in non-deficient or ISS populations show increased short-term growth rate, not large increases in final height and typically only a few centimeters on average

going back to the safety issue since that's the part you're ignoring

The increased risk of SCFE is clinically recognized and not theoretical.
It's one of the known orthopedic complications associated with HGH therapy, especially during rapid growth periods.

So the real question isn't whether HGH affects growth mechanisms since we already know it does.

The real question s are:

How do you explain the documented increase in SCFE risk in GH-treated children?

What high-quality human clinical trials show large final height increases in healthy, non-deficient adolescents using supraphysiological dosing?

Where is the long-term safety data supporting those higher doses?

Because right now, most of your argument depends on theoretical biology, criticism of dosing and dismissal of clinical studies

Do you want me to personally fuck your asshole bitch just give up and close GPT you started copying and pasting shit already

 

[slavvicularr]

Do you want me to personally fuck your asshole bitch just give up and close GPT you started copying and pasting shit already

i didnt but ok buster , adress my points or just dont say anything

 

[vi24v_]

i didnt but ok buster , adress my points or just dont say anything

why the fuck did u reply to me nigga

 

[Ahmed88]

ok u retarded fucker


look at ur ugly ass face u fucking manelet u fcking retard kys faggot

https://looksmax.org/threads/ahmed88-intellectually-disabled-or-trolling.1889868/page-2#post-27193490

creds to @Zagro






Spoiler: Short and Long-Term Effects of Growth Hormone in Children and Adolescents With GH Deficiency
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.
Spoiler: Use of growth hormone in children
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 .
Spoiler: Recombinant human growth hormone for the treatment of growth disorders in children: a systematic review and economic evaluation
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.
Spoiler: National Cooperative Growth Study: 25 Years of Growth Hormone Data, Insights, and Lessons for Future Registries
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.
Spoiler: Safety and Efficacy of Pediatric Growth Hormone Therapy: Results From the Full KIGS Cohort
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?

Spoiler: Effect of different doses of recombinant human growth hormone therapy on children with growth hormone deficiency: a retrospective observational study
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
Spoiler: Long-term Response to Recombinant Human Growth Hormone Therapy in Indian Children with Growth Hormone Deficiency
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.

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":
Spoiler: Long-term results of growth hormone therapy in children with short stature, subnormal growth rate and normal growth hormone response to secretagogues. Dutch Growth Hormone Working Group
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
Spoiler: THE IMPACT OF DOSAGE ON THE EFFECT OF GROWTH HORMONE THERAPY IN CHILDREN WITH IDIOPATHIC SHORT STATURE
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."
Spoiler: Effect of growth hormone treatment on children with idiopathic short stature and idiopathic growth hormone deficiency
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.
Spoiler: Effect of growth hormone treatment on children with idiopathic short stature (ISS), idiopathic growth hormone deficiency (IGHD), small for gestational age (SGA) and Turner syndrome (TS) in a tertiary care center
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
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:
Spoiler: "Proof" 1
"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.
Spoiler: "Proof' 2
"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.
Spoiler: Final height after growth hormone therapy in non-growth-hormone-deficient children with short stature
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?
Spoiler: No Improvement of Adult Height in Non-growth Hormone (GH) Deficient Short Children with GH Treatment
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.
Spoiler: Final height after growth hormone therapy in non-growth-hormone-deficient children with short stature
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.
My Proof For Why It Can Theoretically Work:
Spoiler: My Proof
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

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.

Has basically nothing to do with what he said + retarded faggot didn't even read my replies, kys faggot

 

[slavvicularr]

why the fuck did u reply to me nigga

oopsy daisy i meant to reply to him

 

[6footislaw]

Has basically nothing to do with what he said + retarded faggot didn't even read my replies, kys faggot

he tried to argue me about scfe increase in children and i destroyed him in the fucking argument about how theres sub 0.05 percent chance and now this nigga isnt replying

go celebrate eid and log off the account for me mohammed

 

[Zagro]

i didnt but ok buster , adress my points or just dont say anything

I can debate with GPT myself if i wanted to waste my time on you

You don’t know shit, did you know that adolescents/children treated with rhGH are already a high risk population? They have multiple pituitary deficiencies, they have pre-existing comorbidities, they are 200%+ overweight or underdeveloped and underweight and their organs are defected, do you wanna compare this group to healthy adolescents like us without any medical problems?

Don’t even reply back i have to go take a shit

 

[Ahmed88]

he tried to argue me about scfe increase in children and i destroyed him in the fucking argument about how theres sub 0.05 percent chance and now this nigga isnt replying

go celebrate eid and log off the account for me mohammed

Not only did you use a thread that has basically 0 zero relevance to what he said, to try to seem smart, but you also use a thread thats flawed and tweak it with ai

,,Muhh mohammed" try to come up with arguments without using other peoples thread or ai

 

[slavvicularr]

i can literally see the chatgpt in ur shit lmao u fucking retard

ok, u want me to adress that 3.5x elevated risk in childern



even 3.5x risk is absolutely fucking low in children.
Roughly 2 to 13 cases per 100,000 children per year
That’s: 0.002% to 0.013% per year

Apply the 3.5× increase​

Multiply that baseline:


Low end:
2 × 3.5 = 7 per 100,000 → 0.007%
High end:
13 × 3.5 = 45.5 per 100,000 → 0.0455%

the risk is 3.5x higher but its still under 0.5% percent lmfao

Source

A nationwide cohort study of slipped capital femoral epiphysis | Archives of Disease in Childhood

Slipped capital femoral epiphysis: an epidemiological Nationwide study in Italy from 2001 to 2015 - BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders

Background Slipped capital femoral epiphysis (epiphysiolysis of the femoral head, SCFE) is the most common pediatric hip disease in 10–14 years old children. The most used procedure to correct a stable form of SCFE is in situ pinning. Instead, the proper treatment for unstable forms is...

link.springer.com

ur faggot ass got nerfed in height and iq

u fucking retard shoulda picked better parents lmao

You addressed the SCFE thing but you're interpreting the numbers in a really stupidway.​

​

Yes the baseline rate of slipped capital femoral epiphysis (SCFE) is low, and even after a 3.5× increase it's still under 0.1% annually. Thats correct.​

​

But saying “it's still low so it doesn't matter” is not how risk is evaluated.​

​

A 3.5× increase in risk is clinically significant, especially when we're talking about a condition that often requires surgery and can cause permanent hip damage. SCFE isn't just some minor side effect — it's a serious orthopedic complication.​

​

Also, you're using general population baseline rates, which isn't the right comparison group. SCFE risk is higher during rapid growth phases and in endocrine-treated adolescents — exactly the population HGH users fall into. So using average-child baseline risk underestimates the real-world risk for treated patients.​

​

And even if we accept your numbers, risk isn't the only question because benefit vs risk is.​

Most outcome studies in non-deficient or ISS children show increased growth velocity but relatively small ,final height gains often only a few centimeters​

​

So if the benefit isnt big and the risk includes serious problemslike SCFE, the risk to benefit balance still matters.​

​

Also, none of your replies have actually shown clinical evidence that healthy, non deficient adolescents using supraphysiological HGH reliably achieve large increases in final adult height.​

​

You've talked a lot about dosing theory ,IGF-1 mechanisms and why you think medical doses are too low​

​

But where are the long-term human studies showing major final height increases in healthy adolescents at those higher doses?​

​

Because theory isn't the same as outcome data.​

​

Until there's solid human evidence showing large height gains with good safety arguing for higher dosing just increases risk exposure without providing guarnted benefit in terms of height.​

 

[slavvicularr]

i can literally see the chatgpt in ur shit lmao u fucking retard

ok, u want me to adress that 3.5x elevated risk in childern



even 3.5x risk is absolutely fucking low in children.
Roughly 2 to 13 cases per 100,000 children per year
That’s: 0.002% to 0.013% per year

Apply the 3.5× increase​

Multiply that baseline:


Low end:
2 × 3.5 = 7 per 100,000 → 0.007%
High end:
13 × 3.5 = 45.5 per 100,000 → 0.0455%

the risk is 3.5x higher but its still under 0.5% percent lmfao

Source

A nationwide cohort study of slipped capital femoral epiphysis | Archives of Disease in Childhood

Slipped capital femoral epiphysis: an epidemiological Nationwide study in Italy from 2001 to 2015 - BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders

Background Slipped capital femoral epiphysis (epiphysiolysis of the femoral head, SCFE) is the most common pediatric hip disease in 10–14 years old children. The most used procedure to correct a stable form of SCFE is in situ pinning. Instead, the proper treatment for unstable forms is...

link.springer.com

ur faggot ass got nerfed in height and iq

u fucking retard shoulda picked better parents lmao

also insulting ppl for no reason is a sign of low iq and makes u seem stupid which i believe you are.
also its cope

 

[Zagro]

Not only did you use a thread that has basically 0 zero relevance to what he said, to try to seem smart, but you also use a thread thats flawed and tweak it with ai

,,Muhh mohammed" try to come up with arguments without using other peoples thread or ai

Funny as shit bro

You addressed the SCFE thing but you're interpreting the numbers in a really stupidway.​

​

Yes the baseline rate of slipped capital femoral epiphysis (SCFE) is low, and even after a 3.5× increase it's still under 0.1% annually. Thats correct.​

​

But saying “it's still low so it doesn't matter” is not how risk is evaluated.​

​

A 3.5× increase in risk is clinically significant, especially when we're talking about a condition that often requires surgery and can cause permanent hip damage. SCFE isn't just some minor side effect — it's a serious orthopedic complication.​

​

Also, you're using general population baseline rates, which isn't the right comparison group. SCFE risk is higher during rapid growth phases and in endocrine-treated adolescents — exactly the population HGH users fall into. So using average-child baseline risk underestimates the real-world risk for treated patients.​

Straight copy pasted off GPT holy shit kill yourself please

Why cant we ban the people like you spamming GPT my life would be so much easier holy shit man

 

[Ahmed88]

View attachment 4800236

Funny as shit bro

Straight copy pasted off GPT holy shit kill yourself please

Why cant we ban the people like you spamming GPT my life would be so much easier holy shit man

Keep using the same debunked arguments (even if it was true, it would be quite sad you lost to ai)

 

[slavvicularr]

View attachment 4800236

Funny as shit bro

Straight copy pasted off GPT holy shit kill yourself please

Why cant we ban the people like you spamming GPT my life would be so much easier holy shit man

im not spamming chatgpt . stop coping and adress my points, or just dont reply since ur not even open to the idea of me being correct so this conversatino is useless

 

[Zagro]

I can debate with GPT myself if i wanted to waste my time on you

You don’t know shit, did you know that adolescents/children treated with rhGH are already a high risk population? They have multiple pituitary deficiencies, they have pre-existing comorbidities, they are 200%+ overweight or underdeveloped and underweight and their organs are defected, do you wanna compare this group to healthy adolescents like us without any medical problems?

Don’t even reply back i have to go take a shit

“Subcutaneous r-hGH dose ranged between 12.2 and 21.0 U/m2 per week” even if this somehow correlates to daily which isn’t stated anywhere it means like 2-3 units a day

“group 1 (n = 6) 3 IU/m2 per day, group 2 (n = 6) 4.5 IU/m2 per day and group 3 (n=5) 3 IU/m2 per day in the 1st year and 4.5 IU/m2 per day thereafter” 3-4.5 units a day

im not spamming chatgpt . stop coping and adress my points, or just dont reply since ur not even open to the idea of me being correct so this conversatino is useless

You’re literally avoiding my posts you jeet you’re fucking spamming ai and finding your studies through it, no shit you provided the same exact studies as that donkey-fucker Ahmed

“adolescents — exactly”
“effect — it's a serious”
“a 3.5× increase”
“slipped capital femoral epiphysis (SCFE)”

Blatant GPT usage, @Ghost Philosophy why is there no rule to warn or ban faggots like these, isn’t misinformation enough to warn them or some shit?

 

[Zagro]

Keep using the same debunked arguments (even if it was true, it would be quite sad you lost to ai)

And there you go took you 2-3 months to admit you used ai holy shit i feel so satisfied right now

You didn’t debunk shit i told you to reply to the thread a month ago you still haven’t as you know you will get penetrated deeply by me

 

[slavvicularr]

You’re literally avoiding my posts you jeet you’re fucking spamming ai and finding your studies through it, no shit you provided the same exact studies as that donkey-fucker Ahmed

“adolescents — exactly”
“effect — it's a serious”
“a 3.5× increase”
“slipped capital femoral epiphysis (SCFE)”

Blatant GPT usage, @Ghost Philosophy why is there no rule to warn or ban faggots like these, isn’t misinformation enough to warn them or some shit?

its just an emdash — i use it doesnt mean its AI

 

[Ahmed88]

And there you go took you 2-3 months to admit you used ai holy shit i feel so satisfied right now

Wow you really can't read can you NIGGER

Ahmed88 said: Keep using the same debunked arguments (even if (<----- notice this) it was true, it would be quite sad you lost to ai)

You didn’t debunk shit i told you to reply to the thread a month ago you still haven’t as you know you will get penetrated deeply by me

No you did NOT nigga You kept using some bs excuses

 

[Zagro]

its just an emdash — i use it doesnt mean its AI

Nice one but that still wont save your ass, where is that x on your keyboard I’m so curious, you’re already on ignore so i wont see your replies

Maybe make me mad enough and I’ll waste my time on you

You’re still avoiding my posts retard ahshshhshahahah

 

[Zagro]

Wow you really can't read can you NIGGER

Ahmed88 said: Keep using the same debunked arguments (even if (<----- notice this) it was true, it would be quite sad you lost to ai)



No you did NOT nigga You kept using some bs excuses

You literally know you used ai it’s obvious to understand what you meant, and that takes more than translating the words from arabic to english. Just a little understanding of how people act, you literally implied that i lost to GPT retard

Reply to the thread or keep barking like a dog

 

[slavvicularr]

Nice one but that still wont save your ass, where is that x on your keyboard I’m so curious, you’re already on ignore so i wont see your replies

Maybe make me mad enough and I’ll waste my time on you

You’re still avoiding my posts retard ahshshhshahahah

i type the × on windows by holding alt and pressing 0215but idk if its the same on ur device if u use mac or smth

 

[Zagro]

i type the × on windows by holding alt and pressing 0215but idk if its the same on ur device if u use mac or smth

I really don’t want to waste my time but just wait dude I’ll reply and teach you some things without insulting but please don’t lie about your ai usage atleast or i wont even fucking bother

 

[Ahmed88]

You literally know you used ai it’s obvious to understand what you meant, and that takes more than translating the words from arabic to english. Just a little understanding of how people act, you literally implied that i lost to GPT retard

Reply to the thread or keep barking like a dog

God damn nigga, do i really have to break this down for you like a 5-year-old child?

I was using the phrase “even if” to deliberately imply and construct a hypothetical framework that reinforces the following implication (more or less):, that it would be preferable for you, from a reputational and emotional standpoint, to assume the opponent and your rapist (me) was NOT AI, given that the prospect of losing to a AI would be comparatively more disheartening, disgraceful, exasperating and utterly humiliating

 

[Zagro]

God damn nigga, do i really have to break this down for you like a 5-year-old child?

I was using the phrase “even if” to deliberately imply and construct a hypothetical framework that reinforces the following implication (more or less):, that it would be preferable for you, from a reputational and emotional standpoint, to assume the opponent and your rapist (me) was NOT AI, given that the prospect of losing to a AI would be comparatively more disheartening, disgraceful, exasperating and utterly humiliating

You’re literally translating this exact post from arabic to english with ai bro

 

[slavvicularr]

i can literally see the chatgpt in ur shit lmao u fucking retard

ok, u want me to adress that 3.5x elevated risk in childern



even 3.5x risk is absolutely fucking low in children.
Roughly 2 to 13 cases per 100,000 children per year
That’s: 0.002% to 0.013% per year

Apply the 3.5× increase​

Multiply that baseline:


Low end:
2 × 3.5 = 7 per 100,000 → 0.007%
High end:
13 × 3.5 = 45.5 per 100,000 → 0.0455%

the risk is 3.5x higher but its still under 0.5% percent lmfao

Source

A nationwide cohort study of slipped capital femoral epiphysis | Archives of Disease in Childhood

Slipped capital femoral epiphysis: an epidemiological Nationwide study in Italy from 2001 to 2015 - BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders

Background Slipped capital femoral epiphysis (epiphysiolysis of the femoral head, SCFE) is the most common pediatric hip disease in 10–14 years old children. The most used procedure to correct a stable form of SCFE is in situ pinning. Instead, the proper treatment for unstable forms is...

link.springer.com

ur faggot ass got nerfed in height and iq

u fucking retard shoulda picked better parents lmao

why is folk not replying to what i said

i think hes scared

 

[Centurion_Hunter]

https://journals.lww.com/pedorthopaedics/abstract/2024/04000/the_effect_of_human_growth_hormone_treatment_on.13.aspx

study above shows that children taking HGH had 3.5× higher risk of developing slipped capital femoral epiphysis (SCFE) compared to those not taking HGH

Final height of short normal children treated with growth hormone - PubMed

Long-term therapy in this group of children appears safe but the small increment in final height, approximately 2.8 cm in boys and 2.5 cm in girls, does not justify the widespread use of r-hGH for short normal children.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

this study above shows that its more or less safe BUT shows that growth in normal children is only ~2cm

Short- and long-term (final height) data in children with normal variant short stature treated with growth hormone - PubMed

An increment in height prediction was observed during the first 2 years of GH treatment and maintained thereafter. However, there was only a minor increase in final height over predicted height which does not justify the general use of GH in children with normal variant short stature.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

this study shows the same thing


just food for thought and proof that HGH isnt as good and effective.

I would even say that HGH isnt worth it considering the probable long and short term health problems

I dont care I need my legbone

 

[6footislaw]

You addressed the SCFE thing but you're interpreting the numbers in a really stupidway.​

​

Yes the baseline rate of slipped capital femoral epiphysis (SCFE) is low, and even after a 3.5× increase it's still under 0.1% annually. Thats correct.​

​

But saying “it's still low so it doesn't matter” is not how risk is evaluated.​

​

A 3.5× increase in risk is clinically significant, especially when we're talking about a condition that often requires surgery and can cause permanent hip damage. SCFE isn't just some minor side effect — it's a serious orthopedic complication.​

​

Also, you're using general population baseline rates, which isn't the right comparison group. SCFE risk is higher during rapid growth phases and in endocrine-treated adolescents — exactly the population HGH users fall into. So using average-child baseline risk underestimates the real-world risk for treated patients.​

​

And even if we accept your numbers, risk isn't the only question because benefit vs risk is.​

Most outcome studies in non-deficient or ISS children show increased growth velocity but relatively small ,final height gains often only a few centimeters​

​

So if the benefit isnt big and the risk includes serious problemslike SCFE, the risk to benefit balance still matters.​

​

Also, none of your replies have actually shown clinical evidence that healthy, non deficient adolescents using supraphysiological HGH reliably achieve large increases in final adult height.​

​

You've talked a lot about dosing theory ,IGF-1 mechanisms and why you think medical doses are too low​

​

But where are the long-term human studies showing major final height increases in healthy adolescents at those higher doses?​

​

Because theory isn't the same as outcome data.​

​

Until there's solid human evidence showing large height gains with good safety arguing for higher dosing just increases risk exposure without providing guarnted benefit in terms of height.​

ok give me a percentage

holy chatgpt

give me a percentage on the risk of SCFE on children, go ask chatgpt and come back u faggot

 

[cortisolman2]

so ? what do you reccomend ? how many uis should i take? any recomendtions im 14 5'9 started puberty at 13 53 kg dads bout 6'2

 

[6footislaw]

You’re literally translating this exact post from arabic to english with ai bro

did this nga acc translate transalate arabic to english

 

[slavvicularr]

dont take anything at 14 years old especially if ur 5'9 its above average for ur age
and hgh risks outweigh benefits.

so ? what do you reccomend ? how many uis should i take? any recomendtions im 14 5'9 started puberty at 13 53 kg dads bout 6'2

 

[6footislaw]

so ? what do you reccomend ? how many uis should i take? any recomendtions im 14 5'9 started puberty at 13 53 kg dads bout 6'2

do not listen to this fucker he will tell u to take none

hes a manlet himself go to some other thread

 

[slavvicularr]

ok give me a percentage

holy chatgpt

give me a percentage on the risk of SCFE on children, go ask chatgpt and come back u faggot

how about your retarded self adresses the points i made instead of telling me to do shit

 

[cortisolman2]

dont take anything at 14 years old especially if ur 5'9 its above average for ur age
and hgh risks outweigh benefit

do not listen to this fucker he will tell u to take none

hes a manlet himself go to some other thread

ig im goign to reaserch this on my own

 

[slavvicularr]

do not listen to this fucker he will tell u to take none

hes a manlet himself go to some other thread

how tall are you buddy