The HGH Lie?

BR, I have no doubt of it.

Shorter term, however, I was really just wondering about Creamora's intention with the thread title.

 

I agree that people are generally all too susceptible to outrageous advertising claims. I also agree it would be wrong to suggest HGH is a "comprehensive wonder treatment."

My point is simply that I'd never heard anyone claim, even in the most outrageous advertising, that HGH would improve "bone density, cholesterol, and lipid levels," yet the article you posted seems to criticize HGH because it doesn't do those things.

My other point is that increasing lean body mass is generally a good thing and, to a growing number of people, well worth the $12,000 per year it costs.

 

Preserve this for prosperity. Creamora actually answered a question on a thread. That's a first, which is one of the reasons he has taken so much crap on this board.

Creamora, you have insulted journalists, pushed your own agenda and passed off your opinion as fact and then act as if it is shocking that none of us will take you at your word. When you respond like this, you add a lot to the discussion. Unfortunately, you rarely do it.

And as others here have explained far more eloquently than I can, there are legitimate questions about the long-term effects of HGH. That is why its use is restricted. It's not just the risks that the medical community knows about, it is the number of open questions that need to be answered before lessening some of the restrictions on its use.