Thanks to special interest groups prejudiced by money from drug companies including the media, human growth  hormone often described and abbreviated as HGH is probably one of the most misunderstood hormones. You can look at YouTube videos by doctors who will tell you HGH is a product you should actually not take because of certain HGH side effects. Then you can find other doctors telling you the marvelous benefits of HGH, so who do you believe and why should you buy HGH? In this  article hopefully we will point you to the substantiation that will make clear the facts from the fiction. More than 28,000 studies from around the world have been reviewed by science writer Carol Kahn and Dr. Ronald Klatz on HGH.It is clearly evident from these studies that basic and clinical research is consistent on the fact that HGH can reverse many of the key aspects of aging. This is especially true of the aging that involves the shrinkage and amplified malfunction of organs such as the skin, heart, liver, brain, bones and so on. There are many clinical trials that show  HGH to cause an age reversal criteria of up to 20 years or more in older people.   Since HGH is so amply validated for its powerful age reversing and disease preventing effects it ought to be no surprise that big money interests that promote drugs  know they will lose loads of money and are behind much if not all of this misrepresentation of the scientific facts.

Some doctors even declare that HGH can bring about cancer and point to certain clinical trials. For example, Samuel S. Epstein, M.D., Professor Environmental Medicine, University of Illinois School of Public Health, Chicago, and Chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition is very disapproving of using any type of HGH. He claims that elevated levels of IGF-I are strongly associated with significantly increased risks of prostate, colon, and breast cancers which he claims are in prestigious peer-reviewed scientific journals. It is unfortunate that he does not actually show these so that we can see if these really exist or apply. Since there are many amply substantiated clinical trials that show otherwise, and some very flawed clinical trials that have been used to assert amplified risk of cancer through HGH therapy, it is incumbent to critically question and investigate if the verification is actually valid against the use of HGH therapy.

Take for example, a study reported in the July 27, 2002 issue of The Lancet in which they propose a link between HGH replacement therapy in cancer. The study is greatly flawed because the hormone that was used was taken from human tissue and this is a practice that was discontinued a long time ago when this kind of hormone was linked with an amplified risk of inducing Creutzfeldt Jakob disease.   Since 1985 patients have been using a synthetically produced human growth hormone that is identical in molecular structure to authentic human growth hormone and therefore bio identical. It is a known fact that bio identical hormones have been very safe and have not shown any verification of escalating cancer risk but rather a  diminishing of it from various studies.The authors of this flawed study emphasizes the need for additional data from other sources and that there needed to be caution in drawing conclusions because very small numbers of patients were used.

There are studies that have been completed in cultures with the use of IGF-I and HGH that have stimulated the growth of cancer and leukemia cells and also other studies that use high doses of HGH in laboratory animals that have induced cancer and tumors. Doctors in contradiction of the use of HGH often point to these kind of studies. According to Pharmacia Upjohn (1998) specific tests that clearly show cancer-causing potential have not being done because this requires that they be completed on chromosomes in living animals and in such tests have not revealed verification of mutation which is the first step in the increase of cancer. Dr. Edmund Chein treated 800 patients with HGH between 1994 and 1996 who were all over 40 which considering their age and the normal incidence rate of cancer means some of them ought to have gotten cancer and yet none did which indicates a protective effect from HGH replacement.