Duncan -- Fyi re: HGH and breast cancer

April 10, 2008

I asked the Love Foundation (preeminent authority on breasat

cancer here in the US) about your answer to me about the safety of

hgh which was " most HGH proponents nowadays are doctors, including

the scientific advisory board and the inventor of SomaLife gHP.

Next, we have the body builders and anti-agers. None have the

problem with cancer that your doctor thinks; actually the reverse is

true. There was indeed a single study that was exposed as flawed

very early on in the research, after which there were dozens of

proper studies that showed increased youth markers and no cancer

connection. It's too bad (for both of you?) that your doctor didn't

bother to stay current, yet still advises people incorrectly.

It's no big deal and pretty common with doctors. "

Their answer was the following:

" Hello-Thank you for contacting the Dr. Love Research

Foundation Website ... HGH is a controversial topic. The internet

and anitaging groups are big proponents but in the academic world it

is still viewed with much caution unless one has a genetic

abnormality or deficiency. While children with hGH deficiency do

not seem to be getting cancer the numbers are small and they had a

deficiency to begin with. Children with childhood cancers treated

with hGH to maximize growth are now getting second cancers,

including breast. A recent view showed a number of studies

confirming the role of hGH in breast cancer in particular when the

breast itself makes too much of its own hGH. Now there does seem to

be one study that showed men who took hGH did not have an increased

rate of prostate cancer but I'm not sure how the study was

conducted. HGH stops cell death – good cells and bad cells so I

would be a bit leery. "

April 10, 2008

lionandlamb3, you're not up to speed enough to debate HGH therapy;

I've been doiung it since 1991 with my family, and since 2000 with

others. I know the work

The science of HGH therapy is more clear than some people think;

the " academic world " you mention arrived at it, and it's a shame that

some doctors and others who fancy themselves to be academic are about

15-20 years behind the science. Did you know that drug company

representatives, not science, continues to educate most doctors after

they start practice? Obviously, drug companies are not interested in

health, and health is not what they are teaching. My own doctor

agrees. I vote to go with the movers in the health field, not the

herd mentality with the pharmaceutical " cattle drivers " .

I've been hearing on the radio that children with cancer have a one

in four reoccurrence without HGH therapy. That's pretty high.

HGH tends to prevent cell death all right, but while there is no

evidence that HGH causes cancer to grow any faster, there is evidence

that it prevents it. 'Nuff said!

Duncan

>

> I asked the Love Foundation (preeminent authority on breasat

> cancer here in the US) about your answer to me about the safety of

> hgh which was " most HGH proponents nowadays are doctors, including

> the scientific advisory board and the inventor of SomaLife gHP.

> Next, we have the body builders and anti-agers. None have the

> problem with cancer that your doctor thinks; actually the reverse is

> true. There was indeed a single study that was exposed as flawed

> very early on in the research, after which there were dozens of

> proper studies that showed increased youth markers and no cancer

> connection. It's too bad (for both of you?) that your doctor didn't

> bother to stay current, yet still advises people incorrectly.

> It's no big deal and pretty common with doctors. "

>

> Their answer was the following:

>

> " Hello-Thank you for contacting the Dr. Love Research

> Foundation Website ... HGH is a controversial topic. The internet

> and anitaging groups are big proponents but in the academic world it

> is still viewed with much caution unless one has a genetic

> abnormality or deficiency. While children with hGH deficiency do

> not seem to be getting cancer the numbers are small and they had a

> deficiency to begin with. Children with childhood cancers treated

> with hGH to maximize growth are now getting second cancers,

> including breast. A recent view showed a number of studies

> confirming the role of hGH in breast cancer in particular when the

> breast itself makes too much of its own hGH. Now there does seem to

> be one study that showed men who took hGH did not have an increased

> rate of prostate cancer but I'm not sure how the study was

> conducted. HGH stops cell death – good cells and bad cells so I

> would be a bit leery. "

>

April 10, 2008

The " authority " on breast cancer below seems very much behind

the times, and sure seems to be dangerously misleading folks. This is

a prime example of why I do not place faith or trust in any

" authority " but do my own snooping to find a cadre of people who seem

to point to real advice based on modern research (Duncan is a prime

example). Then I cogitate, question, discuss, and come to my own

conclusions. Some of my advisers annoy me in some areas (like Doc

Mercola, for example), but yet are useful in other areas.

Using dietary supplements to stimulate one's own HGH

production seems to me to be much safer than injecting HGH directly.

The nay-sayers either miss this point, or don't care to examine their

prejudices. Either way, people who are swayed by " authorities " risk

their lives by doing so. And the " authorities " never get put on trial

for giving out advice which kills people.

To me, it all boils down to answering the question posed to

candidates for initiation in a metaphysical society I joined over 25

years ago:

" In times of difficulty and danger in whom do you place your trust? "

Alobar

On 4/10/08, lionandlamb3 <lionandlamb3@...> wrote: