HGH creating cancer not just accelerating

[Broo]

I first readed lot of info that hgh does not create but accelerate te proces of tumor grow. But after reading alot of post and some pubmed research. I understand I really highers te risk because of more change of your body not "shutting" the bad cells down.

After alot of post and information about gh and igf i am getting more and more concered about the cancers risk. My biggest concern is the raising in igf levels from hgh use and all new research coming on high igf levels and cancer.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12417786

But with research you always have the other side:

http://biorenew.com/hgh_studies

I have been using HGH for a year now at 5 days on 2 days of. I am doing some modeling for fitness ads and using it manly for health, skin and atletic appearence. I am dosing at 2iu.

I understand high dosing (above "youth" levels") increase the risk of tumor grow, but is a replacement dose also a problem?

What i find so strange lot of cancers apears when people get older, but then are igf levels lower imune system is weaker etc, hgh keeps those at youthfull levels so should give the opposite effect in "theory"

Looking for some feedback.

[MaNiCC]

Could you post the links to the articles you read?

[Broo]

I edited them in, i will post some more information and studies later in the evening. Long hgh use increase igf-f levels what more and more research is suggesting that high igf levels are not capable of "shutting down" the cancer cells your body always makes but also "normaly" destroys.

Everywhere you always read, no it does not create cancer of tumor grow. But if high igf levels are creating more cancer risk it does increase your chance in getting it when otherwise your body would have "killed" the bad cells.

[Broo]

More info from one of the most intresting and underbuild post from datbtrue:

Certain tumors hi-jack the cellular machinery and secrete GH or IGF-1 and use it to grow and break existing boundaries into other tissue. The cutting edge research is in antagonists for GH, for GHRH, for IGF-1.

What they found is that designing highly specific ligands that bind to GH-receptors in the cancerous tissue in such a way as to block them, results in tumor shrinkage. They are taking away the tumors ability to grow...

Often the tumor shrinks to such a degree that chemotherapy can then be used to eliminate the cancer. These two therapies have proven very effective in all types of cancers even hard to reach lung & brain. The trick is in making delivery vehicles that will target the cancerous region rather then all the other tissue in the body.

The best clinical studies were breast cancer studies which demonstrated total remissions after the use of both therapies. This of course was for the types of cancers that behave as described herein.

Life extension studies using calorie restriction or EOD fasting has demonstrated (so many things) but one is that such states reduce circulating IGF-1. You see the part that is deadly ...the part that reduces life span ...the part that can result in cancers is the intracelluar events that slowly accumulate damage. A fuller explanation & illustrations can be found in my thread at: A complete understanding of IGF-1 & its potential influence on cancer & longevity

I see so many times a post where someone states "IGF-1 can not cause cancer it can only make it grow if it already exists". It makes people feel better to say such things I suppose...

...but a statement like that hints not one bit at understanding that their are states know as pre-cancerous states occurring routinely in our bodies. Many times a tumor suppressor such as P53 will be able to act and shutdown the cell before such states become cancerous. There are a great many factors that operate in our body...

...one theory is that cancers happen fairly routinely and our body often destroys them before they become serious.

Flooding the body with high levels of IGF-1 could conceivably give enough early fuel to these states so as to overwhelm our routine defenses.

Anyway...

IGF-1 LR3 is obviously risky....there are no concurrent binding protein checks.

IGF-1 created naturally (from GH's effects) also comes with an increase in binding proteins which will control how IGF-1 is to be used that is less risky.

Large amounts of GH which sustain high levels of IGF-1 are more dangerous then low "youthful replacement" doses. In fact high levels of circulating IGF-1 is positively correlated with cancer incidence.

Probably, natural pulse creation or increase in tone (i.e. release profile) from GHRPs & GHRH will be the least dangerous at low/mod doses.

[Broo]

Also from datbtrue:

Figure 3 think really helps us understand "how IGF-1 can increase cancers".

Figure 3. Model of the influence of insulin -like growth factor 1 signalling on the stepwise accumulation of somatic-cell genetic damage in carcinogenesis. The model of stepwise accumulation of genetic damage leading to carcinogenesis can be extended to include influences of insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF1) signalling. These include favouring cellular proliferation over arrest and cellular survival over apoptosis. This model provides a preliminary biological framework to account for the observed association of higher levels of IGF1, or IGF1 receptor (IGF1R) activation, with cancer risk in epidemiological and laboratory studies. The model predicts that stepwise accumulation of genetic damage is facilitated in individuals with higher IGF1 levels because in these individuals there is a slightly higher rate of cell division (increasing the risk of errors) and, perhaps more importantly, because the probability of appropriate apoptosis of cells with a small number of 'hits' would be slightly reduced in a microenvironment with higher levels of IGF1R activation. The figure greatly exaggerates the magnitude of the hypothesized differences between 'high IGF' and 'low IGF' individuals in proliferation and apoptosis for purposes of illustration. Very small differences in these parameters, if applied to the very large renewing cell populations of organs such as the colon over a timespan of decades could influence the probability of emergence of a fully transformed clone. Colours indicate the following: yellow, normal cells; pale blue, cells containing one mutation or hit; dark blue, cells containing two mutations or hits; purple, apoptotic cells.

http://www.medscape.com/content/2004...83288_fig.html

[Broo]

And the othter side of the story from my own research in bold the conclusion:

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/co...full/166/5/518

ABSTRACT


Although numerous studies have explored the relation of insulin -like growth factor (IGF)-I and IGF-binding protein (BP) 3 with cancer and cardiovascular disease, only two previous studies are known to have looked at the association of IGF-I and IGF-BP3 with risk of mortality. The objective of this US study was to examine the risk of all-cause, heart disease, and cancer mortality associated with IGF-I and IGF-BP3 levels using data from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III) and NHANES III Mortality Study (n = 6,061) (1988–2000). The authors constructed proportional hazards models with age as the time scale to determine the association of baseline IGF-I and IGF-BP3 levels with subsequent mortality. After adjustment for baseline measures, there was no increased risk of all-cause, heart disease, or cancer mortality for the lower quartiles of IGF-I compared with the highest quartile. The adjusted relative hazard of all-cause mortality for the lowest quartile of IGF-BP3 compared with the highest quartile was 1.57 (95% confidence interval: 0.98, 2.52), and the trend for risk was significant (p = 0.0364), but there was no increased risk of heart disease or cancer mortality. Results suggest that the association of IGF-I and IGF-BP3 with mortality may differ from associations with incidence of disease.


heart diseases; insulin-like growth factor I; insulin-like growth factor binding protein 3; mortality; neoplasms; nutrition surveys

More:

http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/con...ract/94/5/1732

Results: Adjusted analyses revealed that men with low but not high IGF-I levels had an almost 2-fold higher risk of all-cause mortality [hazard ratio (HR) 1.92 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.35; 2.73)], CVD mortality [HR 1.92 (95% CI 1.00; 3.71)], and cancer mortality [HR 1.85 (95% CI 1.00; 3.45)] compared with men with normal IGF-I levels. In women, no association between IGF-I and mortality was found. Moreover, low IGFBP-3 levels were associated with higher all-cause mortality in men [HR 1.87 (95% CI 1.31; 2.64)] and women [HR 1.63 (95% CI 0.96; 2.76)].

[fossilfuel7]

I just wanted to further add to the studies posted by here with an interesting little article I found.

Human Growth Hormone (HGH)

IGF-1 and Prostate Cancer: An Insubstantial Link
Dr. Dorman and James Jamieson

A study headed by June Chan at Harvard University links the growth protein insulin -like growth factor type-1 (IGF-1) with prostate cancer, but many health professionals caution against drawing quick conclusions. Methods used by Chan to assess this risk, including adjustment for other prostate cancer risk factors like smoking and the cancer-protective protein IGFBP-3, lead to questions regarding the accuracy of the conclusions drawn from this study. According to growth hormone clinical researcher Dr. L.E. Dorman, "In my experience, PSA [a widely accepted marker for prostate cancer] levels consistently drop 50% over a period of a month or two of growth hormone secretagogue therapy." Growth hormone--popularized for its anti-aging effects--works by stimulating IGF-1 production.

Dorman, the co-author of Growth Hormone: Reversing Human Aging Naturally, also points out that IGF-1 is produced by cells of the immune system, which may be stimulated in the presence of cancer. "To conclude that IGF-1 stimulates the initiation of prostate cancer goes against everything that we know about its positive effects on the immune system, which protects against cancer. To make any substantial conclusions about the effects of these hormones on prostate cancer, a study should include the use of growth hormone therapy with prostate cancer patients."

Dr. L. Cass Terry, a long-time researcher of growth hormone notes the complete lack of cancer incidence in any of his growth hormone treated patients, "With 800 people over the age of about 40, you would think that given the normal incidence rate of cancer, some of these people would get cancer. It could be that there is some sort of protective effect from growth hormone replacement". Terry and his associate Dr. Edmund Chein report the results of growth hormone treatment on a man who came to them with prostate cancer, indicating that without any usual forms of treatment like surgery, the patients' levels dropped from the 50 to 60 range down to 5 to 7 (men with prostate cancer usually show levels of PSA in the 10 to 20 range). It has been hypothesized that these effects come from stimulatory effects on the immune system that result from growth hormone therapy.

Pharmacologist James Jamieson, who headed the development of a growth hormone secretagogue, notes the importance of using growth hormone therapy in a way that keeps IGF-1 within a healthy range. "When stimulated to release growth hormone, the body has mechanisms that typically keep IGF-1 within a normal range."

[ScotchGuard]

When I was on my Sustanon 250 cycle I noticed that my prostate enlarged a bit. I've been on HGH only for 6 months now and my prostate size had decreased to the original size (approximately, I didn't want my Doc digging around back there).

[carteblanche08865]

Hey Broo,
I saw that you included skin as a reason for hgh. Has it improved at all? Are you talking about acne, wrinkles, stretch marks etc. or something else? Let me know, I was going to get into peptides soon and many dont mention anything on skin. thanks

[Broo]

@ fossifuel, thanks for your input going to read the whole study.

Scotchguard nice info from real life all research info is really contradicting.

Carteblanche, In my buisness skin and look is everything, so people really watch it. My skin has really got a nice glow to it after a fews months of use. Its really is tight around the muscle. My skin is all egal again that before somethimes we needed some make up or other things to keep down bad spots or red/irritated places. Wrinkles i have not really notice yet but i am in my late 20ties so its not really a concern.

[PK-V]

interesting stuff guys

posting for later reading

[Kata Gatame]

It makes no sense to say that GH can create cancer, how is that even possible? Wouldn't it be the exact opposite?

[carteblanche08865]

Thanks for the reply broo. I have some stretch marks that are slowly going away and was just wondering about that. Is it possible that too high a dose can increase igf-1 too high and be carcinogenic that way? I really don't know, just thinking out loud.

[abstrack]

It makes no sense to say that GH can create cancer, how is that even possible? Wouldn't it be the exact opposite?

I have no clue either. The title of the thread states that HGH is creating cancer. All the copy & pasted articles directly say that there is no evidence. HGH can accelerate growth in all cells. If you have cancer! IF YOU HAVE IT! it can aid in growing the carcinoma.

HGH in itself as a hormone. Does not create cancer by itself.

[Broo]

Abstrack and others thats only the conclusion almost "everybody" makes. But its only 1 side of story. If you look carefully at the first post some quotes and extra info from in in bold.

Quote:

I see so many times a post where someone states "IGF-1 can not cause cancer it can only make it grow if it already exists". It makes people feel better to say such things I suppose...

...but a statement like that hints not one bit at understanding that their are states know as pre-cancerous states occurring routinely in our bodies. Many times a tumor suppressor such as P53 will be able to act and shutdown the cell before such states become cancerous. There are a great many factors that operate in our body...

...one theory is that cancers happen fairly routinely and our body often destroys them before they become serious.

Flooding the body with high levels of IGF-1 could conceivably give enough early fuel to these states so as to overwhelm our routine defenses.

Please look at this figure and the wright up with it. HGH gives high Igf levels...

http://www.medscape.com/content/2004...83288_fig.html

Last week, the researchers announced that, in a six-year study of 32,826 nurses, those with the highest levels of IGF-1 had a two-and- a-half times greater risk of colorectal cancer. High levels of IGF binding protein-3 (IGFBP-3) produced the opposite effect.

The week before, another group from the same laboratory reported in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute that a study of 14,916 male physicians concluded that men run the same risk. In the case of those with the highest IGF-1 and lowest IGFBP-3, the relative risk of colorectal cancer rose fourfold, after accounting for differences in weight, height, alcohol intake, and other known risk factors.

[abstrack]

Anytime there may be a predetermined condition either already developed or undeveloped, the addition of HGH or IGF-1 from a exogenous source will run the risk of creating an environment that runs a greater risk of excelling any type of growth. Cell division increases. Thats the job of HGH & IGF. To increase new cell division.

To say that the hormone itself is creating itself into a cancer is not the case as the member before me could not comprehend this ideology.

The bold statements further just tell me that elevated IGF levels contribute to a greater risk of cancer, not that IGF turns into cancer. We already know that elevated levels of HGH or IGF further increases cell division/rate of.

[Broo]

Anytime there may be a predetermined condition either already developed or undeveloped, the addition of HGH or IGF-1 from a exogenous source will run the risk of creating an environment that runs a greater risk of excelling any type of growth. Cell division increases. Thats the job of HGH & IGF. To increase new cell division.

To say that the hormone itself is creating itself into a cancer is not the case as the member before me could not comprehend this ideology.

The bold statements further just tell me that elevated IGF levels contribute to a greater risk of cancer, not that IGF turns into cancer. We already know that elevated levels of HGH or IGF further increases cell division/rate of.

I think we are saying the same thing, I am not suggesting IGF turn into cancer. I am saying high IGF levels increase the risk of getting cancer.

Always when sombody ask this you read "no it does not give you cancer, it only accelerate if you have it" so lot of people read that like its no problem. But above info(one side) is suggesting it does increase the change of getting it , what also can be names as creating something your body otherwise would have shut down.

[fossilfuel7]

Also I am posting this video I found which kind of starts off boring..but def watch the last half.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24Ra7XEcRRY