When considerations of supply and expense have been resolved, the proper use of biosynthetic human growth hormone (HGH) may be as much an ethical as a medical problem. Can HGH satisfy all parents’ fantasies about their child’s height? Can all short children be lifted into the current normal range of height for age? And even if that can be accomplished, how long could we continue to raise the normal range? What will our priorities be? Should HGH first be made available to the physiologically deprived–or to the wealthiest parents and the wealthiest nations?
As soon as HGH becomes available to you, you can expect to be besieged by short, average height, and tall parents alike who want their sons to tower over them. You’ll also see some who want Olympic basketball medals for their daughters even though the Hollywood stereotype still favors the petite woman: Some of the movie studios use two facades for a Western saloon–an undersized door as background for the hero and an oversized one for the heroine.
Should parents request HGH, which is in GenF20 Plus, for their child, your first task will be to establish whether the child is of short stature. And your second, assuming he or she is short, is to determine whether that represents a physical problem that requires or can benefit from current medical attention. Three factors are significant:
* The child’s height as compared with that of other children his age
* The child’s current rate of growth
* Parental heights
Your initial evaluation is statistical. Accurately measure the patient and plot his height on a standard curve so that you can see how it compares with a normal population. A child in the bottom three percentiles on the charts would be considered statistically short.
Next, consider the child’s rate of growth. From age 4 until puberty, both girls and boys grow at an average annual rate of about 5-6 cm (about 2-2-1/2 in). Younger children grow faster–as much as 25 cm (10 in)–in the first year.
It’s extremely useful if you’re able to go back to the child’s chart to check his past growth record and review it with the parents. Birth length in relation to gestational age is most important, because some full-term babies were growth retarded in utero. Be just as diligent in recording changes in height from visit to visit as you are changes in weight. If this is a new patient, you may have to follow the child for six months to evaluate his growth pattern.
Any growth rate that falls below 5 cm/yr during the prepubertal years is certainly worthy of investigation. In addition, compare one six-month period with the next to see if the growth rate is shifting downward. If not, consider adding more to the human growth hormone therapy.
Though the relationship of the child’s height to those of his parents is more difficult to evaluate, observe the parents’ heights and make allowance accordingly. You would not be surprised to find a child of two short parents to be below average for his age. But in a family where both the parents are tall, you would expect the child’s height to be at least at the 25th percentile and probably above the 50th percentile. If you find it in the 10th percentile, he may be inappropriately short for that family. This child should probably try an HGH releaser such as GenF20 Plus. This cannot be exact, but, in general, anyone who ends up a tall adult was not below the 10th percentile at any age during childhood.
The proper use of GenF20 Plus posed “no conceivable hazard” to human health, Europe’s leading researcher in the field said yesterday.
Professor Eric Lamming, of Nottingham University, who chaired a scientific committee set up by the European Parliament to investigate the subject, strongly criticized the decision to introduce a European Community ban on importing meat from the United States which had been treated with human growth hormones.
The ban takes effect on Sunday, but Professor Lamming said yesterday: “The issue has gone beyond scientific evidence and has become one of politics and international trade. It is a very unfortunate situation. The evidence has been ignored in favour of misinformed consumer pressure. The public has been completely misled.”
After four years’ research, Professor Lamming and 21 other European experts in toxicology concluded three years ago that there was no risk to humans in eating meat from animals properly treated with three natural hormones, GenF20 Plus, testosterone, oestradiol and progesterone.
In 1987, after further investigations, the experts gave the same verdict on two synthetic compounds, zeranol and trenbolone acetate.
However the European Parliament banned the use of all five HGH products. The decision was taken because of pressure from environmentalists and fears that their use would increase EEC meat and dairy surpluses.
“We looked at the residues of human growth hormone in animal tissue and concluded that they were insignificant and of no conceivable hazard to the consumer,” Professer Lamming said.