HGH controversies

Controversies regarding the use of human growth hormone (HGH) as treatment method have centered on the claims, products, and businesses related to the use of growth hormone as an anti-aging therapy. Most of these controversies fall into two categories:

Off-label prescribing of HGH may be illegal under amendments to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act made in 1990.

A study was published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 1990 by Rudman et al., which showed fat loss, muscle mass increase and maintenance of healthy skin from the administration of growth hormone in twelve elderly men. Despite the fact the authors at no time claimed that GH had reversed the aging process itself, their results were misinterpreted as indicating that GH is an effective anti-aging agent. This study, and others, has led to organizations such as the controversial American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine promoting the use of this hormone as an "anti-aging agent".

Additionally, companies selling dietary supplements have websites selling products that claim to be linked to GH in the advertising text, with medical-sounding names described as "HGH Releasers". Typical ingredients include amino acids, minerals, vitamins, and/or herbal extracts, the combination of which are described as causing the body to make more GH with corresponding beneficial effects. In the United States, because these products are marketed as dietary supplements it is illegal for them to contain GH, which is a drug. Also, under United States law, products sold as dietary supplements cannot have claims that the supplement treats or prevents any disease or condition, and the advertising material must contain a statement that the health claims are not approved by the FDA. The FTC and the FDA do enforce the law when they become aware of violations.

As a result of the reactions to the 1990 article and its frequent citation by proponents of HGH as an anti-aging agent, in 2003 the NEJM published two articles that came out strongly and clearly stating that there was insufficient medical and scientific evidence to support use of HGH as anti-aging drug. One article was written by the Journal's then-current editor in chief, Jeffrey M. Drazen, M.D. and was entitled, "Inappropriate Advertising of Dietary Supplements". It focused mostly on the advertising of dietary supplements. The other article was written by the editor-in-chief at the time the 1990 article was published, Mary Lee Vance, M.D., and was entitled, "Can Growth Hormone Prevent Aging?"; it focused more on the medical issues around whether there was sufficient evidence to use HGH as an anti-aging agent.

...
Wikipedia