We can't find evidence that holds up here. Proponents are reasoning from mechanism or analogy rather than direct human data, and the most credible skeptics raise objections we can't dismiss.
keep in mind that growth hormone is indiscriminate with respect to which tissues it grows so if you happen have an existing tumor on a given body part or within a given body part it will encourage growth of that tumor as well that's one of the reasons some people are cautious about taking growth hormone
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
I think that there are probably a lot of reasons why growth hormone chronically given exogenously, especially if it's kind of super physiological, could be problematic. If for example, if you have a tumor that is growth hormone or or you know sensitive to growth hormone um and it's already initiated, are you propagating it?