The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
even when you look at extreme cases which are basically athletes who use you know growth hormone is the most abused drug in all of sports because we don't have a test for it um you'd think that the the more the morgue of athletes would be much bigger
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.
if you buy hook line and sinker the argument that more growth hormone equals more igf equals more mortality and you look at how much growth hormone is being used i mean it is hands down the most abused drug in sports it's like it's first second third nobody's even within the zip code yeah and this is going back 35 maybe 40 years probably to the early 80s where are the bodies yeah like there need to be more bodies
given how many people are taking growth hormone and it is quite ubiquitous and especially in sports which I think we'll talk about if there are really serious consequences to its use even chronically I feel like epidemiology would give us that answer.