Vindicated!

It’s nice to see the scientific consensus on human growth hormone (HGH) finally reach the general public.

The House Committee that on Wednesday is expected to hear the differing viewpoints of Roger Clemens and Brian McNamee did its pharmacology homework Tuesday, holding a hearing on the “Myths and Facts about Human Growth Hormone, B-12, and Other Substances.”

The consensus from the four doctors who testified: Neither HGH nor vitamin B-12 appears to help athletic performance very much, although much more research is needed on HGH, which also has a litany of unappealing side effects.

“There is no credible scientific evidence that growth hormone substantively increases muscle strength or aerobic exercise capacity in normal individuals,” said Dr. Thomas Perls, director of the New England Centenarian Study at the Boston University of Medicine.

It’s only been ten months since I started my campaign.

7 Responses “Vindicated!”

  1. Jake says:

    I like it! Keep fighting the good fight JC. Now if we could just get this whole Clemens thing off the TV.

  2. Thomas Perls says:

    Thanks so much for your wonderful summary of the meeting.. it is a pleasure to tell the public the real story as opposed to the anti-aging industry’s hucksterism

    Best,

    Tom Perls MD

  3. Terry says:

    Well, it would be nice if everyone read that and came around. Unfortunately, I’m still seeing a lot of denial in blog comments everywhere. It’s hard to prove a negative and I think it will take years and many more studies/articles to change the overwhelming public opinion.

  4. Mark says:

    I’m no doctor and I don’t know much about HGH, but I do know that baseball players have been cheating for a century and then some. The numbers that baseball fans praise so highly are no more “legitimate” than those of the steroid era, nor has the game lost any integrity – there was none to lose.

  5. Greyson says:

    JC: Vindicated may be a little strong, but it is good to see mainstream discussion that suggests we need more data on this subject.

    Mark: There is a huge difference between scuffing a ball or stealing a sign to get a tiny advantage in a game, and pumping yourself full of chemicals and hormones to create or extend a career.

    No one was cheating that way 100 years ago, it just wasn’t worth it, but with the dollars involved now it has gone out of control.

    Jake: The Clemens fiasco, though it may not warrant as much coverage as it gets, is not the most frivolous item on TV these days. There is an issue with fraud here, and it does warrant some attention.

  6. JC says:

    Good grief. If this isn’t vindication, then what is?

  7. Mark says:

    “Mark: There is a huge difference between scuffing a ball or stealing a sign to get a tiny advantage in a game, and pumping yourself full of chemicals and hormones to create or extend a career.

    No one was cheating that way 100 years ago, it just wasn’t worth it, but with the dollars involved now it has gone out of control.”

    The reason no one cheated that way a century ago was because the drugs weren’t available. Let’s try a thought experiment: Imagine you could go back in time and tell Joe DiMaggio that you have a pill, and if he took the pill, he could hit ten more home runs every year. Technically, it’s against the rules of the game, but you won’t tell if he won’t. What do you think Joltin’ Joe will say?