Journal of the American Medical Association calls the off-label practice of prescribing GH as an anti-aging, hormone replacement, or age management treatment is illegal.
Comments?
Comments?
MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
Prestigious Medical Journal states Growth Hormone Illegal for Anti-aging
- Thread starter Millard
- Start date
If any students or medical professionals have access to JAMA, could you please email me the full-text PDF for my reference?
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/294/16/2086
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/294/16/2086
JAMA also fills doctor's heads with misinformation about testosterone and prostate cancer. While burying reports about the benefits of adequate testosterone, as well as GH to cardiovascular function, osteoporosis, mental health and now autoimmune diseases. They also lied about and concealed the effects of testosterone on muscles. In my book, they are no longer credible. I do not know who they serve. It is definitely not me. It seems that they are beholden to the DEA and the pharmaceutical industry. GH and testosterone are the two drugs that prevent disease and disability. Tapdancing around the symptoms of hypogonadism and GH deficiency ensures a sick patient, rich doctor and a good bottom line for the drug companies. Politics and greed are the real reason why JAMA opposes effective and safe HRT protocols. The DEA does not want my doctors to prescribe HRT because of the sports lobby. My doctors do not want to prescribe HRT because I will not need Viagra, Prozac, Celebrex and heaven knows what else. A 1/2 cc shot of test replaces all of that for pennies.
Last edited:
ciobl
New Member
Anti-Aging Doctors Sue Professors
Heard the one about the professor who jokingly gave the two osteopathic physicians a bottle of snake oil? Well, they didn’t think it was funny.In fact, the co-founders of the Chicago-based American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine (A4M) decided to sue S. Jay Olshansky, professor of epidemiology at the University of Illinois at Chicago, and Thomas Perls, associate professor of geriatrics at Boston University, for $240 million. According to the defamation complaint filed in an Illinois court, Olshansky and Perls conspired to undermine A4M’s scientific credibility and in turn to harm the business prospects of Ronald Klatz and Robert Goldman, the two founders. The result, according to the complaint, was several professional disappointments, including the loss of a $20 million contract for Medical Development Management, an Illinois corporation in which Klatz and Goldman are the principal shareholders.
The University of Illinois at Chicago is backing its professor in the case, and footing the legal bill. “The university has become involved because it is an issue of academic freedom,” said Bill Burton, a spokesman. “Professor Olshansky is doing his job … to search for the truth and speak it. That is the purpose of a research university. The university is defending its purpose.”
http://insidehighered.com/news/2005/06/21/suit
Heard the one about the professor who jokingly gave the two osteopathic physicians a bottle of snake oil? Well, they didn’t think it was funny.In fact, the co-founders of the Chicago-based American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine (A4M) decided to sue S. Jay Olshansky, professor of epidemiology at the University of Illinois at Chicago, and Thomas Perls, associate professor of geriatrics at Boston University, for $240 million. According to the defamation complaint filed in an Illinois court, Olshansky and Perls conspired to undermine A4M’s scientific credibility and in turn to harm the business prospects of Ronald Klatz and Robert Goldman, the two founders. The result, according to the complaint, was several professional disappointments, including the loss of a $20 million contract for Medical Development Management, an Illinois corporation in which Klatz and Goldman are the principal shareholders.
The University of Illinois at Chicago is backing its professor in the case, and footing the legal bill. “The university has become involved because it is an issue of academic freedom,” said Bill Burton, a spokesman. “Professor Olshansky is doing his job … to search for the truth and speak it. That is the purpose of a research university. The university is defending its purpose.”
http://insidehighered.com/news/2005/06/21/suit
mranak said:
The frivolity of the lawsuit is as bad or worse than the JAMA article.
Was this lawsuit thrown out by the judge? It does NOT seem well-advised for entrepreneurs to sue researchers and academia for expressing opinions and publishing articles that are contrary to their financial interests.
mranak said:
How about a doctor who is a lawyer?! This is probably why he was able to submit the piece to JAMA regarding issues of law.
Sadly, even though JAMA is not a law journal nor a recognized authority on legal issues as far as I know, doctors around the country will now be more reluctant to prescribe GH as a result
ciobl
New Member
there are two undeniable facts lying on the surface of this situation :
-these two doctors are impeding any advancement a group of professionals have succesfully acomplished on the hormonal rebalance of individuals by employing in the middle of medical bureacracy the science, as put by Shippen's, that " resistance in its overwhelming face has no excuse ".
How many endocrinologists and urologists have obstructed any possible aspirations to born-ill patients or those that later in life have acquired symptoms that are nonetheless early stages of degenerative diseases manifestations ?
Let's start by asking every one of these members on the meso board how many times have they been turned down by these doctors that although showing an impecable academic standard, simply lack the neccesary wisdom to properly diagnose and cure any harmful condition that by a highly number of clinical trials have only showed us its presence it is more than ever a real event.
In a comment from another reader he emphasized the arrogance and stubborness of certain doctors and their didactic skills that have characterized their professions. My question is, how difficult it becomes to draw the line when arrogance meets science ?
Very difficult. We the human race simply end up with doctors violating their oath as physicians by continuing to find libertarian ways to ridiculize a well-known practice.
These doctors, both Olshansky and Perls are not journalists nor they are associated with the free press, they are doctors, "supposedly" and that is what we expect of them, nothing more, nothing less and next time they try something, better do it through a justifiable number of laboratory tests and not leisuring around to every conference A4m helds.
As for the lawsuit, A4m should dismiss the case altogether as it can backfire their reputation and it might raise controversies in regards to the products efficacy and the belief of some judges that the organization interferes with academic research since the reviewers are, in my personal disbelief, doctors.
-these two doctors are impeding any advancement a group of professionals have succesfully acomplished on the hormonal rebalance of individuals by employing in the middle of medical bureacracy the science, as put by Shippen's, that " resistance in its overwhelming face has no excuse ".
How many endocrinologists and urologists have obstructed any possible aspirations to born-ill patients or those that later in life have acquired symptoms that are nonetheless early stages of degenerative diseases manifestations ?
Let's start by asking every one of these members on the meso board how many times have they been turned down by these doctors that although showing an impecable academic standard, simply lack the neccesary wisdom to properly diagnose and cure any harmful condition that by a highly number of clinical trials have only showed us its presence it is more than ever a real event.
In a comment from another reader he emphasized the arrogance and stubborness of certain doctors and their didactic skills that have characterized their professions. My question is, how difficult it becomes to draw the line when arrogance meets science ?
Very difficult. We the human race simply end up with doctors violating their oath as physicians by continuing to find libertarian ways to ridiculize a well-known practice.
These doctors, both Olshansky and Perls are not journalists nor they are associated with the free press, they are doctors, "supposedly" and that is what we expect of them, nothing more, nothing less and next time they try something, better do it through a justifiable number of laboratory tests and not leisuring around to every conference A4m helds.
As for the lawsuit, A4m should dismiss the case altogether as it can backfire their reputation and it might raise controversies in regards to the products efficacy and the belief of some judges that the organization interferes with academic research since the reviewers are, in my personal disbelief, doctors.
ciobl said:
I agree with you on the gist of your post.
The intersection between law and medicine is very interesting.
The most progressive doctors with regard to TRT (as well as other specialities) often risk violating what is accepted medical practice in the mainstream medical community as well as possibly violating legal statutes/precedent.
But having said that, progress depends on the doctors who operate on the cutting edge with a primary goal of maximizing and maintaining their patients' optimal health. There concern is for their patients, not for the law. Not always good for the doctor, but lucky for the patient.
Unfortunately, he legality of GH (as well as other drugs) in and outside of medicine is complicated, sometimes arbitrary, and often misinformed.
ciobl said:
The sad thing is that a significant percentage if not a majority of the doctors listed on the A4M websites are not willing to practice TRT or GH therapy at all.
A4M is one of the most promient supporters of TRT. So, it is telling when their base supporters don't even practice what A4M preaches, whether it's due to the legal threats, CIII status, paperwork, or lack of profit from these therapies.
ciobl said:
Agreed. This is absolutely terrible PR. Unfortunately, claiming that undermining A4M's credibility hurts the Klatz/Goldman's entrepreneurial ventures only hurts A4M.
AFter all, the lawsuit isn't about TRT and/or GH for anti-aging. Although I could be wrong, it appears to be about making millions formulating dietary supplements for a multi-level marketing company.
I'd like to see the court documents if they ever become available.
