Sunday NYTimes article: Bound to cause a stir

[Guest guest]

Hi All,

This is the biggest coverage I've seen yet by NYTimes on GHT use. A

hugely provactive article. And, important, whether you choose to or

not use gHT for your children.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/16/magazine/16growth.html?8hpib

While the article doesn't mention RSS specifically, it implies that if

GH levels are normal, then parents who give GHT to their children may

only be making that decision for " cosmetic " reasons. And, the author

clearly points out the financial advantage to pharmaceuticals on the

use of GHT to " ideopathic short statured " children (test normal for

GHT).

HOWEVER, here are three facts that the author of this article, and its

readers should consider:

1. While RSS children are often referred to being in the ISS

(Idiopathic Short Stature) category...which is good news for us

insofar as allowing our children to legally be entitled to get GHT, as

per FDA guidelines....I believe this label should not be interpreted

to mean " short, but medically normal " .

2. I believe RSS children who test " normal " for GH levels don't

actually have NORMAL GH functioning. Their levels may be " normal " but

are still insufficient for growth. In RSS children, the pathway of

brain-->Pituitary-->Liver--> Growth FActors is aided by the

GHT " boost " . Dr. Stanhope, from London, first introduced this

concept of " not deficient, but insufficient " at our 03 Convention.

3. RSS/SGA children can be at risk of type 2 diabetes, due to the

fact that the body ratio of fat to muscle is higher, since growth is

diminished. As we learned this past summer, and in that tantalizing

slide of a cross section of a child's thigh, GHT can actually improve

muscle to fat ratio, and thereby lesson chance of getting type 2

diabetes. It's not just about height.

But, the article brings up the more important issue of the

psychological advantages of height.....fascinating reading.

Katy