It is just easier to say that if I had cancer previously I'd be wary.
Some doctors may be willing to prescribe a replacement level of GH to older patients if they have been completely cancer free for 5 years.
Forty years is a long time to be cancer free. So these types of things are something that can not be answered and definitive advise should not be offered.
There is a journal write-up or case study where anti-aging doses of GH in an aged male were directly attributable to his development of prostate cancer.
Designbuilt, I can tell by your response that you do need a deep education on this subject and I am too tired to give it to you. But I'll try a little bit.
Certain tumors hi-jack the cellular machinery and secrete GH or IGF-1 and use it to grow and break existing boundaries into other tissue. The cutting edge research is in antagonists for GH, for GHRH, for IGF-1.
What they found is that designing highly specific ligands that bind to GH-receptors in the cancerous tissue in such a way as to block them, results in tumor shrinkage. They are taking away the tumors ability to grow...
Often the tumor shrinks to such a degree that chemotherapy can then be used to eliminate the cancer. These two therapies have proven very effective in all types of cancers even hard to reach lung & brain. The trick is in making delivery vehicles that will target the cancerous region rather then all the other tissue in the body.
The best clinical studies were breast cancer studies which demonstrated total remissions after the use of both therapies. This of course was for the types of cancers that behave as described herein.
Life extension studies using calorie restriction or EOD fasting has demonstrated (so many things) but one is that such states reduce circulating IGF-1. You see the part that is deadly ...the part that reduces life span ...the part that can result in cancers is the intracelluar events that slowly accumulate damage. A fuller explanation & illustrations can be found in my thread at:
A complete understanding of IGF-1 & its potential influence on cancer & longevity
I see so many times a post where someone states "IGF-1 can not cause cancer it can only make it grow if it already exists". It makes people feel better to say such things I suppose...
...but a statement like that hints not one bit at understanding that their are states know as pre-cancerous states occurring routinely in our bodies. Many times a tumor suppressor such as P53 will be able to act and shutdown the cell before such states become cancerous. There are a great many factors that operate in our body...
...one theory is that cancers happen fairly routinely and our body often destroys them before they become serious.
Flooding the body with high levels of IGF-1 could conceivably give enough early fuel to these states so as to overwhelm our routine defenses.
Anyway...
IGF-1 LR3 is obviously risky....there are no concurrent binding protein checks.
IGF-1 created naturally (from GH's effects) also comes with an increase in binding proteins which will control how IGF-1 is to be used that is less risky.
Large amounts of GH which sustain high levels of IGF-1 are more dangerous then low "youthful replacement" doses. In fact high levels of circulating IGF-1 is positively correlated with cancer incidence.
Probably, natural pulse creation or increase in tone (i.e. release profile) from GHRPs & GHRH will be the least dangerous at low/mod doses.
People have to make their own decisions DS. If I had been cancer free for 40 years and was suffering from low levels of GH, I'd consider a youthful restoration for myself.
If I had a tumor within a few years & had a beautiful wife, then no I would not risk it but if my wife weren't too pretty, weren't too friendly and just plain weren't... I might consider huge doses of EVERYTHING. :foo:-smil
* Ooops I just read mikeheavypecs post which said some of what I just said. Sorry Mike... good post. I wish I could learn to answer questions in two lines.