Chapter 9 - A Definitive Positive Study
Critics of Dr. Ana Aslan's work frequently make the assertion that her claims are not sufficiently backed up by scientific evidence, and that GH3 is claimed beneficial in a wide variety of unrelated disorders, including ar. thritis, angina (chest pains caused by insufficient blood supply to the heart muscle), hypertension (high blood pressure), senility (generally attributed to lack of blood supply to the brain caused by arteriosclerosis of the blood vessels in the brain), depression, and gastrointestinal disorders.
But, say the medical pundits, no one drug can possibly help all these ailments, and anyone claiming it does must be deluded, reading the data wrong, or try-big to promote a fake panacea.
What the critics do not realize is that any substance which works on the cellular level, affecting almost every organ in the body, necessarily will be efficacious in many ailments. Cortisone, thyroid hormone—in fact, any hormone and many enzymes—--have their effect on the whole body and its maladies, not just one area.
Also, the conditions which GH3 benefits are related in one way at least: they are associated with the aging process. It is logical that if you have a substance which will biologically retard, or in some cases, roll back the process we call aging, it should affect every aspect of aging.
It is easier to test the effects on just one condition which is what the present series of tests in the United States are doing. Old-age depression. This may seem too narrow to some; but according to the FDA and other medical authorities, depression is one of the most important ailments afflicting man. They claim it is easier to ascertain in a short time if a substance is efficacious than to perform an experiment on longevity or experiments with heart disease or cancer.
Furthermore, if old-age depression is benefited, so will the other accompanying maladies—if the substance is universally beneficial. And that is just what has happened in the United States experiments. Concomitant ailments have been favorably affected as well as depression.
The most effective refutation of the critics who say GH3 hasn't been studied scientifically is to examine a mammoth experiment by Dr. Aslan, her colleagues at the Institute of Geriatrics, Bucharest, and 400 other doctors in Romania. The study further refutes those who say that even if GH3 acts against old-age symptoms and diseases, you cannot prove it prevents aging; that if we start taking GH3 at say, 30 or 40, we won t be subject to those all-too-familiar symptoms of aging. No proponent of GH3 ever claimed it would prevent aging; only the critics use these terms to obfuscate the real value of GH3.
Dr. Aslan's study on the prophylactic qualities of GH3, most carefully conceived, executed and recorded, answers all the critics skepticism by overwhelming, incontrovertible evidence. (See Appendix 2.)
Never before has such a scientific antiaging program been conducted on such a large scale and with such scientific thoroughness. It should (and will) make her critics hang their heads in something resembling shame, or at least contrition, for not having examined the evidence before criticizing.
First, the experiment was staggering in its size and scope. Convinced by previous studies during a twenty-year period that GH3 was not only an effective anti-aging factor in the aged, but would act as a preventive of aging as well, Dr. Aslan--—working or course, with the government of Romania--—established 144 centers throughout Romania, in factories and other industrial sites, and in agricultural areas.
There were 15,000 people tested, ages 40 to 62. The experiment lasted two years before Dr. Aslan correlated the data and reported to the International Symposium of Gerontology (Bucharest, June 1972). The study is still continuing in many phases.
The main objective was to "prolong the active life period of workers, especially of those undergoing a temporary working incapacity, and to prevent the process of infirmity."
All these active, elderly working people received every health-saving aid known to medical science. In addition, 4121 received GH3, while 2905 did not, acting as a control group. To repeat, they all got the same medical treatment in every other respect; all underwent a battery of 11 objective physiological and biochemical tests. For the first time in medical history, a controlled study was being made on a mass scale, testing an antiaging substance. Remember, these were healthy yet aging people, active at all types of work, under all conditions, indoors and out, country and city, being tested where they worked--—not in a hospital. In short, an excellent cross-section of average, so-called normal men and women.
The tests, made at regular intervals, included weight, pulse, blood pressure, breathing frequency, muscular strength, cardiovascular tests before, during, and after exercise, blood sedimentation rate, number of red and white blood cells, total lipidemia (amount of fats, such as cholesterol in the bloodstream), spirometry (measurement of air capacity of the lungs).
Some results follow.
1. Blood pressure: those treated with GH3 showed an improvement (normalization whether high or low) of 85% compared to only 61% in the group which received the same medical care but no GH3.
There were other therapeutic effects besides normalizing of blood pressure. For example, among the elderly workers, there were naturally some who had cardiovascular problems in addition to hypertension (in some cases, caused by hypertension). Since GH3 is a vasodilator (opening the arteries) in addition to exerting a beneficent effect on each cell, heart problems were improved by 83.2% in the GH3-treated patients vs. 63.8% of the controls.
Probably the most significant findings were the prophylactic results. Many subjects were normotensive: they had normal blood pressure, but should, according to previous reports, gradually change for the worse (either up or down) during the two-year study. Patients treated with GH3 maintained their normal blood pressure in 97.2% of the cases, while only 2.6% showed a decrease in arterial pressure; 96% of the controls maintained normal blood pressure. (Any departure from the norm is bad—contrary to popular concept, low blood pressure, frequently seen in aging persons, is just as deleterious as high blood pressure— also frequently seen.)
2. Pulse rate: in patients with tachycardia (high pulse rate over 90 beats per minute), the pulse was normalized in 93%, while subjects with bradycardia (low pulse rate) were also normalized. Results in the control group were not as good. GH3 also intensified the action of specific medicines (such as digitalis and strophantin) in patients with cardiac insufficiency (where the heart does not operate efficiently). In fact, all heart and blood pressure medicines could be significantly reduced with GH3 therapy.
3. Cardiovascular effect: those showing a low score of heart effort at the initial examination were improved after six months, 48.4%; 12 months, 56.0%; 24 months, 60.0%. For those patients who had a good or fairly good cardiovascular effort score to begin with, GH3 maintained most of them at the same level for two years—when it might be expected they would slowly decline because of their age.
4. Muscular strength: in clinically healthy patients under GH3 therapy there was a gradual improvement; after two years about one-fourth, or 23.9%, showed improvement while only 3.5% declined—72% were unchanged. These are remarkable figures because a gradual decline in muscular power almost always occurs in people of that age bracket (40 to 62). The improvement occurred in twice as many of the GH3-treated group as in the control group, which proves again GH3 s dramatic role in preventing or reversing the age process in over 96% of the treated patients in this highly important test.
5. Respiratory capacity: after 24 months 96.1% of the GH3-treated group were unchanged in lung capacity compared to 91.2% of the control group. This may not seem much, but lung capacity goes rather quickly in late middle age. At about 70 the average person has lost over 40% of the lung capacity he had at 25. This decrease is bound to affect all other systems of the body, heart, kidneys, liver, brain—in short, the whole body; since the oxygen so vital to every cell is drastically reduced, the other systems are naturally affected too. That is why oxygen-conserving substances such as GH3 and vitamin E are essential.
Now consider another phase of the prophylactic effect of GH3, just as objectively, scientifically demonstrated as the medical test results. The number of days of medical leave due to sickness required by GH3-treated patients diminished nearly 40% compared to the pretest years. Also, 77% performed their production norms (a standard set by calculating what the majority of workers achieve), 20% exceeded them, and only 3% of the elderly failed to achieve the norms. This is truly remarkable, since even maintenance of the norm is not expected at this age level. We must remember that every person received all the medical attention possible. Therefore, any difference between the GH3-treated group and the GH3-untreated must be attributed to the action of GH3, the only added factor.
No mention is made of any factor that cannot be objectively measured, either by physical medical tests or by mathematical computations. There is no mention of depression, mood elevation, happiness, or any of the hundred or so other psychological factors which affect the human equally as much as the physical—yet are harder to measure and correspondingly harder to convince die-hard skeptics about.
Here we have all the necessary ingredients for a truly objective, unarguable experiment. It would be hard to argue against the Romanian government that GH3 is all a grand delusion, that it's all in the workers minds that they feel better and are able to produce better and live healthier. The Romanian government has the facts now. That is why the fact that Romania continues to support GH3 is solid testimony to the fact that it works; research costing millions of dollars would not be supported without some practical results. The government would not continue to spend millions treating its middle-aged and elderly workers with GH3 unless it paid off in the workers being healthier, more interested in their work, and expanding their effective working life.
Naturally, the Romanian government is proud of Ana Aslan and her coworkers. She has proved herself a scientist and humanitarian of great insight, the mark of a true scientist. If there is any justice in the awards of the Nobel prize, I believe Dr. Ana Aslan should have top priority—for her great work (now indisputable), her remarkable persistence in spite of almost unsurmountable obstacles, her patience with critics, and her overwhelming desire to help the human race.
I'll warrant one thing: if the august judges on the Nobel prize committee, who I understand are not exactly teenagers, were to take GH3 themselves for a year (or very likely less), there would be no question about Ana Aslan's receiving the award. They wouldn't even have to study the mountains of evidence accumulated throughout the world. They would know.
Moreover, it is liigh time that more women should be awarded the Nobel. There have been many women since Madame Curie who deserved it, yet all but two others were somehow overlooked by these always elderly gentlemen in control of awarding the prize, who may have forgotten the original intent of the elderly gentleman who established the award.