This study I recently found sort of actually contradicts an old idea that have been going on.

Study #1: The association between height and birth order: evidence from 652 518 Swedish men.

Results:

Unadjusted analyses showed no differences between the first two birth orders but in the fixed effects regression, birth orders 2, 3 and 4 were associated with 0.4, 0.7 and 0.8 cm (p<0.001 for each) shorter height than birth order 1, respectively. The associations were similar in large and small and high-SEP and low-SEP families, but were attenuated in recent cohorts. Birth characteristics did not explain these associations.

CONCLUSIONS:

Birth order is an important determinant of height. The height difference between birth orders 3 and 1 is larger than the population-level height increase achieved over 10 years. The attenuation of the effect over cohorts may reflect improvements in living standards. Decreases in family size may explain some of the secular-height increases in countries with decreasing fertility.

Analysis

Now this is just one study but the study seems to be done on over half a million Swedish men where the measurement of height was taken when they were just 18 years old, which is believed to be the average age when the vertical growth in males should have stopped.

The old idea that was stated by other scientific studies was that the siblings and kids who are born later like child #3 or child #4 would end up to be taller on average. The rational for that was that the uterus for the mother during the first pregnancy (and maybe also the 2nd pregnancy) would have been smaller than the subsequent pregnancies. The size of the fetus or baby before birth is said to have been determined by the size of the the uterus or womb it was carried in. Maybe to the average person without anytype of obstetric training, it might be ‘common sense’ to think that once the baby before birth pushed the womb up to a certain size, the uterus will start to go through the contraction signifying that birth is supposed to occur.

There are already some studies that show that larger females in terms of taller mothers and mothers with wider hips do give birth to heavier and taller babies. In some old posts I had used the logic that the size of how big a person will become may be mainly determined by how large they are at the moment that they are born. My logic back then which seems to be proven false from this study is the idea that the larger the uterus and womb was from the start the larger the baby will be before it actually comes out.

I would have guessed that children born later in order should be bigger. However this study says that the earlier children, the 1st and 2nd child of a couple seem to become taller. Why?

What is noted is that there might be a social-economic correlation between decreased family size and increased children sizes. This might mean that the size of a child can be partly determined by the amounf of resources (ie food, time, energy) the parents of the child can give to it on an individual basis. Perhaps as the first and second born, the child gets more attention and energy from the parents than if they were the last of a ‘litter’ and the decrease in resources due to resource sharing alone from having so many siblings is all that is required to end up just slightly shorter than one’s older siblings.

Update 7/19/2013: This small battle over legal issues has finally been resolved since the website was turned back on and the domain names were given back. It was resolved when I called the Terms of Services department of Blue Host and tried to argue my point. They informed me that all that I had to do was to take down any information about the company that is making the claims, which would be two posts written in the earliest of the website’s development, and they would turn it back on. After weighing over the options, the only thing that I could do with the limited amount of options was to accept the terms that I was forced into. I turned off the 2 posts and the website was allowed to go back up. I hope this type of issue does not happen again and I am currently taking action to protect this website and make sure that DMCAs and other legal issues will not happen again.

---

Update 7/18/2013: I would get an email this day from the tech support department of BlueHost saying that they were forced to take down this website because the DMCA that was written was claiming that a Trademark rule was being affected, not a Copyright rule. I would seem that a counter-DMCA is only applicable and good for Copyright issues, not Trademark issues. I was not made aware of this fact since I am not a lawyer. I only did what was advised to me at the time yesterday when I called the sales or legal team through the BlueHost contact services.

Since the website was shut down as well as all of the other websites that I have, I had to give an email to all of the regular readers and loyal followers of this website with the following message…

As a loyal follower and reader of the Natural Height Growth website I have to inform you that the website has been currently suspended by the hosting company BlueHost.

This is due to a malicious act by the company who sell the (Product that is not named) named (Company that is not named) International Inc. based in Quebec, Canada.

They have sent a DMCA cease and desist letter claiming that I and the website Natural Height Growth have used their Trademark illegally and gone through the proper legal procedures to make sure that the negative review I wrote about their product is breaking a Trademark rule.

I followed the companies first request to take down the post which was a review of their main product claiming that it would not work as well they claimed on their sales webpage.

They would email BlueHost again asking that I take down another section of the website, the one about Scam Companies, which they are listed.

The 2nd one is information is not even my own but taken from the website Short Support so legally they have no way to really inforce it in the courts.

I sent BlueHost a counter DMCA request as instructed by the legal team whom I called but today they have taken the website down. It seems that the instructions that were given to me was wrong. DMCAs on trademark can not be replied with a counter DMCA. I only followed the directions.

Bluehost is afraid of legal action but they should not be. There is no way that a person or Organization who sells a horrible, possibly scam product on the internet would be able to make enough revenue or have deep enough pockets to take either me or BlueHost to court and win. What bluehost is doing is protecting themselves from civil suit.

I have no idea when the website will come up, if ever, but it seems that jealousy was the main culprit. Hopefully I will be able to bring the website back up within 2 months.

---

Update 7/17/2013: I would get another email today from my hosting service provider today where the people of this company who is selling a grow taller product online is again claiming that I am infringing on their copyright laws because I claimed on the Scam Companies section of the website which is actually information taken from another website. If they have a problem, the issue is not with me, it is with the other website since that website is the real source. However, this 2nd request from the company to BlueHost has pushed me over the edge on how greedy and malicious they are trying to be.

This is why I wrote a very long email to the sales department of the company with an Official Response in the title.

---

Email Title: Official Response        To: Sales Department of Intended company

Your recent order to my hosting company for a DMCA forced me to learn much more about the legal issue behind this issue.

The first complaint seemed to have validity when I first got the email and I was ignorant of the legal aspects. I complied to your company’s request to be cautious and actually reviewed the entire situation. I took down the post to be civil.

Now your 2nd request which was not a formal DMCA and actually linked to a webpage whose information which is not mine but from the Short Support website (who I made sure to reference and cite) shows that you guys thought you can abuse the DMCA policy. On the 2nd request, you guys have absolutely no validity.

This is what the cult of Scientology has done to silence its critics who write bad things about them. Many people in the legal profession realize that this rule is being abused. and your company is doing just that.

I would assume that this (Company Who Will Not Be Named) company is a real company selling some type of Chinese based products. The Patent is probably real too. But you guys know as well as me that there is a 60% chance that in court, the judge will side with my side just based on the legal aspects.

(Update 6/14/2014: It turns out that this company does NOT have a real patent, but only a trademark claim, which I found and kept as a legal document. I looked at the patent databased on Canada and there is no mentioned or listing of any type of product developed by the company.)

I wrote a bad review for the product and you guys are trying to silence it. I am citing the Fair Use rule from the US. Since you guys appear to be a real company and have a product that may not be a complete scam, I will be willing to keep that 1 post in “private mode”.

I have filed a formal counter-DMCA against the company.

In the long term, any business that is based on selling a below average product which can not produce the results its consumers really hope for does not have a sustainable business model. I did NOT say your company sells a scam product but that it can not give the massive height increase that its customers are really hoping for.

You guys should have known that one day someone will come along to clean up this specific area of the internet and formalize it. It will no longer be in a “wild west” style where everything goes and  any height increase e-product will be bought by desperate individuals hoping for any answer.

This how I see the situation. If (Company that is not named) has big enough pockets to file a suit against me, then a counter-suit will come directly after the end of the first suit, since I would know that this corporation has deep pockets to take from. I will go after all of this company’s asset.

Cool your heads, If you guys consider yourselves smart, you would use SEO, PR, and company branding to make your company better and stronger and figure out how to push your websites up higher in the Google and Bing search rankings.

If however your primary emotion on this issue is a zero-sum, competition way of thinking, with the primary motive being vindictiveness and revenge for me stating the most obvious, you can not win in any arena, in the courts, in business, or in life, at least in the short time. I ask that you guys review your own intentions and emotions.

If you think the only way for your company to ‘win’ is to attack the person who is actually trying to make the internet and the world a better place, by giving actual real hope to desperate young teenagers who feel low self-esteem, and educating them as well, then ultimately your business will fail.

I can show you guys at least a dozen emails from people who write from all across the world thanking me for creating this website which is being so helpful. They tell me how tired they are of all the scams and fake product on the internet and feel extremely thankful and grateful that I have created this authority website that they can turn to for this issue.

Maybe it was that back in 2006 when the internet was younger people were more naive and ignorant of the facts of what it really takes to become taller and that allowed for the company to do really well in sale but in 2013 the people are becoming smarter. Sales numbers might still be there but mostly likely they would be decreasing over time.

At the end of the day I would actually be even willing to help you guys and promote the book if it was helpful and rewritten. I was even going to write a review on the Patent you guys have listed to possibly show that your product is based on real science and maybe the (Company that is not named) is actually valid and shows high efficacy.

I have been wrong before. I had stated that the organization Biomedical Growth Research Initiative was a scam in the beginning, but after exchanging emails with Harald who is its representative and answering his questions, I wrote a public formal apology stating that his organization was real and I have been helping promote the organization ever since.

Refer to Post: www.naturalheightgrowth.com/2012/08/28/public-apology-to-the-biomedical-growth-research-initiative/

So show me the patent and maybe I can look over the science and validate your product.

Like I said to Tyler from Height Quest and every other website who is in this endeavor, ultimately our goal is to possibly find a solution.

This endeavor is too big for one person or even one corporation to take on. We should be working together and helping each other, not fighting.

I have always stated that maybe we will not find anything even after all the work, but at least we can create a resource that all people should be able to turn to so that all of their concerns, issues, and questions can be answered.

That is why Tyler is actually supposed to come and join me in running the website some time this month. We are going to combine our minds together.

The real key to winning in business is to become better then any one else and provide more value to your clients and customers than anyone else. I refer to the Anthony Robbins video below.

I will not fight you guys, but if you guys choose to throw the first punch, we will be sure to bring everything we have. Cool your heads. Be professional, Give value and make a contribution to the world.

---

Original Post 7/16/2013:

Just yesterday I got a message to my personal email inbox from the website’s host provider BlueHost’s Legal Department stating that someone has issued an official cease and desist letter and asked that I take down a post of a review of a product they are selling.

Due to something known as the Digital Millenium Copyright Act many corporations can send this DMCA letters to people who they wish to shut up. The Church of Scientology does this practice all the time. Due to how much money Scientology has, they have the financial resources to actually have a bit behind their bark. They can take multiple people to court and play the big bully who pushes the smaller organizations around.

I will not edit anything of the old post when I actually reviews the product. I commend these people because they are using the most modern Internet Marketing tools to get backlinks and use SEO techniques to push their website up. However the product they sell does not produce the results that the people who buy from them are hoping for.

Lie #1

They claim to Bluehost that they have tried to contact me multiple times. I have NEVER gotten an email from they s and I actually went back through the email naturalheightgrowth@gmail.com inbox and search it carefully to see if they did indeed give something to me. There has been nothing.

Lie #2

They claim that I purposely hide the ‘contact me’ information. It is on the right sidebar. It was originally at the top right corner but it is now at the bottom right corner. If they took even 2 minute to search, it would have been easily found.

Note: If we were to go to court, I will show the judge this post I am going to post right now and ask that they use the Wayback Machine to check the layout of what this website looked like for the last 3-6 months and they will notice that the contact information was consistently on the right sidebar. Even 17 year old kids have been able to message me. How is it possible that these people who are supposed to be smart enough to run a ‘company’ not be able to find that text on the ride sidebar.?

I don’t want to say what exactly is the name of the product because it will be less antagonistic to these people. The fact is that this company and the product it sells has been listed under the list of companies which are scams on the website Short Support.

I have checked the company and it is NOT registered in the Canada Company Database. Judging by the name of the company, I would suspect that you are Chinese or associated with some Chinese based product. I would guess that it is probably registered and valid since there is a lot of information on the product cited.

I have looked up that patent they referenced and it is NOT in the records for Google Patents. “Pharmaceutical preparations for the treatment of growth dysfunction; Synthetic peptides for pharmaceutical purposes; Vitamin and mineral preparations for use as ingredients in the food and pharmaceutical industry.” I checked the Canadian Intellectual Property Office and it is not there either. It could be that because this company is based in Canada and I should be using another directory but I can’t find enough information about this company.

Just because these people have a legal company means nothing. I have a legal company too. I know enough of the legal stuff to show that I have not infringed on any of the copyright rules. I personally have done Trademarks before for my own US based company’s name and product. The fees are around $200-$800. I also know people who have done Patents before, those also taking thousands overall, in the range of $1000 – $20,000. I have already done research years ago to know how much a lawsuit from beginning to end will cost, including all of the attorney fees, which is usually around $50,000-200,000.

If these people want to waste both party’s (mine and their’s) money and time on legal action, then I will take them on. However, I think there are better, more useful, and more productive things that we can be doing with our lives.

I may not be in the USA or Canada, but I have NO problem in flying back and going to court to prove these people have a company that is selling ineffective products and that I did not break any rules citing the Fair Use rule.

I don’t know how much the legal fees of hiring a lawyer is in Canada, but I have a good idea on how much it would cost to do it in the US. If you guys file a suit against me, there is no way you guys can win, legally, through technicalities, or due to plan morals. The judge will side with me since I have read the wording on the Fair Use rule for 17 US107. Maybe due to the fact they are in Canada the Fair Use rule is interpreted differently but in the US, I know I am correct.

Plus, if I get angry enough at these people for wasting my money and time to go through a stupid legal battle, I will at some point do a counter-suit on these people.

There are already enough Scams trying to cheat people who wish to grow taller out in the internet which makes the internet a worse off place. This company and the product is only making things worse.

My website Natural Height Growth is one of the only honest websites on the purpose on trying to figure out how to help people increase their height, if that is even possible. My website is making the internet a more honest, transparent, better place.

If these men from Canada even took the time to read the actual post, then they would realize that I never claimed that the product they offer is a total scam. My point which is expressed as one of the last sentences is that the product can not deliver the type of results that they claim. Maybe a person can gain 1/2 an inch of height when they are in their 30s from the instructional exercise manual, but they will not gain the 3-4 inches that they really want.

I will talk to the BlueHost representatives about this issue tomorrow and see what needs to be done.

After reading enough articles I have reached the conclusion that there are certain types of mutations that can occur in a family which can cause multiple people in the family to develop extremely tall stature. Whether these mutations means that all families that have the height gene would be something wrong or at least inconclusive. We know that there are people who come from tall families. Their father and mother was tall, so they were tall as well as their siblings. I am not sure if the tallness that they receive can be considered a true mutation. Would Yao Ming be considered a healthy, idiopathically tall individual who does not have any type of genetic mutation to result in his extreme height? I can’t even answer that question. The point is that there are some related people in a family who exhibit height at a level that put them in the upper reach of human height and make them look abnormal.

Some common cases would be the recessive gene that was found in Charles Byrne, the Irish Giant who had distant cousins and relatives who also ended up very tall. I wrote about him and his link to people even today who show extremely tall stature in the post “Genetic Mutation Causes Pituitary Tumor Gigantism, The Interesting Case Of Charles Byrne The Irish Giant”

There is also the curious case where I found an article about this family of extremely tall individuals in Southern Vietnam. The post is “A Family Of Giants Of Extremely Tall Stature In Bac Lieu Southern Vietnam“. This case of extremely tall stature must come from some type of genetic mutation which was passed down to half of the offspring signifying that the mutation is dominant in nature. This situation I would classify as something that is not idiopathic. The extremely tall stature is technically from genetics but is the result idiopathically healthy tall offspring?

The point of this post is to show that unlike the healthy type of genetic cause for extreme height seen in small families, there are some types of genetic mutations that can cause entire families to exhibit tall stature which results in people who are not completely healthy.

So what types of genetic mutation would cause familial gigantism?

Study #1: Familial Gigantism

Familial GH-secreting tumors are seen in association with three separate hereditary clinical syndromes:

1. multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 (MEN1) – Autosomal-dominant MEN1 syndrome is associated with a loss of heterozygosity (LOH) on chromosome locus 11q13 (57). The MEN1 gene tumor suppressor gene encodes a 610-amino acid protein known as menin….Pituitary tumors occur in approximately 30–50% of patients with MEN1 (58), but the frequency of GH-producing pituitary tumors in MEN1 patients is only about 10%.
2. Carney complex (CNC) – CNC is associated with a LOH on chromosomal locus 17q22–24. Germline mutations in the protein kinase A (PKA) regulatory subunit 1 (PRKAR1A) gene have been identified…Pituitary adenomas occur in 10–20% of patients with the autosomal-dominant CNC, and these are invariably GH-secreting tumors.
3. familial isolated pituitary adenomas (FIPA) – Inactivating germline mutations in the aryl hydrocarbon receptor that interacts with tumor suppressor protein (AIP) can be found in 40–50% of families that have a case of acromegaly

Study #2: Loss of heterozygosity on chromosome 11q13 in two families with acromegaly/gigantism is independent of mutations of the multiple endocrine neoplasia type I gene.

1. multiple endocrine neoplasia type I (MEN-1) – Loss of heterozygosity on chromosome 11q13…closely linked to the MEN-1 tumor suppressor gene. 
2. the Carney complex

Study #3: Familial acromegaly

Three distinct syndromes have been recognized to date:

1. multiple endocrine neoplasia, type I (MEN-1),
2. Carney complex (CNC)
3. isolated familial somatotropinomas (IFS)

Study #4: Isolated familial somatotropinomas: establishment of linkage to chromosome 11q13.1-11q13.3 and evidence for a potential second locus at chromosome 2p16-12

Isolated familial somatotropinomas can be caused from 1 of three types of genetic mutations. They are…

1. endocrine neoplasia complex that includes multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 (MEN-1)

2. Carney complex (CNC) – somatotropinomas are the predominant pituitary tumor subtype associated with CNC and arise before 30 yr of age, which is strikingly similar to the age at diagnosis for IFS. CNC has been mapped by linkage analysis to chromosomes 2p15-16 and 17q23-24 in different kindreds

3. isolated familial somatotropinomas (IFS) – defined as the occurrence of at least two cases of acromegaly or gigantism in a family that does not exhibit MEN-1 or CNC. Is associated with loss of heterozygosity (LOH) on chromosome 11q13, the locus of the MEN-1 gene, although the MEN-1 sequence and expression appear normal.

This study was used because it suggests that there is another tumor suppressor gene located at 11q13 that is important in the control of somatotrope proliferation. This report establishes linkage of the tumor suppressor gene involved in the pathogenesis of IFS to chromosome 11q13.1-13.3 and identifies a potential second locus at chromosome 2p16-12.

Study #5: Clues to gigantism provided by family in Borneo Mountains

1. Aryl hydrocarbon receptor interacting protein (AIP) gene. It has been known since 2006 that defects to this gene are associated with a predisposition to development of pituitary tumors

Professor Korbonits was able to identify a specific genetic mutation in Irish patients with a family history of acromegaly

The subsequent complex biostatistical calculations showed that the original mutation developed around 1,500 years ago and has been passed on from generation to generation ever since. It is estimated that around 200 to 300 people still carry the mutation today.

Study #6: Genetic Mutation Responsible for ‘Gigantism’ Disease — Or Acromegaly — Identified

Genetic Mutations that would lead to gigantism & acromegaly.

1. a mutation in the AIP gene

Conclusion

So I wanted to try to take all the scientific and genetic information from all 6 studies I read over and summarize them together. There are current three general defined syndromes that cause multiple members in a family to get extremely tall stature. They include

• Multiple Endrocine Neoplasia Type 1 (MEN-1) Syndrome
• Carney Complex (CNC)
• isolated familial somatotropinomas (IFS)

The final result from all of these syndromes is that multiple family members develop pituitary adenomas which can sometimes cause excess growth hormones release when they are in the younger years when the growth plates are still open. This adenoma occurs when the person is young and still growing and when they are adults and have no more growth plates.

As for the cause, the consistent thing that is stated over and over again is that “loss of heterozygosity (LOH) on chromosome locus 11q13” is what seems to cause both the MEN-1 syndrome and the IFS.

I may be wrong but it seems that in the specific chromosome area, there are at least two different ways that mutations can work. Each different mutation leads to either the MEN-1 or the IFS. It seems that maybe MEN-1 is more common than IFS and that the entire term for IFS is referring to a disorder that leads to familial pituitary adenoma and the markers than should indicate it was caused by MEN-1 and CNC don’t show up.

There is actually a fourth syndrom termed called familial isolated pituitary adenomas (FIPA). However I am thinking that FIPA is either just another way to say IFS, or it is an umbrella term to talk about endrocine neoplasia disorders in general. It is said that FIPA is caused from a mutation on the AIP gene, which is defined by the researchers to be “aryl hydrocarbon receptor that interacts with tumor suppressor protein”

While the Carney Complex does have come links in genes to MEN-1 and IFS, its cause seem from be from another area of the genome, specifically chromosomes 2p15-16 and 17q23-24.

I think this idea that I recently discovered called the Somatomedin Hypothesis is going to challenge some of the basic ideas we have been using since the start to explain how the GH and IGF-1 feedback loop really works to control endochondral ossification.

I refer to the 3 studies below as reference to make the point.

• Study #1: The somatomedin hypothesis 2007: 50 years later.
• Study #2: The somatomedin hypothesis: 2001
• Study #3: The somatomedin hypothesis revisited in a transgenic model

Background

GH, or the natural type of human growth hormone found in the human brain’s pituitary gland anterior region was one of the first compounds ever to be discovered and synthesized. Other names for GH, growth hormone are somatropin and somatotropin. Synthetic types of growth hormones have been made for many decades now and the different variations include Syntropin, Nutropin, Humatropin, etc.

After doctors and researchers reached the conclusion that GH is the thing that controls human growth, specifically vertical growth in terms of growing taller, the proposed idea was that there is supposed to be a proxy, an intermediate compound between the actual GH that is made in the pituitary gland and it final target areas, which are the receptors on the chondrocytes in the growth plate.

The old idea proposed was that this intermediate compound is known as somatomedin. Later it seems that Somatomedin was replaced with the now more commonly well known name, IGF-1 after the compound was understood much better through further research.

Somatomedin C = IGF-1 

The idea back then was that somatomedin was produced by the liver in response to the release of GH into the system. Then the somatomedin would be the actual compound that affects the receptors on the chondrocytes in the growth plate by going through the circulatory system.

The reason why it was believed that GH was not the compound that affects the chondrocytes in the growth plate direclty, but required an intermediate was because while injecting the extracted and purified GH into a lab animal did lead to the growth plate getting thicker and expand more, when the growth plate cartilage was extracted out an animal and put in a culture and then had the GH added, there was no increase in thickness. So the scientists believed that there had to be a 2nd compound that the GH caused to initiate. So in vivo, GH worked. In vitro GH didn’t work.

This was the entire premise of the original somatomedin hypothesis.

The picture below as taken from the study “The Somatomedin Hypothesis 2007: 50 Years Later”

Conclusion

The researchers notes that after 50 years, the original somatomedin hypothesis must be changed due to the following 4 reasons…

1. Investigators have shown that, under the proper conditions, GH does indeed exert a direct action on precursor incorporation in the in vitro cartilage system.

2. There is a substantial body of evidence that GH acts directly (and independently of IGF-I) on the growth of bone.

3. Although the liver is the main source of IGF-I in the circulation, IGFs are produced in virtually every tissue of the organism.

4. GH receptors have been shown to be present in virtually every tissue.

They tried to find someone who could come up with a theory to explain for all of the noticed new discoveries for the function of GH and not one theory could explain everything that was going on with GH. So the researcher made their own model or theory to explain how IGF-1 really is connected to GH in function.

This is what they proposed…

We propose that the IGFs, rather than effectors of GH action, are augmentative hormones that amplify the anabolic actions of GH while countering its potentially deleterious effects. Because the IGFs are counteractive for some but not all the effects of GH, their insulin-like effects may act to negate GH-stimulated gluconeogenesis and enhanced lipolysis.

Analysis

This means that the IGF-1 are not the type of hormone that only increase when GH increases and only helps out the function of GH. There are some functions where the IGF-1 negates the effects of GH, and that means that our original idea that IGF-1 is the main type of hormone/protein that can get to the growth plate cartilage is wrong. GH can directly interact with the growth plates.

The exact way that IGF-1 contributes to the function and effects of GH is by helping GH in anabolic activities and somatic growth. When it counteracts the effects of GH, it is to prevent the GH from causing diseases like hyperglycemia and loss of lipid stores. So the lipid and carbohydrate metabolism effects of the IGF-1 and GH in action concurrently are exactly the opposite.

The main thing is to show that the old somatomedin hypothesis is not completely right and needs to be modified. The four reasons are…

1. GH does indeed exert a direct action on precursor incorporation in the in vitro cartilage system.
2. There is a substantial body of evidence that GH acts directly (and independently of IGF-I) on the growth of bone.
3. Although the liver is the main source of IGF-I in the circulation, IGFs are produced in virtually every tissue of the organism.
4. GH receptors have been shown to be present in virtually every tissue

The GH themselves have a much more direct affect on chondrocytes that previously expected.