Talk:Human chorionic gonadotropin

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Provide reference

Please provide a reference for this statement: "The ingredients in these products are often obscure, but if prepared from true hCG via homeopathic dilution, they contain either no hCG at all or only trace amounts." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.77.163.4 (talk) 14:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a specific reference, but my understanding was that the agumeny against any homeopathic dilution was that i you dilute something 10X, the concentation is deceased by a factor of such magnitude that it is larger than Avogadro's number (6.04 * 10^26 IIRC), so there is literally none of the supposedly active agent left - and the idea that even if the concept (I think) of homeopathy is true that the effect itself is from the fact that the concentration is so small.. It still has to be at least one molecule (unless one wants to get into the realm of ideas of "energy imprinting" or whatever else might be tossed about - which is AFAIK considered outside the realm of current biological [atomic?] physics) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.9.143.128 (talk) 02:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename proposal

In accordance with Wikipedia:WikiProject_Drugs naming policy, I propose we move this page to the INN chorionic gonadotropin. If you have any concern with this proposal, please discuss it on this page. Matt 23:03, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Edited details of the common testing methodologies for hCG. While lateral flow immunochromatography is commonly used in home tests, other home tests, and laboratory based urine tests use other methods. similarly for serum hCG, nobody uses RIA any more, a variety of fluorescent and chemiluminescent immunoassays have taken their place. Finally, molar pregnancies are only one of the possibilities for false-positive hCG tests, there are a couple o ffairly famous cases where other types of false-positives led to bad clinical outcomes, including unnecessary surgeries.

Forgive the awkward formatting in places, I haven't edited wiki pages before. --SCampb29 20:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manny Ramirez positive test

I've seen a couple additions and then reverts, might as well have a place for actual discussion. It does seem that reliable sourves and saying that other unnamed sources have identified this as the banned substance he's been suspended for. So I guess we need to decide a) does this belong in at all, and b) are the sources strong enough. Here's one story naming this substance.[1]--Cube lurker (talk) 19:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The facts are fine, but should this really be a headlined paragraph in this article? He's a baseball player and this is an article about a protein made during pregnancy, which also has therapeutic uses. Ahimsa52 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

It's probably better if it goes into the Manny Ramirez article. CardinalDan (talk) 20:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per the above discussion, I'm removing the Manny Ramirez bit from the intro. There's a link to the HCG page from the Manny article, which seems to be sufficient for linking the two topics. "Most famous user" is hardly standard fare for pages on drugs and pharmaceuticals. 98.118.18.69 (talk) 22:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More Detail on hCG for Weight Loss

Given the current popularity of "hCG diets" online, the weight control section is pretty paltry. I am adding a little more detail and some linkagePupplesan (talk) 07:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

12:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC) Prof Mad:- It would seem my writing on hCG was removed by a higher power. As for following the sheep, I created my son of 14 month's, and not Dolly, thanks to this hormone.

Homeopathy is as stupid as Hahnemann. However, it did help toxicology greatly, even if he & his sheep cured no-one. (Placebo excluded).

I apologise if my articles are at times personal, I try to use the third person, only in my writings. :O HELLOOOOOOOOOO

As for hCG being a weight loss drug, I stand on the side of it being pure poppy-cock. Neither testosterone, or oestogen are noted for weight reduction, in fact, quite the opposite, generally speaking.

This is the back door route for obtaining hCG, for the purpose of increasing fertility, since Doctors can't/won't prescribe it.

This presents a dangerous practise. hCG DOES NOT reduce weight. hCG influences the pituitary gland to produce LH & FSH.

The signifant (>95%) factors in weight loss are:-

1] > Activity {Exercise}

2} < Reduced calorie 12:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)PROF MAD12:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Profmad (talk • contribs)

¶ Beefed up the legal citations about the Simeon and Trudeau cases. Sussmanbern (talk) 13:53, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Primary vs. secondary sources

In this edit, the statement is made that Citation does not support the statement. Primary source needed. I have reverted this edit for the following reasons:

  • Concerns about the article should be expressed on the talk page and should not be added directly to the article. (Use of {{Failed verification}} or {{Citation needed}} templates in the article however would be appropriate).
  • According to WP:RS, secondary sources are preferable to primary sources.

The sources in question are reliable secondary sources that in turn have cited various primary and secondary sources. Furthermore these sources do support the statement that hCG is neither safe,[14] nor effective as a weight-loss aid[16]. Boghog (talk) 10:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of PBB template

Hi Boghog, I'm re-adding the PBB template temporarily to facilitate a statistics collection run we're doing (we use the presence of the PBB template to identify which pages are part of the Gene Wiki project). I'll remove it after the run, but I'd also like to discuss a way we could re-incorporate it. What was the reason behind swapping it for two Protein templates? Thanks, Pleiotrope (talk) 19:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pleiotrope. The reason I replaced the PBB template with two protein templates is that chorionic gonadotropin is a heterodimer composed of the protein products of two separate genes, chorionic gonadotropin alpha and chorionic gonadotropin beta, each of which already incorporates a PBB template. For completeness, this article should contain infoboxes about each of the two genes and including two PBB templates in the same article overwhelms the rest of the content whereas the protein templates are more compact. Including the CGA PBB template in both this article and the chorionic gonadotropin alpha article is redundant. Does this make sense? Boghog (talk) 20:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, that makes perfect sense. Mind if we leave it in briefly? I'll revert it within the next day or so. Pleiotrope (talk) 21:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Revert after you complete your statistics collection. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 04:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification on the Legality of hCG

Is hCG completely illegal? The following paragraph starts out as fact but I'm not so sure about the second sentence.

"The United States Food and Drug Administration has stated that this drug is fraudulent and ineffective for weight loss. It is also not protected as a homeopathic drug and has been deemed an illegal substance."

I believe making the claim that hCG is effective in losing weight will earn you a warning letter from the FDA, but I could find no evidence that the hormone is illegal to purchase, consume, distribute or transport (assuming it is not accompanied by weight loss claims). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.100.51.131 (talk) 17:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

unencyclopedic statements

74.68.99.173 (talk) 23:34, 7 August 2012 (UTC)Is it really necessary to refer to the calorie range 500-1000 by comparison to Nazi concentration camps? Also, is it necessary to include the ad hominem reference to 'convicted fraudster so-and-so'? Who cares if someone convicted of fraud for something (not explicitly even related to the article at hand) at some time promoted this? I guess if he was convicted of fraud regarding claims about HCG, this would be more reasonable to include, but really who cares about this guy's opinion and why?[reply]

This article reads sort of like a pieced together Frankenstein -- An informative/medical perspective discussing fertility uses, bolted on to a rabidly anti-populist diet quackery section on dietary uses and homeopathy, with a little tail tacked on the end from a politely enthusiast anabolic steroid abuser perspective.


About the structure

I want to say about the structure of hCG, you wrote there it's made of 244 amino acid but you also said alpha unit is made from 92 and Beta unit is made from 145 amino acid so the sum is 237. my question is : where does the remaining 7 amino acid went? in many references i found that alpha unit is made of 92 amino acid and Beta unit is made of 145 amino acid but i couldn't find that hCG is made of 245 amino acid.
For example the reference is:

http://www.clinchem.org/content/43/12/2233.full

(Mirwice Haqmal (talk) 06:33, 25 December 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. Both UniProt and PDB say 237 AA and hence I have corrected the article. Boghog (talk) 08:55, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Immunization against HCG in population control

Is it true, that human can be immunized against HCG with long-term anti-pregnancy effect? Refs: [2] [3] [4].

Is it true that such vaccine may be used or was used in third-patry/developing countries for population reduction, e.g. via tetanus vaccines? [5] [6] `a5b (talk) 05:57, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Increased media exposure of HCG as "subversive anti-fertility treatment"

A group of African Catholic preists has accused the WHO and UNICEF of distributing HCG-laced neonatal tetanus vaccinations in cooperation with the Kenyan Ministry of Health. There are currently both accusations and denials.

[7]

It seems that the birth control effects of HCG should be mentioned in the article. Perhaps under a "controversy" heading. 58.141.207.253 (talk) 06:41, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per you suggestion, I have added a controversy section. Thanks for the heads up. Boghog (talk) 19:48, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chorionic gonadotropin in males

This article only references Chorionic gonadotropin in females; however, this hormone is also involved in the production of testosterone in males and hormone deficiency can result in §hypogonadism and infertility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorje Shedrub (talk • contribs) 15:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Human chorionic gonadotropin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:44, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Human_chorionic_gonadotropin"