Ya really think so Carol?  I’m always for seeing figures myself and without them we would never know really.

It seems to me that that would be the typical thing to happen without Lupron anyway...tallest in the class followed by being of average to small hiehgt later.   Who knows... I know that I would want to see the figures because even when they started treating kay’s Daughter her bone age was only that of a 9 year old.  How will we know that they did not lsow the growth down with Corticosteorids anyway unless you can compare a child in the same boat "exactly" with the same prognosis at the age of 5 years as Kay’s daughter had?  

That is why I asked if she could access the child’s medical records.  Atleast if we have the figures here, when somoen else’s child turns up with the same prognosis as Kay’s daughter but treated only with coriticosteroids then we can compare apples with apples. 

As much as it would be neat for GH to be working well in conjunction with these kids treatment, unless you had human trials comparing the exact same statistics along side eachother, somehow I don’t think we can ever know the truth to that one.  Until then, it would just have to be a big bold step into the unknown surely?   I mean I know Kay’s daughter lost 4 years before they treated her, but whould we have known what her full genetic height potential would "really" have been otherwise.  She sould have been inclined to take after her father for all we know and therefore losing 4 years would not have made much difference, just possibly brining her at nearer her Mother’s height. 

Tough one!

 

Cheers

 

Anne-Marie