Aging In The 21st Century

Steve Kroft Reports On The New Field Of Anti-Aging Medicine

(CBS) 
But Mintz is undeterred. He says his staff physicians monitor patients carefully and look out for signs of cancer. He also says he is giving human growth hormone to only seven percent of his patients, all of whom have natural levels that are below normal and symptoms that lead him to believe they are growth hormone-deficient.

Mintz told 60 Minutes he avoids using the term "anti-aging" these days because he considers it misleading and unscientific. He provided 60 Minutes with stacks of studies supporting the promise of growth hormone and testosterone supplements but acknowledged that there were no long-term blind studies, showing that they were safe or effective in age management.

"We don't really know scientifically," Kroft asked.

"Galileo didn't have double blind studies, but observation's wonderful. We've never done a double blind study on the sun, but you know and I know, even on a cloudy day it's comin' up every morning," Mintz replied.

"Are you an endocrinologist?" Kroft asked.

"I'm not. I'm a radiologist," Mintz replied. He told Kroft while he had no endocrinologists on his staff, the institute has two on its board.

"But if it's all about hormonal balance, you would think that you would have a building full of endocrinologists," Kroft said.

"Most endocrinologists deal with thyroid disease and diabetes," Mintz replied. "If you ask them, that's what they talk about. We have a disease-based system. They're rewarded for disease. It's a major paradigm. Doctors can't get paid for health."

"So you're saying that the endocrinologists, the people who study hormones, don't understand it?" Kroft asked.

"They're not ready to get there yet," Dr. Mintz answered.

Mintz considers himself a pioneer in this gray area of law and science — and there are plenty of patients, eager to follow the trail he is blazing. The ones 60 Minutes talked to in Las Vegas, all eager to remain young and vital, consider this a lifestyle choice — and they are prepared to roll the dice.

"You aren't concerned that five years from now somebody might do a study and find out that this regimen accelerates the growth of cancer cells, or causes diabetes?" Kroft asked.

"Well, that's happened with prescriptive drugs. I mean, has it not?" the 74-year-old patient replied. "In any field, you're doing this. They've taken drugs off the market because of this."

"So you'd rather feel better now, while you're living your life, than worry about the possible downside 10 or 15 years from now?" Kroft asked.

"You could get killed on the interstate tomorrow," a female patient remarked. "You have to weigh risks and rewards. You do that every day in life. You do it when you get up in the morning."

"Are you sure? Are you absolutely positive, absent any scientific studies, that the treatments that you're giving now won't prove to be detrimental to someone's health five, 10, 15 years from now when all of the evidence is in?" Kroft asked Mintz.

"If you talk about five, 10, 15 years, I'm pretty comfortable," he replied. "No, I'm not absolutely sure. Only a fool is absolutely sure. Am I confident? Do I sleep well at night? Yes."