Whacked, I'm so sorry. I told you this when you started posting. In the big GH thread. I had learned the hard way too. If someone gave me GH free, I would use it at 2-4U a day for cartilage/skin purposes (it's most proven benefit). As for fat loss, it is outclassed head-to-head by a simple ECA stack. It has no skeletal muscle anabolic effect, with or without steroids, in double-blind placebo-controlled studies with and without trained athletes. All the studies are in that original thread.
As for GH gut, yes, it appears to be caused by growth of the internal organs, particularly the intestines. Why would it be reversible? Are the other effects of GH, like your height, reversible? These are structural changes.
Where did GH go wrong? This is the focus of new research. The idea was based on the simple-minded theory that test ---> GH spike ---> combines with insulin in liver to make IGF ---> Big muscle. Unfortunately, this is all crap. To start, test does not cause a spike in GH by GHRH (GH releasing hormone mechanisms) [J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2004 Jul;89(7):3326-31] but maybe other mechanisms such as increasing sensitivity at the receptor, at the DNA level, etc. So jacking up GH to "work better" with test is illogical, since nature doesn't do this either. IGF itself has little anabolic effect too [Long(R3)-IGF-1 in cattle J Endocrinol. 2003 Dec;179(3):427-35], but it was a good "cutter" preserving weight during low-feed states. Of course, primo at a gram a week equals 4u GH a day or IGF-1 in cost, and which do you think is the better cutter? So the idea the IGF-1 rises during muscle growth does not mean it is the cause, both the IGF-1 rise and the muscle growth could be related to a third unknown cause initiated by the immune response to mechanocontractile muscle damage. So the whole old chain of reasoning is flawed.
This is why it is better to stick to natural substances like testosterone or 19-nor-testosterone (nandrolone) or broad, well-tested pharmaceuticals like methandrostenolone (dbol). Dbol essentially functions like a safe insulin, increased total body glucose stores for growth (Sg) and the initial phase of the insulin response to a meal [ Clin Sci (Lond). 1986 Dec;71(6):665-73.] Furthermore, testosterone is the safest anabolic for men, with unparalleled anabolic actions. All the research on hypertrophy will one day simply be used to creat a physiologic model of why testosterone works so well. Nandrolone and other selective agonists of the androgen receptor turn on the DNA, this starts the cascade of events including both muscle growth, IGF, Binding proteins, etc. The true biochemical axis, the androgen receptor, is the real IGF.
So to cover the GH-insulin-IGF axis the right way, you need anabolic support-nutritive support-anabolic cascade, or testosterone-dianabol-nandrolone.
This is the second time you heard this . . . but some of the newer, interesting studies have been added. The last time you were warned about GH, the fixation was on smashing the utility of GH. Now research focuses on examining the ruins of the GH myth, to see where we went wrong.
Sorry, bro, about your experience. Run some deca-dbol-test, live and learn, and move on. Just build over that shell.
Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
(no slin use at all)
