DR Jim. Would you ever considered buying any Generic hgh?
MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
Trusted GH
- Thread starter erube22
- Start date
Many ppl are getting good results off TP's blacks though. And a recent Igf test in the labs section is through the roof
Last edited:
i don't know anything about anything. just posting what was presented. they are supposed to get the results back from simec any day now. match those results back from these results and we'll see if it matches. can we trust simec?
lol.
Now be fair Jim. There are only two equal to the Pharm Grade sample(serostim).
Most say yes and some say no. I trust Millard and he trusts SIMEC. That's good enough for me.
mands
RingMeister01
Member
Rest easy if Mands approves.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'm being fair bc a variance of 4% at a purity of > 94% equals that of Pharm grade.
AAS aren't GH especially when testing is involved. GH requirements for reliability are quite different and for this reason simply posting narrative GH results on any forum just won't do in my book especially when the testing conducted fails to mention MS or Amino Acid Analysis.
The fact is HPLC and ELISA testing can be HIGHLY operator and equipment dependent.
We all learn by doing and that's what I've learned after testing GH for close to 5 years, and I've tested A LOT of GH!
NOOOO!
And that, among other factors, is what HPLC and ELISA testing doesn't tell you, bc all the junk elutes off the grid!
You know what GH "purity" is an assay for? I ask bc most DO NOT!
Last edited:
Actually thats being somewhat disingenuous bc I have purchased generic GH before, primarily to TEST IT!
While I'll be the first to admit the overall quality of G-GH has improved considerably over the years, it's efficacy has NEVER been proven in clinical trials.
More importantly the adverse effects so many users experience when G-GH is run remains wo explanation, many accepting a more simplified "wait until the next batch" excuse.
It's for these reasons and others I am anything but convinced G-GH is a safe alternative to Pharm grade!
Oh and rest assured I'm delighted you posted this info on MESO, bc it's highly unlikely criticism along these lines would have been allowed on PM!
No lab is above reproach NONE, bc people and highly technical equipment is involved and ALL are prone to err!
Even though "purity" is what we want it's the actual biological activity which makes it key. You can have a high purity product and a low biological activity.
Purity is basically a check for interference from other proteins and contaminants correct?
mands
GH purity is a measure of the how close the product being tested is to that of rHGH. So it includes the MW, the Amino Acid sequence, and their relative proportions within 191 AA polypeptide sequence.
Unlike AAS it does not evaluate for the presence of "contaminants".
So for example bc every HPLC has a set sensitivity and specificy range of roughly 0.01% and the MW of rHGH is 22K many HPLC purity assays for GH will readily
MISS 192 AA GH, or a variety of other aberrant AA "insertions".
These wrong insertions within the 191 AA PP chain are referred to as "intrinsic GH contaminants" and occur with a relatively high frequency even in Ph grade.
Last edited:
So they are contaminants of sorts Mands
Case in point recall the last GH assays we posted and the amount of GLYCINE that only became apparent after an AAA.
These were solvent "contaminants" much along the lines of AAS but eluted from the HPLC grid and went undetected until an AAA was conducted.
More importantly bc the glycine was in such ridiculously high concentrations the chemists believed it could have interfered with the HPLC accuracy or perhaps may have been responsible for some of the side effects.
Yea it's all conjecture but that's what we are left with when G-GH is involved; a bunch of this, some of that, a little bit of them and some of those, AND none of these knowns are an issue with Pharmaceutical GH
These were solvent "contaminants" much along the lines of AAS but eluted from the HPLC grid and went undetected until an AAA was conducted.
More importantly bc the glycine was in such ridiculously high concentrations the chemists believed it could have interfered with the HPLC accuracy or perhaps may have been responsible for some of the side effects.
Yea it's all conjecture but that's what we are left with when G-GH is involved; a bunch of this, some of that, a little bit of them and some of those, AND none of these knowns are an issue with Pharmaceutical GH
Last edited:
I had some sent to me instead of the pharm grade i have been running. Figured i would give it a try and it gave me red welts. Back to pharm grade after only 3 pins.
What GH product was it?
Adverse effects of that nature are rarely if ever seen with Pharm GH.
I suspect the cause is a protein allergy which elutes off the HPLC grid and is best detected thru AAA assays.
(Yes a MS can also miss low MW polypeptides, depending upon the settings used and the number of times a sample is run)
It's for these reasons and others, labs miss what they are not looking for on a regular basis.
Nonetheless, Big Pharma greatly reduces this feral protein problem by running ALL of the E-coli precipitate thru a highly selective and specific protein electrophoresis ultrafiltration process.
I'm told the cost for this device alone ranges bt 1-2 MILLION!
Adverse effects of that nature are rarely if ever seen with Pharm GH.
I suspect the cause is a protein allergy which elutes off the HPLC grid and is best detected thru AAA assays.
(Yes a MS can also miss low MW polypeptides, depending upon the settings used and the number of times a sample is run)
It's for these reasons and others, labs miss what they are not looking for on a regular basis.
Nonetheless, Big Pharma greatly reduces this feral protein problem by running ALL of the E-coli precipitate thru a highly selective and specific protein electrophoresis ultrafiltration process.
I'm told the cost for this device alone ranges bt 1-2 MILLION!
Last edited:
Yeah, i was supposed to rec pharm grade as this is all i have ever used. Long story short, They were replaced with Karl's somastim, and of course i was "assured" it was great quality lol!!!! And you know the rest of the story.
There's an entire thread on Karl's first run of GH, no it was the second batch, or was it the third, bla, bla, bla, but the next run was going to be "better"
and safer.
The problem excluding it's unestablished efficacy was a considerable portion of users were developing arthus type reactions.
Leave no doubt, current G-GH users are using an "experimental drug", IMO
bc UGL are manufacturing this compound "on the cheap" compared to Pharmaceutical rHGH, and when it comes to GH you get what you pay for.
and safer.
The problem excluding it's unestablished efficacy was a considerable portion of users were developing arthus type reactions.
Leave no doubt, current G-GH users are using an "experimental drug", IMO
bc UGL are manufacturing this compound "on the cheap" compared to Pharmaceutical rHGH, and when it comes to GH you get what you pay for.
Last edited:
Similar threads
