What’s the current state of generic GH

[Ghoul]

You're asking for literature on Ghoul's paranoid conclusion? That's impossible to do, and my point. It's great to bring up the topic, but be realistic about where the actual data ends and paranoid delusions begin.

Filtering GH isn't a recommendation by any manufacturer. Why is that? Especially if death were a side effect as Ghoul suggests.

You're free to filter your GH. However, the most likely outcome is that you will be throwing some of your money in the trash to avoid side effects you've never experienced.

Investigation on fouling mechanisms for recombinant human growth hormone sterile filtration - PubMed

During sterile filtration of recombinant human growth hormone solutions, severe membrane fouling was experienced compared to other protein preparations of significantly higher molecular weights and concentrations. This phenomenon was attributed to rhGH aggregation/adsorption occurring in the...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Membrane fouling in sterile filtration of recombinant human growth hormone - PubMed

The most troublesome problem encountered during the sterile filtration of protein solutions is membrane fouling. This article presents our study on sterile filtration of a model protein, recombinant human growth hormone (rhGH). Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) analysis shows that 0.22-mum...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022354915505984

I could make up a bunch of theories based on those papers. Filtering GH seems to have potential complications. Filtering UGL GH may have even more? Or not? This is where Ghoul can swoop in to make up something he thinks the data says.

Not sure what part of my posts imply it's "harmful" to filter peptides. I'm not the one fear mongering here.

There could be argument made that it's harmful to your wallet to be injecting expensive water that you may or may not contain the peptides post filtration.


Can you show some examples of studies showing where they have compared groups who filter GH and those who don't?

How many people have been saved from death from filtering GH? What were the percentages of efficacy between the filtered and non-filtered users? Or is this something you extrapolated from your own ideas?

You already tried to claim pharma is using elaborate excipients vs UGL and it was pointed out that Serostim does not.

I think it's a valid concept, but you try to use your own ideas as fact. They're not factual in most cases because you're using data to confirm a bias.

Apparently you do this for "credibility " on a steroid forum and you feel like I'm here to steal that from you?

I consider myself to be an average person with no special credentials in regards to just about everything mentioned here. I'm not delusional about it though.

Maybe you're more than a dude who wastes excessive time making up his own conclusions to other people's research stuff for credibility though? Do you have any published papers on some of your findings?

Wrong on all counts, and what's with the ad hominem attacks? You want to go there? Or be a man and defend your argument with intellect?

You set up a number of straw man arguments here, and impossible metrics that are not found anywhere in real research,

-No one knows particulate load is in UGL GH. But it's certainly higher than pharma. Low quality vials, unregulated manufacturing, zero quality control checks, storage and transportation conditions all uncontrolled. That's both inorganic, like glass delimitation shards, and protein aggregation, which absolutely forms in GH and gets much worse in the absence of control over PH and the use of aggregation preventing excipients.

-Filtration has been demonstrated to reduce particulates more than 95% in pharma GH. Why would you want to leave that in your injectable?

-Filtration has been demonstrated to not cause denaturing of GH, which would be the only way it could harm the GH or produce more aggregates. Loss of GH sticking to the filter is minuscule and insignificant.

And finally, filtering ensures sterility. It's recommend by every commercial peptide producer to their customers when they need to ensure the solution is bacteria free.

You'd filter before injecting a commercially produced peptide into a rat, but since "no one's died" we should accept there's zero risk from UGL GH and not filter, despite the lack of downsides, How can anyone argue with such nonsense logic. When was the last time someone died because a vial stopper wasn't sanitized? We do these things to prevent the rare cases of harm from occurring, not because they're certain to happen.

You don't have to filter. Why would I care? But your argument that this doesn't reduce harm, and in fact may cause it, is nonsense, baseless and dishonest.

Just because I link a single representative study may mean that's all YOU know about that topic, doesn't mean it's all I know.

 

[Toaster]

Literally all pharma gh is filtered prior to packaging lol. You even posted a study describing safely using an industrial pump and industrial .22um filter to successfully reduce aggregates.

There are ways to participate in this conversation and get your feelings across that people will respond to. This probably isn’t going to make anyone respond with any more depth than this.

In a controlled environment with a controlled product.

Again, filtering GH has complications as seen in the papers. Also to Ghouls point, some excipients are have been shown to prevent aggregation in the filters.

Random bros filtering random formulations of GH with various types of setups is not the same thing. You have too many unknowns to guarantee what will occur.

This is a perfect example of what I'm saying. You can't use the information in those papers to prove "filtering GH is safe".

Don't take that to mean I'm saying it's unsafe. At minimum it means you'll lose GH. If that makes you feel safer, by all means go ahead.

Wrong on all counts, and what's with the ad hominem attacks? You want to go there? Or be a man and defend your argument with intellect?

You set up a number of straw man arguments here, and impossible metrics that are not found anywhere in real research,

-No one knows particulate load is in UGL GH. But it's certainly higher than pharma. Low quality vials, unregulated manufacturing, zero quality control checks, storage and transportation conditions all uncontrolled. That's both inorganic, like glass delimitation shards, and protein aggregation, which absolutely forms in GH and gets much worse in the absence of control over PH and the use of aggregation preventing excipients.

-Filtration has been demonstrated to reduce particulates more than 95% in pharma GH. Why would you want to leave that in your injectable?

-Filtration has been demonstrated to not cause denaturing of GH, which would be the only way it could harm the GH or produce more aggregates. Loss of GH sticking to the filter is minuscule and insignificant.

And finally, filtering ensures sterility. It's recommend by every commercial peptide producer to their customers when they need to ensure the solution is bacteria free.

You'd filter before injecting a commercially produced peptide into a rat, but since "no one's died" we should accept there's zero risk from UGL GH and not filter, despite the lack of downsides, How can anyone argue with such nonsense logic. When was the last time someone died because a vial stopper wasn't sanitized? We do these things to prevent the rare cases of harm from occurring, not because they're certain to happen.

You don't have to filter. Why would I care? But your argument that this doesn't reduce harm, and in fact may cause it, is nonsense, baseless and dishonest.

Just because I link a single representative study may mean that's all YOU know about that topic, doesn't mean it's all I know.

There is nothing to defend.

You're making up information based on pieces of information you've found. It's not supported by any data. It appears as a "strawman" and you can't provide the information because it's something you've made up.

If your recommendations were supported by data it would be far more detailed than "filter your peptides or you might die". That's a low effort attempt at "harm reduction". It's also not supported by years of peptide use.

As I said, you're free to filter your peptides. When you do so, good luck determining what you end up with after.

Will it hurt? Probably not. Will it help, maybe?...but you have no data to support what the effects will be only conjecture which conveniently ignores a ton of uncontrollable variables.

It's always worth bringing up things for discussion. You're not an expert and you make up what you want the data to support. While your intentions are probably good, that doesn't mean your ideas are accurate.

----

If you're interested in harm reduction and want credibility, put some details into your recommendations. What type and size of filters should people be using for various Peptides. Maybe you can break them down by size or some other metric.

If I have a 10iu vial of GH what filter should be used? After it's filtered what amount of GH is left in the vial (you're all about harm reduction, so I know you've done the basics and tested this, right?)

Should I use the same filter for all peptides? Are there any concerns of filtering out any commonly used peptides? (Again easily tested, and definitely something that a person passionate about harm reduction would do - we don't want people to inject the wrong dosage)

 

[songsofpyramids]

In a controlled environment with a controlled product.

Again, filtering GH has complications as seen in the papers. Also to Ghouls point, some excipients are have been shown to prevent aggregation in the filters.

Random bros filtering random formulations of GH with various types of setups is not the same thing. You have too many unknowns to guarantee what will occur.

This is a perfect example of what I'm saying. You can't use the information in those papers to prove "filtering GH is safe".

Don't take that to mean I'm saying it's unsafe. At minimum it means you'll lose GH. If that makes you feel safer, by all means go ahead.

There is nothing to defend.

You're making up information based on pieces of information you've found. It's not supported by any data. It appears as a "strawman" and you can't provide the information because it's something you've made up.

If your recommendations were supported by data it would be far more detailed than "filter your peptides or you might die". That's a low effort attempt at "harm reduction". It's also not supported by years of peptide use.

As I said, you're free to filter your peptides. When you do so, good luck determining what you end up with after.

Will it hurt? Probably not. Will it help, maybe?...but you have no data to support what the effects will be only conjecture which conveniently ignores a ton of uncontrollable variables.

It's always worth bringing up things for discussion. You're not an expert and you make up what you want the data to support. While your intentions are probably good, that doesn't mean your ideas are accurate.

----

If you're interested in harm reduction and want credibility, put some details into your recommendations. What type and size of filters should people be using for various Peptides. Maybe you can break them down by size or some other metric.

If I have a 10iu vial of GH what filter should be used? After it's filtered what amount of GH is left in the vial (you're all about harm reduction, so I know you've done the basics and tested this, right?)

Should I use the same filter for all peptides? Are there any concerns of filtering out any commonly used peptides? (Again easily tested, and definitely something that a person passionate about harm reduction would do - we don't want people to inject the wrong dosage)

Most this information is answered in studies and you haven’t read it. Also, the recommendations for all the things you want have been given, you just haven’t read them. It’s hard to take conversations like this seriously when it’s clear you haven’t read about it.

 

[Toaster]

Most this information is answered in studies and you haven’t read it. Also, the recommendations for all the things you want have been given, you just haven’t read them. It’s hard to take conversations like this seriously when it’s clear you haven’t read about it.

Then provide all that information since it's so easily accessible and I'm the only one who hasn't seen it.

 

[readalot]

As the immortal Bonnie
Toleman said..."everyone wanna run they mouth but nobody want to read no heavy ass papers."

Won't even read the posts here.

Post in thread 'QSC - Primo 200 - Quantitative and Endotoxin test results'

Feb 1, 2025

I’m relatively new to the forum and want to make sure I’m being as safe as possible with my peptides. Do you have a prior post you could maybe link me to with high level overview on how to filter to make sure what I’m injecting is safe?

Here are some links to recent filtering discussions. There is a lot of info about why and what size, material, brands and sources where they can be purchased. Currently, the most effective type of filter for peptides is 13mm, .22um, PES Hydrophilic Membrane filters. PAY attention to "Hydrophilic" vs "Hydrophobic," because the latter will not work...

• bigMoJo

• 
• 

 

[Toaster]

As the immortal Bonnie
Toleman said..."everyone wanna run they mouth but nobody want to read no heavy ass papers."

Won't even read the posts here.

[EMBED content="post-343044

As the immortal Bonnie
Toleman said..."everyone wanna run they mouth but nobody want to read no heavy ass papers."

Won't even read the posts here.

Post in thread 'QSC - Primo 200 - Quantitative and Endotoxin test results'

Feb 1, 2025

I’m relatively new to the forum and want to make sure I’m being as safe as possible with my peptides. Do you have a prior post you could maybe link me to with high level overview on how to filter to make sure what I’m injecting is safe?

Here are some links to recent filtering discussions. There is a lot of info about why and what size, material, brands and sources where they can be purchased. Currently, the most effective type of filter for peptides is 13mm, .22um, PES Hydrophilic Membrane filters. PAY attention to "Hydrophilic" vs "Hydrophobic," because the latter will not work...

• bigMoJo

• 
• 

9"]https://thinksteroids.com/community/threads/qsc-primo-200-quantitative-and-endotoxin-test-results.134427668/post-3430449[/EMBED]

And not a single piece of data to support those claims to be seen in that post.

Plenty of data exists to support the filtering of oil.

Where is your data on post filtered peptides? Is it in another post?

 

[readalot]

R

Post in thread 'The Lobster International, US and EU Domestic HGH, PEPTIDES and Turkish Pharmacy'

Feb 25, 2025

Very nice review. Read the whole paper. Apologies if someone already posted this.

https://jpharmsci.org/article/S0022-3549(18)30457-X/abstract

Expanding Bedside Filtration—A Powerful Tool to Protect Patients From Protein Aggregates

BTW, HGH was included in this study.

• readalot

 

[readalot]

 

[readalot]

Chap 2 supplement, p 87

PhD Thesis for the paper above.

Filtration and novel polymeric containers for the improved quality of biotech drug products - CORE Reader

core.ac.uk

Take a look. Table S5.

@Toaster

My apology @Ghoul if you have already posted this resource and paper above it. Chap 2 of the thesis has the supplemental data you may be interested in.

 

[readalot]

 

[Toaster]

That's a lot of data that while interesting just further proves my point.

It's a complicated subject and "filter your peptides or you might die" is a lazy effort at harm reduction.

Like I've said the entire time. It's a valid concept and great to bring up. However, not one bit of this fear mongering has been validated.

Nothing you posted supports the idea you should automatically filter all peptides. You don't just take random data from the Internet and force it to fit your narrative while ignoring tons of variables.

If you're interested in harm reduction, you could be using this information to validate your claims. Until then you have no idea what the actual outcome will be...as has been my point the entire time.

 

[readalot]

That's a lot of data that while interesting just further proves my point.

It's a complicated subject and "filter your peptides or you might die" is a lazy effort at harm reduction.

Like I've said the entire time. It's a valid concept and great to bring up. However, not one bit of this fear mongering has been validated.

Nothing you posted supports the idea you should automatically filter all peptides. You don't just take random data from the Internet and force it to fit your narrative while ignoring tons of variables.

If you're interested in harm reduction, you could be using this information to validate your claims. Until then you have no idea what the actual outcome will be...as has been my point the entire time.

I pointed you to GH data. That's the scope of my interest at this point. Look the the thread title. Enjoy the reading. I don't do fear mongering.

 

[Toaster]

I pointed you to GH data. That's the scope of my interest at this point. Look the the thread title. Enjoy the reading. I don't do fear mongering.

And that GH data is not related to the topic which is "generic" or UGL growth hormone.

It's useful in developing an idea. Useless in making a blanket claim as fact.

 

[songsofpyramids]

And that GH data is not related to the topic which is "generic" or UGL growth hormone.

What makes you think filtering ugl would be worse? What logic are you operating on here? If filtering much cleaner pharma hgh is ok, why would filtering ugl be bad? What magic difference do you see between the two? Personally, I assume ugl hgh isn’t anywhere near as clean as GMP Pharma hgh, so I’m very much struggling to see how what you’re saying is even remotely relevant,,,

It is very hard to take conversations like this seriously if you don’t actually do the reading and you operate with little logic that makes any sense. Read these sources and then come back and we can talk. Otherwise it’s a waste of time and energy for those of us who have been discussing this for around a year.

 

[readalot]

What makes you think filtering ugl would be worse? What logic are you operating on here? If filtering much cleaner pharma hgh is ok, why would filtering ugl be bad? What magic difference do you see between the two? Personally, I assume ugl hgh isn’t anywhere near as clean as GMP Pharma hgh, so I’m very much struggling to see how what you’re saying is even remotely relevant,,,

It is very hard to take conversations like this seriously if you don’t actually do the reading and you operate with little logic that makes any sense. Read these sources and then come back and we can talk. Otherwise it’s a waste of time and energy for those of us who have been discussing this for around a year.

Another day on MESO.

 

[AlexDavis43]

And that GH data is not related to the topic which is "generic" or UGL growth hormone.

It's useful in developing an idea. Useless in making a blanket claim as fact.

The topic is filtered vs nonfiltered UGL hGH, right?

Presumably the same principle would apply to pharma hGH but to simplify, just UGL hGH for now. And the paper you're talking about is 2018 Werner.
(Just trying to keep up)

 

[AlexDavis43]

If I have a 10iu vial of GH what filter should be used? After it's filtered what amount of GH is left in the vial (you're all about harm reduction, so I know you've done the basics and tested this, right?)

It has not been tested by anyone here in the relevant context, although that was proposed elsewhere.

In the meantime, 2018 Werner suggests little loss with filtration (GH was included in this assay).

And filtration itself doesn't harm the peptides (unsure which peptides they used here).

 

[AlexDavis43]

The topic is filtered vs nonfiltered UGL hGH, right?

Presumably the same principle would apply to pharma hGH but to simplify, just UGL hGH for now. And the paper you're talking about is 2018 Werner.
(Just trying to keep up)

1980 Moore is about kids treated with hGH w/ WAY more aggregates ("dimer") than modern UGL.

Some don't develop antibodies. Some develop antibodies that go away. This appears unrelated to the aggregates in their GH preparations (ie, dimer isn't more immunogenic), and the GH still worked either way.

These authors seem fairly convinced it's not a problem.

And this is being compared to modern UGL hGH preparations with <1% aggregates and most assuredly higher quality than 45 years ago.

 

[readalot]

In the meantime, 2018 Werner suggests little loss with filtration (GH was included in this assay).

And filtration itself doesn't harm the peptides (unsure which peptides they used here).

Did you read the paper and corresponding doctoral thesis with supplemental data?

 

[Toaster]

I believe most of you are missing the point.

There is no need to speculate on what may or may not happen based on some published papers using growth hormone.

Unless you're using that exact version of growth hormone, it doesn't apply. For example, some of the data mentions excipients having an effect on aggregates and filter fouling.

Harm reduction is taking those ideas and validating them through testing. Without testing you can speculate all day on what happens to UGL GH or various Peptides.

Some of the data here may be valid, but without testing it's not usable because it's not a direct comparison to anything used by this community.

At no point have I suggested it's harmful whatever else people feel like they want me to be saying. The point is you have no data supporting what happens to UGL GH or Peptides via filtering...or any other data to be honest.

Don't call unsupported speculation harm reduction because it isn't.