What’s the current state of generic GH

[songsofpyramids]

The blatant lack of reading on your part, mixed with what appears to be a poor grasp on how science works, makes it hard to take you seriously at all. If you would actually read the shit that has been suggested to you, or looked into your questions in the search bar for other discussions, you would be getting a different answer. Requesting specific tests involving specific ugl products would be great, go spend the money on that. Most of us here tend to understand the science we get doesn’t match ugl conditions, and the best we are going to get is science on the Pharma products/versions of the compounds we are interested in.

If filtering is good enough for pharma products, as can be read in the study linked by readalot, then it’s good enough for the stuff that comes from ugl. This component of your argument is frankly silly.

It is not harm reduction to act incredulous without reading any of the literature and then opining on how it doesn’t matter that the pharma science exists as you are doing. How does that even make sense or contribute to the conversation?

I will be disengaging with you until you do the reading. We are not missing points because frankly you’re not making any that make any logical sense, or doing the bare minimum of reading to contribute meaningfully to this conversation…

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

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.

All talk and no fucking action. Then complete avoidance of the question.

 

[readalot]

Won't even read the posts here.

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

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

Chap 2 supplement, p 87

PhD Thesis for the paper above

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

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 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.

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

The point is you have no data supporting what happens to UGL GH or Peptides via filtering...or any other data to be honest.

 

[readalot]

That's fine. I'll red pen it today. Genuinely.

All talk and no fucking action. Then complete avoidance of the question.

I agree.

 

[readalot]

Where?

Did I miss it?

Or you didn't provide after Sampei provided a good plan?

Yep. Avoiding the questions. Many chances at this point.

 

[readalot]

without testing it's not usable because it's not a direct comparison to anything used by this community.

Definitely don't look at Table 1 of the 2018 paper I shared with you. Looks nothing like the excipient list by a popular vendor here. Not sure what I was thinking.



And Table 2. What a joke. Don't even get me started on the rest of the paper.

My bad. Really.

Maybe they used Lobster's stuff come to think of it. Small world.

 

[Toaster]

All talk and no fucking action. Then complete avoidance of the question.

The loudest people on here spam "harm reduction" based on information they found on the Internet.

That information is useful for coming up with an idea that could be used for harm reduction.

Then you actually put the effort into testing that idea. The results are the only thing that qualifies as harm reduction. I believe you're someone who understands that.

If someone chooses not to test their ideas of harm reduction they shouldn't run around giving advice as factual or calling it harm reduction.

It's lazy, dumb, and essentially the opposite of harm reduction.

How many formulations of GH exist via different excipients combinations? It's been established those excipients are used in some cases to prevent aggregation.

Readalot finding an instance of "Growth Hormone" filtering data supports an idea, nothing more.

The best part about this is I see a bunch of people who want me to be saying "something" about the outcome of filtering GH.

We don't know what it is because the people spamming it are too lazy to actually test anything.

That is and continues to be my point.

Edit: Lets also remember that not one white knight of harm reduction has provided one test on a single peptide to even identify what, if anything, they would be filtering out.

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

If someone chooses not to test their ideas of harm reduction they shouldn't run around giving advice as factual or calling it harm reduction.

You are fucking on point with this.

Such horse shit with his fucking ideas.

When we proposed testing he says we have to test every fucking vial

He doesn't t even practice the basis of HPLC. Once stated, he gets defensive and starts talking about all my methed out trailer park customers

He even got in a 3 way DM with Millard crying about my behavior.

He completely avoids questions tried to redirect the topic.

 

[readalot]

Edit: Lets also remember that not one white knight of harm reduction has provided one test on a single peptide to even identify what, if anything, they would be filtering out.

You asked for data and I "spammed" data. Lol.

You in?

Post in thread 'HGH Purity and dimer'

Feb 28, 2025

So bitches are we gonna do this?
How many wanna chip in on this exact test:

1) reconstitution of a vial of HGH and checking for agglomerates.

2) filter the solution and check for agglomerates after filtration

3) store the filtered solution and retest it for agglomerates at two intervals after 6 days and after 12 days.

I'll provide GH vials and filters, the idea of providing the filters is because then we can have results with a filter that is ready available to most of us and nothing that is too hard to acquire.

@janoshik can you quote the cost of a test like this?

• Sampei

• 
• 

 

[AlexDavis43]

You asked for data and I "spammed" data. Lol.

You in?

Post in thread 'HGH Purity and dimer'

Feb 28, 2025

So bitches are we gonna do this?
How many wanna chip in on this exact test:

1) reconstitution of a vial of HGH and checking for agglomerates.

2) filter the solution and check for agglomerates after filtration

3) store the filtered solution and retest it for agglomerates at two intervals after 6 days and after 12 days.

I'll provide GH vials and filters, the idea of providing the filters is because then we can have results with a filter that is ready available to most of us and nothing that is too hard to acquire.

@janoshik can you quote the cost of a test like this?

• Sampei

• 
• 

What is meant by "you in?"?

Because here you said "I don't go around asking specific members to pay"

 

[readalot]

What is meant by "you in?"?

Because here you said "I don't go around asking specific members to pay"

Playful fun given the willful ignorance on display. Figured I would make an exception.

@Ghoul, you in?

See below.

First MFers! I'm in. Well done Sampei.

@Ghoul. It's on.

A.D.: Are you ever going to respond on the markup or just ignoring at this point.

Thanks for responding with that after ignoring me on the stuff that matters where we are actually trying to plan and agree on some testing.

Touching.

 

[AlexDavis43]

Playful fun given the willful ignorance on display. @Ghoul, you in?

See below.



Are you ever going to respond on the markup or just ignoring at this point.

Sampei beat me to it. I responded and you acknowledged it.

So yeah at this point I'm just ignoring.

 

[readalot]

Sampei beat me to it. I responded and you acknowledged it.

So yeah at this point I'm just ignoring.

So you are good with his plan. Excellent.

Thanks for finally confirming that any redline won't be necessary at this point.

 

[Ghoul]

Playful fun given the willful ignorance on display. @Ghoul, you in?

See below.



Are you ever going to respond on the markup or just ignoring at this point.

@readalot @Sampei

I decided to hang back, let the argument flesh itself out, and let everyone stake out their positions before I rejoined.

Before responding with information I think you and any good faith observer will find useful, can we agree to narrow the scope of the discussion for the moment?

As I understand it, what's being proposed is essentially that we establish:

-In conditions similar to real world use of HGH by this community

-Using gear similar to what we would use, HGH, syringe, filter. Nothing "special".

-We establish that filtration usefully reduces the aggregates / particulates contaminating the HGH

- and that the HGH is not damaged, and / or more aggregates are created by filtration. In other words, establish we're not doing more harm than good.

Correct?

Have I missed any other questions related to filtration that we're seeking to answer with this proposed testing?

 

[songsofpyramids]

The best part about this is I see a bunch of people who want me to be saying "something" about the outcome of filtering GH.

We don't know what it is because the people spamming it are too lazy to actually test anything.

If you believe in medical science we do in fact have a pretty good idea.

As of yet I haven’t heard one convincing argument against filtering, just a bunch of people saying they want testing for it before believing in it. That’s cool, I support robust testing in all forms. But an argument against it using the available literature and not crying about testing would be cool and make this a lot more fun of a conversation.

 

[Ateam2023]

I am one of "The fence riders" as far as filtering hgh/ peptides, But i do have all the necessary and proper filters for when , I will not discount the effort and research avenues that are provided and in fact value these as i AM "curious " and do like the "potential " benefits that filtering could provide, I just haven't pulled the trigger so to speak and i am Still evaluating the options, (Which i know the options) ,,

 

[readalot]

@readalot @Sampei

I decided to hang back, let the argument flesh itself out, and let everyone stake out their positions before I rejoined.

Before responding with information I think you and any good faith observer will find useful, can we agree to narrow the scope of the discussion for the moment?

As I understand it, what's being proposed is essentially that we establish:

-In conditions similar to real world use of HGH by this community

-Using gear similar to what we would use, HGH, syringe, filter. Nothing "special".

-We establish that filtration usefully reduces the aggregates / particulates contaminating the HGH

- and that the HGH is not damaged, and / or more aggregates are created by filtration. In other words, establish we're not doing more harm than good.

Correct?

Have I missed any other questions related to filtration that we're seeking to answer with this proposed testing?

That's it and if you read the linked thread we would use Jano's SEC testing to capture >=DP2 to use as metric (all higher MW oligomers).

R

Post in thread 'HGH Purity and dimer'

Feb 28, 2025

Can we get DP1-DP4 with Jano or another method to get higher than DP2 at his disposal? See the USP testing standard.

USP Monographs: Somatropin

See section:

Limit of higher MW proteins.

Confirmed yes.


So we can use Jano's SEC assay to measure higher MW aggregates of HGH. This value is labeled "dimer and related proteins" on Jano's test reports. It's not just dimer.

Maybe was clear to everyone except me. But...

• readalot

• 

 

[Ghoul]

That's it and if you read the linked thread we would use Jano's SEC testing to capture >=DP2 to use as metric (all higher MW oligomers).

R

Post in thread 'HGH Purity and dimer'

Feb 28, 2025

Can we get DP1-DP4 with Jano or another method to get higher than DP2 at his disposal? See the USP testing standard.

USP Monographs: Somatropin

See section:

Limit of higher MW proteins.

Confirmed yes.


So we can use Jano's SEC assay to measure higher MW aggregates of HGH. This value is labeled "dimer and related proteins" on Jano's test reports. It's not just dimer.

Maybe was clear to everyone except me. But...

• readalot

• 

@readalot @Sampei

So after digging into the ~150 pages of the peer reviewed "Bedside Filtration" study published in the Journal of Pharmaceutical Science (linked below) I've distilled it down to the most relevant points.

I don't feel like writing a novel and I'm sure you're not interested in reading one. I'm writing this summary for a friendly audience. I'll be glad to go into detail or substantiate any of these assertions in follow up posts. I'll entertain anyone's questions, just be courteous, or I won't bother.

--------------

This experiment was designed and conducted under the supervision of one of the world's leading Pharmaceutical Technology scientists. Credentials are impeccable. A prolific innovator in the formulation, delivery, and lyophilization of protein / peptide drugs.

-Using gear similar to what we would use, HGH, syringe, filter. Nothing "special".

- A vial of lyophilized commercial pharma rHGH was reconstituted.

- Used standard off the shelf 1ml luer lock syringes, 27g gauge needles, 25mm PES .22um syringe filters.

-We establish that filtration usefully reduces the aggregates / particulates contaminating the HGH

- Particulate contamination of ALL types above 1um was counted by the pharma industry standard method for injectable drugs, Micro Flow Inspection. Visible particles begin at 100um for reference.

This is superior to only measuring aggregates imo.

Filtration removed 99.95%+ of particles above 1um. From 90,000 to 400, approximately.

Below 1um, a different pharma industry standard instrument was used, which tldr indicated smaller particles were also reduced.

- and that the HGH is not damaged, and / or more aggregates are created by filtration. In other words, establish we're not doing more harm than good.

- The only way new aggregates could be induced by filtration is by "denaturing" proteins. This is damage to the protein's "shape", aka its "secondary structure" (as differentiated from the chain of aminos, aka "primary structure).

Analysis before and after syringe filtration showed no change to the secondary structure of the growth hormone. Like every other test or measurement in the study, it was repeated 3 times.

-The other potential harm to the compound caused by filtration is adsorption of the protein to the filter. The worst case scenario, measured via HPLC, was the loss of .025mg rHGH after filtration.

This comprehensive study covered many factors we didn't consider.

-Shedding of filter particles.
-Leaching of chemicals from the filter or housing.
-Change to the buffer quality of the solution, impairing its ability to maintain proper PH.

All of which were non-issues.

------------

This is as close to an ideal study, comprehensively measuring the effects of real world syringe filtration of rHGH as we could hope for, only missing the "let it sit for a week to see if aggregates develop" aspect. I suspect that wasn't seen as necessary after checking for desaturation.

This experiment was repeated with 19 protein based drugs, all with similar results.

If aggregates form after filtration, that's almost certainly because of other factors like formulation, ph, etc, and you'd have to have a non-filtered sample from the same batch, and measure the increase in aggregation in that sample over the same period of time you give the filtered sample, then compare the two.

It's worth pointing out that filtration is part of the process Jano uses to prepare a sample for analysis. Does that damage peptides prior to his testing?

Knowing filtering with a syringe filter doesn't denature the rHGH ( referred to in the study as "common knowledge"), change the ph, or do anything known to increase aggregation, what is it we're looking for?

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

Protein immunogenicity is intensively researched by academics, biopharmaceutical companies, and authorities as it can compromise the safety and efficacy of a biopharmaceutical drug. So far, the exact protein aggregate properties inducing immune responses are not known. Possible protein-related...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[readalot]

@readalot @Sampei

So after digging into the ~150 pages of the peer reviewed "Bedside Filtration" study published in the Journal of Pharmaceutical Science (linked below) I've distilled it down to the most relevant points.

I don't feel like writing a novel and I'm sure you're not interested in reading one. I'm writing this summary for a friendly audience. I'll be glad to go into detail or substantiate any of these assertions in follow up posts. I'll entertain anyone's questions, just be courteous, or I won't bother.

--------------

This experiment was designed and conducted under the supervision of one of the world's leading Pharmaceutical Technology scientists. Credentials are impeccable. A prolific innovator in the formulation, delivery, and lyophilization of protein / peptide drugs.

-Using gear similar to what we would use, HGH, syringe, filter. Nothing "special".

- A vial of lyophilized commercial pharma rHGH was reconstituted.

- Used standard off the shelf 1ml luer lock syringes, 27g gauge needles, 25mm PES .22um syringe filters.

-We establish that filtration usefully reduces the aggregates / particulates contaminating the HGH

- Particulate contamination of ALL types above 1um was counted by the pharma industry standard method for injectable drugs, Micro Flow Inspection. Visible particles begin at 100um for reference.

This is superior to only measuring aggregates imo.

Filtration removed 99.95%+ of particles above 1um. From 90,000 to 400, approximately.

Below 1um, a different pharma industry standard instrument was used, which tldr indicated smaller particles were also reduced.

- and that the HGH is not damaged, and / or more aggregates are created by filtration. In other words, establish we're not doing more harm than good.

- The only way new aggregates could be induced by filtration is by "denaturing" proteins. This is damage to the protein's "shape", aka its "secondary structure" (as differentiated from the chain of aminos, aka "primary structure).

Analysis before and after syringe filtration showed no change to the secondary structure of the growth hormone. Like every other test or measurement in the study, it was repeated 3 times.

-The other potential harm to the compound caused by filtration is adsorption of the protein to the filter. The worst case scenario, measured via HPLC, was the loss of .025mg rHGH after filtration.

This comprehensive study covered many factors we didn't consider.

-Shedding of filter particles.
-Leaching of chemicals from the filter or housing.
-Change to the buffer quality of the solution, impairing its ability to maintain proper PH.

All of which were non-issues.

------------

This is as close to an ideal study, comprehensively measuring the effects of real world syringe filtration of rHGH as we could hope for, only missing the "let it sit for a week to see if aggregates develop" aspect. I suspect that wasn't seen as necessary after checking for desaturation.

This experiment was repeated with 19 protein based drugs, all with similar results.

If aggregates form after filtration, that's almost certainly because of other factors like formulation, ph, etc, and you'd have to have a non-filtered sample from the same batch, and measure the increase in aggregation in that sample over the same period of time you give the filtered sample, then compare the two.

It's worth pointing out that filtration is part of the process Jano uses to prepare a sample for analysis. Does that damage peptides prior to his testing?

Knowing filtering with a syringe filter doesn't denature the rHGH ( referred to in the study as "common knowledge"), change the ph, or do anything known to increase aggregation, what is it we're looking for?

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

Protein immunogenicity is intensively researched by academics, biopharmaceutical companies, and authorities as it can compromise the safety and efficacy of a biopharmaceutical drug. So far, the exact protein aggregate properties inducing immune responses are not known. Possible protein-related...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

You aren't missing anything. The only data some here will accept is data we generate ourselves as part of this group effort so that's fine. I'm down.

The claim that the data shared above in the 2018 paper is not applicable to UG users is simply silly. Nothing else I can really say. Look forward to the group effort.

 

[Ghoul]

You aren't missing anything. The only data some here will accept is data we generate ourselves as part of this group effort so that's fine. I'm down.

The claim that the data shared above in the 2018 paper is not applicable to UG users is simply silly. Nothing else I can really say. Look forward to the group effort.

Since disproportionate weight will be given to the Jano results vs what was done here, it's especially important to structure the test properly.

Most importantly is establishing the level of aggregates at the start and end in both the filtered and unfiltered samples after receiving the same treatment.

Just because some shit UGL formation has a propensity to aggregate quickly could easily be interpreted as "filtering causes aggregation".

It'd be nice to get an MFI particle count. Because it's pretty damn unlikely pharma grade HGH has fewer particles than UGL. Since some will dismiss aggregation as nothing of concern anyway, it's still hard to argue getting the particulate trash of any kind out of what you're injecting is a bad idea.

There is simply no known way low pressure syringe filtration would increase aggregation. It may be my fault for bringing that possibility up to begin with, but it's now clear to me that is a potential issue on the manufacturing line, not one in the hands of a syringe holder.