Annoying air bubbles

[Ghoul]

People are largely getting the similar results from UGL hGH as pharma hGH (every once in a while someone claims a huge night & day difference but I have doubts)

So... seems like trying to find a solution to a problem that doesn't exist

Your results show responses all over the board. I don't see how you find "similar results" from that mess of numbers. Pharma has been able to predict IGF response in adults within about 40% variability for a given dose, while yours show 500%+.

You seem determined to rationalize your use of unfiltered, carelessly handled UGL as the motive behind your arguments.

You don't need to change anything.

This discussion is about improving practices for those who see value in it, even if you think the benefits are marginal and the risks reduced are very unlikely to manifest.

Filtering and taking care certainly doesn't cause harm, reduces its potential, while not doing so, at best, leaves the user's health at the mercy of some Chinese UGL.

Basically, a position that all the care pharma and FDA take to prevent damage to rHGH has no basis in reality. All the work on careful excipient formulations, establishing strict practices for handling, and the countless experiments that show how rHGH can be and is damaged in ways usually not visible in the basic "purity" testing is smoke and mirrors.

 

[Ghoul]

It does look like at some point Q did recommend the use of 0.1% Tween 80 for hgh. Not easy to find a small bottle of USP grade, seems to all be sold in larger bottles.

Tracy said that after the first few batches of rHGH "made" in house (what they had to mean was finishing raw rHGH with excipients and lyophilizing), they switched to mannitol only. This is used as a bulking agent and helps the lyophilization process, and not much else once reconstituted, like the ph buffers or anti-aggregation agents commonly found in pharma formulations.

In hindsight, I think his technician/chemist was doing it "right" with extra excipients, maybe copying an existing formulation, to protect the rHGH from degradation once reconstituted.

However, we now know that certain excipients can detract from purity unless MS is specified and paid for when Jano's testing. Otherwise they're just lumped in with contaminants.

Chinese vendors aren't stupid. When "dimer" became a focus, they figured out how to reduce or eliminate it, because they knew customers would judge them against their competitors on it.

With "purity" as the main metric, ditching excipients that could reduce that magic number became their focus, even if they knew a lower purity may represent a superior product if it was due to the presence of protective excipients that kept more of the rHGH in your vial active.

I have to keep repeating this, but it needs to get through. "Purity" verifies the percentage of rHGH that's chemically correct. It has all the right amino acids. But rHGH must also be in the correct shape to function, or it's useless. "Unfolding" is the most common way rHGH degrades, and as of now we don't measure it. "Cloudy" rHGH is the only time we can clearly see that it's present. But we know it exists, which is why 1mg of some pharma is 2.7iu and others are 3.1iu (iu=biological activity), despite the FDA allowing all labels to just say 3iu per mg. Some amount of the rHGH in that mg is unfolded and inactive.

Thats one reason pressing for more comprehensive testing (@readalot) is so valuable. We know vendors respond to it, like they did with dimer.

Most buyers don't even know what dimer is, or why (if) it matters. They just know less is better.

"I don't gaf about aggregates. but I don't want any dimer in there!" lol

 

[Photon]

With "purity" as the main metric, ditching excipients that could reduce that magic number became their focus, even if they knew a lower purity may represent a superior product if it was due to the presence of protective excipients that kept more of the rHGH in your vial active.

I believe excipients may be excluded from purity results for peptides -- if you see the recent case with SRY, they excluded that weird excipient from the test results which resulted in increased purity (purity was shit with it included in the test results) -- the excipient was still present, just excluded from the results.

Sadly Jano does not currently report what is being excluded.

 

[Ghoul]

I believe excipients may be excluded from purity results for peptides -- if you see the recent case with SRY, they excluded that weird excipient from the test results which resulted in increased purity (purity was shit with it included in the test results) -- the excipient was still present, just excluded from the results.

Sadly Jano does not currently report what is being excluded.

That's exactly what the eureka moment was for me. We know mannitol is excluded. But what else? Polysorbate? Glycine? PH buffers?

We don't know. UGLs don't know. So the safest thing for them is to exclude them to our detriment. It's an inadvertent perverse incentive to NOT improve a peptide/rHGH.

And Jano's not the only lab. So even if it gets straightened out with his, UGLs don't want to risk a poor result with others.

It's an interesting situation but one that should really be able to be solved easily.

Jano provides a list of excluded excipients, and UGLs should have the opportunity to pay to identify excipients when there's a peak indicating something is present but unidentified. The vendor may not even know what's in the vial. It would benefit everyone.

 

[Photon]

We don't know. UGLs don't know. So the safest thing for them is to exclude them to our detriment. It's an inadvertent perverse incentive to NOT improve a peptide/rHGH.

Jano does know. He excludes them from the results.
Q has always used the same excipicent. Nobody has ever needed to specify what excipicent to be excluded from purity testing when sending their hgh for testing. It's just not listed on the test report and excluded when purity is calculated.

Saying that UGL does not include any excipicent at all, may or may not be true. But the test results does exclude excipicents.

Jano provides a list of excluded excipients, and UGLs should have the opportunity to pay to identify excipients when there's a peak indicating something is present but unidentified.

If its not identified and excluded, it messes up the purity. See the recent case with SRY -- with an unidentified excipicent not excluded from test results, purity turned to shit. With it excluded from test results, you have gold -- 99% purity. Either way it is still present in the product.

Post in thread 'SRY Tirz 30 with disinfectant?'

Jun 15, 2025

You can read about it here -- Sample report by a lab Ive never used.
It would be great if Jano could include more details in his lab reports..

Trustpointe Analytics LLC COA Verification System

We indeed can automatically attach tons of useless generic data to each report, but I don't see the value other than it looking more sciencey.

A HPLC report is ran, an unknown spike was noticed, which was traced to being a disinfectant. It's probably not common which is why they looked in it.

HPLC report is ran, unknown spike is detected, turns purity to shit...

• janoshik

• 
• 

 

[Ghoul]

Jano does know. He excludes them from the results.
Q has always used the same excipicent. Nobody has ever needed to specify what to be excluded when sending their hgh for testing. It's just not listed on the test report and excluded when purity is calculated.



If its not identified and excluded, it messes up the purity. See the recent case with SRY -- with an unidentified excipicent not excluded from test results, purity turned to shit. With it excluded from test results, you have gold -- 99% purity. Either way it is still present in the product.

Post in thread 'SRY Tirz 30 with disinfectant?'

Jun 15, 2025

You can read about it here -- Sample report by a lab Ive never used.
It would be great if Jano could include more details in his lab reports..

Trustpointe Analytics LLC COA Verification System

We indeed can automatically attach tons of useless generic data to each report, but I don't see the value other than it looking more sciencey.

A HPLC report is ran, an unknown spike was noticed, which was traced to being a disinfectant. It's probably not common which is why they looked in it.

HPLC report is ran, unknown spike is detected, turns purity to shit...

• janoshik

• 
• 

We are saying essentially the same thing.

With one exception. The change in QSC's in house rHGH excipient formulation from multiple ingredients to mannitol only. I had that conversation with him.

Perhaps UGLs know what's excluded, I'm sure they have an idea, but I don't know Jano's given them a list.

@janoshik Could you tell us which excipients are excluded from purity calculations? Thanks

 

[AlexDavis43]

Your results show responses all over the board. I don't see how you find "similar results" from that mess of numbers. Pharma has been able to predict IGF response in adults within about 40% variability for a given dose, while yours show 500%+.

You seem determined to rationalize your use of unfiltered, carelessly handled UGL as the motive behind your arguments.

It's ridiculous to compare the variability of clinical trials to an informal survey of Meso GH users.

For anyone else reading this, one of the main points of clinical trials is specifically to REDUCE variability.

Charting Meso users' GH dose and IGF1 levels doesn't take into account any other variables like age, calorie deficit or surplus, other gear like tren, duration of GH use, etc... in other words it is expected to have much more variability.

This variability is not a reflection of GH source (UGL or pharma), quality, or how it was handled or whatever.

 

[readalot]

Charting Meso users' GH dose and IGF1 levels doesn't take into account any other variables like age, calorie deficit or surplus, other gear like tren, duration of GH use, etc... in other words it is expected to have much more variability.

Body mass would be another key one as we discussed.