To some extent it’s just a challenge for myself to see if I can do it, and then it might be valuable information to put out there for others reading in the future.
If people have been using unfiltered hgh for years without notice a drop in effectiveness then who knows maybe it’s fine, everyone has there own comfort level.
I did see one guy on here who was doing 60iu a day which made me think there might be some truth to the whole immunity thing lol.
Your experience is completely anomalous.
There’s no shortage of people here filtering without creating visible aggregation. I’ve filtered hundreds of vials of rHGH and never had that issue.
I brought up the topic of sheer stress here, because I found references to it when I was researching whether there was any possibility of harm from filtering. It reflected the fact I was keeping an open mind to both positive and negative aspects of the entire concept. The end result was that it was an issue engineers setting up industrial production of rHGH encountered when using very high pressures and small aperture metal tubes, nothing close to the pressure of hand pressed syringes.
It’s been done under carefully controlled laboratory conditions, using off the shelf consumer syringes and syringe filters, looking for damage or lost rHGH using testing equipment that goes well beyond what Jano’s lab has, by professional scientists including a recognized industry leading innovator who formulates peptide and protein drug delivery systems for pharma.
It’s been demonstrated to remove massive amounts of aggregates and other particulate matter without losing rHGH or damaging its structure making it more prone to aggregation.
I don’t know what’s going on in your situation, but it’s 100% something in your specific set up or technique, not evidence that “filtering harms rHGH”.
I can show proof of any of this. As I said, I went down every avenue, positive and negative, before coming to a conclusion, and continue to update my knowledge on the topic.
Filtering does not inherently harm rHGH, sterilizes what is frequently unsterile, removes inorganic particulates, and reduces the widely recognized risk of aggregates.
We’re talking about harms in which the risk is one thats cumulative over the long term, causing damage that would be extremely unlikely to have a clear line back to contaminants from unregulated injectable drugs made in a country renowned for having no concern for consumer safety.
That lack of concern is in above board industries like baby formula that have some oversight.
The dishonest, ongoing anti-harm reduction campaign by a (very) few would have you believe Chinese criminals, knowing they can never be held accountable are more concerned about your well being than legal companies in a culture that’s poisoned infants, recycled oil scavenged from sewers for food prep, and worse to boost profits a small amount. That if harms are not immediately apparent, or won’t appear for years, they shouldn’t be taken seriously. That the fact pharma regulators and companies invest enormous amounts of time and money to minimize aggregates isn’t evidence of how serious potential harms are, it’s just a conspiracy of bubble boys chasing phantoms because the only acceptable proof would be clinical trials intentionally injecting garbage into subjects for years to see what harm it causes them.
If anyone has any doubt as to what I’m saying here about the recognized risks that Pharma and regulators work hard to minimize, which filtering goes some small way to replicate and bring UGL a little closer to the safety standards of Pharma, feel free to ask. I have the receipts.
If you don’t care to reduce risk, I’m not judging you. Anyone with zero risk tolerance wouldn’t use UGL anything..
But for those that do care, and are interested in their long term well being, don’t be lulled into complacency by those who discount what’s of great concern to the professionals who set the quality standards and produce the pharma versions we’d all use if cost and access were not an issue.
Worse, beware the dishonest claims that filtering increases harm, because like arguments that that tell people what they want to hear, it’s very seductive and easy to swallow. It justifies the low effort path by presenting it as the real way to minimize harm. One that says “believe me, and not only will it require zero effort going forward, you can feel good about the way you’ve done things up to now.”.
