Is this not correct? Because you're the first person I've ever seen that is questioning it
IU is measurement of bioactivity, not weight.
There are several methods to check this, one is essentially putting the rHGH and some cells in a test tube, and checking to see how much IGF they produce. X amount of IGF from 1mg of rHGH equals x amount of IU.
In plain English, IU is a measurement of how much properly functioning rHGH is in a mg.
The international pharma standard was set at 3iu per mg (FDA allows max 10% variation, so it can be 2.6 - 3.3 and still say 3iu / mg on the package. But these days real pharma typically nails it at 3-3.1iu).
I’ve seen tests show 1.4 to 4.6 IU/mg rHGH. When a batch of pharma rHGH is over 3iu/mg, it’s too potent and they dilute it to bring it down to the standard. Below 3iu and it’s rejected.
Many factors we can’t test for, minor defects in the molecule, affect bioactivity. And of course we don’t test bioactivity at all.
This probably explains why two batches of rHGH at the same “purity” (that term in chemistry doesn't mean what it does in normal conversation) and the same dose can have different results, ie, one has strong sides the other has none.
Odds are the one causing sides is more bioactive than the one not causing sides. In other words, one might be 4iu/mg and the other 2iu/mg.
For simplicity we just assume all are 3iu/mg but that’s not the case. Even pharma isn’t all 3iu/mg, but their variation will be much less than UGL.
Someday we might get a bioactivity test together and see how UGL rHGH compares vs Pharma. Some labs in India offer the service.