Qingdao Sigma Chemical Co., Ltd (International, US, EU, Canada and Australia domestic

[Qingdao Sigma Chemicals]

Hi Tracy @Qingdao Sigma Chemicals i CC'd you on an email earlier regarding my recent black Friday order.
I am having a small issue with Nia your new assistant.
I sent and confirmed payment with her last week but she says she needs to confirm payment with payments department or something?
Also she never sent me the email with the confirmation of order sheet with what I ordered plus my address and phone number etc.
The way Jessica used to do it was very efficient and clear.

We don’t send confirmation email.
It means your order is processed

 

[ThePepBrother]

@Qingdao Sigma Chemicals What color are the caps on the Test-C 250mg vials from the Test Apocalypse Promo supposed to be? I was expecting purple based upon the link to the Jano on the price list, but I received blue cap vials which the price list shows as being Test-E.

 

[bighunanballs]

This is interesting, because "High Molecular Weight" (HMW) proteins can induce side effects, largely through immunogenic reactions.

However, HMWs can either be longer than intended protein chains that aren't removed during the recombinant production process, which would show up in purity tests, or aggregates, which primarily form after reconstitution.

We can see there's been an evolution in the quality of HGH from years ago, when zero dimer was a rarity, for instance. It's important to recognize what was true a decade ago is not necessarily true today.

Since we're seeing 99%+ purity tests on UGL hGH, I'd say the remaining difference between Pharma and UGL is the lack of aggregate formation prevention through the careless choice of excipients (especially PH control), substandard BAC water, excess concentration of reconstituted product, contaminated containers providing aggregate "seeds" that become the nuclei for aggregates, and general poor handling by vendors and end users.

This is unlike the differences between pharma GLPs and UGL GLPs, since pharma is recombinant and UGL is synthesized, regardless of the purity achieved, or the lack of aggregation(though this is also an issue for UGL for the same reasons as above), synthesized proteins appear as more "foreign" to the immune system than recombinant produced proteins and trigger stronger immune responses.

At the end of the day all this points to the fact that if you want to get as close to "pharma" results as you can, use what's in your control to mimic pharma.

Start with the purest HGH / peptide you can source.

Use pharma grade BAC

Reconstitute to the proper minimum dilution ratio.

Filter (even better if done "per dose" just before administration, but this can be a pain in the ass, though there are ways to make it more practical).

Transfer to a container that's been certified particulate free by an FDA facility (these are cheap).

Protect from heat, impact, and light by spending the extra dime on amber glass(thanks @Clover 0080) .

Try to use lower dose vials to minimize the time your peptide/HGH is in reconstituted form.

I'd be curious on your opinion if a person nonchalantly used UGL HGH and reconstituted at a high concentration potentially spiking immune response, would this eventually lower over time if you took steps to filter aggregates and diluted your HGH concentration. Curious if "the damage is already done" do you just need to take a break then restart it again after X amount of time with better protocols hopefully lowering the potential for immune response.

 

[Ghoul]

I'd be curious on your opinion if a person nonchalantly used UGL HGH and reconstituted at a high concentration potentially spiking immune response, would this eventually lower over time if you took steps to filter aggregates and diluted your HGH concentration. Curious if "the damage is already done" do you just need to take a break then restart it again after X amount of time with better protocols hopefully lowering the potential for immune response.

Obviously we're always going to be hampered by the fact we, as in UGL users, are not getting antibodies checked, or closely monitoring outcome like pharma does during clinical trials, and in the case of GH treatment, even the way "normal" patients are monitored for antibody development and loss of efficacy.

What we do know is that

1) In those on pharma GH treatment antibodies can and have risen high enough to lessen effectiveness of the drug and in some cases worsen the original problem of some patients. A very small percentage have had to be taken off HGH because of this,

2) Despite not measuring its impact, every factor known to worsen immunogenicity is present in UGL Hgh, and the methods by which it's reconstituted, handled, and used. So the above problem is going to develop at some higher. but unknown rate.

3. To your specific question, the concept of "re-exposure" after breaks in peptide/protein drug treatment is recognized as increasing the risk of immunogenicity problems vs subjects who are "naive". "Continuous exposure" often results in less of an immune reaction than stopping and restarting. I can't find any studies about treatment "vacations" with GH specifically, but we do know that on pharma GH, most often immunogenicity peaks, and levels off, allowing for years of treatment without rising to a level where it impacts the effectiveness of the drug. However, pharma GH is all about keeping immunogenicity low. If it were higher, this may not be the case, and effectiveness could progressively drop, and sides worsen over time. This is major reason for the failure of many peptide/protein drugs in development, and even the case with numerous FDA approved protein therapeutics, including some GLPs, but the affected group is small enough the FDA allows the drugs to be used with additional monitoring for immunogenicity.

Whether and how long of a break it takes to "reset" your immune system to a HGH "naive" state is unknown.

A good analogy for all this are vaccines. They induce a desired kind of "immunogenicity" by the same processes we want to avoid with peptides. Some vaccines need to be renewed often, because the immune system "forgets", and others are good for a lifetime, because the immune system "never forgets" how to rid itself of that particular protein.

So the bottom line, do what you can to minimize the risk. I wouldn't take an otherwise undesired break to try and "reset" since we don't know if or how long that would take to work, and it could actually worsen things. With other protein therapeutics, repeated breaks amplify this immunogenic effect vs a single break. That's why some vaccines are given as a series with breaks in between shots, to maximize the immune system's "lesson" in how to quickly remove a protein invader.

When it comes to HGH concentration, the highest I've found that does not produce problematic levels of immunogenicity (for a pharma formulation that has anti-aggregation excipients) is .05ml per iu, ie. 5iu 2.5ml (or 25units) allowing for a much more concentrated solution than a lot of other peptides, but of course, we're not dealing with pharma's ideal formulation and conditions, so going more dilute than that minimum would be a good idea. Most pharma manufacturers of HGH(aside from multi-dose pens) seem to shoot for an injection volume range of .3ml to .8ml for every dose, regardless of ius.

 

[kingtung]

This is interesting, because "High Molecular Weight" (HMW) proteins can induce side effects, largely through immunogenic reactions.

However, HMWs can either be longer than intended protein chains that aren't removed during the recombinant production process, which would show up in purity tests, or aggregates, which primarily form after reconstitution.

We can see there's been an evolution in the quality of HGH from years ago, when zero dimer was a rarity, for instance. It's important to recognize what was true a decade ago is not necessarily true today.

Since we're seeing 99%+ purity tests on UGL hGH, I'd say the remaining difference between Pharma and UGL is the lack of aggregate formation prevention through the careless choice of excipients (especially PH control), substandard BAC water, excess concentration of reconstituted product, contaminated containers providing aggregate "seeds" that become the nuclei for aggregates, and general poor handling by vendors and end users.

This is unlike the differences between pharma GLPs and UGL GLPs, since pharma is recombinant and UGL is synthesized, regardless of the purity achieved, or the lack of aggregation(though this is also an issue for UGL for the same reasons as above), synthesized proteins appear as more "foreign" to the immune system than recombinant produced proteins and trigger stronger immune responses.

At the end of the day all this points to the fact that if you want to get as close to "pharma" results as you can, use what's in your control to mimic pharma.

Start with the purest HGH / peptide you can source.

Use pharma grade BAC

Reconstitute to the proper minimum dilution ratio.

Filter (even better if done per dose aka "bedside filtration" in medical terms, just before administration, but this can be a pain in the ass, though there are ways to make it more practical).

Transfer to a container that's been certified particulate free by an FDA facility (these are cheap).

Protect from heat, impact, and light by spending the extra dime on amber glass(thanks @Clover 0080) .

Try to use lower dose vials to minimize the time your peptide/HGH is in reconstituted form.

It's not excipients brother, it's the API itself.

Only the last few years Chinese have seemed to make a leap, before was harder to find generic gh as ecoli tanks etc was expensive.

I don't know where you find 99% purity generic id be interested to see it, but there is a table somewhere on this forum, quoting lobster, qingdao and others all in the realm of 95-97%. For them to get to 99% cost money, lose of product and overall decrease in total output. They don't want to do that, because 'bloods' are good, but people that have been around know what were talking about. That's why you rarely hear of pros tout a generic. Because that's one thing the Chinese are yet to master. Maybe in 2-5 years there generic will get there, but as of now alot more 'jano' reports and posts like this.

 

[readalot]

I just read a few studies on children taking double that for over a year.
Here is a two of them

Anabolic Effects of Oxandrolone After Severe Burn - PMC

To explore the hypothesis that oxandrolone may reverse muscle catabolism in cachectic, critically ill pediatric burn patients. Severe burn causes exaggerated muscle protein catabolism, contributing to weakness and delayed healing. Oxandrolone is an ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Five-Year Outcomes after Oxandrolone Administration in Severely Burned Children: A Randomized Clinical Trial of Safety and Efficacy - PMC

Oxandrolone, an anabolic agent, has been administered for 1 year post burn with beneficial effects in pediatric patients. However, the long-lasting effects of this treatment have not been studied. This single-center prospective trial determined the ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Careful with the weight adjusted dosing in kids vs adults.

Good comments by T2X are applicable.

You guys have to be careful interpreting data (clinical trials, research abstracts or full text). Physiological rationales for dosing depends on the subject population. For example, in adults rhGH dosing is logically based on body mass (m^2); then at some point the WHO put out an advisory that dramatically curtailed doses based on tolerability. In children, doses are often like 0.1IU/kg 3x weekly (though an advisory was put out to get away from using IU in GH research, likely because it was readily comprehensible yet dangerous for this very reason for the average guy). Anecdote: A guy that posts here says/believes strongly that he developed congestive heart failure because he used doses from a study in children based on mg/kg. DO NOT DO THIS.

Look at the long term studies and reasonably safe dosing of oxandrolone and stanzolol in adults.

Yes I am posting in this thread against what I said yesterday since this is important topic. Ideally I'd move it somewhere else but so be it.

See research paper as well:

Anabolic steroid use increases heart attack risk and causes liver damage

Anabolic steroid use causes decreased levels of HDL or "good" cholesterol, increased levels of LDL or "bad" cholesterol, and serious liver toxicity within 12 weeks, according to a study that measured the effects of anabolic steroids on men with HIV wasting disease.

www.ucsf.edu

 

[HB_22]

largely through immunogenic reactions.

Here we go again...

 

[Ghoul]

It's not excipients brother, it's the API itself.

Only the last few years Chinese have seemed to make a leap, before was harder to find generic gh as ecoli tanks etc was expensive.

I don't know where you find 99% purity generic id be interested to see it, but there is a table somewhere on this forum, quoting lobster, qingdao and others all in the realm of 95-97%. For them to get to 99% cost money, lose of product and overall decrease in total output. They don't want to do that, because 'bloods' are good, but people that have been around know what were talking about. That's why you rarely hear of pros tout a generic. Because that's one thing the Chinese are yet to master. Maybe in 2-5 years there generic will get there, but as of now alot more 'jano' reports and posts like this.

What I'm asking is this. How are HMW proteins present in the API represented in purity tests like the ones Jano performs. Are they recognized as impurities, reducing purity, or are they slipping through. Because unless I'm mistaken, haven't we seen 99% HGH results from his lab?

Excipients are certainly a factor in aggregate formation control, even the material used for the containers of HGH is a carefully controlled factor, but that's a separate issue, post manufacture where there's some hope of improvement. Can't do much about oversized proteins in the API.

 

[kingtung]

What I'm asking is this. How are HMW proteins present in the API represented in purity tests like the ones Jano performs. Are they recognized as impurities, reducing purity, or are they slipping through. Because unless I'm mistaken, haven't we seen 99% HGH results from his lab?

I don't know you'd have to ask him; but based on my understanding anything that is not part of the final purity I would consider an 'impurity".

 

[kingtung]

Here we go again...

No his on the right track bro. The reasons to why generic doesn't 'feel' like pharma (bloat, extreme lethargy etc)

 

[Qingdao Sigma Chemicals]

@Qingdao Sigma Chemicals What color are the caps on the Test-C 250mg vials from the Test Apocalypse Promo supposed to be? I was expecting purple based upon the link to the Jano on the price list, but I received blue cap vials which the price list shows as being Test-E.

We don’t have color of tops for oils that matchs the lab tests

 

[BP_6]

No his on the right track bro. The reasons to why generic doesn't 'feel' like pharma (bloat, extreme lethargy etc)

That is very subjective. Many people have also claimed they notice no difference between generic and pharm grade. The only way to confirm this would to be to do a blind study and give some people pharm grade and others generic and then document the results.

 

[Qingdao Sigma Chemicals]

Because unless I'm mistaken, haven't we seen 99% HGH results from his lab?

Yes and it’s 2 pages earlier.
It didn’t cost us more to produce it.
Been tested 99% wasn’t a reason for me to act greedy and sell it at higher prices.
HGH production process has always been the same.
Same cost.
Either it tests 96% or 99%.
What can be interesting is to send some hgh raw materials for testing and see what the purity looks like before the freeze drying.

 

[ThePepBrother]

We don’t have color of tops for oils that matchs the lab tests

Okay, I was going off the pictures in the Janos that are linked to your price list for the products. Also, there are no SKU codes on any of the boxes I received for me to use to verify with your assistants that the vials I received are what I ordered.

 

[max187]

We don’t send confirmation email.
It means your order is processed

Okay no problem, I sent the hash and the payment was received and accepted. I emailed Nia asking for tracking information and this is what she replied. I've never had this happen before in my 20+ orders with QSC.

 

[kingtung]

That is very subjective. Many people have also claimed they notice no difference between generic and pharm grade. The only way to confirm this would to be to do a blind study and give some people pharm grade and others generic and then document the results.

Read my image.

Generic can produce good igf, its the '5%' that can cause people issues.

Qindao, if production same why is it some batches score 95 some 99? Shouldn't it as your saying, same cost and process all theoritcally be same numbers?

 

[bighunanballs]

Here we go again...

At least ol dude is offering research backed opinions as to why we see such anecdotal spread of efficacy between pharma and UGL HGH. A much more clearly laid out hypothesis backed with links to studies compared to the nonsense Kurt Havens and other "ped educators" spread about UGL vs Pharma hgh. "It's the polymers in ugl hgh", "the molecular weight of UGL hgh is different than the MW of pharma"

 

[Ghoul]

Here we go again...

I decided some time ago I'm not the Headmaster of "Ghoul's Academy of Wayward Knuckledraggers", so I'm reluctant to waste my time with basic education on a given topic, and only take the time to respond with explanations to questions presented in a sincere respectful way.

Since you haven't been a complete asshole, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt,

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how the threat of immunogenicity is measured, and managed.

The study you quoted does not mean "immunogenicity is not a problem with Tirzapatide no matter how high immunogenicity levels get, Hooray!"

It means "Using the formulation we intend to sell at retail, delivered in these specific pens, at these doses, injected in these 3 areas, ONCE A WEEK, over this period of time, in patients matching the demographics of the selected subjects, the measured level of immunogenicity that developed did not rise to a clinically significant level."

If ANY of those factors change, like the prescribed injection frequency or the plastic used to make the pens, they MUST demonstrate to the FDA that immunogenicity won't increase to a level that threatens health.

It does NOT MEAN "And if we let our manufacturing standards decline inducing higher levels of impurities, synthesized instead of of using recombinant methods to produce Tirz, used higher concentrations, switched to daily injections, left it unrefrigerated for months, let subjects hop on and off at will to maximize "re-exposure events" immunogenicity won't be a problem.

UGL tirz is not recombinant, it's synthesized.

It's not supplied via a cold chain in high quality, particulate free containers.

It's not reconstituted with regard to any specific PH to prevent immunogenic inducing aggregates.

It's not very likely to have a 2 year shelf life in reconstituted form like pharma is, because UGL is "sloppy", allowing for all these factors to degrade it into forms that are known to induce higher levels of immunogenicity.

Here are the in vitro immune responses to pharma GLPs vs 2 compounding pharmacy GLPs, who are using synthesized APIs and excipients that differ from the pharma formulation. Do you think a 200x stronger immune reaction will have the same "non clinically significant" impact the ultra-low immunogenicity pharma products do?

Pharma GLP immune response (left side of each chart vs Compounder GLPs (two on the right of each chart).


Even in the case of pharma, some GLPs result in significant enough immunogenicity over 6 months or a year diabetics start to see their blood glucose get out of control because they develop immunity to the proteins, and have to stop using the drugs. 200x stronger reactions are certain to bring that on faster and with more severe effects.

All I'm suggesting is doing what you can to minimize the possibility. Take whatever action you're willing to and find reasonable. Notice that after .2um filtration, one of the compounder GLP showed an 80% lower immune response. Would you consider filtering an unnecessary waste of effort?

You're suggesting no need to bother because it can't possibly be a problem. You likely won't be satisfied without a trial intentionally trying to induce immunogenicity in subjects, which would never be allowed, The FDA specifically expresses great concern that trial subjects not be exposed to immunogenic risks, and so the unpublished computer simulations, in vitro tests, and animal studies are performed, then adjustments are made, and only once the FDA is very confident a particular protocol won't be an issue will trials on human subjects be allowed.

We are the *trial subjects* for a whole host of experiments with these unregulated, largely untested novel compounds without the benefit of any immunogenicity predicative testing to ensure it won't impact our health.

Individuals can decide which way is prudent for themselves.

 

[Xiaoxiong]

@Qingdao Sigma Chemicals - I ordered some winstrol 25mg with Black Friday promo.. the Jano report has oblong tablets, the ones I received are round, can you confirm that is correct?

@Qingdao Sigma Chemicals - can you confirm the current winstrol tabs are round and not oblong?

 

[Qingdao Sigma Chemicals]

@Qingdao Sigma Chemicals - can you confirm the current winstrol tabs are round and not oblong?

Yes there have been a round tabs restock