Ghoul
Member
I laugh every time I see this, because the two syringe filters they use the most in the experiment happen to be the same PES filters I've been saying here I use going back to last year. Pall Pharmassure and Acrodisk, lol.
MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
What’s the current state of generic GH
- Thread starter Zeus088
- Start date
I laugh every time I see this, because the two syringe filters they use the most in the experiment happen to be the same PES filters I've been saying here I use going back to last year. Pall Pharmassure and Acrodisk, lol.
Pharma GH is dirtier and with a lot more dimer on average than generic GH.
By pharmacopeia the minimum purity and dimer acceptable is well below what anyone here would ever accept to inject if it was a generic xD
Just a small information to add to the whole conversation
The minimum specs for Pharma are definitely lower than what most are seeing when testing their UG GH with Jano.
So maybe we should concentrate more on other things than just numbers. 94% purity is fine for pharma with 4% dimer.
We are sourcing 96/98% purity with close to 0% dimer.
Put thing in perspective doesn't it?
Edited numbers errors
Last edited:
I'll edit my mistake, thanks man appreciate it
>=94% purity / <=4% oligomers
To your point that may not be the whole story.
I think I saw another one around here somewhere for Sero as well...
Sero: 95.2% / 0%
I thought I saw a 98% somewhere here as well.
Sero: 95.2% / 0%
I thought I saw a 98% somewhere here as well.
We would shit on that serostim test if it was generic xDI think I saw another one around here somewhere for Sero as well...
Send me all that shit Serostim you guys don't want, xD.
songsofpyramids
Member
This is honestly the most brain dead stupid part of their argument that none of them will address. It’s frankly so stupid it has made it impossible for me to take a lot of their concerns seriously at this point. I have not seen one honest take on the data that shows an intellectually sound argument against filtering peptides. Just a bunch of intellectually dishonest whining that boils down to people not believing in medical science more than anything else. It makes dealing with these personalities that puff themselves up as peptide experts but are simultaneously too lazy to read sources being openly presented to them a fucking miserable slog. It’s like in elementary school watching a bunch of kids doing book reports who were too lazy to read the book.
Hey, that is my fault. No one claimed this place is the annual Gordon Conference for peptide/HGH manufacturing. In the end we are all here trying to increase our knowledge and help collect data to make the best personal decision for ourselves. I'd just like to see more good faith in these discussions than you find on the schoolyard to your point.
Ghoul
Member
Pharma GH is dirtier and with a lot more dimer on average than generic GH.
By pharmacopeia the minimum purity and dimer acceptable is well below what anyone here would ever accept to inject if it was a generic xD
Just a small information to add to the whole conversation
I mean ask anyone buying UGL why they care about dimer and you'll get "uhhhhh".
Dimer is only of concern to UGL consumers because it reduces the amount of active HGH. It's not associated with harms like large aggregates and
It is of good example of how Chinese manufacturers can and will respond to consumer demand though. They started competing on lowering dimer, Start showing some embarrassing levels of particulate contamination or aggregation because of poor formulations, and they'd start paying attention to that too.
And just to clarify Jano's SEC testing includes DPn greater than 2. So we should really call this "oliogomers" or "aggregates" and not dimer.
So it does shows if there is aggregates right? And it looks like most of the generic have none or close to it. Am I understanding it right?And just to clarify Jano's SEC testing includes DPn greater than 2. So we should really call this "oliogomers" or "aggregates" and not dimer.
Based on what Jano shared above (linked), yes. That is my understanding.
Nice overview of the methods...
Size-Exclusion Chromatography for the Analysis of Protein Biotherapeutics and their Aggregates - PMC
In recent years, the use and number of biotherapeutics has increased significantly. For these largely protein-based therapies, the quantitation of aggregates is of particular concern given their potential effect on efficacy and immunogenicity. This ...
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Ghoul
Member
And just to clarify Jano's SEC testing includes DPn greater than 2. So we should really call this "oliogomers" or "aggregates" and not dimer.
Increasingly I've seen references to "orthogonal" methods being necessary to get an accurate quantification of aggregates, A fancy way of saying every one of the numerous ways of counting aggregates has strengths and weaknesses, and therefore, more than one method should be used.
SEC is most useful for determining the types of aggregates present, but falls short when it comes to counting them.
The Case for Orthogonal Aggregation Analysis
There are several ways that aggregation can be studied, each drawing on a different mechanism of analysis and thus providing orthogonality for one another.
"This technique provides aggregate information but it must be borne in mind that shear forces within the column, along with significant sample dilution during passage of the sample can cause disruption to aggregates and lead to lower aggregation values for the sample."
It's not as if Dr. Winter didn't have access to SEC, but chose to use the MFI method (and a few others) to get a handle on how many particles were present and removed from the filtered GH.
Absolutely, any analytical chemist worth his or her salt will always want an orthogonal method to give you the same answer.Increasingly I've seen references to "orthogonal" methods being necessary to get an accurate quantification of aggregates, A fancy way of saying every one of the numerous ways of counting aggregates has strengths and weaknesses, and therefore, more than one method should be used.
SEC is most useful for determining the types of aggregates present, but falls short when it comes to counting them.
The Case for Orthogonal Aggregation Analysis
There are several ways that aggregation can be studied, each drawing on a different mechanism of analysis and thus providing orthogonality for one another.
"This technique provides aggregate information but it must be borne in mind that shear forces within the column, along with significant sample dilution during passage of the sample can cause disruption to aggregates and lead to lower aggregation values for the sample."
I won't comment on the accuracy or uncertainty of aggregate measurement with Jano's test, I just wanted to get the terminology right so people don't think his report is simply reporting "dimer".
Fantastic point.
songsofpyramids
Member
This is pretty funny. So people here have been worried about aggregates and just didn’t realize that’s what they were worried about.And just to clarify Jano's SEC testing includes DPn greater than 2. So we should really call this "oliogomers" or "aggregates" and not dimer.
