What’s the current state of generic GH

Since disproportionate weight will be given to the Jano results vs what was done here, it's especially important to structure the test properly.

Most importantly is establishing the level of aggregates at the start and end in both the filtered and unfiltered samples after receiving the same treatment.

Just because some shit UGL formation has a propensity to aggregate quickly could easily be interpreted as "filtering causes aggregation".

It'd be nice to get an MFI particle count. Because it's pretty damn unlikely pharma grade HGH has fewer particles than UGL. Since some will dismiss aggregation as nothing of concern anyway, it's still hard to argue getting the particulate trash of any kind out of what you're injecting is a bad idea.

There is simply no known way low pressure syringe filtration would increase aggregation. It may be my fault for bringing that possibility up to begin with, but it's now clear to me that is a potential issue on the manufacturing line, not one in the hands of a syringe holder.

View attachment 320194
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:
So maybe we should concentrate more on other things than just numbers. 92% purity is fine for pharma with 6% dimer.

We are sourcing 96/98% purity with close to 0% dimer.

Put thing in perspective doesn't 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.
 
I think I saw another one around here somewhere for Sero as well...

We would shit on that serostim test if it was generic xD
 
The claim that the data shared above in the 2018 paper is not applicable to UG users is simply silly.
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.
 
 
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.
 
 
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

IMG_9677.webp

:)

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.


 
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?
 
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?
Based on what Jano shared above (linked), yes. That is my understanding.

Nice overview of the methods...
 
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.


"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.
 
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.


"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."
Absolutely, any analytical chemist worth his or her salt will always want an orthogonal method to give you the same answer.

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.
 
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.


This is pretty funny. So people here have been worried about aggregates and just didn’t realize that’s what they were worried about.
 
Back
Top