Regarding backfill risks, that's why my first thought was to look for low dead volume needles (with inner tube) to attach directly to filter, but these are uncommon, expensive, etc. Also, backfilling is very commonly used in cosmetic injections with insulin syringes (lots of YouTube videos). So will see just how messy backfilling is and report back about that. I do like idea of setting up all the insulin syringes at once, without further dead volume issues.
MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
The FDA makes the case for filtering peptides
- Thread starter Ghoul
- Start date
Ghoul
Member
I was thinking the couplers are lower risk, but I've got backfilling down to 5-7 seconds at this point.
Still it's not no risk, but again, I don't see how it's riskier than cracking open an ampule and filling a syringe from that, a practice nurses perform hundreds of millions of times a year, and no one, including the FDA, is calling for it to be stopped because of it causing infections.
On balance I think the risk reduction of filtering outweighs the added risk(especially with so many peptides already unsterile), and I gave my reasons why.
I could also completely understand why someone would decide they don't want to chance it and prefer to fill a vial than do per dose filtering. I'm also open to anyone coming up with a better method.
An injection pen with a filter would be ideal.
If any of us were completely risk averse we wouldn't be using UGL anything.
I don't understand what the fuck you are trying to accomplish here
Ateam2023
Member
well now , " should i bow or courtsey"? Thanks for clarifying ,,W
Did you miss this or are you just getting off on pretending I said there's NO risk?
View attachment 324195
Jano says 1 in 20 peptides tested for sterility are contaminated with enough bacteria to fail. That's very high. What do you recommend users do to handle that?
AlexDavis43
Member
If 1 in 20 vials of peptides/hGH are contaminated and I've probably used about a thousand vials, that'd be 50 infections. I think I might've noticed that. Or I have a normal immune system.
Multiply that by all the other people who use a lot of vials. 1000 "infections" that didn't happen? 10000?
Maybe the level of contamination that tests as positive is far lower than what a normal immune system can easily clear.
Multiply that by all the other people who use a lot of vials. 1000 "infections" that didn't happen? 10000?
Maybe the level of contamination that tests as positive is far lower than what a normal immune system can easily clear.
It's because we inject subq those contamination are nothing for our immune system when it gets delivered subq. Plus failing the sterility test is very simple and if one understand properly that type of test one would understand as well how it's not that accurate or important on a peptide vial.
We would all be dead if we were that weak to some simple bacteria that entered our skin substrate. Every cut we would be dead
Just trying to keep filtering step & equipment as simple as possible: "an injection pen with a filter would be ideal" as Ghoul said. If one could attach a low dead space needle to the filter outlet you'd essentially have that, and simply refrigerate the syringe/filter combo between injections, changing the needle each time... but needle with a central tube needed to eliminate dead space in filter outlet is atypical and hard-to-find, such as this:
Total Dose: Yellow 30G 13mm (½ inch) Low Dead Space needle
Total Dose: Yellow 30G 13mm (½ inch) Low Dead Space needle. Yellow Total Dose: A low dead space 30G, 13mm (1/2 inch) detachable hypodermic needle. A short fine...
www.exchangesupplies.org
Here's procedure I've settled on*... Starting with 10 IU vial from K4L, add 1.1 ml** BAC water using a 1 ml Luer Lock syringe with 5/8" needle (I found the 1.5" needles to be clumsy to work with). Add another 1.1 ml of air to reduce vacuum. After dissolution, use same 1 ml syringe to draw out 1.1 ml of reconstituted fluid. Replace the 5/8" needle with 0.22 um filter, push fluid into the filter, filling outlet. Then backfill 4 insulin syringes (I use 0.3 ml syringes) with 0.2 ml (20 units) each (point syringe at downward angle, and press filter outlet into syringe top to ensure fluid gets into syringe). This wastes about 0.3 ml due mainly to dead space in the filter + miscellaneous losses, so each 0.2 ml dose will have 0.2/1.1 x 10 = 1.8 IU.
*materials are available from peptidetest.com
**the 1 ml syringe can hold 1.1 ml of fluid
*materials are available from peptidetest.com
**the 1 ml syringe can hold 1.1 ml of fluid
AlexDavis43
Member
Check out refillable injector pens. All the info & links in this thread. Cheap, easy, and much faster.
My take is a bit different... From what I'm reading in that thread, the cartridges are not sterile, nor is the glass of the quality needed for storing filtered HGH (i.e., you're essentially replacing a high quality sterile vial with a cheap unsterile cartridge). Also, if you actually found a high quality sterile cartridge, it's probably going to be priced like a high quality sterile vial, and you won't be saving any money compared to the equivalent number of back-filled insulin syringes. So using a refillable injector pen with HGH is currently trading safety for convenience and minor savings. (Having to reconstitute 3 ml at a time, with longer storage times, may also be an issue, depending on injection rate.)
Ateam2023
Member
the "unsterile" cartridges is probably the only reason why i haven't hopped on the injectors pens yet, but i think you can buy autoclave bags and sterilize them in a pressure cooker, ,
AlexDavis43
Member
Everyone has been using them "as-is" and if sterility was a problem, this is one of those problems we wouldn't have to wait years to see. Infections would be immediately apparent.
AlexDavis43
Member
hGH comes in all kinds of different vials and I think it's a bit more resilient than that anyway. Some people are even filtering it; you think it can stand up to that but a different type of glass vial will destroy it?
If sterility was a problem, we'd be seeing a lot of infections already. Infections don't take years to show up.
I prepare one weeks' worth per cartridge.
Ateam2023
Member
Absolutely, im aware of this , i just havent pulled the trigger , i kinda like the " ritual" of using a junky style needle, , makes me feel like i'm doing something ILLEGAL,, ahaaahaa haaaa (evil laugh) ,,
Actually, wrt cartridges, I'm more concerned about immunogenic reactions* than sterility, where former has more to do with glass quality and storage time affecting protein aggregation (as discussed in detail by Ghoul in earlier posts above). In that respect, use of a cartridge kind of violates all the rules**, at least until they develop cartridges that are as good as the best sterile vials currently available. Also, I don't personally inject often enough (or travel) for the pens to make much of a difference convenience-wise.
*as in decreased response to peptide, difficult to measure or undo
** I'd at least filter what was being added to the cartridge
*as in decreased response to peptide, difficult to measure or undo
** I'd at least filter what was being added to the cartridge
Last edited:
AlexDavis43
Member
If you're interested, there are studies on this that have been misinterpreted. It doesn't happen as you described, at least according to the studies.
See here 1, 2, & 3. Scroll down for my comments; might seem redundant because it's come up a few times.
I 100% do it for convenience but that doesn't seem important to you so no big deal anyway.
Have read all that, and concur rather with Ghoul's point of view that aggregates are worth worrying about. In addition, had first-hand experience of spouse losing response to CJC-1295 after an eventual immune reaction, resulting in lower IGF-1 levels than baseline (which is one of reasons we turned to HGH rather than GHSs). Whenever injecting a bioidentical or close mimic, probably pays to be extra careful not to trigger an immune reaction to one's native peptides(!) - and is the most commonly cited reason why the FDA rejects use of UGL peptides.
The cartridges, as typically used, may break all the rules to avoid aggregate formation:
- not filtered
- low-quality construction (particles, pH, etc.)
- not sterilized
- may encourage long storage time
Presumably, with pharma peptides/pens, those factors are all addressed (purer peptide, high-quality cartridge, sterilized, allowing longer storage times). Personally, I figure I'm taking enough of a risk with cheap UGL HGH that I don't want to add to that with less-than-optimal handling, but am also happy to see others experimenting with refillable pens, which will probably result in better cartridges.
You think your spouse developed neutralising antibodies to CJC that cross reacted with native GHSH? Fascinating.Have read all that, and concur rather with Ghoul's point of view that aggregates are worth worrying about. In addition, had first-hand experience of spouse losing response to CJC-1295 after an eventual immune reaction, resulting in lower IGF-1 levels than baseline (which is one of reasons we turned to HGH rather than GHSs). Whenever injecting a bioidentical or close mimic, probably pays to be extra careful not to trigger an immune reaction to one's native peptides(!) - and is the most commonly cited reason why the FDA rejects use of UGL peptides.
The cartridges, as typically used, may break all the rules to avoid aggregate formation:
- not filtered
- low-quality construction (particles, pH, etc.)
- not sterilized
- may encourage long storage time
Presumably, with pharma peptides/pens, those factors are all addressed (purer peptide, high-quality cartridge, sterilized, allowing longer storage times). Personally, I figure I'm taking enough of a risk with cheap UGL HGH that I don't want to add to that with less-than-optimal handling, but am also happy to see others experimenting with refillable pens, which will probably result in better cartridges.
It was my idea that it was very unlikely, due to ‘tolerance to self’. As your body constantly sees GHSH, the idea is that it should have tolerance to that no matter what.
Not saying that it didn’t happen by the way, I just thought it would be worth adding why I thought this would be unlikely.
songsofpyramids
Member
If you google “sudden allergy to mod grf 1-29 or cjc1295” you will see a slew of reports showing sudden immunogenic responses to that particular drug out of no where even after a long period of time working just fine. I developed an allergy to it after almost a year of using it just fine. The FDA pulled it off market for immunogenicity.
To add some details... This was unfiltered CJC-1295 DAC from Peptide Sciences. Worked fine for me over course of a year (i.e., got expected rise in IGF-1 level), but only worked for first few months for spouse, who then had a single unusually intense response (more intense than typical CJC flushing), after which IGF-1 dropped to below baseline, and w/o further flushing from CJC injections. In addition, after stopping CJC, IGF-1 levels did not recover over several months, leading us to turn to HGH (w/ filtering). This is more or less like what happened with kids who had an immunogenic reaction to exogenous HGH in studies - some recovered, some didn't, some simply needed higher dosing, etc. Anyway, seems prudent to pay attention to things one can do to minimize immunogenic responses to one's native peptides. (As I recall, some of the studies specified exactly the type of antibodies formed, making it clear that the immune system was directly interfering with one's own peptides.)
Last edited:
