a few more GENERIC GH ASSAYS

[sasquatchhunter]

Don't be so discouraged. There are many good things coming out of this testing and further testing will be posted and provided on suspect samples. Including TP's black tops and GOdtropins along with Seros.

mands

You retesting the blacks? Ive just finished my first week and went up to 4iu. I can't tell anything here or there. I did get baseline igf bloods done. In 4 more weeks I'll get more bloods. I don't know if it's due to low blood sugar but when I take my fasted am dose of 2iu prior to fasted cardio I get a bit dizzy. Fasted cardio alone won't do this. But siNce adding GH.... Anyways I'm interested in hearing more of the blacks. Blacks and Greys for me. Hopefully next year pharm as this just seems risky what I'm doing now.

 

[ProfessorX]

Great!

I think all the data might be useful, as I can interpret them to those interested easily.

Link:




Jano,
This is the info from the lab that tested 2 samples for me (one sample mg/vial result is incorrect)

We perform amino acid analysis using Waters Breeze™ 2 HPLC System with software,a Waters 1525 Binary HPLC pump, a Waters 2475 Multi λ Fluorescence detector and a Waters 717 plus Autosampler injector. This system performs reversed-phase chromatography by fluorescence detection. Before the chromatography, pre-column derivatization of the amino groups is done using AccQTag (6-aminoquinolyl-N-hydroxysuccinimidyl carbamate) chemistries under aqueous conditions.

Amino acids are derivatized with 6-aminoquinolyl-N-hydroxysuccinimidyl carbamate(AQC). Following the pre-column derivatization of the analytes, separation and detection are achieved with a reversed-phase column and a multi wavelength fluorescence detector.The analysis is completed within approximately 45 minutes and allows for the identification and quantification of up to 42 amino acids and related compounds. These samples are automatically analyzed with assured performance methods and reports are generated using pre-defined software templates.

 

[Dr JIM]

1) This was done by a different lab using the same testing method (AAA) for a vial from the same kit as SAMPLE E that Jim's lab tested


2) This is not possible

3) So the results are incorrect as the lab states:

4) This sample (JINTROPIN) contained a large amount of glycine and some methionine. This together with the presence of trehalose and mannitol may interfere with the analysis due to matrix effects leading to a lower recovery of amino acids.


Can we conclude that most of these results are inaccurate/inconsistent, especially since the Pharmaceutical Serostim sample result doesn't reflect the label dose (4mg) - (AAA result 2.08 mg/vial)

Thanks

1) Although this lab uses an AAA I sincerely doubt the accuracy of their assays approximates that of our lab which for example utilizes TWO internal and ONE control standard.

Did they mention WHICH AA their results were based upon?

2) Using IGF as a means of GH quantification is a slippery slope at best

3) If you are using a lab that doesn't stand behind their work ....... FIND ANOTHER LAB NOW!

4) a MATRIC somehow binds to the involved AA and since both
Mannitol and Trehalose are "sugar" analogs such interference
would be very unlikely as they are readily water soluble and should elute OFF THE GRID!

Thx for your contribution PX

JIM

 

[Dr JIM]

I'm bummed too

Was hoping this cheaper method of testing (AAA $200) would be more accurate (mg/vial)

It IS the most reliable and accurate means of GH quantification, providing it's done CORRECTLY.

It's also relatively cheap compared to most other forms of testing used for GH quantification such as HPLC or LC/MS

 

[janoshik]

1) Although this lab uses an AAA I sincerely doubt the accuracy of their assays approximates that of our lab which for example utilizes TWO internal and ONE control standard.

Did they mention WHICH AA their results were based upon?

2) Using IGF as a means of GH quantification is a slippery slope at best

3) If you are using a lab that doesn't stand behind their work ....... FIND ANOTHER LAB NOW!

4) a MATRIC somehow binds to the involved AA and since both
Mannitol and Trehalose are "sugar" analogs such interference
would be very unlikely as they are readily water soluble and should elute OFF THE GRID!

Thx for your contribution PX

JIM

1) You are wrong. And like I mentioned, quantifying solely upon a single AA undermines the whole purpose of AAA.

Also, those are CONTROLS. And the standard is for AAs, not HGH itself and I had explained why it's not superior to HGH standard already.

Also, you are assuming that lab does not use controls and standards, which is, especially with AAA... Quite not smart, to be polite.

Also, notice how before Professor X posted it I had mentioned the fluorescence detection is by far the most accurate.

2) True

3) N/C

4) N/C

It IS the most reliable and accurate means of GH quantification, providing it's done CORRECTLY.

It is not, by definition. I've already explained it before.

 

[ProfessorX]

1) Although this lab uses an AAA I sincerely doubt the accuracy of their assays approximates that of our lab which for example utilizes TWO internal and ONE control standard.

Did they mention WHICH AA their results were based upon?

2) Using IGF as a means of GH quantification is a slippery slope at best

3) If you are using a lab that doesn't stand behind their work ....... FIND ANOTHER LAB NOW!

4) a MATRIC somehow binds to the involved AA and since both
Mannitol and Trehalose are "sugar" analogs such interference
would be very unlikely as they are readily water soluble and should elute OFF THE GRID!

Thx for your contribution PX

JIM

For the 2 samples (White Top Hygetropin, JINTROPIN)

- Quantifying using a NIST BSA standard for comparison

- Lab mentions analyzing pure proteins (vapor phase hydrolysis)

- Formulated proteins (liquid phase hydrolysis)

Lower mg/vial for JINTROPIN

- Glycine buffer in protein formulations

- Glycoproteins are observed with lower values

The other 4 GH samples are still out. Using a different lab....it states :

Amino acid composition and distribution assay: UPLC-HRAM-MS measurement of 21 amino acids, reporting of concentration of each amino acid relative to total amino acid

I can PM you their info if you'd like also

JINTROPIN IGF1:

I was doing a loose comparison of bloodwork. If the lab results (mg/vial) were correct it would mean I'm injecting 2IUs SubQ with an IGF1 of 420-480

 

[Dr JIM]

Sorry..correction

I DO have a GodT sample vial from the same kit tested through Jim at a different Lab
Waiting on the results (AAA)

I'd like Jims take on GodTropin sample Z

There's been complaints about injection site irritation (red welts) with different GodT "batches"

Maybe there is a connection?

I think the "Z" sample evidence will show this form of adverse effect is likely due to the presence of a foreign protein, and is in fact an "allergic reaction"

At the very least this implies some of the GT products have not been appropriately filtered or are outright contaminated!

 

[Dr JIM]

For the 2 samples (White Top Hygetropin, JINTROPIN)

Amino acid composition and distribution assay: UPLC-HRAM-MS measurement of 21 amino acids, reporting of concentration of each amino acid relative to total amino acid

Yea and that's simply a generic description of an AAA process, but it does NOT mention which
"concentrations" were specifically used for quantification purposes.

It's important bc the use of different AA can result in quantification variances as I mentioned previously.

Consistency on behalf of any lab is critical as it enhances credibility thru reproducible results.

If a lab uses Alanine for one sample, yet uses "all that are measurable" in another sample their results can vary remarkably depending upon WHICH AA
were recoverable.

Let me suggest you utilize a facility that is University based and has the support of that universities entire research department, rather than a commercial lab, with such a narrow focus on PROFIT.

 

[janoshik]

I think the "Z" sample evidence will show this form of adverse effect is likely due to the presence of a foreign protein, and is in fact an "allergic reaction"

At the very least this implies some of the GT products have not been appropriately filtered or are outright contaminated!

We're all waiting for all the data

 

[Dr JIM]

It's discouraging to see any lab so willingly abandon ship
once their results were scrutinized PX.

 

[Dr JIM]

- Quantifying using a NIST BSA standard for comparison

NIST = National Institute of Science and Technology

BSA = Bovine Serum Albumin

Based on the information provided Bio Synthesis does not use an Internal Standard but instead ONLY uses Bovine Albumin at a known 7% concentration.

Since the AA compositions and proportions are also known this information could then be utilized for comparison to each sample set to derive a quantitative result

Thus void of the additional checks and balances offered by internal standards, such an arrangement would likely have a considerably higher margin of error than the system MANDS and I are using.

What does all that mean? IDK for sure but I'm inclined to agree with the involved labs statement
"the (their) data is inaccurate".

 

[Dr JIM]

Nonetheless this is the sort of information that is not only useful but is capable of maintaining my interest.

And to think much like answering the 50th post about the "best Adex dose", I was getting bored before the Sero results were posted

And wait until the "Z" LC/MS is posted!

Oh that's some great stuff from my perspective and will be the beginning of our QUALITATIVE assays .

Ultimately the intent is to try and separate the GOOD from the BAD generic rHGH

 

[janoshik]

You don't really need internal standard with most of the procedures and it's impossible to asses if IS is really necessary with the information provided...

Feels like throwing peas at the wall at this point.

I'd like to be so sure of myself without data as well...

 

[ProfessorX]

Here's the JNTROPIN JTPN 3.33mg












These are the 4 samples I'm waiting on :


Their clients consist of government researchers and academic researchers at institutions (Harvard Medical School, Johns Hopkins University, Stanford University and Yale Univeristy School of Medicine, etc)

We can compare the Russian Hygetropin, GodTropin, and HAIZIYUAN BioHygene to the previous test results

 

[ProfessorX]

SEROSTIM 4 mg

EACH VIAL CONTAINS:

- 4 mg Somatropin
- 27.3 mg Sucrose
- 0.9 mg Phosphoric Acid and Sodium Hydroxide

Since there isn't any Glycine at all......I wonder why a 4mg vial shows only 2.08mg Somatropin

(Sometimes we get the 6mg Serostim kits with CVS/Walgreens prescription sticker still on the box)

I would gladly donate more PHARMA vials (Serostim or Sandoz Omnitrope) for more testing

 

[Dr JIM]

Here's the JNTROPIN JTPN 3.33mg

Their clients consist of government researchers and academic researchers at institutions (Harvard Medical School, Johns Hopkins University, Stanford University and Yale Univeristy School of Medicine, etc)

And to also state a recovery rate of 90 to 99% of ......... proteins is readily acheivable
........

Yet then bail out when their data doesn't jive with what's LISTED on a vial of rHGH seems disingenuous at best IMO

And they are achieving such an admirable degree of credibility in the absence of an INTERNAL STANDARD or apparently an EXTERNAL CONTROL, I think NOT PX

- what is their admitted margin of error?
- have they provided any references from any of the above institutions?
- do they maintain a BSA "control" log?
-


jim

 

[Dr JIM]

Since there isn't any Glycine at all......I wonder why a 4mg vial shows only 2.08mg Somatropin

Well based on the assay we conducted and repeated thats an accurate quantitative result, which means 2.08 mg is what is IN THE VIAL!

(Nonetheless for further confirmation this Sero "B" sample will be run AGAIN at
one of the largest University research labs in the country!)

So assuming the result is correct and, I've no reason to beleive otherwise, WHY a "Pharma" sample would contain only 50% of what is listed on the label is the more important question at this juncture IMO.

And that's what I'm looking into at present, BUT the reason is almost always THE SAMPLE SOURCE, IME.

 

[ProfessorX]

And to also state a recovery rate of 90 to 99% of ......... proteins is readily acheivable
........

Yet then bail out when their data doesn't jive with what's LISTED on a vial of rHGH seems disingenuous at best IMO

And they are achieving such an admirable degree of credibility in the absence of an INTERNAL STANDARD or apparently an EXTERNAL CONTROL, I think NOT PX

- what is their admitted margin of error?
- have they provided any references from any of the above institutions?
- do they maintain a BSA "control" log?
-


jim

Jim,

The 4 GH vials I posted up are at a different lab. This is the lab that has the institution references, etc. It's the lab I normally use for GH Samples

They tested a JINTROPIN for me (different test)










I posted the JINTROPIN JTPN 3.33, mg test result for you to look it over

That was done by a different lab

I SENT YOU A PM WITH THE LAB INFORMATION

 

[Dr JIM]

Oh and I can only hope they are not charging you to run either the PAGE or the UV spec bc neither are required as a precursor to an AAA

 

[Dr JIM]

Jim,

This is the lab that has the institution references, etc. It's the lab I normally use for GH Samples

For what it's worth, Im confident in telling you VERY FEW University based research facilities require the assistance of a commercial lab for a variety of reasons, most important of which is OUTLANDISH FUNDING from a variety of sources.