AND that summarizes the understanding most people have about Quantum Mechanics, which definitely includes me [
)]
MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
are eliteanabolx gtg?
- Thread starter allykaine@gmail.com
- Start date
AND that summarizes the understanding most people have about Quantum Mechanics, which definitely includes me [
)]
AND that summarizes the understanding most people have about Quantum Mechanics, which definitely includes me [
BigAngus
New Member
Angus
I've finally had the occasion to review the MS and the UPHLC on the "GH"
My first concern is the HUGE discrepancy between the sample you analyzed and rHGH. For example while the "Fisher" product has a MEASURED molecular weight of 22145 amu the "Northern Trusts weight is 22219 amu.
Based on MULTIPLE analyses of rHGH the exact weight is 22126.0463 amu. Now based on my calculations the difference is HUGE (Fisher +19 & Northern Trust +93 !!!) and totally inconsistent with GH.
Moreover the fragmentation array reveals MANY other ions with MW considerably higher than the predominant ion or "GH" in this instance.
What this implies is the base ion is NOT the molecular ion at all but rather one of several larger ions which were not thoroughly analyzed and underwent fragmentation into the more abundant "GH" ion, OR there is a remarkable degree of organic contamination present in the sample selected.
This is particularly important because excluding the rare occurrence of molecular dimers or aggregates, performing MS on any organic molecule should NOT generate ions of a LARGER MW then the PARENT molecule (they undergo fragmentation of varying degrees) GH in the instance.
Furthermore because the summation of those ions whose MW is GREATER than the base peak ("GH"), roughly 30%, your calculation the Northern Trust purity approximates of 90% overly generous to say the least.
Which brings me to the UHPLC. There are clearly two predominant base peaks, one at time 4.47 and the other at 4.69 and several other peak undulations between 4.69 and roughly 6.5 minutes.
These differing base peaks indicate TWO substances with variform molecular weights. In fact because the interval between time 4;16 to 6.5 can NOT be differentiated (isolated into specific peaks) with any degree of certainty additional elusions should have been conducted (if theory were not) and those results depicted, indicating which base peak was used for the Mass spec analysis.
Finally after reviewing the "net" for the various "GENERIC" suppliers of Mass Spec
I noted essentially every one had MW between 0.5-1% ABOVE the known amu
rHGH. Now why is this so unusual? Because such a remarkable discrepancy negates the possibility these GENERIC GH PRODUCTS are legit GH, IMO!
Angus like yourself I'm always concerned (actually I get pretty damn pissed) when some mate, especially one from Meso, is being screwed by another unscrupulous UGL and try my best to stop such activity whenever possible. Let me know your insightful thoughts at your leisure.
Regards
JIM
I hope this doesn't get too big. But I received a response from the Dr and......well let me just copy and paste it in here and then I'll attach it as well. He refers to some more graphs that I am including as well. I'm not going to lie, some of it is over my head and I would need to look some things up to fully understand it. I do love science though!
Jim,
Thanks for your analysis. Here are some of our answers to your questions:
The Q-TOF detects HGH protein at 0.1 Dalton accuracy, which means Fisher’s HGH at 22145.0 and Northern Trust’s at 22126.0 should have different amino acid sequences, which also differ from a theoretic sequence you have. We have seen many different rHGH masses, and we don’t know why there are so many different HGH mass, but one thing for sure is when they were made from E. coil, where most recombinant rHGH were coming from, it could either be the vector that carry the sequence has different codons, or they were modified after transcription.
Different sequence may deliver different biological activity, they appear have activities of certain degree from feedbacks from our limited human usage, in ranking, it appears Fisher’s one is most potent, at 10 µg per dose was effective, while the other ones at mg level per dose were effective, about a thousand fold in quantity in use.
The northern Trust chromatogram did show inhomogeneity, the main peak is splitting to two and has a tailing shoulder (Figure 1). When changed the X-axis in scan number (Figure 2) and combine the region within the splitting peak, one can see the front peak is purer in multiply charged ions than the trailing peak (Figure 3), after deconvolution, the front one (Figure 4) is less noisy than the back one (Figure 5).
These species with higher or lower mass than the main one maybe real, they could be coming from (1) proteins were degraded (hydrolysis), or (2) translation stopped prematurely, or (3) they were chemically modified that changed masses, among other reasons, but it indicates the impurity of the samples, thus the biological activities.
I don't need any further explanation because I agree almost 100%. ( Admittedly not having reviewed the graphs)
The suggestion the difference in the exact weight of the Fisher sample is the consequence of alternating the codon sequence OR transcription creates a HUGE problem and that is BIOLOGIC ACTIVITY.
He mentioned this briefly BUT the AA sequence of GH is very specific to rHGH.
Such that if as little as ONE amino acid (especially the "terminal amide") is altered because of a different codon insertion, the efficacy of the "GH" would be effected.
(That's why it took so long of scientists to get it right)
For this reason the WHO as approved ONLY one rHGH and that amino acid sequence must be an EXACT replica of what has been approved, otherwise it MUST NOT BE referred to as HGH period.
The latter is indeed the problem with ALL generic GH, IMO, the manufactures are SELLING A UNPROVEN PRODUCT AS GH, when: 1st, the AA sequence is NOT consistent with GH, 2nd, no evidence based studies have been conducted to substantiate it's efficacy and 3rd the substance being touted AND sold as GH is not approved to be sold as such according to existing WHO guidelines.
THE FACT IS NEITHER THE FISHER OR NORTHER TRUST SAMPLES ARE GH and SHOULD NOT BE SOLD OR LABELED AS SUCH, TO DO OTHERWISE IS BLATANT FRAUD, IMO
Finally the any lab analyzing said products are obligated to mention the sample AA submitted for testing is NOT CW rHGH if the MW differs by more than TWO Dalton's using an ULTRASENSITIVE MS, which yours is Angus (based on the info you provided me Thx)
Angus I apologize for not replying sooner to you dimer question but I will do so tonight!
Respects Angus
Jim
The suggestion the difference in the exact weight of the Fisher sample is the consequence of alternating the codon sequence OR transcription creates a HUGE problem and that is BIOLOGIC ACTIVITY.
He mentioned this briefly BUT the AA sequence of GH is very specific to rHGH.
Such that if as little as ONE amino acid (especially the "terminal amide") is altered because of a different codon insertion, the efficacy of the "GH" would be effected.
(That's why it took so long of scientists to get it right)
For this reason the WHO as approved ONLY one rHGH and that amino acid sequence must be an EXACT replica of what has been approved, otherwise it MUST NOT BE referred to as HGH period.
The latter is indeed the problem with ALL generic GH, IMO, the manufactures are SELLING A UNPROVEN PRODUCT AS GH, when: 1st, the AA sequence is NOT consistent with GH, 2nd, no evidence based studies have been conducted to substantiate it's efficacy and 3rd the substance being touted AND sold as GH is not approved to be sold as such according to existing WHO guidelines.
THE FACT IS NEITHER THE FISHER OR NORTHER TRUST SAMPLES ARE GH and SHOULD NOT BE SOLD OR LABELED AS SUCH, TO DO OTHERWISE IS BLATANT FRAUD, IMO
Finally the any lab analyzing said products are obligated to mention the sample AA submitted for testing is NOT CW rHGH if the MW differs by more than TWO Dalton's using an ULTRASENSITIVE MS, which yours is Angus (based on the info you provided me Thx)
Angus I apologize for not replying sooner to you dimer question but I will do so tonight!
Respects Angus
Jim
BigAngus
New Member
No worries buddy, I was just bouncing thoughts off of you. (regarding the question about scope).
I tell people that want to test HGH that the mass spec is the least important of the 3 tests that should be run to verify efficacy. The first two of course being HGH Serum test and IGF test....both blood....because the MS cannot determine bioavailability. So I try to discourage the MS test for HGH in an effort to save them some money and steer them in the direction that is most appropriate for their needs. Of course not all do as was the case in this test. But it was a fair example of the capabilities of the UPLC. I thought it was interesting, and it opened up a very nice dialog that I am happy to say I learned something from. You can never go wrong learning new things IMO.
Anyway, very eloquent response, I'm impressed. Thank you for sharing your thoughts and concerns.
Well with respects Angus i must disagree.The WHO criteria are quite specific and include a mw that is 0.1% within the approved GH MW, which is 22124.
The other reason are; GHRF is known to increase GH levels (as do many other factors) and could easily be substituted by generic labs for GH.
Moreover, because the accuracy of HPLC beyond 1% of a polypeptides weight is VERY limited it can NOT be used to determine the EXACT MW of a compound which is a MUST for GH analysis.
Ergo the sample may have a crude estimate of 22KD by HPLC and have a MS MW of 22250. Most assuredly a compound which exceeds the MW of rHGH by 125 Daltons it's not legit GH by WHO standards, (or anyone else's, IMO)
Consequently considering the amount of BUNK being distributed as "generic GH"
both CHROMOTOGRAPHY and MASS SPEC ARE mandatory to differentiate fakes from the real thing!
And to be honest the tests you submitted make that perfectly clear.
Respects Angus
JIM
The other reason are; GHRF is known to increase GH levels (as do many other factors) and could easily be substituted by generic labs for GH.
Moreover, because the accuracy of HPLC beyond 1% of a polypeptides weight is VERY limited it can NOT be used to determine the EXACT MW of a compound which is a MUST for GH analysis.
Ergo the sample may have a crude estimate of 22KD by HPLC and have a MS MW of 22250. Most assuredly a compound which exceeds the MW of rHGH by 125 Daltons it's not legit GH by WHO standards, (or anyone else's, IMO)
Consequently considering the amount of BUNK being distributed as "generic GH"
both CHROMOTOGRAPHY and MASS SPEC ARE mandatory to differentiate fakes from the real thing!
And to be honest the tests you submitted make that perfectly clear.
Respects Angus
JIM
I also want to say I have a lot of respect for you Angus, coming onto Meso as a potential pretentious guest, because you followed PanMan.
It's not often many folk are willing to lay it all on the line in a bold but honest manner.
Consequently I can NOT fault you for the quandaries created, to the contrary your posts have proven what I originally suspected, your GTG, mate!
Regards
Jim
It's not often many folk are willing to lay it all on the line in a bold but honest manner.
Consequently I can NOT fault you for the quandaries created, to the contrary your posts have proven what I originally suspected, your GTG, mate!
Regards
Jim
BigAngus
New Member
Thank you sir! It was a bit intimidating to interject into a full blown brawl and I likened it to sticking a hand into a dogfight.......not a wise choice by any means. haha. But I'm glad I did. I think that it helps the community, as a whole, and that is what we all want.
Gratuitously,
Angus
LOL he did not follow PanMan. He came in here for FinaFan. The one and only. LOL So Jim are you saying that his results on purity would be correct or do you think I am wasting my money testing all my raws through Angus? By the way Angus is a huge asset to the UGL seen. We are now able to keep the Chinese in check. My problem is the Chinese say that this test is bullshit. I know Angus's opinion. What is yours?
My first post bros. First a little bout me. I just got back to gym after car accident and several year layoff. Started back just b4 thanxgiving. Anyways when i decided to go back to the boards to freshen up my gear knowledge, and find out bout new info i missed.UNFORTUNATELY e-scam was first board i found. I hung around To Reaquaint with myself with juice knowledge. And hopefully find some old friends from my old boards no longer around. I was instantly flamed and labeled somebody trying to advertise other boards and steal eroids newbie business. Even though my old boards r no longer there.Now i remembered the boards there to help newbies and all members alike learn and not get scammed. It became very apparent early that this was not the intent of that $hithole. I saw newbies running a first cycle of 5-600 mgs of test a week,eating high calorie diets And seeing ZERO results at the 6 and 7 week mark. No strength,no sides,nothing! Now both members used a eroid top 5(i suspect alin or elite anabolx) they said but weren't allowed to post brand name even. All the mods and so called vet high karma maggots did was flame these bros!! Tell them shit like their training and diet was crappy and they are to stupid and lazy and have no right to even use aas and need to research And all kind of insults. First off i thought i remembered the forums and the mods and vets there to teach and help not get scammed by the lowlife sources/scammers. Secondly talk bout biting the hands that feed them. Yeah cuz its clear that mods and high karma Morons are also sources or in the circle with sources. That $hithole has more double agents than the cia. Nice to know if u get scammed u shut up about it or get banned. Your allowed one review that gets deleted. Think about this, around half of all new members are going to end up banned. Sometimes they make a ban look legir by by twisting around the meaning of a post to ban somebody. They are good for that shit. I mean these newbies should see something wrong with the bs they are selling. I would almost say they deserve to get scammed for not seeing whats going on. They just put on a skirt grab some pom poms and cheer on mods and high karma krackheads when they hammer a scammee. Except nobody deserves to be scammed. I come from boards where we were family. Even if u disliked somebody,u helped them and protected him from getting scammed. After some time On eroids I was horrified thinking this is what boards have become. When i found meso i thought i was back in 2002 all over again. Mods AND Vets EARNING "RESPECT" Not through some bs trumped up karma count. The mods and gurus i learned from i knew to listen and look up to through their knowledge,advise,respect They earned and obvious wits and accomplishments. Not inflated karma. Fina,instead of making bs claims like all eroid sources must have raws tested as rule,and there are no partnerships with sources or double handle agents y dont u Earn respect in the real world and build a rep here in a democratic environment where people arent thrown in jail for speaking. From what i read i bet u would be given that opportunity although u have some serious damage control now. No pun intended fina Y would u defend eroids after they screwed u? Trying to get bacK there? Be better than that. Build a rep u can be proud of in a place/democracy that matters and a following u earned through being an honest bro Among bros/friends. Know that your friends and community are standing up for u Because they want to. Not because thet have to or else get beheaded by the eroid ax hammer. Thats right,u speak out on being scammed or bunk gear on eroids and u get the guillatine LMAO. But its true. Funny but true!! You try n protect others from getting scammed with bunk stick your neck out it gets chopped off. Not flaming u bro but b4 u believe all their powders r tested just ask our bros on first cycles that got ZIPPO results from elite anabolx and alin who r supposedly top5. Yes there r legit sources there but u know deep down that sources being used by first time cyclers who see no results or sides do not belong on top5 top10 or even top50. Great to be on meso my friends
johnnyBALLZ
Well-known Member
FIRST POST YEP!!
Can you read that busy SINGLE PARAGRAPH? IT'S VERY DIFFICULT, IME!
We kick people off of Meso for using inadequate sentence and paragraph structure!! YEP it's true because it's to stressful on old timers eyes to read that nonsense you just tryped, yep that's also true!!
That single paragraph should be double spaced in a least FIVE different areas, really that's TRUE........ the rest is BULLSHIT!!!
WELCOME
johnnyBALLZ
Well-known Member
Ha, I was going to leave The Great Wall of China analogy out of it but since you went there !! [
)]
Hey Angus hope your well mate!
Listen Iv'e had enough time to thoroughly review the new and old "GH" graphs and regardless of how I interpret the data there's a glaring incongruity. Recall as I mentioned I agree with your "chemists" comments and still do BUT they are at odds with the comments listed along side the Northern Trust and Fisher's HPLC print out and summary..
To be more specific even though the NT sample has IGF and Albumin typed in the upper left hand corner the purity is still listed as 90% in both the summary and on the HPLC itself? The fact the Northern Trust analysis revealed a MW that exceeds that of approved rHGH by some 95 gms/mol (as I mentioned earlier) further sustantiates this contention.
Finally your chemist agrees with my interpretation in this regard and states the Fisher sample is the most "pure" between NT and Fisher.
Please explain how these diametrically opposed differences are best reconciled in your opinion or otherwise.
Also can you explain HOW a blood byproduct, ALBUMIN, contaminated a manufactured GH sample? If true, those producers should be incarcerated, immediately!
Why? Because if such is the case infectious diseases and BLOOD TYPE incompatability allergic reactions could pose a SERIOUS and LEGITIMATE health risk to the user!
I actually have a few more questions but I suppose these were of utmost importance!
Regards
jim
Listen Iv'e had enough time to thoroughly review the new and old "GH" graphs and regardless of how I interpret the data there's a glaring incongruity. Recall as I mentioned I agree with your "chemists" comments and still do BUT they are at odds with the comments listed along side the Northern Trust and Fisher's HPLC print out and summary..
To be more specific even though the NT sample has IGF and Albumin typed in the upper left hand corner the purity is still listed as 90% in both the summary and on the HPLC itself? The fact the Northern Trust analysis revealed a MW that exceeds that of approved rHGH by some 95 gms/mol (as I mentioned earlier) further sustantiates this contention.
Finally your chemist agrees with my interpretation in this regard and states the Fisher sample is the most "pure" between NT and Fisher.
Please explain how these diametrically opposed differences are best reconciled in your opinion or otherwise.
Also can you explain HOW a blood byproduct, ALBUMIN, contaminated a manufactured GH sample? If true, those producers should be incarcerated, immediately!
Why? Because if such is the case infectious diseases and BLOOD TYPE incompatability allergic reactions could pose a SERIOUS and LEGITIMATE health risk to the user!
I actually have a few more questions but I suppose these were of utmost importance!
Regards
jim
I never said all eroids sources test gear. I said all the members have the ability to test. I will be the 1st to agree that the rating system is flawed. It has to be because humans can manipulate it. The owner BFG is not one you can buy off. If he catches you doing anything wrong he will ban you. That being said does shady shit happen? Sure it does. Eroids is open for any source to be submitted. They have around 1000 sources listed. anyone can review and vote. Now what you said about sources names not being able to be mentioned. That is kind of true but not totally. You can talk all you want on a source source page. You just can not post about a source anywhere else unless you are posting a pic of gear or labs. If a review was deleted then it was because it was not a good review. I review must contain valuable info or it is deleted. Now not all shitty review are deleted because there is only a few mods. If you do not think there is valuable info on Eroids you are crazy. Most of these forums have great info you jsut have to filter through the bullshit. You do not get banned for saying you got scammed. hell you can look at Ehealths page I said they scammed me several times. just look at current reviews there is always someone saying they got scammed and they are not getting deleted. I think Pharmacon is the oldest source on eroids. They even get bad reviews sometimes. All the top sources has bad reveiws every now and then. When you sell to that many people someone is going to have a problem. Those bad reviews do not get deleted. The trick to finding a good source is research. This is true on any forum. The owner of eroids is not a guy you can buy. I think he is a fucking prick right now but I feel he still dose the best he can for the community. Do people get banned for stupid reasons? Yes but they do not get banned to cover anything up. When a scammer is found that board lights up with complaints. Go check out ARLs Page a year ago,USP, or Frankies. Funny how people are buying from ARL now like they are a saint. Eroids is not a source site. It is a review site that allows members to review sources. The members are human and some humans lie and cheat. So it is not a perfect system. I have purchased from over 10 source from eroids and I have only been burned by 1. Ehealth. At the time I got burned everyone loved Ehealth because they had a low price on HGH. Hulkbody which is #1 has always been a good source for me. Gorrilla gear always been great source. Kodiak queen has always been a great source. Sgt Pepper has been a good source for me. There is tons of sources on there. Plenty suck and plenty are good. You ahve to do research.
Car-H
Read thru the EA thread and consider PanMans most recent post and I wager your questions will be few and far between about WHY EXACTLY PanMan is still NOT welcomed after some TWO HUNDRED posts!
JIM
150 post replying to your dumbass lol now who the fuck is panman? Post a link
BigAngus
New Member
My apologies for my serious tardiness. I have been incredibly busy as of late. I was directed over here by CBS, so a big thanks to him, otherwise I would have never known this was here.
There is no Albumin in the sample, it is merely the template name used when comparing one of the three listed products. Albumin would have a molecular weight of 66,437 to 66,600Da I believe, and those weights would fall outside of the scope of this particular test. Additionally, if there was albumin in a sample I would have no clue how it got there. I just test brother. I have absolutely nothing to do with manufacturing, shipping, or any kind of activity that comes from a UGL. I am sure I would be sick if I saw some of the conditions a lot of stuff is made in.
Anyway, sorry for any confusion caused. I hope this helps some. Always a pleasure talking to you.
