Ateam2023
Member
Have you Properly introduced yourself in the "NEW MEMBER" thread, as is proper protocol here at Meso Rx? Thanks and Good Day
MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
Bad Sides or Bad hGH?
- Thread starter mattox
- Start date
Sorry I’m new here.I didn’t but
Sorry Im new here.I didn’t know there was a protocol.
mattox
New Member
Hello, @MrGuest. I learned the hard way about proper protocol as well. All good, but you should go make a proper post in the New Member forum if you haven't.
The answer to your question is not a clear yes or no. First, I've only ordered a single Pfizer Genotropin pen, which hasn't arrived yet. Even still, no, I will not be testing that for obvious reasons.
Now, for the UGL stuff I ordered, I have not had any of that tested either. Why not?
1. The first batch, which triggered this post originally, to test a single vial would be more expensive than what I paid for the full kit. Doesn't make financial sense.
2. I ordered a second batch from a different supplier and did not have any reaction. That means either a) I don't have some allergic response to hGH or b) The second batch is not hGH.
3. I'm a walking medical experiment. I use/have used a plethora of peptides from both pharmacies and UGL. I've never had anything tested. As long as it has a COA - I'm well aware the COA provided, while valid, might not match the product I'm sent - I say a little prayer and pin a small test dose.
At the end of the day, I'm guessing I'm in the same boat as most. I cannot imagine most people are spending $100-400 on every purchase they make to have it tested by Jano. I wish I had that luxury, but I don't.
I'm guessing most folks are like me - performing due diligence and praying this is not the time that China man decides to take out ol' Round Eye.
Ghoul
Member
You are correct. The most prolific testers tend to be trailer park drug resellers who supply the local gymbros and welfare moms who can't figure out how to order for themselves via their AOL account.
They're just checking their inventory in the course of business, Most normal users ordering a kit or two at a time don't test, and even if they did, this stuff isn't being made by Pfizer, One vial can be fine and 3 others in the same kit could be trash.
In addition, the "purity" being tested is only measured after being filtered with a .22um syringe filter. Any trash above that size, which is common in peptides, isn't measured. This is like testing your well water quality only after running it through a Brita filter. Those impurities don't get into the test reports, but they do get into your body when you inject them, so it's kind of a joke.
Last edited:
Ghoul
Member
I don't judge anybody for choosing to filter or not filter. We all have our own risk tolerance. But the clowns who pretend filtering is useless because the National Institutes of Health haven't conducted a study where they intentionally inject Chinese UGL impurities into test subjects every day for a year to see what happens are spreaders of harm. Setting nonsensical standards for "proof" that injecting unintended and unidentified particulates from Chinese labs who really "prioritize your safety", day after day, which Pharma and the FDA set strict limits on and work hard to minimize, represents any kind of risk. Of course it does.
If you only inject a small quantity once in a while, filtering likely doesn't make a huge difference, But when you're pumping half a liter into your body a year, about a tenth of your total blood volume, it's perfectly rational for someone to choose to make sure it's as clean as possible.
Last edited:
UncleBuns
Member
You are wrong. I am a part of a prolific testing group that tests an insane amount of products. All kinds of tests ranging from standard purity and quantity tests to various freeze/thaw tests, refrigeration tests, degradation tests, all kinds of tests. There are multiple private testing groups out there where people pool money and do loads of testing.
Low level resellers who don't care about the people they are selling to don't test at all.
It's obvious you were talking about one specific user that you dislike and you are wrong about him as well.
How many tests have you done and shared with the community?
Ghoul
Member
I'm talking about publically shared tests, not the "private" tests conducted by a bunch of prima donnas who don't even know what the fuck constitutes "purity".
You didn't even fucking realize the contamination and degraded material in reconstituted peptides above .22um in size isn't measured in any way did you?
So when your secret elite testing shows that storage conditions don't lead to degradation, it's bullshit. Most forms of protein degradation results in particulates larger than .22um, the ones the FDA says represent the most risk, and all of that gets cleaned out first,
Your tests only demonstrate the presence of the active ingredient, and the small proportion of impurities below .22um, but do nothing to establish the actual purity of the product, and therefore it's safety.
A retard and his testing money are soon parted.
Ghoul
Member
@UncleBuns
Here, pass this along to your fellow retards when you meet up in the secret treehouse of elite testers again.
This is what *real* testing looks like. From an actual scientist who's a world renowned expert on pharma peptide formulations. Probably THE leading expert in this field,
A nice vial of pharma GH, with all the right excipient ingredients to prevent degradation, left to sit for a day generated 40,000 particulates above 1um in 1ml. That's 4 times larger than what's being removed by the filter before "purity" testing.
While I've seen the results that claim all kinds of shit storage conditions and rough handling of shit UGL formulated peptides doesn't lead to degradation, despite a mountain of scientific research that shows it does, here's what happens after the same vial is agitated.
And this guy, who's been the lead developer for blockbuster pharma peptide drugs, and has 40 patents related to peptide drug delivery to his name, says filtering that shit out is a good idea, to improve safety and efficacy of peptides, even though some idiots here insist it's useless.
So again, you guys are testing the well water after running it through a purifying filter, calling it good, and drinking straight from the tap.
(by the way, testing is great. Even the fundamentally flawed, limited type you and the trailer park dealer do. At least it identifies the substance. Mostly that's harm reduction for your wallet not your health. But you're not harm reduction heroes because you drop a vial in the mail. Doing the work, the research, sharing that knowledge and real ways to further reduce harm, then taking the heat from an army of morons who'll do anything to maintain the status quo is "harm reduction" too.).
Here, pass this along to your fellow retards when you meet up in the secret treehouse of elite testers again.
This is what *real* testing looks like. From an actual scientist who's a world renowned expert on pharma peptide formulations. Probably THE leading expert in this field,
A nice vial of pharma GH, with all the right excipient ingredients to prevent degradation, left to sit for a day generated 40,000 particulates above 1um in 1ml. That's 4 times larger than what's being removed by the filter before "purity" testing.
While I've seen the results that claim all kinds of shit storage conditions and rough handling of shit UGL formulated peptides doesn't lead to degradation, despite a mountain of scientific research that shows it does, here's what happens after the same vial is agitated.
And this guy, who's been the lead developer for blockbuster pharma peptide drugs, and has 40 patents related to peptide drug delivery to his name, says filtering that shit out is a good idea, to improve safety and efficacy of peptides, even though some idiots here insist it's useless.
So again, you guys are testing the well water after running it through a purifying filter, calling it good, and drinking straight from the tap.
(by the way, testing is great. Even the fundamentally flawed, limited type you and the trailer park dealer do. At least it identifies the substance. Mostly that's harm reduction for your wallet not your health. But you're not harm reduction heroes because you drop a vial in the mail. Doing the work, the research, sharing that knowledge and real ways to further reduce harm, then taking the heat from an army of morons who'll do anything to maintain the status quo is "harm reduction" too.).
Last edited:
Spaceman Spiff
Member
The more you post, the more people realize you are full of shit. Keep redirecting comments and arguments.
Throw up some testing over the unknown substances you inject.
You keep talking about harm reduction with nothing of your own harm reduction. I am honestly starting to think you are some wheelchair bound LARPer behind the screen
Last edited:
Standfast
Member
Why do you constantly make the references to "Trailer Park" in a negative manner. Do you feel someone's living arrangements defines them as a person as puts them beneath you?
narta
Member
Ask his about the proof of all those fears he is spreading. Ask him about his training protocol, diet and steroid regiment too.
I am sure you will take his advice and knowledge under a very different light.
narta
Member
He lives in his mansion, in Thailand with his 19yr old girlfriend that plows 3x day with his 9" dick, that's why.
narta
Member
Please post the complete aka not screenshot, of the FDA officially approved guidelines. AFAIK there are only FDA sponsored thesis about the subject.
Ghoul
Member
narta
Member
Do you lift weights? Do you watch your diet?
Do you test your ugl gear? Can you share your tests?
Can you post the source of these tables?
mattox
New Member
@Ghoul @UncleBuns @narta @Spaceman Spiff @Standfast my bad, fellas. Didn't mean to start an argument.
Sincerely though, if one person chooses to filter and another doesn't, it's not a matter of right or wrong, correct? I don't think that's what this argument is about. If one person chooses to filter out of an abundance of caution and another - a retard like me that doesn't filter OR test - just injects, each person is assuming the level of risk they're comfortable with, true?
It seems like the argument stems from an "it's my way or the highway" approach, along with some tit for tat name calling.
BTW... it's 8am in TN! We all got WAY to much time on our hands posting this early on this subject! LoL!
Sincerely though, if one person chooses to filter and another doesn't, it's not a matter of right or wrong, correct? I don't think that's what this argument is about. If one person chooses to filter out of an abundance of caution and another - a retard like me that doesn't filter OR test - just injects, each person is assuming the level of risk they're comfortable with, true?
It seems like the argument stems from an "it's my way or the highway" approach, along with some tit for tat name calling.
BTW... it's 8am in TN! We all got WAY to much time on our hands posting this early on this subject! LoL!
Ghoul
Member
Sure. Below is the study authored by Dr. Gerhard Winter, who, besides his 4 decade career as a professor of pharmaceutical technology, lead developer of the delivery systems for protein drugs for companies like Merck, and Roche, he's spent the last 20 years heading a research group on protein drug formulation and injection technology.
He thinks you should filter to reduce risk and improve quality. But what does he know?
Prof. Dr. Gerhard Winter | Coriolis Pharma
www.coriolis-pharma.com
What the trailer park drug dealer, the "pHD" who brags about injecting cloudy rHGH, and the guy who slings his mother's burritos from a filthy basement in Mexico want you to believe is that because there aren't trials intentionally injecting aggregates and other particulates on a daily basis into healthy humans to see how much harm it's done to their health, the literally thousands of published papers identifying large aggregates and non-organic particles as risk factors can be dismissed as mere "theories".
That's not how risk is managed in medicine. Absolute proof of harm, by knowingly harming humans in a controlled trial is not allowed.
The FDA and EU equivalent also recognize these as risk factors in peptide products, even if the precise mechanisms of action aren't entirely understood. This is why if anything changes in an approved peptide, in its manufacturing, storage, or even the container it's delivered in, it must undergo testing again, to demonstrate new aggregates and other impurities haven't formed as a result of the change risking greater immunogenicity compared to the original product.
There is sufficient evidence of a link between these contaminants and potential harm that everyone involved in developing, manufacturing, and monitoring them takes extensive, expensive actions to eliminate them from retail pharma peptide drugs, and prevent their formation. The clowns who dismiss this suggest these scientists just enjoy wasting tens of millions of dollars on these precautions, for no reason.
I'm not going to lead an entire class here, especially given the two guys above are likely the first in their long line to achieve literacy, but if you want to research the topic search using the terms: "peptide aggregate", "causes of peptide aggregation", "peptide immunogenicity", "peptide degradation factors", and "peptide adjuvant". Add "NIH" to limit the results to published, peer reviewed work
The way it's done in pharma is an ELISA test, conducted on the proposed finished product. Essentially it's exposed to human cells, and the immune reaction is
measured.
Remember, no one is testing UGL trash in this manner, only carefully manufactured pharma products companies are trying to get approved. There's no comparison between the way Pfizer produces rHGH and the guy making it under a Chinese dry cleaner in Beijing.
A few months ago the FDA conducted ELISA tests on a bunch of pharma peptides, and 2 compounder "legal UGL" GLP drugs, which are not subject to the same standards as pharma. The levels of immune response in one was 2000x+ higher than pharma, and after filtering, one peptide drug showed an 80% reduction in immune response.
The other thing pharma/FDA does that UGL does not is run a simulation to estimate the potential harm of every potential impurity that can develop in a specific manufacturing process for a peptide. The same peptide will have a different set of impurities based on how it's made. Do Chinese UGLs do this? "Hey Wen Chai, we've changed the way we're making this batch, better run another Epivax simulation!"
Also, as Dr. Werner pointed out in his study, in 2018 60% of peptide pharmaceuticals in Germany have instructions to filter after reconstitution, a number growing every year,
Just understand, to shallow thinkers the definition of "harm" is limited to getting ripped off by an underdosed product, or an infection that causes symptoms the next day.
They can't plan for next week, so they certainly aren't concerned with the cumulative harms that can develop after years of injecting contaminants into their bodies, and they'll feel better if you aren't either.
You want to make the most of your ugl rHgh, ensuring sterility and minimizing contaminants? Move passed the knuckle dragging dinosaurs, and filter it.
Let them inject "raw, unfiltered" underground, unregulated, untested (yes, they're essentially untested except for the presence of active ingredient) peptides and get all that "good stuff" they think you're losing by filtering it,
Last edited:
