Really, and thru what mechanism did Jano receive these samples?
Did he know he would be testing GH?
What was the standard he used for comparison?
Where is his concentration calibration curve?
Where on these HPLC does he correlate % with concentration in mg?
Where is the MW listed as compared to the standard?
Was a Mass Spec conducted to confirm the HPLCS MW estimate was accurate?
Did Jano ever confirm his HPLC assays were accurate and run an AAA on any of these samples?
ALL OF THIS INFO is standard for ANY protein based HPLC as it ensures reproducibility and reliability from one sample to the next?
To that end if you only knew the amount of information that was NOT included in Janos HPLCS you wouldn't even consider asking me for more "raw data".
Ya better finish cleaning the testing problem in your own back yard before ya try mine bc what we have posted is as good as it gets, excepting that which is required for published research.
Why don't you take a gander at my second attempt to post GH data using
HPLC and note ALL the criticism I received in spite of divulging much more than what this lab rat posted.
The bias was unequivocal and intentional.
Bottom line Jano gives them what they
WANT and I give them the evidence based TRUTH.
The FACT IS UGL GH remains a crap shoot, some a better crap shoot than others, and if your lucky maybe you will avoid STARCH being the cause of a sticky plunger.
..... or an infected arse!