"Generic" GH ASSAYS

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!
 
Mr. Jano was sent 11 unmarked samples 1 was a pharma as a control.the same was sent to Simec. lettered a-k.
very similar to what is happenin here
he was not paid by any one other then the Members of PM, and was not paid until he performed..
 
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.

I wouldn't make accusations about something you know nothing about. I am sure jano would be willing to provide you with any info you desire as long as that favor is returned in regards to the testing you are performing; which is plenty fair. However, what isn't fair is to cast judgement and throw stones before you have even laid eyes on the data nor know anything about the testing that was performed.
 
I wouldn't make accusations about something you know nothing about. I am sure jano would be willing to provide you with any info you desire as long as that favor is returned in regards to the testing you are performing; which is plenty fair. However, what isn't fair is to cast judgement and throw stones before you have even laid eyes on the data nor know anything about the testing that was performed.
To be fair @muscle96ss although @jano came over asking legit questions about the process he was quick to toss some stones JIM's way. This has to do with history between them both already I'm guessing and that's only speculation.

I would like all to participate and be clairvoyant if all possible in this process.

Night all! Have to hit the gym and eat one more time before I get some Zzzzz's

@muscle96ss I'lol chat with you tomorrow.

mands
 
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?

.

Ok GREAT I'll assume Jano was blinded to the samples origin or concentration @Buck1973
and as for my other queries any idea why such info is ENTIRELY ABSENT?

I ask bc such info of this nature is the analytical lab standard and one I willingly complied with when my HPLCs were cited on my second generic GH thread.

It's seems there's a double standard here JANO gets by posting the bare minimum but Dr Jim is held to the LEGITIMATE LAB standard.

Hmm I think the operational word is called BIAS! Or maybe I'm wrong it's all about those Benjamin's.
 
Last edited:
Its to bad you two cant bury the hatchet and cooperate with each other. The meso community would benefit in a huge way if that were to happen. Oh well!!!? Who cares rt? As long as you come out the winner of the argument , fuck what coulda been.
And to you guys tossing insults at jano, that dont know the first thing about gh, ( never used and never studied it)PLEASE STOP!!!! Your making yourself look foolish. Not naming names but if the shoe fits..........
I think Dr JIM and a few others are qualified to debate him the rest just look like dick riders.
 
Mr. Jano was sent 11 unmarked samples 1 was a pharma as a control.the same was sent to Simec. lettered a-k.
very similar to what is happenin here
he was not paid by any one other then the Members of PM, and was not paid until he performed..

What you have yet clarified is WHO sent these samples to Jano.

Bc it's my understanding all of our samples are being donated by consumers themselves not that UGL would have reason to spike a sample, right.
 
Its to bad you two cant bury the hatchet and cooperate with each other. The meso community would benefit in a huge way if that were to happen. Oh well!!!? Who cares rt? As long as you come out the winner of the argument , fuck what coulda been.
And to you guys tossing insults at jano, that dont know the first thing about gh, ( never used and never studied it)PLEASE STOP!!!! Your making yourself look foolish. Not naming names but if the shoe fits..........
I think Dr JIM and a few others are qualified to debate him the rest just look like dick riders.

Who are you and what have you done to my dearly beloved Mr.B66???? Lolol :p
 
Its to bad you two cant bury the hatchet and cooperate with each other. The meso community would benefit in a huge way if that were to happen. Oh well!!!? Who cares rt? As long as you come out the winner of the argument , fuck what coulda been.

I have no interest in cooperating with someone that produced fake data for an ugl. Nor am I interested in cooperating with a so called lab tech with a such a limited understanding of biochemistry that he wasn't even aware that a biological assay is still needed to confirm that you actually have rhGH - and had to be corrected by Karl, of all people.

And to you guys tossing insults at jano, that dont know the first thing about gh, ( never used and never studied it)PLEASE STOP!!!! Your making yourself look foolish. Not naming names but if the shoe fits..........
I think Dr JIM and a few others are qualified to debate him the rest just look like dick riders.

I wish you would have named names, B66. That way I would know whether I should be pissed off at you or not.:eek:
 
Bc Meso and PM don't "play" by the same rules, and reasons should be obvious fella!

I personally would be willing to put the past in the past and work together for the better of the entire community. Buck who has posted in this thread was part of the trio at PM that supervised our lab testing project. I am pretty sure he would be willing to work together as well. Jano is independent and does not represent any specific board and I am sure he would be willing to work together as well. So I don't see any reason why this cannot be accomplished. We are all here for the same reasons. So much more can be accomplished if we can find a way to pool our resources and work together instead of in opposition.
 
I have no interest in cooperating with someone that produced fake data for an ugl. Nor am I interested in cooperating with a so called lab tech with a such a limited understanding of biochemistry that he wasn't even aware that a biological assay is still needed to confirm that you actually have rhGH - and had to be corrected by Karl, of all people.



I wish you would have named names, B66. That way I would know whether I should be pissed off at you or not.:eek:

FUCK!!!!!! The last thing i want is YOU pissed off at me[emoji15]
And BTW JIM has already set me strait. I shall restrain myself henceforth [emoji4]
 
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?

These are Jano's HPLCs as cited on PM, perhaps he can answer my questions rather than post another deflection, detour, or will simply deny such info is the contemporary lab standard.

The reason such information is CRITICAL; bc what one is left with in it's absence is A LOT of "raw data" without a means of correlating numerical or percentile values into something useful, a specific MANUFACTURERS SAMPLE, or it's concentration in mg.

Im sorry guys but I honestly don't know what the intent was, but the results are ANYTHING but transparent or readable from an evidence based perspective.
 

Attachments

Last edited:
Back
Top