Yes Sir, I will answer if I may,
Its actually used as a sign of respect World wide
kinda the opposite of childish name callin.
Ex. Jane, Retard ect.ect.
MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
"Generic" GH ASSAYS
- Thread starter Dr JIM
- Start date
Yes Sir, I will answer if I may,
Its actually used as a sign of respect World wide
kinda the opposite of childish name callin.
Ex. Jane, Retard ect.ect.
Really well I haven't forgotten the badgering, and duplicitous criticism I received during my second GH thread.
But then again you weren't around then were you, bc it became so incessant the thread was effectively closed. Oh yea everything was fair game from punctuation to data or file dates and on and on.
Now much has changed bc some of the same PM cadre are having to defend their own testing results AND THEY CANT, in spite of the fact I'm ONLY asking they support their analyses as I DID FOR THEM!
How telling this is from my perspective
and those for who witnessed the entire charade. They didn't like the results and used any and every means necessary to discount and/or discredit
"my" HPLCS that included hordes of additional supportive documentation, esp when compared to Janos.
So sorry fella but I've never taken a liking to double standards!
Last edited:
muscle96ss
Subscriber
What a crock of shit, here we go again folks:
1.) There is absolutely nothing wrong with the testing done at PM. If Jim wants to have a real discussion about the PM testing, I am more then willing to sit down with Jim, Jano, and whomever and we can hash it all out on a private secure chat program. However, as we already know, Jim is incapable of having that kind of discussion.
2.) The testing that Jim did was criticized because it was not transparent and Jim REFUSED to post the standard. Then when Jim got caught with his pants down and the coded number of the standard turned out to be Karls 20iu GH; Jim brought the kitchen sink full of excuses on how it was just a coincidence that the computer coded Karl's GH and the standard the same(maybe he should play the lottery with that kind of luck).
In addition, the pharma GH that was tested by Jim was severely underdosed and that same person that sent in the Genotropin sample did IGF-1 testing with this underdosed pharma GH, and it definitely was not underdosed. Kind of odd that in Jims testing pharm GH tests as underdosed, yet he criticizes PM's testing where pharma GH tested out as accurately dosed with pharma purity(and he continues to show that he still has no idea what we even did, so not sure how he can be critical of it it).
So should we go back and debate the past of Jim's testing and PM's testing or can we move forward and discuss the current testing and let the past be in the past?
It's a sign of respect when it's used with a surname.
Using it with a board handle or even given name is not only improper, it's just silly. And anyone doing so looks retarded.
janoshik
Subscriber
Although your heart may be in the right place you seem naive with respect to what's at stake here, MONEY and A LOT of it.
In that regard how you KNOW the testing conducted by Jano was GTG?
I mean did someone else repeat his assays as confirmation or did Jano forward you what would be considered the standard for GH testing and that begins with a Molecular Weight determination.
Let me give you a word of advice, if you want reproducible and reliable GH results, avoid any "lab" that doesn't OWN a MASS SPEC!
That's NOT to suggest a MS is the required methodology but it's certainly the most precise and for that reason is the current Pharm standard.
What's that you say? The lab I'm using OWNS THREE!
Peace
1) Molecular weight determination is absolutely not necessary for quantification and any high schooler who done their lab work properly knows that. If anybody needs some evidence, just ask me for it.
2) You don't need a mass spec and you are lying as usual. Where there is a mention of a mass spectrometry in the pharmacopoeias? Please, just say the page. Why only UV detection is used for quantification there, if it's not reliable, at least in the EU pharmacopoeia?
3) "if you want reproducible and reliable GH results, avoid any "lab" that doesn't OWN a MASS SPEC!"
Quote of JIM from earlier pages of this thread " LC/MS is not reliable enough to QUANTIFY a samples content as in mg"
I don't really have to try to shatter your credibility, you are doing so youself pretty well - I just have to point it out for members that don't really feel like going through all your venom.
1) I am open to this, as I had expressed to Mr. Mands as well.
The rest I don't really have to comment.
Muscles, why don't you take this asshole back to PM. Apparently you people like him, although I can't imagine why. Everyone here is sick of the cunt polluting the forum with his spam.
Why don't you just post your evidence instead of always trying to wiggle out of it?
He didn't say you "needed" a mass spec, numbnuts. He said, "if you want reproducible and reliable GH results, avoid any "lab" that doesn't OWN a MASS SPEC!"
Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, is it?
Says the clown who was caught fabricating data for GETM/Gentech. Your credibility is REAL high on this forum.
No one wants your input. Take the fucking hint.
But we all know you will.
muscle96ss
Subscriber
He actually knows what he is talking about and has a lot to offer. It may be difficult to realize that now because its impossible to have a normal intelligent discussion with Jim and things always get heated and out of control instead. If you remember, when I first encountered Jim a few years back and was the outsider; I got labeled all kinds of names. In fact, my welcome reception was much more harsh than this.
Also, while Jano does contribute to PM, he is actually not a sponsor there and is an independent member of many boards. So there is no direct affiliation with PM. It really doesn't make much of a difference, but I just want to clarify.
actually, things were pretty quiet on this thread until janos showed up and called jim a liar in his first post.. he may or may not have alot to offer, but it gets lost
M96,
I think it would be advantageous to your argument not to be so reticent about the testing over at PM. It sounds like your are trying to hide something (not saying you are). For example; "by an actual accredited lab who is well respected the field and highly capable(no, not Simec, lol). " The name of the lab would be just. Just My Humble Opinion.
Last edited:
If everyone could play right and treat each other with respect it would be a better conversation. But all I see is deflection from both sides and half the information. Hard to trust either side at this point (except for Mands). I see a lot of fumbling and dancing around questions.
muscle96ss
Subscriber
The name of the lab is not public information, for the same obvious reasons that we don't know the name of the lab doing the testing here. Before we even started the testing at PM there was full disclosure that the name of the lab doing the immunoassay would only be made available to those overseeing the testing.
I am not sure where it appears that I am trying to hide anything. I have answered every single question about the testing done on PM; you can ask me anything. The only reason anybody would question anything about it is because of the numerous lies and misinformation being posted about it here in this thread. Sorry, but Jim has no clue what we did, could care less what we did, and is just blowing shit out his ass as usual. Considering the amount of work and time that RP, Buck, and I spent on this project; I am not going to sit an read information written from Jim that I know is 100% factually incorrect.
Last edited:
btw, a question that hasn't been asked, is Dr J's results different from the test results over at PM
muscle96ss
Subscriber
There really hasn't been much overlap in the brands that you have tested and what we tested on PM. For example you tested TP's black top batch#15 while we tested his batch#10 as well as his ones before he started putting the batch#'s on it. We both tested Kalatu's blacks, but he got his blacks from several different sources. So there really isn't enough information to the compare the 2 yet. If I had to make a guess, I would say that the results are close to what they should be within a margin of error of 10%; which is not bad.
than why all the arguing
To answer that, of the 11 that were tested @ PM and the 10 here, there are only a few that are duplicates.
1) The Greys is were i see the most difference.. PM results were as advertised. Here .25 P/V
2) Nothing to compare to
3) Nothing to compare to
13) Tp Blacks here they are tested 13.7 Iu's p/v as we know these change with every batch PM Had them @ Plus or minus a point on one 1 sample and < a half point on the other
14) Nothing to compare to
15) Kalatu's Blk Top here 10.6 PM had them @ Less than 1/2 a point difference
16) Nothing to compare to
17) NTCT
18) NTCT
19) NTCT
Thats what i see so far.
The greys were nite and day by comparison as I see it...
Last edited:
muscle96ss
Subscriber
I actually support the testing being done by mands and Jim. I am anxiously waiting for a pharm sample to be tested so that we can get a better idea on how much error, if any, there is in the testing. My arguments have nothing to do with the actual testing, but the side show and diversions that Jim creates. More specifically, his continued attacks on the testing that was done at PM; where on numerous occasions he has clearly demonstrated that he really doesn't know anything about what we did. If someone wants to create a different thread where we can analyze and critique what was done on PM; then go for it and we can all have at it. That way at least we don't clutter up this thread.
muscle96ss
Subscriber
The greys were not bought directly from TP and there has been no proof supplied yet that they originated from TP. So we can't really say on that one either that it has anything to do with the testing necessarily.
janoshik
Subscriber
Like I mentioned I support this testing and I am not saying the results are incorrect as I have nothing to base that on. Nor I am stating that the results are correct. I haven't expressed my opinion about that here at all.
What I am doing is pointing out that JIM is lying to you all, is inconsistent, lacking knowledge and I generally wouldn't trust him with providing informations as sensitive as these. I wouldn't care that much after few initial posts, but I've been asked by several people to keep on participating in this discussion.
It's just the ones providing the least informations and sending me to hell are the loudest.
Similar threads
Sponsors
Latest posts
-
-
Sigma Audley Inc. - Your source for peptides, ancillaries, AAS, and more!- Latest: Trenbolonetax
-
-
