"Generic" GH ASSAYS

[Dr JIM]

I was trying to point out that if both you and jano talk about the testing procedures instead of being secretive about it, then maybe one can catch an error one was doing and vice versa. Sort of how they say 2 minds are greater than 1? I'm hoping that if you can both agree to have a full on discussion on each other's testing methods, then maybe some answers can be given, or errors noted, etc.

If you haven't noticed Jano has yet to answer those questions I've posted several times.

An effective "exchange of ideas" regardless of the subject matter is a TWO WAY STREET Jano wants no part of!

That being the case I've more important things to do with my time than play Jano games.

 

[Mr MASSE]

Guys, so much to read... But WTF is going on here? Please more Tests if possible and not too much senseless TEXT... don't understand me wrong, but...

 

[Dr JIM]

If you haven't noticed Jano has yet to answer those questions I've posted several times.

An effective "exchange of ideas" regardless of the subject matter is a TWO WAY STREET Jano wants no part of!

That being the case I've more important things to do with my time than play Jano games.

The FACT IS, MANDS already posted an citation that clearly stated the benefits of AAA as compared to HPLC, which Jano promptly discounted.

You fellas want to know the truth GOOGLE the following
: AMINO ACID ANALYSIS ----
current GOLD STANDARD and you'll soon discover the answer is AN AAA,
according to "experts" in the field of applied analytical chemistry.

In fact AAA is so accurate it's used to determine the validity of
HPLC peptide derived data!

Whats even more important?

The qualifications of those running these assays and
Jano is a "tech who bought an HPLC" and now needs to pay FOR IT. But that's no problem bc according to Jano "he's the only one conducting this type of testing".

(Yep that's another statement made by Jano I asked him to elaborate upon but he declined to answer once again)

In contrast MANDS and I are using a triple certified PROTEIN RESEARCH LAB, and there simply is no comparison.

Nonetheless now Meso members now have TWO options use them to your liking.

 

[muscle96ss]

The FACT IS, MANDS already posted an citation that clearly stated the benefits of AAA as compared to HPLC, which Jano promptly discounted.

You fellas want to know the truth GOOGLE the following
: AMINO ACID ANALYSIS ----
current GOLD STANDARD and you'll soon discover the answer is AN AAA,
according to "experts" in the field of applied analytical chemistry.

In fact AAA is so accurate it's used to determine the validity of
HPLC peptide derived data!

Whats even more important?

The qualifications of those running these assays and
Jano is a "tech who bought an HPLC" and now needs to pay FOR IT. But that's no problem bc according to Jano "he's the only one conducting this type of testing".

(Yep that's another statement made by Jano I asked him to elaborate upon but he declined to answer once again)

In contrast MANDS and I are using a triple certified PROTEIN RESEARCH LAB, and there simply is no comparison.

Nonetheless now Meso members now have TWO options use them to your liking.

Can someone please ask Jim whether AAA is used in USP(US Pharmacopeia) as one of the multitude of tests used for quality control of HGH? I believe TP listed in an earlier post what is used and I didn't see that one listed. If in fact it is not can he please comment on why that is the case if it is considered the gold standard.

 

[Trapmonster]

Can someone please ask Jim whether AAA is used in USP(US Pharmacopeia) as one of the multitude of tests used for quality control of HGH? I believe TP listed in an earlier post what is used and I didn't see that one listed. If in fact it is not can he please comment on why that is the case if it is considered the gold standard.

@Dr JIM @muscle96ss wants to know..

 

[Dr JIM]

One proviso to my above comment;
An AAS is considered the most reliable SINGLE ASSAY GOLD STANDARD.

What that means is although HPLC can and is often used to qualify and quantify MANY different molecules from AAS to Adex few if any analytical labs will cite HPLC data exclusively to substantiate their findings with respect to a unknown substance.

For example the existing WADA criteria REQUIRE;

- an illicit substances molecular weight must first be QUALIFIED by Mass Spec

- an illicit substance is QUANTIFIED by EITHER HPLC or LC MS

- while GH or IGF generally require the use of an AAA in addition to MS or in some instances of suspected PEPs or Secretogogue use protein electrophoresis or PAGE

- YES their are a few exceptions to these MANDATES which EVERY "approved" WADA analytical lab MUST comply with.

I'm aware of one which involves the use of LC/MS as the sole assay when the number of metabolites detected is three or more and are SPECIFIC to a particular PED.

However this form of single set LC/MS assay requires the use of isotopically labeled standards. This ensures the results are reliable and reproducible should the involved athlete elect to contest the results thru independent lab testing.

Jim

 

[Dr JIM]

Nice AAA review that includes many of the fundamentals required to better understand this particular assay.

 

[benchyourmom]

So you are saying, that the miniscule amount of glycine (because anybody who knows jack shit realises than even half a goddamn gram of glycine in a vial is absolute nonsense and every single customer can BREAK a vial and weight the powder with 20$ scale to see that it's never over 100mg per vial) is being ADDED for a hope of what? 0.2ng raise in HGH? Do you yourself believe that?

Or that glycine is intentionaly not removed? Do you have any idea how purification process works? Do you have any idea how much more expensive and complicated it would be to purify BOTH HGH and GLYCINE , which have vastly differing properties? Do you realise that two separations would be necessary? For what? 0.2ng raise in HGH? Along with the risk that other low molecular stuff gets in along with glycine?

Absolute nonsense.

Why have you not sent the raw data yet if you hate the 'incomplete data' so much?

I would absolutely love to see them and interpret them. Coincidentally I kinda am involved in testing stuff. AAA as well. I sorta am MD working in research.


Also, please, tell me how is AAA MORE PRECISE THAN HPLC again.

Please, just tell me so. It would help to explain to WHOLE PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY which is using HPLC as routine quality testing for PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS.

Or is European and US pharmacopoeia written by noobs in your opinion?


I mean, don't get me wrong. TESTING STUFF FOR FREE FOR PEOPLE IS AN AWESOME THING TO DO AND I'M FULLY UP TO SUPPORT IT.


WHAT I DO NOT SUPPORT IS SPREADING MISINFORMATIONS AND BULLSHIT.

Are you the Janoshik from reddit doing HPLC testing?

 

[Sampei]

Are you the Janoshik from reddit doing HPLC testing?

Yes

 

[benchyourmom]

Yes

Haha, I see now! Read all the drama, Jesus! Painful reading!

 

[Dr JIM]

Haha, I see now! Read all the drama, Jesus! Painful reading!

Oh I agree, but how entertaining would it all be absent our "friends" at PM paying us a visit I mean nothing like a free "exchange of ideas", lol!

 

[rpbb]

Nice AAA review that includes many of the fundamentals required to better understand this particular assay.

Nice AAA review that includes many of the fundamentals required to better understand this particular assay.

Interesting article. From the research I've done, would it be practical for a manufacturing facility to use AAA testing, and while the articles I've read show it to be more accurate, it's also alot more complex.

 

[JayWaWa]

Have you every been a teacher?

I do it every day as its a part of my occupation working with Med Students and residents, and if you don't understand the fund of knowledge differences bt those
with a formal education and many on Meso stick around and pay closer attention to those questions being asked.

They range from explain the math, techniques or involved technology or how to interpret the data. There are BOOKS on each and every one of those
topics.

Bc that's something that requires months of study for an educated fella as myself there's NO WAY it can be achieved on a forum best designed for one or two line commentaries.

Much like those who want to be spoon fed AAS info, the onus is on them to LEARN the basics of analytical lab testing first.

Dr Jim,
You're a great wealth of info. I appreciate all your comments.
My only question is this:
If you work with med students and residents every day...where do you get the time to post this much on the forum!

 

[mands]

Dr Jim,
You're a great wealth of info. I appreciate all your comments.
My only question is this:
If you work with med students and residents every day...where do you get the time to post this much on the forum!

Do you ever look at the times he usually posts? Also, everyday doesn't mean all day

mands

 

[JayWaWa]

Does he sleep? AHAH! I figured it out, hes a robot.

 

[mands]

Does he sleep? AHAH! I figured it out, hes a robot.

Yes he's a BOT like @master.on.

mands

 

[heady muscle]

One proviso to my above comment;
An AAS is considered the most reliable SINGLE ASSAY GOLD STANDARD.

What that means is although HPLC can and is often used to qualify and quantify MANY different molecules from AAS to Adex few if any analytical labs will cite HPLC data exclusively to substantiate their findings with respect to a unknown substance.

For example the existing WADA criteria REQUIRE;

- an illicit substances molecular weight must first be QUALIFIED by Mass Spec

- an illicit substance is QUANTIFIED by EITHER HPLC or LC MS

- while GH or IGF generally require the use of an AAA in addition to MS or in some instances of suspected PEPs or Secretogogue use protein electrophoresis or PAGE

- YES their are a few exceptions to these MANDATES which EVERY "approved" WADA analytical lab MUST comply with.

I'm aware of one which involves the use of LC/MS as the sole assay when the number of metabolites detected is three or more and are SPECIFIC to a particular PED.

However this form of single set LC/MS assay requires the use of isotopically labeled standards. This ensures the results are reliable and reproducible should the involved athlete elect to contest the results thru independent lab testing.

Jim

Great stuff Jim, this is what some of us were looking for. Much appreciated.

 

[Geterdun]

@muscle96ss Again, I'm far from an expert, but would think that your answer is due to quality control and the fact that such detailed testing is not needed? I'm sure the cost of AAA in comparison to HPLC is higher as well. JMO

Meaning HGH approved by the FDA, or the division of the FDA, Pharmacopia, know Pharmacy sold HGH is made with 17 already approved anti-aging agents and therefore don't need testing as detailed as AAA Testing? I've not seen where Generic uses the same already approved agents, so would think more detailed testing should be used, such as what WADA uses. Again JMO

 

[PrideofNYC123]

@muscle96ss Again, I'm far from an expert, but would think that your answer is due to quality control and the fact that such detailed testing is not needed? I'm sure the cost of AAA in comparison to HPLC is higher as well. JMO

AAA is much cheaper


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Geterdun]

See, that's why I always say I don't know a lot and said just my opinion, which is obviously off. Thanks for the correct.