"Generic" GH ASSAYS

[muscle96ss]

@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

I would think it would be the opposite. When we are talking about quality control we are talking about the strict guidelines that the government insists the pharmaceutical industry must adhere to in order to insure that the product contains what it is supposed to and without anything harmful that shouldn't be there. If AAA was the gold standard for testing the accuracy of content; then I would expect that is what they would use. I am still hoping someone can draw Jim's attention to this so he can hopefully get some better understand to whether it is or isn't used and why.

Also, I am not sure what WADA has to do with anything. WADA tests athletes blood for to prevent doping with HGH. That is completely different than testing a vial of GH to determine its actual contents.

 

[Geterdun]

WADA's testing is much more detailed than just that.

I was saying, because the 17 anti-aging agents used, have already been tested and are known, have set QC by the FDA, etc... Generic HGH labs hasn't even said what's in their HGH. I'm not going to debate this with you, I'm far less experienced. As far as Jim, he must have put you on his ugly list for his own reasons and I'm not going to disrespect that wish. He doesn't care to read, or respond to you, that's why he ignored you.

No disrespect meant.

 

[Dr JIM]

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.

While existing technology has simplified AAA, it's generally considered a more tedious and less "forgiving" process.

The net effect being a properly performed AAA requires the use of certain "checks and balances"
at specific points to ensure the first "error" does not snowball into unreliable results.

Logistical issues aside, is this any different than HPLC, not really, as the results are no better than the commitment,
intra-laboratory support and level of expertise of those conducting any ASSAY.

Jim

 

[muscle96ss]

WADA's testing is much more detailed than just that.

I was saying, because the 17 anti-aging agents used, have already been tested and are known, have set QC by the FDA, etc... Generic HGH labs hasn't even said what's in their HGH. I'm not going to debate this with you, I'm far less experienced. As far as Jim, he must have put you on his ugly list for his own reasons and I'm not going to disrespect that wish. He doesn't care to read, or respond to you, that's why he ignored you.

No disrespect meant.

So are you saying that WADA takes vials of GH and tests them for actual GH contents?

Also I think the term generic is being misused. Omnitrope I believe is the only official generic GH. The GH's that are being tested here are GH's sold on the underground market and the title "generic" does not necessarily apply. Some may be produced by a pharmaceutical company in a pharmaceutical plant while others may be produced by an underground non-licensed facility. What is what, most of us don't know. However, whether someone is testing pharma, generic, or other HGH; I don't see why the standards would be any different. They should all held to the highest standards.

 

[mands]

While existing technology has simplified AAA, it's generally considered a more tedious and less "forgiving" process.

The net effect being a properly performed AAA requires the use of certain "checks and balances"
at specific points to ensure the first "error" does not snowball into unreliable results.

Logistical issues aside, is this any different than HPLC, not really, as the results are no better than the commitment,
intra-laboratory support and level of expertise of those conducting any ASSAY.

Jim

I would like to add AAA can actually verify a protein that has been contaminated by outside source or by dies or other contaminants used in prior testing.

Correct me if I'm wrong @Dr JIM

mands

 

[Dr JIM]

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!

Amazing what one can accomplish when they are comitted and manage their time based on a list of priorities.

And to think I still have time to "walk the dogs",

 

[Eman]

Amazing what one can accomplish when they are comitted and manage their time based on a list of priorities.

List of priorities

- meso

- other stuff

 

[JayWaWa]

List of priorities

- meso

- other stuff

When im wanting to learn about a new stack or compound or regimen, thats about right...

 

[ProfessorX]

I would like to add AAA can actually verify a protein that has been contaminated by outside source or by dies or other contaminants used in prior testing.

Correct me if I'm wrong @Dr JIM

mands

Mands,

I see some notations about Glycine contaminants on the reports

SANDOZ OMNITROPE (generic)
1 Vial contains:
Somatropin 5.8 mg
Glycine 27.6 mg

If the somatropin is a pure protein without formulation buffer AAA will allow quantification of the protein using standard AAA.

However, if somatropin is formulated as a pharmaceutical drug for injection, a glycine buffer is used for the formulation. Therefore the glycine peak will be very large and comprise the data.

Are there additional steps (additional testing procedures) taken to give the correct quantification (microgram scale)



-Analyze somatropin aliquot by gel electrophoresis to verify the presence of the correct protein band

-Use UV absorbance at 280 nm to measure specific absorbance. To quantify use a NIST BSA standard for comparison


-Amino acid analysis (AAA) can be used if resulting data is corrected for the presence of excess glycine

Thanks

 

[G.I. Bro]

Trying to catch up on this thread. Been swamped ass fucking auto insurance companies lately. I come away with a few saddening realizations (after sifting through tons on bullshit posts that offer nothing). Some people need to stop posting and let the big boys talk.

1. Every time a real effort to test generic gh samples is made, it somehow gets royally fucked. They collected money at PM (I donated) and it was kind of jacked. Then the same shit here. What's the deal? Is it that complex? Or is everyone just that full of shit?

2. Dr. Jim could be a huge asset to the community, but instead, he's an incredibly obnoxious pompous ass. I try to not fucking be so annoyed by his posts but he's so obtuse about everything. It's like he can't fucking read anyone else's posts and just blathers on. I just want to be like, "same team dude." It's like he's hell bent on establishing there can never be a decent generic gh source. That's fine, but he's just so annoying in doing it. Fuck. Such a bad mascot for an otherwise refreshing forum.

Can someone give me cliffs here? The shitty grey top result has or has not been confirmed as a direct TP sample? How does the almighty grey top have such a variance?

These tests have been proven (allegedly) to have used Karl's gh as the reference standard rather than humatrope or some other legit pharma? How in the fuck does that happen? Is that even an accurate allegation? I like Karl's gh (I think it's good), but that makes no sense.

This fucking "scene" is rapidly bleeding me of any faith I had... talk about let down. I'm going to go eat some ice cream now. FML.

 

[Dr JIM]

.


These tests have been proven (allegedly) to have used Karl's gh as the reference standard rather than humatrope or some other legit pharma? How in the fuck does that happen? Is that even an accurate allegation? I like Karl's gh (I think it's good), but that makes no sense.

This fucking "scene" is rapidly bleeding me of any faith I had... talk about let down. I'm going to go eat some ice cream now. FML.

Oh why od course bc as you know I'm here to help those lost fools with their mouth open and their hand out who rarely do anything but complain about the efforts of others.

Get off your lazy ass and read the ENTIRE thread CLOWN or do your own testing BOZO.

Sorry the efforts OF OTHERS were such a "let down" but hey I'm sure you have heard of the colloquialism if you want 'IT" done right do "IT" yourself. Now can you practice what you preach, sure that's easy bc you preach BULLSHIT

And what I've underlined tells me you know next to nothing about the thread itself or the type of testing involved!

So GTFOOH and try PM, I'm sure such blind criticism (defined as someone who "speaks with foot in mouth") would be welcomed with open arms, lol!

Hey but thanks for dropping by

 

[G.I. Bro]

Oh why od course bc as you know I'm here to help those lost fools with their mouth open and their hand out who rarely do anything but complain about the efforts of others.

Get off your lazy ass and read the ENTIRE thread CLOWN or do your own testing BOZO

I read it all. It's mostly you and a few other people arguing like children and making zero progress. You always come out the most pompous though. Culling any useful info is quite difficult. Not sure who or what to believe. The thread is a fucking embarrassment. It makes the entire community look like a bunch of idiots.

Here's a suggestion. Why bother going through the trouble and expense of doing advanced testing when you guys can't even get a valid sample collection procedure in place. You should have asked Millard to advise you. Lol. Mands has no fucking idea if the Grey top sample came from TP? It came from some source on SF? He said it was from TP but it can't be validated? Your reference standard is also in question? Sample collection and chain of custody is easily the most important part of an endeavor like this. The very foundation (sample collection) appears fatally flawed. A problem shared by the PM testing project. Way to go... It's just fucking embarrassing. No wonder everyone thinks we're all meatheads.

 

[muscle96ss]

These tests have been proven (allegedly) to have used Karl's gh as the reference standard rather than humatrope or some other legit pharma? How in the fuck does that happen? Is that even an accurate allegation? I like Karl's gh (I think it's good), but that makes no sense.

These tests have nothing to do with Karl's GH!

 

[G.I. Bro]

These tests have nothing to do with Karl's GH!

What was it about a code on a test result relating back to Karl's? And something about a standard? I'm confused. I scanned this giant bloated thread in like 20min.

 

[muscle96ss]

What was it about a code on a test result relating back to Karl's? And something about a standard? I'm confused. I scanned this giant bloated thread in like 20min.

That was in regards to testing done a while back. Different testing and different scenario.

 

[Dr JIM]

I read it all. It's mostly you and a few other people arguing like children and making zero progress. You always come out the most pompous though. Culling any useful info is quite difficult. Not sure who or what to believe. The thread is a fucking embarrassment. It makes the entire community look like a bunch of idiots.

Here's a suggestion. Why bother going through the trouble and expense of doing advanced testing when you guys can't even get a valid sample collection procedure in place. You should have asked Millard to advise you. Lol. Mands has no fucking idea if the Grey top sample came from TP? It came from some source on SF? He said it was from TP but it can't be validated? Your reference standard is also in question? Sample collection and chain of custody is easily the most important part of an endeavor like this. The very foundation (sample collection) appears fatally flawed. A problem shared by the PM testing project. Way to go... It's just fucking embarrassing. No wonder everyone thinks we're all meatheads.

Well based on the number of your comments that are riddled with fallacies an "obtuse" rebuttal is doing you a favor fella!

And one Jim "favor" is all YOU get bc it's obvious your'e either dyslexic, overtly selfish, enjoy being spoon fed, or are so slothful you developed "lazy eye", as a result of your aversion to reading.

Now how's that for being "pompous", lol!

The FACT is misinformed clowns like YOU are the reason those of your ILK are referred to as MEATHEADS, as it's clear the majority of those who actively followed, have participated in this thread AND it's INTENT, KNOW much more about our sample collection process and an AAA than you even thought of!

Adios

 

[G.I. Bro]

Well based on the number of your comments that are riddled with fallacies an "obtuse" rebuttal is doing you a favor! And one Jim "favor" is all YOU get bc it's obvious your'e either dyslexic, overtly selfish, enjoy being spoon fed, or are so slothful you developed "lazy eye", bc of your aversion to reading.

No how's that for being "pompous", lol!

Calling out my lazy eye is a low blow, bro. You dun did it now. You dun did'er...

 

[Dr JIM]

What was it about a code on a test result relating back to Karl's? And something about a standard? I'm confused. I scanned this giant bloated thread in like 20min.

Really oh no that's not your problem bc your FOS! Almost every one of your posts are
filled with misguided, know nothing, prejudicial comments ! I suppose that's YOUR Meso contribution, BULLSHIT!

I

. Mands has no fucking idea if the Grey top sample came from TP? It came from some source on SF? He said it was from TP but it can't be validated? .

How do you KNOW what MANDS does or does not KNOW? You don't!

But let's see having Mands cite the source of our FIRST Grey tells us (YOU) all there is to know about ALL GREYS. Classic flawed BRO LOGIC and another reason your a MEATHEAD

Yep I'm pompous, but when someone makes comments like yours, it's justifiable IMO!

 

[Mr.B66]

Calling out my lazy eye is a low blow, bro. You dun did it now. You dun did'er...

Even though i think the way you came into this thread was inviting criticism, this made me laugh[emoji23][emoji23]
Now CALM DOWN, take a deep breath and reeeeeelax[emoji4] smoke a joint, drink a beer or whatever you do when your wound up, cause it seems to me youve had a bad day. Do this, and i promise in bout 10 minutes, youll feel right as rain.
See Doc, my meds are working [emoji41]

 

[G.I. Bro]

Really oh no that's not your problem bc your FOS! Almost every one of your posts are
filled with misguided, know nothing, prejudicial comments ! I suppose that's YOUR Meso contribution, BULLSHIT!



How do you KNOW what MANDS does or does not KNOW? You don't!

But let's see having Mands cite the source of our FIRST Grey tells us (YOU) all there is to know about ALL GREYS. Classic flawed BRO LOGIC and another reason your a MEATHEAD

Yep I'm pompous, but when someone makes comments like yours, it's justifiable IMO!

Ask Mands yourself, Mr. wizard. Apparently, he's stated the Grey top sample came from a member at SF board. That person represented it came from TP but it's not been validated and he's apparently working on that. The source sampling and chain of custody is shot. Your sample collection methodology is flawed fatally. As I SAID, why bother advanced testing methods when your collection method is "some guy donated a grey top and said it was from TP." Jesus. Look how Millard collects samples at anaboliclab.com, straight from the supply chain, anonymously, no bs. Controlled chain of custody. Anyone who has seen my other posts on other boards knows I am not just some TP/grey top cheerleader. So alleging I'm incentivized or bias is false. But I have to call it like I see it. Your collection here is all jacked up and you have grey top results that's refute a pretty solid history of good labs and other testing results. I've yet to see any effort where sample collecting made a bit of sense. As I said PM's tests were screwed (SIMEC's fault) and their collection procedure was no better. What you have done here is possibly smear a decent gh branding with potentially flawed results of a sample that may not have been legit Greys or was old and not taken care of. Is misinformation better than lack of information? Probably.