Godt240 GODTROPIN 24IU - MALDI-MS; HPLC; UV - 2017/06 - Analyzer

[Ripped]

Oh and if you would like further evidence about the pro GGH bias that dominates PED forums, try to locate one SOURCE board that allows members to cite their own analytical data, esp of the results conflict with the paid advertiser party line.

I have questioned @Analyzer and @jano both there's so much controversy about both sides @Dr JIM that alot of members said the would go back to using IGF test to make a decision on GH if meso is about harm reduction then we should be asking which side is correct and please don't take this as a personal attack because it's not Jim I just think someone should put the confusion to rest plus I want to know that way I can make an informed decision about testing rather than just choosing a side blindly.

 

[janoshik]

I have questioned @Analyzer and @jano both there's so much controversy about both sides @Dr JIM that alot of members said the would go back to using IGF test to make a decision on GH if meso is about harm reduction then we should be asking which side is correct and please don't take this as a personal attack because it's not Jim I just think someone should put the confusion to rest plus I want to know that way I can make an informed decision about testing rather than just choosing a side blindly.

There is no controversy.

Every single person who knows at least a tiny bit in the field has the same stance.
Even Ms. Johnson, quite experienced with AAA, wouldn't claim otherwise, right?

It's just Mr. JIM who doesn't even know the basics and doesn't hesitate to lie and stretch the truth as much as possible.

Him having some valid point in half of his posts doesn't make the other half true.

His posts like Godt240 GODTROPIN 24IU - MALDI-MS; HPLC; UV - 2017/06 - Analyzer are laughable to anybody with basic reading comprehension, no knowledge and experience in the field necessary.

Don't you, Mr. @Analyzer agree that @Dr JIM is straight out lying and posting nonsense, showing that he has lacks even the most basic knowledge?

JIM advocating AAA in the face of MALDI-TOF data is more a joke than JIM pretending to be an MD.

 

[TRT]

@Analyzer any comment to Jano's claims?

 

[janoshik]

In my lab the microbiologist have an instrument they just recently got that shortens their specimen identification by days and they've been calling maldi. I never thought about what it was until now and found out we have a mass spec machine sitting in our building.

Yes, it's awesome - those truly are MALDI-TOF spectrometers, same as was used in this test for identification by Analyzer.

Because MALDI-TOF can detect molecular mass with extreme precision (ignore JIM, he is a loonie), once you have a protein fingerprint for a microorganism and you find it's unique, you can just use MALDI to screen for proteins and compare it with library of protein fingerprints of microbes.

Bruker is selling quite a lot of MALDI-TOFs for microbe ID.

Before this became available you first had to cultivate microorganisms for long enough, then you assessed how did they look with plain eye (Staph Aureus, or golden staph, got its name because it grows in yellow colonies), then you stained microbes, then you microscoped them, then you ran a series of biochemical tests.

Now you can just cultivate them a little and then throw it into a MALDI, truly spectacular!

 

[Dr JIM]

Reddit sst.

That's a diverse community board.

Good luck

 

[Analyzer]

In my lab the microbiologist have an instrument they just recently got that shortens their specimen identification by days and they've been calling maldi. I never thought about what it was until now and found out we have a mass spec machine sitting in our building.

Yes sir, this kind of instrument is also used in clinical microbiology for identification of microorganisms. jano said it correctly. You can read more about it here:
MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry: an emerging technology for microbial identification and diagnosis
What Is New in Clinical Microbiology—Microbial Identification by MALDI-TOF Mass Spectrometry: A Paper from the 2011 William Beaumont Hospital Symposium on Molecular Pathology

 

[XmadXscientist]

Ok so I'm not sure who makes it, I'll have to check. The way jano described it is how it was done and how they're doing it now. I wonder if I could find a way to use it for my own experiments, would probably be too much trouble and require something from the maker of the instrument to test things related to my interests?

 

[janoshik]

Ok so I'm not sure who makes it, I'll have to check. The way jano described it is how it was done and how they're doing it now. I wonder if I could find a way to use it for my own experiments, would probably be too much trouble and require something from the maker of the instrument to test things related to my interests?

You can definitely use it to identify HGH by getting its molecular weight.

It will lack some functions that would give you 100% confidence in identification that some other mass specs have (that can fragment the sample), because microbio maldis are made for different purpose, but it still will provide you interesting information.

 

[XmadXscientist]

You can definitely use it to identify HGH by getting its molecular weight.

It will lack some functions that would give you 100% confidence in identification that some other mass specs have (that can fragment the sample), because microbio maldis are made for different purpose, but it still will provide you interesting information.

I thought it might not be ideal for that, thanks for clearing that up.

 

[janoshik]

I thought it might not be ideal for that, thanks for clearing that up.

If you have a vial that's supposed to be HGH and you detect something, that has MW of 22 124 Da, you can be pretty sure

Much more reliable tool for identification than AAA.

 

[Analyzer]

A MS assay is the average MW of those compounds with a sample and IF the MW mean variance is close enough together a change as in deletion of one amino acid can readily be "missed".

For instance a variance of 0.01 to 0.001 for a sample with a MW of 22KD speaks to the issue directly bc in this instance such a variance equals 22 to 220 daltons.

Stated another way bc MS is an average MW of those compounds within a particular peak it lacks the specificity of an AAA.

It is not an average, protein with change in amino acid number or type would be distinguishable. Deletion of one amino acid can not be "missed", such a protein would be seen as another peak in the spectrum. You are twisting my words, 1 to 0.001 is not % variance, but absolute one so it refers to 1 - 0.001 Da.

The answer to your USP question is based on research conducted at the outset of RHGH development and testing for QC which became the eventual USP standard.

I would prefer some link to relevant and official literature as your answer to this question.

I'd still like to know how this form of testing "confirms" the sample was PROTEIN or even GH for that matter?

What other and more conclusive method than MALDI would you suggest to confirm the sample is GH? AAA is outdated 70 years old method. Still good for some applications, but not for this.

How presumptuous of you but let me suggest you use your imagination about how 191 Amino Acids can be arranged or rearranged in such a manner they are void of ANY biological activity.

What does the AAA method tells you about the sequence? Absolutely nothing. The only information you get is relative ratio of amino acids in the protein. Moreover it might be strongly biased, because some amino acids decompose over the hydrolysis step (boiling concentrated hydrochloric acid for about 20 hours). To find out the exact sequence you would need to use protein sequencing or at least peptide mapping.

So no testing was done to confirm the sample was a protein!

Actually there were two methods used to confirm the sample, is a protein.

 

[XmadXscientist]

If you have a vial that's supposed to be HGH and you detect something, that has MW of 22 124 Da, you can be pretty sure

Much more reliable tool for identification than AAA.

What I really meant to ask I guess was if I would have to load a program or have a comparison sample to run against to identity the unknow, or could I put the hormone/vial directly on the instrument and it would report the MW even though it has no reference?

 

[janoshik]

What I really meant to ask I guess was if I would have to load a program or have a comparison sample to run against to identity the unknow, or could I put the hormone/vial directly on the instrument and it would report the MW even though it has no reference?

Directly, no reference needed.

You literally just take a vial, reconstitute it, take a single drop out of the vial and drop it on MALDI plate, mix it up and put it into the machine. It costs almost nothing to run a sample (think 2-3 cents or so), so you might as well try and ask.

 

[XmadXscientist]

Directly, no reference needed.

You literally just take a vial, reconstitute it, take a single drop out of the vial and drop it on MALDI plate, mix it up and put it into the machine. It costs almost nothing to run a sample (think 2-3 cents or so), so you might as well try and ask.

Thanks for the for the explanation, I'll have to do some more research then maybe give it a whirl on my next night shift.

 

[J-Smooth]

Yes sir, this kind of instrument is also used in clinical microbiology for identification of microorganisms. jano said it correctly. You can read more about it here:
MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry: an emerging technology for microbial identification and diagnosis
What Is New in Clinical Microbiology—Microbial Identification by MALDI-TOF Mass Spectrometry: A Paper from the 2011 William Beaumont Hospital Symposium on Molecular Pathology

I didnt read this whole thread for i am at work, i respect and more so apperciate that you offer the testing you do. This is out of love my friend. With that said i would in your shoes never take a sources product test it and post the results you will lose all crediabltiy. In this case you are new and i fualt the source more so then you. So you get a pass on this one man. However for a source to find this backdoor option and it not be anonymous i hold him fully responsible he knows how this board opperates and chose to break those "rules" which in my eyes shows his character and business practice. I throw these test out and they are neil to me simple do to the very fact that he did not follow protocol that is a very understood thing by these sources who use meso.

 

[Doug_S]

It is not an average, protein with change in amino acid number or type would be distinguishable. Deletion of one amino acid can not be "missed", such a protein would be seen as another peak in the spectrum. You are twisting my words, 1 to 0.001 is not % variance, but absolute one so it refers to 1 - 0.001 Da.




I would prefer some link to relevant and official literature as your answer to this question.




What other and more conclusive method than MALDI would you suggest to confirm the sample is GH? AAA is outdated 70 years old method. Still good for some applications, but not for this.




What does the AAA method tells you about the sequence? Absolutely nothing. The only information you get is relative ratio of amino acids in the protein. Moreover it might be strongly biased, because some amino acids decompose over the hydrolysis step (boiling concentrated hydrochloric acid for about 20 hours). To find out the exact sequence you would need to use protein sequencing or at least peptide mapping.




Actually there were two methods used to confirm the sample, is a protein.

He doesn't know what he is talking about. Everyone here who has actually worked in the industry is shaking their head right now, especially for a guy here who seems to be the paragon of the scientific method.

As Obama said, the military is buying a lot less horses and bayonette

It is not an average, protein with change in amino acid number or type would be distinguishable. Deletion of one amino acid can not be "missed", such a protein would be seen as another peak in the spectrum. You are twisting my words, 1 to 0.001 is not % variance, but absolute one so it refers to 1 - 0.001 Da.




I would prefer some link to relevant and official literature as your answer to this question.




What other and more conclusive method than MALDI would you suggest to confirm the sample is GH? AAA is outdated 70 years old method. Still good for some applications, but not for this.




What does the AAA method tells you about the sequence? Absolutely nothing. The only information you get is relative ratio of amino acids in the protein. Moreover it might be strongly biased, because some amino acids decompose over the hydrolysis step (boiling concentrated hydrochloric acid for about 20 hours). To find out the exact sequence you would need to use protein sequencing or at least peptide mapping.




Actually there were two methods used to confirm the sample, is a protein.

I have not been an analyst for years, now i manage the projects but still try to keep my science relatively up to date...

1) Dr. J has no idea what he is talking about in these matters but still present himself as the paragon of all things science. WTF questioning maldi? That's like saying DNA sampling via PCR is substandard to fucking finger prints on ink cards. I am laughing my ass off over here.

2) Analyzing someone's product and then posting the results is nothing to apologise over. Its black market shit and they want chains of custody..LOL.

3) If people have an issue, they are more that welcome to purchase their own GodT and send you a vial and pay for the analysis. Everyone bitches about spoon feeding sources but they expect someone else to pay to make sure their shit is real. If they are that concerned, they can test it themselves. You are not a gate keeper to ensure everyone gets good stuff. If enough tested their stuff often enough, the market would police themselves.

Keep it up. Personally I find it fascinating.

 

[janoshik]

I think it had been very safely established that @Dr JIM is basically clueless and bullshitting his way through. One would think his bullshit deserves a separate thread.

A pity that somehow he is still taken seriously by some people.
And the results that he advocates so much as well.

 

[Mayne]

Labmax or it did not happen

 

[ady_m]

hi all,

I've read the results, but how does one interpret the results? I'm not a chemist.

thanks!

 

[Ripped]

These results are good.
But one member had subpar results on IGF score.
Well they were in the 400 range but he should have gotten a little higher results .
Not terrible by any means tho.