Godtropin IGF Bloodwork

[Dr JIM]

Actually in @Dr JIM's

Because he doesn't deliberately lie to try and save face.

mands

Ok I'll admit it my real name is NOT Jim, LOL.

What defines a "liar" is their propensity to make false comments as a means of self preservation or for personal gain or as Mands said it, "to save face" ----- Right @jano

 

[Eman]

Ok I'll admit it my real name is NOT Jim, LOL.

Please tell me you're the chick in your avi...

 

[Dr JIM]

1) for the price the kits are still not bad

2) But who knows when they will be completely bunk, that's what worries me

Although it's impossible to KNOW using IGF as a quantitative marker, with what seems to be such high degree of batch to batch variability but of these concerns are absolutely valid.

To that end until GT does something to reassure its clients the GH being sold is
more consistent than inconsistent on a quantitative basis, it's consumer based is likely to
be relegated to that of first time or "novice" GH runners, IMO

 

[Dr JIM]

Please tell me you're the chick in your avi...

Nope I'm better personified in her backround, lol

 

[Dr JIM]

Please tell me you're the chick in your avi...

Nope I'm better personified in her backround, lol

Ok I "lied" once again --- but YOU can still call me Jim, I've been called much worse

 

[janoshik]

Ok I "lied" once again --- but YOU can still call me Jim, I've been called much worse

Trying to turn this into fun, are we?

Too bad you're the only joke here.

 

[mands]

That's too bad you guys got hammered for trying. I never criticize or even punish for trying but maybe not quite succeeding. It's no way to lead. What was the purpose of trying to ridicule Analyzer? The person ran MALDI MS and HPLC...what more does he want? Then to come back he implied (but I will admit did not actually say outright) that AAA can sequence and
it could somehow detect all the potential substitutions and changes that would make the protein inert???? That's crazy talk.

I noted before, my strength and experience is in organic chemistry and toxicology not protein chemistry. I do have a bit of experience in recombinant DNA and I understand what the process is an what it means with e coli producing HGH. I also understand lots of the instrumentation. Just this year I am detecting compounds in soils and groundwater at 2 ppt. Yes, parts per Trillion with an LOQ of around 6 ppt.
We could not have done that even 18 months ago.

I guess I don't get it. You brought on board a chemist He ran the right tests and posted the results and then someone who obviously does not REALLY understand this stuff comes in and criticizes it??? And does it in about the most patronizing and condescending way imaginable. To top it off, they were mostly wrong.

Why??? What was gained from that? What was the purpose of it?

I do not know who criticized analyzer except a few made up accounts and @mercury when I introduced @Analyzer. I have complete confidence in him and he is pleasant to work with. He's a great asset and learning everyday.

With that said I believe in the AAA testing as well. Talking with @Dr JIM and the chemist at the testing facility and seeing their credentials gave me even more confidence.

We have actually worked three different times over the years trying to test "generic" gh to help out the community. Using HPLC/MALDI-TOF/LC/MS/AAA and paid a lot of it out of our own pockets with the help of members sending in samples. All were met with resistance.

The name of the game.

mands

 

[mands]

Maybe you were criticized because somehow every testing you have, along with JIM, conducted went terribly wrong.

Do I need to remind you the stuff with Karl's samples? I was not over here back then, but it's still mentioned here and there as an example of a bad joke.

For your own sake I'll ignore the part where you paste AAA 101 article as an counterargument (which I did not get) to a chemist.

In fact, it makes no sense posting that other than bloating your post.



So he's lying all the time just accidentally, is what you are saying?
That points to a mental illness, maybe you should help your friend seek a professional help. You know. From a REAL doctor.

Or is he stupid enough to not realize he's contradicting FACTS and HIMSELF most of the time?

And he is stupid enough as to argue with men from the field he had never worked in and think that he is right?

And you choose to trust the judgement of such a man and agree with him, Mands?




How is that LC/MS of the Sero lookin'? The one JIM had promised like half a year ago?

Where is the AAA mentioned in US Pharmacopoeia as a gold standard - JIM mentioned that a LOT of times?

Can you show me MALDI-TOF that is has an error of 200 Daltons? Because according to JIM, that is common - again, he mentioned that multiple times, did he not?


Can you answer these questions, @mands?


Why are you working with and defending a liar, when you like to put yourself on a moral high ground is what I don't understand?



Only other way making JIM not lying deliberately is that he is mentally challenged - so which is it, @mands and how exactly does that make him any better?

Not sure what you mean by terribly wrong. Seems like the AAA testing had more of a correct amount as did your testing on the GT vials.

Also, if you remember Karl's GH that was tested by MALDI and HPLC testing great. I remember that it was a mess because people said the testing was wrong because no way could Karl's GH be that good. Not sure your point.

It wasn't counter argument posting the AAA it was merely showing what it can and cannot do for the sake of the members. I was hoping you could post up the in and outs of MALDI in the same fashion.

It probably would have been a lot better for everyone would've talked professionally from the beginning and discuss why, when and how testing should be conducted for all to learn.

I don't see how Jim is lying to you or anyone?

Sero's were sent of for testing again and I would have to look back or asked @Dr JIM what was found.

I also never saw where Jim stated that AAA was US Pharmacopoeia's gold standard?

I cannot show you any MALDI-TOF testing that has an error of 200 Daltons. I didn't see where he claimed this either. Sorry.

mands

 

[Doug_S]

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.

And those who were involved in
developing rHGH from the outset
would LOL about that comment.

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

That's called researcher bias fella and
I suspect the fact GT told you it was GH influenced your decision to report that which can not be determined from the assays you performed.

My suggestion just stick to the FACTS

Just an example of the patronizing tone and erroneous info perpetuated by Dr. JIM in that thread.

So much of what he posted before was just wrong and every chemist or person in the field told him as much.

I am not going to lay out every misrepresentation stated; I don't have the time, but all is there for anyone to see.

Finally, why the patronizing language, name calling, and general nastiness? Especially when you are wrong?

And on Edit:. He called AAA the gold standard and made wild claims about average weight and missing stuff etc. If you cannot find it, go read starting about page 3 of the other GodT thread.

 

[janoshik]

It probably would have been a lot better for everyone would've talked professionally from the beginning and discuss why, when and how testing should be conducted for all to learn.

It definitely would.

But JIM and his cronies made that impossible by lying and generally being retarded since the first time I came here. A long time before your AAA testing.

Hey, according to JIM I'm GETM, whoever that was.

And that was long before you've even heard of me.

That didn't make a good start for a rational discussion, did it?

Nor professional, just rational - as neither of you two (no offense - just stating a fact), is a professional in the field anyway.

There, as far as I am aware, three professional chemists are on this board right at the moment.

How many out of those three chemist have agreed with JIM, @mands?

I don't see how Jim is lying to you or anyone?

Mands, with all due respect - and you deserve it - if you don't see that you are blind.

Sero's were sent of for testing again and I would have to look back or asked @Dr JIM what was found.

I also never saw where Jim stated that AAA was US Pharmacopoeia's gold standard?

I cannot show you any MALDI-TOF testing that has an error of 200 Daltons. I didn't see where he claimed this either. Sorry.

mands

If you could get me the LC/MS/MS results that JIM had promised (although you can't quantify with MS without a standard - so that leaves us with a new whole lot of questions), that prove that Sero was indeed severely underdosed (as JIM had claimed multiple times) I'd be proven wrong.

Please, feel free to do so, I'd be thankful.


I'll not waste any more of my time digging out JIMs quotes and lies and bullshit regarding AAA and MALDI-TOF.

If you wanted to see it, you would.

Think about it, Mands.

 

[janoshik]

Not sure what you mean by terribly wrong. Seems like the AAA testing had more of a correct amount as did your testing on the GT vials.

Are you implying that your AAA testing was more accurate than my (and @Analyzer ) testing?

Please, don't make me laugh, Mands.

If you honestly believe that, I don't think I can lead any further discussion with you and hope it to be fruitful.

It wasn't counter argument posting the AAA it was merely showing what it can and cannot do for the sake of the members. I was hoping you could post up the in and outs of MALDI in the same fashion.

Then, for the next time, please write this along with that write-down, Mands.

It would help me to better understand what you mean by that and what kind of input you would like to see from me.

MALDI-TOF can do everything that AAA can do.

Also it's not about what it CAN do, but also about how WELL and EASILY can it do something.

MALDI-TOF can do everything much better and easier than AAA, but MALDI-TOF is NOT routinely (in fact, I have yet to hear about it being used in such a way in real world scenario) used for quantification.

That's why other quantification methods are always employed along with it.

 

[mands]

It definitely would.

But JIM and his cronies made that impossible by lying and generally being retarded since the first time I came here. A long time before your AAA testing.

Hey, according to JIM I'm GETM, whoever that was.

GETM was a ugl that manufactures AAS. Jim and few other found out they were sending vials in for testing and batches that were good and then they decided to cut doses in half on all products and starting scamming. Jim and others found out and ruined them on MESO. He was saying that because of timing that you showed up and was trying to discredit for that I'm guessing. You would have to ask him why?

And that was long before you've even heard of me.

That didn't make a good start for a rational discussion, did it?

Nor professional, just rational - as neither of you two (no offense - just stating a fact), is a professional in the field anyway.

There, as far as I am aware, three professional chemists are on this board right at the moment.

How many out of those three chemist have agreed with JIM, @mands?

So, these three professional chemist are you? Analyzer and Doug correct? All three will agree that AAA testing cannot be used to identify, quantify, qualify HGH? So, it's a totally useless analysis?

Mands, with all due respect - and you deserve it - if you don't see that you are blind.

If you could get me the LC/MS/MS results that JIM had promised (although you can't quantify with MS without a standard - so that leaves us with a new whole lot of questions), that prove that Sero was indeed severely underdosed (as JIM had claimed multiple times) I'd be proven wrong.

Please, feel free to do so, I'd be thankful.

I'll not waste any more of my time digging out JIMs quotes and lies and bullshit regarding AAA and MALDI-TOF.

@Dr JIM I know we discussed this Sero and having it sent to another lab to get tested? Do we have that data?

Here's the thing. This and other boards are all about proving others wrong. I don't want to prove anyone wrong except to let someone know if they are spreading misinformation and why the are spreading it? Is the reason they are because they have been taught wrong of given some incorrect information from a someone they trust? Or are they just spewing at the mouth to hear their own words?

I'm not digging up quotes from what Jim posted. That's on you and whoever wants to make the claims. I think that's fair.

mands

 

[janoshik]

GETM was a ugl that manufactures AAS. Jim and few other found out they were sending vials in for testing and batches that were good and then they decided to cut doses in half on all products and starting scamming. Jim and others found out and ruined them on MESO. He was saying that because of timing that you showed up and was trying to discredit for that I'm guessing. You would have to ask him why?

Good thing he got going then, if it was actually proven.

So in your opinion that makes it okay to make unsubstantiated claims about me in order to start a witch hunt?

So, these three professional chemist are you? Analyzer and Doug correct? All three will agree that AAA testing cannot be used to identify, quantify, qualify HGH? So, it's a totally useless analysis?

Exactly the three of us.

Don't take our claims into the hyperbole mands, that's a logical fallacy and that gets dangerously close to lying, doesn't it?

All three of us said that AAA is useful analysis, but not for these purposes and that it cannot compete with other analytical techniques.

All three of us had also agreed that JIMs claims about AAA are straight up lies.

Is that clear enough for you now?

Here's the thing. This and other boards are all about proving others wrong. I don't want to prove anyone wrong except to let someone know if they are spreading misinformation and why the are spreading it? Is the reason they are because they have been taught wrong of given some incorrect information from a someone they trust? Or are they just spewing at the mouth to hear their own words?

I'm not digging up quotes from what Jim posted. That's on you and whoever wants to make the claims. I think that's fair.

mands

This feels like a classic misdirection, but I'll bite.

No Mands.

Do you see me anywhere disproving Analyzers data?

You are sure to know my distaste for his competition and also about my opinion about his HGH testing services compared to mine.

But does he make false claims publicly? No he doesn't.

Can his results be doubted for being massively wrong? No, without making assumptions they can't.

Have you seen me disproving graphs that vendors posted? No, because those cannot be easily proven to be wrong without making assumptions.



If there is somebody spreading misinformation and lies it is JIM and yet you fail to point it out.
I don't care if he googled something wrong or he remembers a youtube video he watched a year ago on the subject - there is no justification for what he is doing.


I've dug up enough quotes of JIM that are lies and I have not a slightest doubt you have seen them.

Hell, two posts above Doug even gave you the exact page of the thread to look at and YET you chose to ignore it.

You like to shift burden of proof on me, or point out that it lies on me, but yet you fail to ask the same from the other party, when it makes their claims.

You are burying your head in the sand in order to ignore JIMs 'mishaps."

Will you not admit that, Mands?

 

[mands]

Are you implying that your AAA testing was more accurate than my (and @Analyzer ) testing?

Please, don't make me laugh, Mands.

If you honestly believe that, I don't think I can lead any further discussion with you and hope it to be fruitful.

Nope I just see lab reports showing more of an underdosed product that what you and @Analyzer tested. This means the batch you tested was obviously tested higher than earlier batches.

Then, for the next time, please write this along with that write-down, Mands.

It would help me to better understand what you mean by that and what kind of input you would like to see from me.

I would like to see posted what MALDI-TOF can do. I know what it can and cannot do from reading and learning on here. It's good for members to all the informations as possible.

MALDI-TOF can do everything that AAA can do.

So, AAA can't do what we are attending it to do?

Also it's not about what it CAN do, but also about how WELL and EASILY can it do something.

MALDI-TOF can do everything much better and easier than AAA, but MALDI-TOF is NOT routinely (in fact, I have yet to hear about it being used in such a way in real world scenario) used for quantification.

That's why other quantification methods are always employed along with it.

AAA can't quantify?

mands

 

[janoshik]

Nope I just see lab reports showing more of an underdosed product that what you and @Analyzer tested. This means the batch you tested was obviously tested higher than earlier batches.

Then where does the claim "Seems like the AAA testing had more of a correct amount as did your testing on the GT vials." come from, Mands?

How does the above information make your claim true?

How does it advocate for the accuracy of the AAA testing and against the favor of our tests?

I would like to see posted what MALDI-TOF can do. I know what it can and cannot do from reading and learning on here. It's good for members to all the informations as possible.

So, AAA can't do what we are attending it to do?


AAA can't quantify?

mands

Don't cherrypick.

Those are very suggestive questions that make it seem as if I've said something.

You are using more and more fallacies in order to defend a stance. Think about it.

I literally stated that "All three of us said that AAA is useful analysis, but not for these purposes and that it cannot compete with other analytical techniques."

I've never said that AAA can't quantify and I have literally never stated that AAA can't do what you were trying to do.

But AAA is not SUITABLE for it.

Can you weight and quantify a bunch of peanuts of a personal scale ?

Yes you can.

Will the results be as accurate as if you used a scale better suited for the purpose, like kitchen scale for example?

No they won't.

Does that make personal scales useless? Not at all

But does it make a claim true, if a guy claimed that personal scale is the BEST WAY EVER to count peanuts?

Now that guy is JIM.




MALDI-TOF is soft ionization technique coupled with TOF detector. Able to detect molecular mass of intact compounds in even most difficult of the matrices.

From accurate molecular mass data about amino acid composition can be determined very easily, with no loss of resolution / sensitivity, compared to AAA.

As the proteins are analysed intact, there are no issues arising from imperfect hydrolysis - as they are with AAA.

 

[mands]

Good thing he got going then, if it was actually proven.

So in your opinion that makes it okay to make unsubstantiated claims about me in order to start a witch hunt?

I usually don't start witch hunts and I certainly wouldn't without gathering enough information to back my claims. I didn't start a witch hunt on you. I was the one that actually was glad to have someone with some other testing abilities if you remember. You broke my trust when you gave me some elaborate story when I sent you vials for testing. We are past that.

Exactly the three of us.

Don't take our claims into the hyperbole mands, that's a logical fallacy and that gets dangerously close to lying, doesn't it?

All three of us said that AAA is useful analysis, but not for these purposes and that it cannot compete with other analytical techniques.

All three of us had also agreed that JIMs claims about AAA are straight up lies.

Is that clear enough for you now?

Can you explain to me why AAA cannot be used to test HGH please?

I also, DO NOT like your condescending tone jano. I would ask you to watch that for the sake of discussion. I know you are a HOT head and I don't think it's needed here.

I've dug up enough quotes of JIM that are lies and I have not a slightest doubt you have seen them.

Hell, two posts above Doug even gave you the exact page of the thread to look at and YET you chose to ignore it.

You like to shift burden of proof on me, or point out that it lies on me, but yet you fail to ask the same from the other party, when it makes their claims.

You are burying your head in the sand in order to ignore JIMs 'mishaps."

Will you not admit that, Mands?

He didn't know the exact page... Just to start on page 3 of another thread that he didn't link. You know how many GT threads there are? Again, I didn't make the claim so you are correct. Burden of proof is on you and I am not calling you a liar.

mands

 

[Doug_S]

Of course that's what Big Pharma uses in addition to several other assays including LC/MS.

Make no mistake about it NO UGL compiles with big pharma
standards bc testing at that level
would significantly increase the cost of GGH.

Oh and PED forums are the only place AAA testing is considered "controversial". In fact ALL of the testing @mands and I did complied with that standard.

I believe big pharma starts with electrophoresis, which makes a lot of sense if you know what it means. They follow up with HPLC and a MS. AAA would not be of much value here.

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.

This is gibberish.... Must I copy and paste all of these wild statements?

But again, what was the purpose of making them in the first place. As far as condescending, Dr. JIM is the MD PhD of that field of study. Patronization as well.

 

[mands]

Then where does the claim "Seems like the AAA testing had more of a correct amount as did your testing on the GT vials." come from, Mands?

How does the above information make your claim true?

How does it advocate for the accuracy of the AAA testing and against the favor of our tests?


Don't cherrypick.

Those are very suggestive questions that make it seem as if I've said something.

You are using more and more fallacies in order to defend a stance. Think about it.

I literally stated that "All three of us said that AAA is useful analysis, but not for these purposes and that it cannot compete with other analytical techniques."

I've never said that AAA can't quantify and I have literally never stated that AAA can't do what you were trying to do.

But AAA is not SUITABLE for it.

Can you weight and quantify a bunch of peanuts of a personal scale ?

Yes you can.

Will the results be as accurate as if you used a scale better suited for the purpose, like kitchen scale for example?

No they won't.

Does that make personal scales useless? Not at all

But does it make a claim true, if a guy claimed that personal scale is the BEST WAY EVER to count peanuts?

Now that guy is JIM.




MALDI-TOF is soft ionization technique coupled with TOF detector. Able to detect molecular mass of intact compounds in even most difficult of the matrices.

From accurate molecular mass data about amino acid composition can be determined very easily, with no loss of resolution / sensitivity, compared to AAA.

As the proteins are analysed intact, there are no issues arising from imperfect hydrolysis - as they are with AAA.

Thank you for this reply. It answered all my questions that I needed to know.

Now let's get back to the OP. @Marcus I don't know if we will get to the answer as why you aren't getting the IGF-1 levels expected if this GT GH(testing shows it is dosed correctly) actually correctly dosed GH? Could the bioavailability not be the same from the GT product as it is to the pharm product you've tested before?

Are you going to drop the dose and test again?

mands

 

[Marcus]

Thank you for this reply. It answered all my questions that I needed to know.

Now let's get back to the OP. @Marcus I don't know if we will get to the answer as why you aren't getting the IGF-1 levels expected if this GT GH(testing shows it is dosed correctly) actually correctly dosed GH? Could the bioavailability not be the same from the GT product as it is to the pharm product you've tested before?

Are you going to drop the dose and test again?

mands

I wish I had the answers... anything is possible but I will say that what @Dr JIM said is right, I have to pull bloods on pharma GH for true comparison. Which will happen, but it might be about 6-8 weeks out, hopefully sooner but I don't want to overpromise.

So all in all, no I was not happy with my bloods as what was advertised does not seem like what was in my vial. But I am way past that, and I've just moved on to another brand that has worked well for me. I'd be super happy if everyone continued to get great results from GT and there are no more hiccups.

However, how a business man like Matt handles this is absolutely ridiculous. He turned tail and ran at the first sign of distress and that is NEVER someone I want to deal with in regards to this kind of stuff.

 

[Jeffg353]

Thank you for this reply. It answered all my questions that I needed to know.

Now let's get back to the OP. @Marcus I don't know if we will get to the answer as why you aren't getting the IGF-1 levels expected if this GT GH(testing shows it is dosed correctly) actually correctly dosed GH? Could the bioavailability not be the same from the GT product as it is to the pharm product you've tested before?

Are you going to drop the dose and test again?

mands

Just kind of thinking out loud (not making any accusations/claims of inferior product)...could there be some correlation between the decreased bioavailability and the welts some people are experiencing? Maybe something to due with an improper/incomplete filtering process not removing all the bacteria used during manufacturing process? Could something like this cause the red welts or an immune response decreasing bioavailability where the body is actually attacking the exogenous Gh?
Again just looking for thoughts and opinions not making any claims in relation to product quality.