HCG degradation testing after 30, 45, 60 days

FWIW, I can tell you anecdotally, I noticed a sharp decrease in site reaction intensity from a particular peptide after filtration. Little to none vs every time with skin redness before. Others I've been in touch with say the same.

Don't want to stray into psychosomatic effects from wishful thinking of course, but "testing" this is prohibitively expensive and frankly, it's been done already numerous times by major research organizations.

To reiterate, we're looking to reduce immune reactions to aggregates, which can cause side effects, and worse, can create anti-drug antibodies that mean the peptide is less effective.

Here's the EU's stance on this, where they recognize the link, and attribute most effects to large aggregates, suggesting preventing them from developing, and filtering them out as valid ways of dealing with the problem.

Since this hasn't been updated since 2017, a lot of the "seems to be linked" statements have come much closer to yes, definitely.

IMG_9079.webp

 
You certain it wouldn’t filter out peptides?

For all practice purposes, yes.

The average size of a peptide is 2-6 nanometers. The pore size of a .2 or .22um filter is 200 nanometers.

Like throwing a grape through hole the size of a car tire.

It's also specifically recommended by Genscript, who design and produce peptides for pharma companies:

IMG_9080.webp

Note they don't say "some peptides". It's suitable for all.


In this recent study regarding sterilizing peptides by filtering out bacteria. they mention that 100% of the protein/peptide passes through. unless there are a lot of aggregates, in which case the pores become clogged, an obvious problem.

They recommend a hydrophilic coating to prevent clogging. That's why we choose filter with those coatings.

IMG_9083.webpIMG_9081.webp

 
Back
Top