HCG degradation testing after 30, 45, 60 days

[Ghoul]

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.

https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/scientific-guideline/guideline-immunogenicity-assessment-therapeutic-proteins-revision-1_en.pdf

 

[Sampei]

Amazon.co.uk

That’s the one I went with.

That's 0.22 aren't we looking for 0.2?

 

[HUGE McBIGLARGE]

That's 0.22 aren't we looking for 0.2?

Couldn’t find any that were exactly 0.20. They were all 0.22

 

[Ghoul]

That's 0.22 aren't we looking for 0.2?

It's fine. I'm skeptical there's even a difference in the real world. Probably within the range of error in pore sizes.

A quick visualization of what's being filtered at each filter size.

 

[HUGE McBIGLARGE]

It's fine. I'm skeptical there's even a difference in the real world. Probably within the range of error in pore sizes.

A quick visualization of what's being filtered at each filter size.

View attachment 297199

You certain it wouldn’t filter out peptides?

 

[Sampei]

It's fine. I'm skeptical there's even a difference in the real world. Probably within the range of error in pore sizes.

A quick visualization of what's being filtered at each filter size.

View attachment 297199

Couldn’t find any that were exactly 0.20. They were all 0.22

I thought 0.22 and 0.2 where like .20um difference.... lol

 

[ohio117]

I thought 0.22 and 0.2 where like .20um difference.... lol

0.02 different, which I think is what you’re saying you realized

FYI we use 0.20 um filters in my ICU/hospital

 

[Sampei]

You certain it wouldn’t filter out peptides?

no one is certain of anything, the only way it would be to send to jano a peptide vials or multiple and have him first analyze the normal sample and than filter it and see if something changes.

 

[HUGE McBIGLARGE]

no one is certain of anything, the only way it would be to send to jano a peptide vials or multiple and have him first analyze the normal sample and than filter it and see if something changes.

Oh. In that case then I’ll take a fat dose and see if I get sides

 

[primobob]

After 30 days of reconstitution in bacteriostatic water, 0.8% BA, in fridge, almost zero degradation:

View attachment 296246

After 30 days:

View attachment 296247

We have to keep in mind that this does not account for drawing from the vial multiple times a week. If there was a constant vacuum for these 30 days it would also make a significant difference.

 

[Ghoul]

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:



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

https://www.genscript.com/peptide_storage_and_handling.html

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.

Comparative Evaluation of the Performance of Sterile Filters for Bioburden Protection and Final Fill in Biopharmaceutical Processes

Sterile filtration processes are widely used in the production of biotherapeutics for microorganism removal and product sterility. Sterile filtration processes can be applied to buffer preparation and cell culture media preparation in biotherapeutics ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[HUGE McBIGLARGE]

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:

View attachment 297201

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

https://www.genscript.com/peptide_storage_and_handling.html

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.

View attachment 297203View attachment 297202

Comparative Evaluation of the Performance of Sterile Filters for Bioburden Protection and Final Fill in Biopharmaceutical Processes

Sterile filtration processes are widely used in the production of biotherapeutics for microorganism removal and product sterility. Sterile filtration processes can be applied to buffer preparation and cell culture media preparation in biotherapeutics ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Thank you very much my good man

 

[Ghoul]

Thank you very much my good man

The typos make it sound like I'm a Russian scientist, but I'm sure you follow, lol.

 

[clearheaded]

staring shaking will make aggregates. its still debatable what actually it may do.

filtering may increase aggregation and of course if filter is 200x the size of peptide MOST aggregates could get through the filter just fine funny how BB seem to think filtering cures all lol.

IF it was to occur id be concerned with GH HCG etc.

 

[HUGE McBIGLARGE]

staring shaking will make aggregates. its still debatable what actually it may do.

filtering may increase aggregation and of course if filter is 200x the size of peptide MOST aggregates could get through the filter just fine funny how BB seem to think filtering cures all lol.

IF it was to occur id be concerned with GH HCG etc.

Quickly, Ghoul, tell him why he’s wrong so I’ve not got to admit to myself that I’ve wasted a lot of money on filters.

 

[HUGE McBIGLARGE]

Ghoul’s not replying. I’m now SWEATING as I stare at the filters, reconsidering my life choices.

Tell me I’m going to be okay, boys.

 

[Ghoul]

staring shaking will make aggregates. its still debatable what actually it may do.

filtering may increase aggregation and of course if filter is 200x the size of peptide MOST aggregates could get through the filter just fine funny how BB seem to think filtering cures all lol.

IF it was to occur id be concerned with GH HCG etc.

You weaken your credibility by lying, invoking arguments no one made in order to discredit.

I don't see where anyone claimed filtering "cures all". That's nonsense. Is that your criteria? If something merely reduces a negative effect, or the chance of negative effects, it's not worthwhile?

The protein therapeutic filtering protocol has been adopted by a majority of hospitals because it's been conclusively demonstrated to reduce symptoms in patients, and since larger aggregates are the primary cause of immune reactions, while not slowing filtration so much it's impractical, it's a reasonable compromise to use .2um as the standard. Again, a fools argument, suggesting "not perfect"=useless.

Aggregate induced immune reactions. and immunogenicity are no longer "debatable". Your knowledge is limited and out of date because you don't put in the minimal effort it takes to educate yourself.

The FDA has put approval of a new Tesamorelin (Egrifta) formulation using 1/8th the reconstitution liquid on hold, because they're concerned such a high concentration will significantly increase aggregate development, which goes up with peptide concentration, and wants the manufacturer to demonstrate this won't lead to harmful immune reactions. As it is, the previous 4x concentration has been shown to already cause this problem over the original formula.

The reaction that causes even more harm is the one that has been a reliable, and sadly predictable companion of humanity throughout history. The knee jerk opposition to any unfamiliar concept. The one that celebrates ignorance and seeks to silence through ridicule, or worse.

PS: Try to find a different way to gain friends and group approval. The "lowest common denominator" ones you'll attract this way aren't likely to be the caliber of people you want to surround yourself with.

 

[HUGE McBIGLARGE]

The FDA has put approval of a new Tesamorelin (Egrifta) formulation using 1/8th the reconstitution liquid on hold, because they're concerned such a high concentration will significantly increase aggregate development, which goes up with peptide concentration, and wants the manufacturer to demonstrate this won't lead to harmful immune reactions. As it is, the previous 4x concentration has been shown to already cause this problem over the original formula.

Does that mean more bact water in a mix is better?

Would make sense if so. More dilution means fewer peptides touching.

 

[Ghoul]

Does that mean more bact water in a mix is better?

Would make sense if so. More dilution means fewer peptides touching.

That's correct. The lower the density of peptides, the slower the rate of aggregate development.

For instance, Wegovy (semaglutide) pens.

Pens are physically identical at all 5 dosages. .25mg, .50mg, 1mg, 1.7mg, and 2.4mg.

The first 3 contain .5ml of BAC water.

But 1.7mg and 2.4mg contain .75ml. of BAC. Far more than most UGL users use to reconstitute those doses.

Now those like @clearheaded, or @narta might suggest a huge pharma company did this "just because", not considering a small difference like this on the manufacturing line likely costs hundreds of thousands, or millions of dollars over time, and not a decision made haphazardly.

It was done because with less water at those doses the higher concentration of peptides proved prone to aggregate development. Again, to keep hammering this home, the worst effect of which is not really some pip or red skin, but the development of anti-drug antibodies, causing your own immune system to inactivate the drug, making you develop immunity to it and. therefore less effective.

A helpful shortcut to determine what the appropriate, aggregate minimizing dilution should be for a particular peptide is to see what the manufacturer recommends, assuming it's a pharmaceutical.

Peptide drugs are really very new in the world of pharmaceuticals, and it should be no surprise knowledge and new developments are coming on quickly.

Increasingly, peptide drug instructions advise filtration prior to use.

What likely made pharma HGH "better" than UGL was they figured out that by adding a surfactant (detergent), they could slow or stop the development of dimer and aggregate. Reducing the odds of developing "immunity" to HGH. A trick the Chinese seem to have figured out and why zero dimer HGH is becoming more common.

Here's a recent handout for from the FDA, where the idiots at the Infectious Disease and Inflammation Center of Excellence waste taxpayer money by explaining the specific mechanisms of this "supposed" aggregate induced immunogenicity.

https://www.fda.gov/media/168728/download

If you need more detailed info regarding peptide filtration, links to current studies, or just want to chat about state of the art protein aggregation mitigation methods contact @clearheaded or @narta