MESO-Rx Sponsor HGH - Domestic USA

[nealcaffrey16]

still doesn't explain the cloudy product, nor your lackluster response about it when contacted respectfully in email. you chose to blame the brand new Hospira BW. I left it alone as it was just one kit, but seeing others having had the same issue I'll make more noise about it now. Poor response.

 

[B Ware]

still doesn't explain the cloudy product, nor your lackluster response about it when contacted respectfully in email. you chose to blame the brand new Hospira BW. I left it alone as it was just one kit, but seeing others having had the same issue I'll make more noise about it now. Poor response.

Cloudy? Been using these for years now and can’t say I’ve seen that. Even if it was a little cloudy what would that mean?

 

[Opti]

still doesn't explain the cloudy product, nor your lackluster response about it when contacted respectfully in email. you chose to blame the brand new Hospira BW. I left it alone as it was just one kit, but seeing others having had the same issue I'll make more noise about it now. Poor response.

You are in the right do as you please. If you still have our previous correspondence do you mind emailing it to me? Either way email me so I can refund you the cost of the kit.

 

[nealcaffrey16]

It's not even about the refund, I just didn't care for the response. I didn't know what to make of the cloudiness which is why I inquired if there were any issues. I've read since from other posters that generally speaking cloudy GH was to be discarded, so that's what I did. that said, better late than never, we can work out something. I will email, yeah.

 

[nealcaffrey16]

Opti refunded me in full for the kit in question. It's appreciated to put this to bed.

 

[gobig2]

Thanks for the update Opti. Good guy here

 

[Ambitionzcs]

Janos testing has a 5% margin of error. Same reason goodlyfe tested at 98% and then 95%. I really wonder if jano could get the same results twice? If not then that test is flawed.

 

[M@NU]

Janos testing has a 5% margin of error. Same reason goodlyfe tested at 98% and then 95%. I really wonder if jano could get the same results twice? If not then that test is flawed.

where did you find that 5%? seems way to inaccurate for me..
i could imgine it being +- 1%, so a 93% purity one could come out in the range of 92-94%.
@janoshik could you shed a light on this one?

 

[Ambitionzcs]

where did you find that 5%? seems way to inaccurate for me..
i could imgine it being +- 1%, so a 93% purity one could come out in the range of 92-94%.
@janoshik could you shed a light on this one?

Just look at his thread, it says under gh testing that the margin of error for purity is 5%, dimer 10%.

 

[B Ware]

where did you find that 5%? seems way to inaccurate for me..
i could imgine it being +- 1%, so a 93% purity one could come out in the range of 92-94%.
@janoshik could you shed a light on this one?

We’ve seen a -/+ 3% just this week on two different brands.

 

[janoshik]

where did you find that 5%? seems way to inaccurate for me..
i could imgine it being +- 1%, so a 93% purity one could come out in the range of 92-94%.
@janoshik could you shed a light on this one?

5% is a rather safe margin of error, usually it's way less.

About stability on the dosage, compare Goodlyfe two vials or Opti two vials, the dosage, discounting purity is virtually the same. Eg. LCMS method used for HGH quantitation by some literally cannot get under 5% margin of error due to technical difficulties.

 

[M@NU]

Just look at his thread, it says under gh testing that the margin of error for purity is 5%, dimer 10%.

you are right, i just see it.
10% dimer seems like a mistake, if this is true then its quite ridicolous imo

 

[janoshik]

Janos testing has a 5% margin of error. Same reason goodlyfe tested at 98% and then 95%. I really wonder if jano could get the same results twice? If not then that test is flawed.

We regularly test duplicates (ie the same vial at once) and they test the same.

Just look at his thread, it says under gh testing that the margin of error for purity is 5%, dimer 10%.

yep, that's maximum allowable to pass validation. Don't think it matter much if there is 0.400 or 0.360-0.440% of dimer or if there's a particular impurity at 2% or 2.1%

 

[janoshik]

you are right, i just see it.
10% dimer seems like a mistake, if this is true then its quite ridicolous imo

err. I don't think you count that right, see above.

We’ve seen a -/+ 3% just this week on two different brands.

And I've provided raw data to both of them.
Hopefully both sets will be posted.

Then the members can compare the differences between both samples and contemplate upon the possible causes.

 

[M@NU]

err. I don't think you count that right, see above.


And I've provided raw data to both of them.
Hopefully both sets will be posted.

Then the members can compare the differences between both samples and contemplate upon the possible causes.

ah, got it.
the 10% is meant to be from the value that tested.
so if it is tested with 1% dimer (bah, crap), then it could range from 0.9-1,1%

 

[nealcaffrey16]

yeah 10% would be the variance in actual values lol. not an absolute 10% variance. xD

 

[malfeasance]

err. I don't think you count that right, see above.


And I've provided raw data to both of them.
Hopefully both sets will be posted.

Then the members can compare the differences between both samples and contemplate upon the possible causes.

How am I supposed to contemplate the possible causes with the raw data?

I don't think any of us here have the knowledge to do that even with all of your data. I would not even know what I was looking at.

 

[janoshik]

How am I supposed to contemplate the possible causes with the raw data?

I don't think any of us here have the knowledge to do that even with all of your data. I would not even know what I was looking at.

Well, asking me about the details would be the most straightforward way, but apparently there are people who don't trust my judgement, so they'd be free to go for professional assessment elsewhere.

Also, you can just do general guesses, like:
1) There are differences between the tested vials during manufacture.
2) There are differences between the tested vials after the arrive to me.
3) My analyses suck.

There are some other options too, I just picked some most obvious that can be brainstormed upon.

Then we can do thought exercises, eg. I'm going to borrow claim that was already made "such differences did not occur with old method" - then I would ask:
1) Are there data to support that?
2) Could that not have been caused simply by the fact that the impurities that are now seen with the samples that cause the bulk of the difference were not detected with the previous method?

Or nitpicking my processes.
It'd be more of a logic exercise than analytical chemistry one in my eyes, but I could be mistaken. I'm a little bit autismo about these kind of things, but that's what I'd consider a productive process.

I mean, working with me and asking me questions usually works, as it's not like I bend the data to fit my narrative. The second brand owner that I tested two vials of recently literally told me he's sending again the same batch vial and yet the results came as they did.

 

[VAGeo87]

The report says grey tops. I’m still curious about the blue tops that I received two kits of. Emails unanswered.

 

[Ambitionzcs]

The report says grey tops. I’m still curious about the blue tops that I received two kits of. Emails unanswered.

Those were the discount gh he had for sale correct?