Janoshik Analytical laboratory testing services

[peater]

@janoshik There's someone selling a DHT gel at a claimed concentration that shouldn't be possible. It's dissolved in ethanol with some sfa esters/essential oils added. Is it possible to do a Common AAS Screening Quantitative but including DHT (in case it doesnt actually contain DHT but eg. T)?

 

[janoshik]

Yes, no problem.

Cheers

 

[xeonmasters]

I came here just to thank Janoshik for his services. Even with stupid questions, he is always answering me and providing help!

His service is a god send for everybody using pharmacological resources

 

[MyNameIsJeff]

Jano, back in days, you were involved with the GH testing project on the PM board.

If I recall correctly, you were able to classify different types of impurities of GH, based on the location of secondary and tertiary peaks on the x-axis of the chromatogram.

Would it be possible to do a similar classification of GH impurities on some of the largest sources of today?

This would be an invaluable service to the community, since there appear to be distinct side-effect profiles for GH products from different sources, despite them scoring similarly in terms of purity and dimer content.

 

[Ghoul]

Jano, back in days, you were involved with the GH testing project on the PM board.

If I recall correctly, you were able to classify different types of impurities of GH, based on the location of secondary and tertiary peaks on the x-axis of the chromatogram.

Would it be possible to do a similar classification of GH impurities on some of the largest sources of today?

This would be an invaluable service to the community, since there appear to be distinct side-effect profiles for GH products from different sources, despite them scoring similarly in terms of purity and dimer content.

I think you guys are going down the wrong path on this.

The idea that there are "impurities" of some sort contaminating HGH, which trigger the same set of side effects that have been constant since pharma extracted GH from corpses, became LESS common with the advent of synthetic GH (and increasingly rare as excipient formulations were improved), then increased again with UGL production points to some other, common factor between natural. pharma, and UGL HGH.

I believe the side effects are an immune response. The primary suspect are aggregates, which have been proven to induce growth hormone antibodies. These aggregates are a characteristic of the GH of elderly patients (and probably post death degradation), pharma, and UGL HGH.

The difference is that pharma is conscious of aggregation and the immunogenicity it can induce. Among other things, excipient formulation and packaging is designed to minimize this from happening. They test for aggregation.

Does UGL? Doubtful.

Below is a study of several pharma HGH formulations published by the Journal of Pharmaceutical Science, subjected to stress to speed the formulation of aggregates (agitation, freeze/thaw, etc). The aggregates are characterized, and immune response in animals is measured.

(it's interesting to note how
wildly the different pharma formulations differ in their effectiveness at suppressing aggregation)

TLDR: The more aggregates present, the stronger the immune response, and the higher likelihood of side effects like edema.

(it's more complicated than that, as some aggregates don't induce a response, but in general, the fewer aggregates the fewer antibodies are produced.)

Like IGF blood testing is a proxy for HGH quality, it might be more productive to have users get a Growth Hormone Antibody blood test at a certain amount of time post administration. This is commonly available at the usual labs. Quest, etc. Researchers cannot intentionally inject healthy human subjects with bad HGH loaded with aggregates, but the PED community does, inadvertently.

https://jpharmsci.org/article/S0022-3549(16)33089-1/fulltext

I will add, in my own informal tests, Tesamorelin. notorious for aggregate formation and antidrug antibody formation, exhibits significantly reduced site reactions (PIP, redness) and other side effects with some of the filtration techniques used to reduce aggregates prior to injection. The difference is dramatic and the effect absolutely not psychosomatic.

 

[MyNameIsJeff]

I think you guys are going down the wrong path on this.

The idea that there are "impurities" of some sort contaminating HGH, which trigger the same set of side effects that have been constant since pharma extracted GH from corpses, became LESS common with the advent of synthetic GH (and increasingly rare as excipient formulations were improved), then increased again with UGL production points to some other, common factor between natural. pharma, and UGL HGH.

I believe the side effects are an immune response. The primary suspect are aggregates, which have been proven to induce growth hormone antibodies. These aggregates are a characteristic of the GH of elderly patients (and probably post death degradation), pharma, and UGL HGH.

The difference is that pharma is conscious of aggregation and the immunogenicity it can induce. Among other things, excipient formulation and packaging is designed to minimize this from happening. They test for aggregation.

Does UGL? Doubtful.

Below is a study of several pharma HGH formulations published by the Journal of Pharmaceutical Science, subjected to stress to speed the formulation of aggregates (agitation, freeze/thaw, etc). The aggregates are characterized, and immune response in animals is measured.

(it's interesting to note how
wildly the different pharma formulations differ in their effectiveness at suppressing aggregation)

TLDR: The more aggregates present, the stronger the immune response, and the higher likelihood of side effects like edema.

(it's more complicated than that, as some aggregates don't induce a response, but in general, the fewer aggregates the fewer antibodies are produced.)

Like IGF blood testing is a proxy for HGH quality, it might be more productive to have users get a Growth Hormone Antibody blood test at a certain amount of time post administration. This is commonly available at the usual labs. Quest, etc. Researchers cannot intentionally inject healthy human subjects with bad HGH loaded with aggregates, but the PED community does, inadvertently.

https://jpharmsci.org/article/S0022-3549(16)33089-1/fulltext

I will add, in my own informal tests, Tesamorelin. notorious for aggregate formation and antidrug antibody formation, exhibits significantly reduced site reactions (PIP, redness) and other side effects with some of the filtration techniques used to reduce aggregates prior to injection. The difference is dramatic and the effect absolutely not psychosomatic.

You are out of your depth on this one. Aggregation in GH is not a problem nowadays, most GH is testing with either very little or no dimer or higher order aggregates. Much less than it was 5-10 years ago. Also the side effects often reported are not consistent with immunogenicity.

 

[Ghoul]

You are out of your depth on this one. Aggregation in GH is not a problem nowadays, most GH is testing with either very little or no dimer or higher order aggregates. Much less than it was 5-10 years ago. Also the side effects often reported are not consistent with immunogenicity.

What? "Higher order aggregation in GH is no longer a problem"? Where does that come from? No protein is immune from aggregation. I can SEE HGH form aggregates in the visible range, above 100um, on vial walls by leaving it at room temperature for a few days.

What has happened since 2023 to make their formation post reconstitution a non-issue? You can't even control for PH with UGL HGH, because of the wide variety of solutions used to reconstitute, unlike pharma which either comes prepared or supplied with BAC or Sterile water.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378517323002491

In reference to Somatropin:



Edema is not an immune response? Who are you trying to gaslight? "Water retention", the most COMMON HGH side effect, is absolutely an immune response. Antigens cause cells to absorb water. How do you not know this?

No, let's attribute the same set of UGL sides that are listed on the side of a Somatropin box to some mystery impurity unique to UGL HGH, and not simply a problem caused by the one glaring difference in pharma and UGL quality metrics the producers pay attention to, post reconstitution aggregate formation..

 

[AlexDavis43]

Is edema caused by cells absorbing water, or cells not absorbing water leading to fluid accumulation extracellularly

 

[Ghoul]

Is edema caused by cells absorbing water, or cells not absorbing water leading to fluid accumulation extracellularly

Let me correct that point, I was conflating two different immune responses.

The immune response that causes swelling/water retention involves small blood vessels becoming more permeable to allow immune cells to pass through more easily, which also allows water to escape.

Somewhat similar to the edema side effect of many blood pressure meds, though that's caused by a rise in capillary pressure forcing the water out, rather than them becoming more permeable.

 

[janoshik]

If you mean if we can tell the original manufacturer of the GH, in some particular cases we can ( but frankly, it oft is obvious from the numbers alone, without the graphs even ).

 

[MyNameIsJeff]

If you mean if we can tell the original manufacturer of the GH, in some particular cases we can ( but frankly, it oft is obvious from the numbers alone, without the graphs even ).

It's more about differences in the synthesis process (CHO vs e.coli based), purification process (combination of different types of chromatography, centrifugation, filtration), and lyophilization process (excipients used, freezing and drying parameters).

Each combination of the above could in principle lead to a unique pattern of impurities, which could then be classified. If two manufacturers follow almost identical procedures, the impurities in their products should look similar.

Ultimately, it would be cool if you could make your own classification based on patterns observed in the samples you have or will examine. Like:

Type A: Primary peak at t1, secondary peak at t2
Type B: Primary peak at t1, secondary peak at t3, tertiary peak at t4, with area under the curve of secondary peak being x times bigger than of tertiary peak
Type C: Primary peak at t1, secondary peak at t5

etc.

The side effect profiles of HGH products whose impurities have been classified as being of the same type should in principle have a similar side-effect profile. Then each individual user could figure out which type gives him the least side effects and, going forward, buy only products which have been tested as having that type of impurity. Once such a classification is established, you could even charge for it.

 

[janoshik]

It would be cool, but at the moment I have basically no life, no hobbies and my life sucks more than when I was a 16 yo without a dime and that sort of thing would be so time expensive, I canot fathom getting that done ever.

I am seeing a possibility that after we automate just a bit better, we could get around to automatic raw data upload and then the users could do that themselves from the raw data. I can see a reasonable timeline for this to be within a year.

In future much farther than that, we hope to establish HRMS testing for all peptide/protein samples, so that we output an insane sheer amount of data for our clients along with, for example, molecular formula of all impurities (and then the inquiring clients can do the guesswork themselves ).


But frankly, this stuff is not at the top of our priorities - the top of our priorities is not collapsing due to being overwhelmed, scale better the stuff we have right now and decrease my workload AND improve our PR.

We have to reflect on the fact that there are laboratories that are outputing basically random results and don't even have an idea what test they're doing ( rhymes with Bromate ). Laboratories that have no QA/QC, labs that run an absolute minimum of a test (compared to HPLC, LCMS etc we do) for the same price etc... And we can't sell it properly, because we don't even really tell clients too much about all that... So that's on the most immediate list of priorities for us.

 

[MyNameIsJeff]

It would be cool, but at the moment I have basically no life, no hobbies and my life sucks more than when I was a 16 yo without a dime and that sort of thing would be so time expensive, I canot fathom getting that done ever.

I am seeing a possibility that after we automate just a bit better, we could get around to automatic raw data upload and then the users could do that themselves from the raw data. I can see a reasonable timeline for this to be within a year.

In future much farther than that, we hope to establish HRMS testing for all peptide/protein samples, so that we output an insane sheer amount of data for our clients along with, for example, molecular formula of all impurities (and then the inquiring clients can do the guesswork themselves ).


But frankly, this stuff is not at the top of our priorities - the top of our priorities is not collapsing due to being overwhelmed, scale better the stuff we have right now and decrease my workload AND improve our PR.

We have to reflect on the fact that there are laboratories that are outputing basically random results and don't even have an idea what test they're doing ( rhymes with Bromate ). Laboratories that have no QA/QC, labs that run an absolute minimum of a test (compared to HPLC, LCMS etc we do) for the same price etc... And we can't sell it properly, because we don't even really tell clients too much about all that... So that's on the most immediate list of priorities for us.

Totally understandable that you don't have the time for it now. Growing your testing capacity, expanding your capabilities, and educating the customer base are very logical priorities.

But I am excited to hear about your plans for automating raw data output in the not so distant future, which would enable volunteers from the community to work on a classification along the lines I suggested.

I have basically no life, no hobbies and my life sucks more than when I was a 16 yo without a dime

Sorry to hear mate, but keep your head up! You are building something great and in a few years it will start paying dividends (literally) and you can retire early

 

[Sampei]

Totally understandable that you don't have the time for it now. Growing your testing capacity, expanding your capabilities, and educating the customer base are very logical priorities.

But I am excited to hear about your plans for automating raw data output in the not so distant future, which would enable volunteers from the community to work on a classification along the lines I suggested.

View attachment 298459
Sorry to hear mate, but keep your head up! You are building something great and in a few years it will start paying dividends (literally) and you can retire early

don 't worry it's already paying quite well

 

[janoshik]

I could have retired years ago my friend, I've been lucky with investing my income, but I can't imagine what else I could be doing and don't want to let people down

 

[Test3]

Hello, I am wondering what your current turn around time is. From the time of receiving a package to the time you are able to get the results out.

 

[readalot]

I could have retired years ago my friend, I've been lucky with investing my income, but I can't imagine what else I could be doing and don't want to let people down

You can't retire. You'd be bored out of your mind. Enjoy the stimulation and reward of doing something that matters.

 

[MyNameIsJeff]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2gTvWsURZg

 

[carbon adams]

@janoshik i have a few questions regarding the heavy metal and gcms bacteria testing project our member has brought up

It is somewhere said you may have a 5-10% margin of error or something to that degree on hplc testing

HCG margin of error is 20 percent ?

I tried looking on your website for the margin of error for the GCMS screening and Heavy Metal. Screening but I can’t find it

“6.Heavy metals (As, Cd, Pb, Hg) analysis: trace heavy metal analysis. Other metals possible too, inquire. Average turnaround time: 20 days”

“7. GCMS screening: We have GC/MS with a library at our disposal, the cost mentioned is for very basic GCMS screening, not any advanced work or method development”

What are the margin of errors for these tests?

Are there even margin of errors for these tests ? Or is it just pass fail type of thing ?

And also, how is one able to calculate their own margin of errors ?

Thanks sir.

 

[bigboy420]

Hello, quantitive testing for Ethyl oleate is possible?