Colt44
Well-known Member
That's what I was pointing out. Serum doesn't mean much. I only did it to at least see if the product had something in it before I wasted a month to test igf.
MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
MALDI-TOF-MS/HPLC-UV-VIS rHGH results
- Thread starter mands
- Start date
That's what I was pointing out. Serum doesn't mean much. I only did it to at least see if the product had something in it before I wasted a month to test igf.
GH is NOT a peptide but rather a globular PROTEIN which is composed of several POLYPEPTIDES linked thru PEPTIDE bonds.
The arbitrary difference bt a peptide and a PP or Protein is SIZE AND their 3-D configuration.
Peptides can range up to 40 AA linkages while a PP about 200 thereafter the linkage of 200 or more AA is generally referred to as a Protein.
The latter is particularly important bc ELISA assays are based upon the structure of a GH SUBUNIT, which depending upon the assay used ranges bt 30-60 AA linkages.
This "subunit" arrangement, if performed correctly most certainly can "trick" ELISA GH testing.
The fact is these subunits may be purchased at a few select I-net sites since some are even used as ELISA STANDARDS!
Last edited:
I'ts only useful in that regard (to evaluate the legitimacy of UGL GH) if the assay being used is MS which evaluates the ENTIRE GH molecule rather than a "fractional subunit" analysis.
Last edited:
The primary indication is to determine if a patient has growth hormone excess or a deficiency BASED ON CLINICAL features such as; Acromegaly, Giantism, Dwarfism.
Obviously GH testing is also useful to follow those being treated for any of these conditions with the PRIMARY EXCEPTION being growth retardation in kido's where IGF is preferred.
Also GH testing is frequently conducted on patients with pituitary tumors (or "adenoma's), although the overwhelming majority are caused by Prolactinomas.
Oh and in fairness to MANDS he did not know the Standard being used for the MS was pharm grade Genotropin I submitted.
The HPLCs however are based on the "old" standard which was Humatrope pharm GH.
Understand even though both of these standards are PH grade GH with the analytical data available to any registered US lab that requests it we still conducted a MS, HPLC and Amino Acid Analysis on both to "be sure" any sample data obtained through comparison was indeed ACCURATE.
Heck we even compared and contrasted the FIRST standard to the SECOND standard looking for discrepancies, and none were detected.
So is there a chance the data is in error NIMO and NIME
The HPLCs however are based on the "old" standard which was Humatrope pharm GH.
Understand even though both of these standards are PH grade GH with the analytical data available to any registered US lab that requests it we still conducted a MS, HPLC and Amino Acid Analysis on both to "be sure" any sample data obtained through comparison was indeed ACCURATE.
Heck we even compared and contrasted the FIRST standard to the SECOND standard looking for discrepancies, and none were detected.
So is there a chance the data is in error NIMO and NIME
Last edited:
Incidentally have any of you fellas seen even ONE of the involved UGL, whose samples were evaluated by yours truly, post ANY evidence to support their claims of
quality OR to refute mine?
Of course you haven't and it's unlikely anyone ever will bc that's the nature of the business. Simply create an environment of doubt or suspicion should ANYONE post data that refutes info which is "on the label".
Thereafter they can just sit back and allow that doubt to accumulate enough naysayers to discredit truly unequivocal data.
So to that end ANY SINGLE UGL who desires to discredit these results, then post some of your own analyses. I understand none will even begin to approximate the meticulous attention to detail or compliance with contemporary analytical laboratory practice that this lab did and does EVERY DAY!
LMAO
quality OR to refute mine?
Of course you haven't and it's unlikely anyone ever will bc that's the nature of the business. Simply create an environment of doubt or suspicion should ANYONE post data that refutes info which is "on the label".
Thereafter they can just sit back and allow that doubt to accumulate enough naysayers to discredit truly unequivocal data.
So to that end ANY SINGLE UGL who desires to discredit these results, then post some of your own analyses. I understand none will even begin to approximate the meticulous attention to detail or compliance with contemporary analytical laboratory practice that this lab did and does EVERY DAY!
LMAO
muscle96ss
Subscriber
muscle96ss
Subscriber
Can someone explain this equation to me:
{3.72 mg/ml (AS1625-2 rHGH) / x1(peak area)} *x2 (peak area) = y mg/ml.
First off, if you are dividing mg/ml by a squared area then you are not going to end up with the units of mg/ml in the final result. Secondly, even if the answer is in mg/ml; where does it state that the sample was only 1ml? Thirdly, assuming its 1ml and the units are correct; in order for the equation to come out at 3.0mg/ml(which is needed for it to be 10iu) the bottom have of the equation would have to be 1/3 the value of the top half. If you are using a standard and trying to compare; then shouldn't we be looking for both the top and bottom halfs to be equal and not 1/3?
Can someone more versed in this please shed some light.
{3.72 mg/ml (AS1625-2 rHGH) / x1(peak area)} *x2 (peak area) = y mg/ml.
First off, if you are dividing mg/ml by a squared area then you are not going to end up with the units of mg/ml in the final result. Secondly, even if the answer is in mg/ml; where does it state that the sample was only 1ml? Thirdly, assuming its 1ml and the units are correct; in order for the equation to come out at 3.0mg/ml(which is needed for it to be 10iu) the bottom have of the equation would have to be 1/3 the value of the top half. If you are using a standard and trying to compare; then shouldn't we be looking for both the top and bottom halfs to be equal and not 1/3?
Can someone more versed in this please shed some light.
The physiologic mechanism is identical to that which occurs when single "spot levels" are used to determine the concentration of UGL AAS, TT in particular.
The range of the latter varies widely until the volume of distribution is "saturated" and STEADY STATE LEVELS are reached! Of course the latter is very difficult to achieve bc GH has such a short half life, and is just another reason why IGF testing is critical in situations of THIS NATURE.
The FDA or any other country that complies with established WHO criteria for BIOLOGICS requires TWO complimentary components the PROVE the QUALITY of the GH being sold on a legitimate patented basis, is on level with what is naturally secreted. Those TWO general criteria are IN-VITRO and IN-VIVO assays.
IT IS THAT SIMPLE REALY! Thus if you want reproducible evidence based data on the GH your using or what UGLs are selling BOTH are required. So why is it only a cadre of folk (almost all if not all being involved in the sale of GH) would suggest anything less is sufficient? DUH, lol!
Make no mistake about it, such minimalist testing is what some UGL are using as a substitute to that which is REQUIRED as a means to an ends, "verifying" the "quality" of their GH products!
Based on my comments alone, does anyone have an idea WHY Colt44 GH sample MUST NOT be used as the standard especially at this juncture
Fully agree @Dr JIM but we know that is not going to be happening with the UGL's. Even if they are done, how many people would actually believe the paper they are written on. Even going further we all know numbers can be spot on for one batch tested and then batch untested and sold can be crap. Unless you are actually the pharm producing the GH, I can not imagine any UGL or reseller testing every single batch that comes in. We are lucky that they are even getting blood GH serum tests on themselves.
Seeing that many of us do not have access to have our kits tested by third parties for every kit we get, what would a way to check for potency other than getting bloods with real GH to establish a baseline? With all of the generic GH floating out there we know there are all under dosed that is without question. Just looking for other realistic methods for the average person to compare. Thank you for your input.
Seeing that many of us do not have access to have our kits tested by third parties for every kit we get, what would a way to check for potency other than getting bloods with real GH to establish a baseline? With all of the generic GH floating out there we know there are all under dosed that is without question. Just looking for other realistic methods for the average person to compare. Thank you for your input.
Damn Jim I Dont like your cocky know it all attitude(probably because some of what your are talking about is bad news for me)-But I appreciate you taking your time to shair this information with us. I understand you probably have other things you could be doing with your time and money. Thanks, thanks to Mands too--that being said, its the 21st century and if they have anti aging hormones and meds out there-I WANT SOME! Fuck it if I ain't rich, I want some of that look good feel good shit. I can't afford pharma everything at the moment, but that Dont mean I can't splurge to get a taste of some generic. Normally generic drugs can be trusted to do what they should, but it looks like GH is proving to be a bit of the exception. Now I need to do my math, and see if the ends justify the means. Fuck it, I'll take a 4 1/2 - 5 vial that should be 10. For 25% of pharma price... Its just the way it is...
Last edited:
Voltrader
New Member
I have come to the understanding that generic is the wrong term. Counterfeit is a better term IMO.
Know it all attitude yea well I suppose that's what happens when one spends HOURS of time on a project as complicated as this has yet when it's all said and done some continue to question the veracity of those tests conducted void of the knowledge required to do so.
However if you or anyone else would like to post a rebuttal to the evidence AS PSOTED bc one has SHOWN the methodology used was in some way flawed, or the data misinterpreted based upon the graphic info before us all, ( which cant be F...ed with) I'm more than willing to listen!
I've a better idea, i could report the results ALONE (as Millard choose to do) and omit EVERYTHING ELSE , which is still more than any involved UGL has done, lol!
However if you or anyone else would like to post a rebuttal to the evidence AS PSOTED bc one has SHOWN the methodology used was in some way flawed, or the data misinterpreted based upon the graphic info before us all, ( which cant be F...ed with) I'm more than willing to listen!
I've a better idea, i could report the results ALONE (as Millard choose to do) and omit EVERYTHING ELSE , which is still more than any involved UGL has done, lol!
Last edited:
For purity thus far most can pass for the term generic. But for all, the quantity specified can pass for the term CRAP...lol
You want a cheap methodology? Sorry there are NONE I'm aware of. That being said I suppose the single test that renders the best bang for a buck would be an IGF assay understanding it's limitations of course.
I would still want at least some in vitro test however and a PAGE is probably the best bang for your buck in that regard fella.
YOU MUST HAVE A BASELINE FOR IGF TESTING!!!!!!!
Last edited:
I've been testing GH for some 2-3 years and one thing I can say is the quality of GH (which is specifically referring to the compounds CHEMICAL STRUCTURE) has improved remarkably. Heck as little as TWO YEARS ago only ONE out of TEN generic GH samples would reveal a STRUCTURE that is consistent with GH, yet these more recent assays reveal an ever improving manufacturing process such that SIX to SEVEN out of TEN are GTG.
Now that's a pretty significant accomplishment IMO.
However the problem still remains one of cost, that's to say "they" just can NOT generate the QUALITY and QUANTITY needed and still make a profit. The options are relatively straightforward, diminish the QUALITY or reduce the QUANTITY placed in each vial.
It seems quite obvious based on these tests and those of others they have elected to reduce the QUANTITY!
Last edited:
Well having dealt with China and their various manufactures in another industry for years now, one thing still stands strong. If there is a shortcut to be made they will try and find it. Its the China gold standard of business, so something will always suffer. Finding the a manufacturer/Seller that doesn't is the unicorn. Where is our China GH Generic Unicorn!!!!
Similar threads
