Yeah I deal with China in another industry as well. Quality control is brutal, we've had up to 50% defects on certain items. They're all about the cost over there, quality has definitely fallen by the wayside.
MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
MALDI-TOF-MS/HPLC-UV-VIS rHGH results
- Thread starter mands
- Start date
Oh crap maybe that's it then, my standards came from China, lol!
You have to love their typical business mind when it comes to production. You have a Golden Sample to follow. In the US we take three production runs to figure out how to get it built right, In China they take three production runs to figure out where to take shortcuts.
No actually I'm just joking
But the truth is the analytical lab I'm using is not only located in China but is operated by a Chinese chemist who acquired his advanced bachelors degree in China, and built the MS and HPLC devices in China being used to certify their in house Chinese brew "GH" standard, which I'm using.
So yea as one can understand, I'm prettry cocky about these results being reliable. Well at least as confident as the involved Chinese based UGLs who are manufacturing damn near ALL GENERIC GH.
But the truth is the analytical lab I'm using is not only located in China but is operated by a Chinese chemist who acquired his advanced bachelors degree in China, and built the MS and HPLC devices in China being used to certify their in house Chinese brew "GH" standard, which I'm using.
So yea as one can understand, I'm prettry cocky about these results being reliable. Well at least as confident as the involved Chinese based UGLs who are manufacturing damn near ALL GENERIC GH.
Scary considering how much of their goods we consume.
^^^^ Yea and to think some are injecting said products wo giving it a second thought believing a 25-50% concentration is still GTG
Hey has anyone given any thought to what the other 50mg (on average) of "fillers" actually is?
NOPE powdered ETOH perhaps?
Hey has anyone given any thought to what the other 50mg (on average) of "fillers" actually is?
NOPE powdered ETOH perhaps?
Last edited:
Good quality is in China but you are going to pay for it. You really better believe in you get what you pay for. The first problem finding a place that can produce top quality. Some have no clue how to produce quality no matter what the cost. The second is the cost of having good quality made in China. By the time you factor in everything to have something made in China with equal quality of being made in the US, the cost saving almost becomes not worth it when trying to hit margins.
Sadly somethings made in China are better than what we can do here because our infrastructure to produce certain things on a mass scale or even small are gone. Ain't that a bitch!
Now back to our regularly scheduled program of what we are shooting into our bodies if its not 100% HGH labeled goods.
Sadly somethings made in China are better than what we can do here because our infrastructure to produce certain things on a mass scale or even small are gone. Ain't that a bitch!
Now back to our regularly scheduled program of what we are shooting into our bodies if its not 100% HGH labeled goods.
What else do the tests show th at they are using for a filler? And why or how.do gh serums continue to come back in the 20-30 range on these products of we are only injecting 1-3iu per vial? I tell.you what I notice with 'generic' hgh. One day I can pin 5-6iu (or so I think) and the next day I will wake up hands swollen and walking around like a zombie all tired. But with the next vial nothing. No swollen hamds, not to lethargic. Does the quality or quantity vary from bottle to bottle that much?
I want the names of the "Inner Circle" of Chinese that have the answers to all these mysteries. These questions have replaced the "Meaning of Life" questions as the most sought after in the world.
Replacing pilgrimages to Tibet to see the Dalai Lama will be encrypted emails to TP and HK with promises of discretion if revealed. What can we replace Tibetan Prayer Wheels with? I know!!! T-shirts with the names of Dr Jim and Mands with a pic of The Good Dr holding a slin pin ready to whack the smiling Man Mountain(mands) with their eyes blacked out to preserve anonymity and "GH" and "Meso" in Chinese on the back. I'm in for a gross!!
Damn BigBen I don't know where you get this shit from.lol.."Classic" I am definitely down to smack a Ching Chang Chong to give me GH secrets from big Hong Kong. Kick a fortune cookie out that Ass!!
I don't think there is any doubt the batch to batch variability remains a huge issue for generics compared to Ph grade and the physical signs and symptoms many develop are highly suggestive of that very problem, IMO.
It would be ideal to analyze an entire "kit" of 10 vials to better estimate the magnitude of that change but I'll leave any additional assays to the UGLs themselves.
I've just grown weary of testing THEIR products for THEM and thereafter listen to Monday night quarterbacking about what the bloods revealed. (And I'm not referring to Meso members per say)
These clowns have an obligation to test their own damn products using accepted standards rather than something as arbitrary and capricious as "GH blood levels"!
Oh and using some lame scapegoat like "no one would believe their test" is just more BS.
The reason UGL analytical results are often NOT considered trustworthy is the result of the methodologies THEY use.
The fact is NOT ONE UGL has posted data that even comes close to approximating the current analytical standard much of which I have posted.
G.I. Bro
Well-known Member
This is interesting. +1 for sciroxx GH if you're going with generic I guess. And boy do people at meso like to trash Karl/sciroxx. If his gh is good his raws for his oils can't be that far off I'd guess. While karl's gh molecular weight was closest to pharma standard, it was still UNDER dosed per vial though, correct?
JIM & Mands: After all these tests and discussions, is their a generic brand UGL gh that comes away as a winner in your eyes?
Last edited:
Grey top of TP/HK is still better price. Same quantity and higher purity for what i remember
Reasonable question which is likely the result of "to much' blogging on your behalf, mate.
The problem is how the term "purity" is often used on AAS forums. Suffice it to say essentially all drug must be mixed with other substances to balance PH, enhance absorption, facilitate uniform dispersion, prevent coalescence etc.
These compounds are collectively refered to as fillers and are NOT considered contaminants or impurities.
An impurity is something that is either not removed or is indadvertedly added as a consequence of the production process itself. Some examples include; heavy metals, bacterial endotoxins, bacterial fragments, certain chemicals, dust, dirt or "protein" fragments etc.
For example whenever GH is being secreted by Ecoli MUCH of that "GH" is of poor quality some having 61AA, 112 AA, 181AA with the remainder, one hopes, having 191 AA aligned in the PROPER SEQUENCE and folded correctly bc of that sequence.
An HPLC looks for impurities OF CHEMICAL STRUCTURE which SHOULD have been detected AND removed as a consequence of the production process itself. Obviously this is no easy task and requires the purchase of very HIGH END devices capable of flirtation, ultrafiltration, ion exchange protein electrophoresis, en masse chromatography to name a few.
Once this is accomplished the "fillers" are added to "stabilize" the end product.
Now if a company has the capability to produce GH of high purity rest assured they KNOW exactly how much on a weight basis is being placed into each vial. So the amount of GH contained in each vial is/was NO MISTAKE, lol!
Hope that helps mate
The problem is how the term "purity" is often used on AAS forums. Suffice it to say essentially all drug must be mixed with other substances to balance PH, enhance absorption, facilitate uniform dispersion, prevent coalescence etc.
These compounds are collectively refered to as fillers and are NOT considered contaminants or impurities.
An impurity is something that is either not removed or is indadvertedly added as a consequence of the production process itself. Some examples include; heavy metals, bacterial endotoxins, bacterial fragments, certain chemicals, dust, dirt or "protein" fragments etc.
For example whenever GH is being secreted by Ecoli MUCH of that "GH" is of poor quality some having 61AA, 112 AA, 181AA with the remainder, one hopes, having 191 AA aligned in the PROPER SEQUENCE and folded correctly bc of that sequence.
An HPLC looks for impurities OF CHEMICAL STRUCTURE which SHOULD have been detected AND removed as a consequence of the production process itself. Obviously this is no easy task and requires the purchase of very HIGH END devices capable of flirtation, ultrafiltration, ion exchange protein electrophoresis, en masse chromatography to name a few.
Once this is accomplished the "fillers" are added to "stabilize" the end product.
Now if a company has the capability to produce GH of high purity rest assured they KNOW exactly how much on a weight basis is being placed into each vial. So the amount of GH contained in each vial is/was NO MISTAKE, lol!
Hope that helps mate
Last edited:
Thank you for clarifying.
Hi Jim i looked the tested and try to understand them but my english in this case is not goog enough to understand everything. Can you explain where in the test is the result of 1.4mg/ml for the grey top for exemple.
thanks
muscle96ss
Subscriber
I believe the wrong equation was used to calculate the concentration. The equation when using UV absorbance is called Beer's Law and is as follows:
Conc of unknown component =conc. of it corresponding component of
standard x Peak area(sample)/Peak area(standard)
So in another words it should be:
Conc = 3.72mg/ml x (area of GH we are testing)/(area of standard)
This equation makes sense because you are multiplying 3.72(the standard or known, which in this case is pharm GH) by (a ratio of the area of the GH we are testing) divided by the (area of the standard). That ratio should then be equal to 1 if the sample is the same as the standard used. In other words, the areas should be equal if the sample being tested is as strong as the standard. If it is not as strong then it will be a percentage of the how strong it is.
This is based on the assumption that the standard was concentrated at 3.72mg/ml and was treated via the UV absorbence test identically to the sample used. We then need to know the total volume of the standard but I think we are assuming it is 1ml.
That is very different than the equation being used which is:
{3.72 mg/ml (AS1625-2 rHGH) / x1(peak area)} *x2 (peak area) = y mg/ml
Can someone please point this out to Jim as I believe he has me on ignore(as he hates me). For these results to be useful we really need them to be transparent and for people to understand them. I have already spoken with mands and he believes that there is an oversight with the concentrations as well but from my understanding Jims ego is getting in the way of getting this issue resolved. These tests are a huge asset to the community when done properly. However when done improperly they only hurt the community. Lets make sure that in the end we get this right.
Conc of unknown component =conc. of it corresponding component of
standard x Peak area(sample)/Peak area(standard)
So in another words it should be:
Conc = 3.72mg/ml x (area of GH we are testing)/(area of standard)
This equation makes sense because you are multiplying 3.72(the standard or known, which in this case is pharm GH) by (a ratio of the area of the GH we are testing) divided by the (area of the standard). That ratio should then be equal to 1 if the sample is the same as the standard used. In other words, the areas should be equal if the sample being tested is as strong as the standard. If it is not as strong then it will be a percentage of the how strong it is.
This is based on the assumption that the standard was concentrated at 3.72mg/ml and was treated via the UV absorbence test identically to the sample used. We then need to know the total volume of the standard but I think we are assuming it is 1ml.
That is very different than the equation being used which is:
{3.72 mg/ml (AS1625-2 rHGH) / x1(peak area)} *x2 (peak area) = y mg/ml
Can someone please point this out to Jim as I believe he has me on ignore(as he hates me). For these results to be useful we really need them to be transparent and for people to understand them. I have already spoken with mands and he believes that there is an oversight with the concentrations as well but from my understanding Jims ego is getting in the way of getting this issue resolved. These tests are a huge asset to the community when done properly. However when done improperly they only hurt the community. Lets make sure that in the end we get this right.
hotdog23
New Member
@Dr JIM
Originally posted by @muscle96ss today
I believe the wrong equation was used to calculate the concentration. The equation when using UV absorbance is called Beer's Law and is as follows:
Conc of unknown component =conc. of it corresponding component of
standard x Peak area(sample)/Peak area(standard)
So in another words it should be:
Conc = 3.72mg/ml x (area of GH we are testing)/(area of standard)
This equation makes sense because you are multiplying 3.72(the standard or known, which in this case is pharm GH) by (a ratio of the area of the GH we are testing) divided by the (area of the standard). That ratio should then be equal to 1 if the sample is the same as the standard used. In other words, the areas should be equal if the sample being tested is as strong as the standard. If it is not as strong then it will be a percentage of the how strong it is.
This is based on the assumption that the standard was concentrated at 3.72mg/ml and was treated via the UV absorbence test identically to the sample used. We then need to know the total volume of the standard but I think we are assuming it is 1ml.
That is very different than the equation being used which is:
{3.72 mg/ml (AS1625-2 rHGH) / x1(peak area)} *x2 (peak area) = y mg/ml
Can someone please point this out to Jim as I believe he has me on ignore(as he hates me). For these results to be useful we really need them to be transparent and for people to understand them. I have already spoken with mands and he believes that there is an oversight with the concentrations as well but from my understanding Jims ego is getting in the way of getting this issue resolved. These tests are a huge asset to the community when done properly. However when done improperly they only hurt the community. Lets make sure that in the end we get this right.
End quote
Originally posted by @muscle96ss today
I believe the wrong equation was used to calculate the concentration. The equation when using UV absorbance is called Beer's Law and is as follows:
Conc of unknown component =conc. of it corresponding component of
standard x Peak area(sample)/Peak area(standard)
So in another words it should be:
Conc = 3.72mg/ml x (area of GH we are testing)/(area of standard)
This equation makes sense because you are multiplying 3.72(the standard or known, which in this case is pharm GH) by (a ratio of the area of the GH we are testing) divided by the (area of the standard). That ratio should then be equal to 1 if the sample is the same as the standard used. In other words, the areas should be equal if the sample being tested is as strong as the standard. If it is not as strong then it will be a percentage of the how strong it is.
This is based on the assumption that the standard was concentrated at 3.72mg/ml and was treated via the UV absorbence test identically to the sample used. We then need to know the total volume of the standard but I think we are assuming it is 1ml.
That is very different than the equation being used which is:
{3.72 mg/ml (AS1625-2 rHGH) / x1(peak area)} *x2 (peak area) = y mg/ml
Can someone please point this out to Jim as I believe he has me on ignore(as he hates me). For these results to be useful we really need them to be transparent and for people to understand them. I have already spoken with mands and he believes that there is an oversight with the concentrations as well but from my understanding Jims ego is getting in the way of getting this issue resolved. These tests are a huge asset to the community when done properly. However when done improperly they only hurt the community. Lets make sure that in the end we get this right.
End quote
