MALDI-TOF-MS/HPLC-UV-VIS rHGH results

[Dr JIM]

I believe the HPLC device itself has a computer that is quite familiar with any equation that may apply HD!

(If you WOULD READ the procedure you would KNOW there was no assuming anything especially something as elementary as ensuring the volume comparisons WERE IDENTICAL, COL!)

The problem is quite simple really many are using in-vivo GH and IGF levels as the benchmark for how much each vial of GH should contain and extrapolating THOSE results to determine the validity of an HPLC assay.

This is classic bro science period, so much so that some have bought into this notion TT "blood levels" are more reliable than analytical in vitro testing!

Sorry fellas you've got it ass backwards a MS and HPLC were developed for the very reasons some suggest they are inaccurate, in vitro drug quantification.

It's amazing how some want to rewrite pharmacokinetic laws bc some UGL states they KNOW their GH has a HIGHER concentration (absent ANY analytical testing from what I see) than what THE STANDARD has revealed using a SUB-STANDARD assay such as GH OR IGF levels.

If GH and IGF analyses are so accurate then why oh why doesn't ANY pharmaceutical company use those tests as a
quantitative marker instead of the FDA MANDATED MS and HPLC?

That's the ticket let's determine the concentration of all drugs by FIRST slamming them into humans. Not that we should be concerned about protein binding, GFR, assay timing, influence of other drugs, body weight, half life or their quality bc it will all come out in the wash, absolutely luxurious!

 

[Dr JIM]

Why don't you look at the ENTIRE HPLC graph bc on the right hand corner the absorbance IS listed as A PERCENT of the STANDARD using a FACTOR OF ONE!

THEREAFTER the percentages are used to determine the concentration in mg/ml as compared to the standard.

That's not my EGO but rather a problem you have in understanding traditional HPLC . graphics.

Oh and incidentally MH the PHD chemist who conducted both the HPLCs and MS has been doing this type of analytical work for AT LEAST TWENTY YEARS.

Consequently you need to locate someone more qualified than yourself to blindly challenge the results simply bc they are not to your liking shill!

 

[mands]

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.

What I see is this... The concentration is question. I have asked JIM about it and he has explained that the information is accurate. The question I'm getting is on the amount of solution In both cases, the sample and the protein standard solution, aliquots of 10 µl were added to 40 µl ultrapure water and an aliquot of 10 µl was injected??? I believe this is where the confusion lies.

I personally questioned Dr JIM because I thought something looked funny and he assured me things were kosher. Raw data would be nice to see so everyone can figure out the equation on the concentration for themselves.

mands

 

[muscle96ss]

For those of you that aren't familiar with me from another board; I have been using GH since the early to mid-90's before GH was even available mainstream. There was no generic GH then, it was all pharm. Over the years I have used a shitload of both pharm and generic GH. Over the past several years I have compiled tons of data of serum GH's as well as IGF-1's on various pharm and generic GH as well as analyzed my actual physical results. All this data is posted in a thread on another board along with that of others, some who have done the same.

What I have found from all this is that I am getting similar results with all tests whether they be generic or pharm. Therefore if the generic GH I have been taking is severely underdosed as indicated by these lab tests; then it could be concluded that the generic GH is way stronger than the pharm. In fact if my generic grey tops contain 4iu and not 10iu; then my GH is 2.5 times more biologically active then pharm grade(good job Dr. Jim; you just proved the opposite of what you were trying to prove). Is anybody buying this load of shit? I sure hope not, because I sure as hell don't believe that. Therefore the concentrations calculated MUST have some sort of error. Lets look at this deeper. In addition to the tests posted recently, Jim has tested Karl's Somastim twice. Both times they were shown to be pharm purity but severely underdosed. What makes this unbelievable is that the first test was done by a sample that Karl sent directly to mands knowing that it was going to be lab tested. Do you really think he would send an underdosed pharm grade sample to be tested? In addition you can ask mands himself; he loved Karl's GH and believes it to be accurately dosed. Yet the lab tests show that it was not even close.

There comes a point in time where common sense needs to prevail. Jim needs to quit trying to justify why he feels the concentrations are correct and instead go back and debug the methodology to find out what went wrong and correct it.

 

[pmac928]

For those of you that aren't familiar with me from another board; I have been using GH since the early to mid-90's before GH was even available mainstream. There was no generic GH then, it was all pharm. Over the years I have used a shitload of both pharm and generic GH. Over the past several years I have compiled tons of data of serum GH's as well as IGF-1's on various pharm and generic GH as well as analyzed my actual physical results. All this data is posted in a thread on another board along with that of others, some who have done the same.

What I have found from all this is that I am getting similar results with all tests whether they be generic or pharm. Therefore if the generic GH I have been taking is severely underdosed as indicated by these lab tests; then it could be concluded that the generic GH is way stronger than the pharm. In fact if my generic grey tops contain 4iu and not 10iu; then my GH is 2.5 times more biologically active then pharm grade(good job Dr. Jim; you just proved the opposite of what you were trying to prove). Is anybody buying this load of shit? I sure hope not, because I sure as hell don't believe that. Therefore the concentrations calculated MUST have some sort of error. Lets look at this deeper. In addition to the tests posted recently, Jim has tested Karl's Somastim twice. Both times they were shown to be pharm purity but severely underdosed. What makes this unbelievable is that the first test was done by a sample that Karl sent directly to mands knowing that it was going to be lab tested. Do you really think he would send an underdosed pharm grade sample to be tested? In addition you can ask mands himself; he loved Karl's GH and believes it to be accurately dosed. Yet the lab tests show that it was not even close.

There comes a point in time where common sense needs to prevail. Jim needs to quit trying to justify why he feels the concentrations are correct and instead go back and debug the methodology to find out what went wrong and correct it.

My only question is how igf levels are elevated if only 4 ius is in each vial? Will 2 ius /day elevate levelsthat much? I'm not sure. I'm kind of lost on most of this data. I think serums are a pointless test that is barely reliable. Elevated igf levels is what we are all trying to achieve by taking hgh and these grey tops do that.

 

[mands]

In addition to the tests posted recently, Jim has tested Karl's Somastim twice. Both times they were shown to be pharm purity but severely underdosed. What makes this unbelievable is that the first test was done by a sample that Karl sent directly to mands knowing that it was going to be lab tested. Do you really think he would send an underdosed pharm grade sample to be tested? In addition you can ask mands himself; he loved Karl's GH and believes it to be accurately dosed. Yet the lab tests show that it was not even close.

There comes a point in time where common sense needs to prevail. Jim needs to quit trying to justify why he feels the concentrations are correct and instead go back and debug the methodology to find out what went wrong and correct it.

All is correct except what's in BOLD. I actually ordered anonymously the first 400 iu's I ordered. Karl will confirm that because it was after I received the order he was notified.

I believe JIM thought Karl sent in repackaged pharm grade. If you remember there were problems we both had with the first batch. Painful red welts at injection site. It wasn't until I received replacements did I run it and put it on the level around pharm grade.

mands

 

[Dr JIM]

Bc I've no interest in satisfying the minds of Meso, I will NOT post ANY more GH data period. Some of you fellas wanted this type of analysis well here it is!

Folks want to question the results that's their prerogative but if your expecting me to acquiesce on data I know is accurate then locate a CHEMIST to challenge these results!

 

[Colt44]

I will NOT post ANY more GH data period. Some of you fellas wanted this type of analysis well here it is!

So you're going to do exactly what they want? Any test results that are counter to what some lying ass UGL says will be met with resistance. Why not continue to refute the questioning and prove your tests to be valid?

Thought the point of this research venture was to give the consumer the tools to challenge these UGLs and make informed decisions when purchasing a product.

Not posting the data gives the appearance that there's something to hide. You wouldn't accept that from a UGL. You're always telling us to question these analyses, to be wary of the results from single source testing but when you're questioned you just close up shop.

 

[Dr JIM]

Look I've posted TEN MS and HPLCS on UGL GH and they ALL revealed the same thing the GH is undersized, now if that's not enough "proof" than NOTHING will be.

I've simply got better thing to do with my time than jump thru or disprove BASELESS accusations and innuendo.

If UGL want to "prove" their UGL GH is GTG THEY should have posted this type of data LONG AGO, perhaps now we know why they chose not to do so!

The onus is theirs and always has been, yet it's obvious some still don't understand that fact.

 

[mands]

GUYS!!!! This is why biological assay are needed.

@Dr JIM has provided much more to these boards on testing than anyone I've ever known. He and I joined up on this to try and educate the community on generic GH and try and get the community involved by posting IGF-1 levels on samples we tested. Only a couple have and I know @Colt44 will be posting on the Pharm Grade sample.

This is beyond aggravating for him and myself.

Do I want to see more test Posted? Yes I do. But, what most want is just to look at the data and buy some generic GH and do nothing to contribute back.

Agreed questioning the tests are needed so we can educate ourselves and be educated when holding UGL's accountable for their products.

mands

 

[BigPharma]

I am grateful to mands and jim.Thank you all very much.I will be the first to admit I am new to GH and need this kind of data to make the best choices for my health and finances. I also need to know if anyone has posted igf levels on the grey tops? I said I would contribute igf testing before I knew consistent dosing was needed to get accurate levels, I dose 3-4 times weekly to conserve GH. I have contributed to Millards testing, but I feel like I have failed to contribute to these tests... if nobody has contributed "grey top igf" I will be ordering more at which point I can start taking daily(5iu)and contribute testing... thanks again- dont stop kicking ass Jim...

 

[muscle96ss]

I am grateful to mands and jim.Thank you all very much.I will be the first to admit I am new to GH and need this kind of data to make the best choices for my health and finances. I also need to know if anyone has posted igf levels on the grey tops? I said I would contribute igf testing before I knew consistent dosing was needed to get accurate levels, I dose 3-4 times weekly to conserve GH. I have contributed to Millards testing, but I feel like I have failed to contribute to these tests... if nobody has contributed "grey top igf" I will be ordering more at which point I can start taking daily(5iu)and contribute testing... thanks again- dont stop kicking ass Jim...

There are tons of IGF-1's posted on PM. There is also a lab test on the greys posted on PM done by someone outside the US with the knowledge of TP. It determined the concentration via BCA assay as opposed to UV absorbance that was used here. The results were that the vial contained roughly 11iu's. Even more reason to question the concentrations posted here.

 

[muscle96ss]

GUYS!!!! This is why biological assay are needed.

[B]@Dr JIM[/B] has provided much more to these boards on testing than anyone I've ever known. He and I joined up on this to try and educate the community on generic GH and try and get the community involved by posting IGF-1 levels on samples we tested. Only a couple have and I know @Colt44 will be posting on the Pharm Grade sample.

This is beyond aggravating for him and myself.

Do I want to see more test Posted? Yes I do. But, what most want is just to look at the data and buy some generic GH and do nothing to contribute back.

Agreed questioning the tests are needed so we can educate ourselves and be educated when holding UGL's accountable for their products.

mands

Yes, but it does not help the community any if we don't get it right. Why is it so tough to provide the raw data or to provide more information so that we can figure out what went wrong? I don't believe Jim is hiding anything but it gives that appearance when he continues to act this way. As Colt pointed out, Jim has taught us to be skeptical and question things. We are questioning them know because the results defy common sense and instead of giving us answers which are so simple to do; he refuses. Like I said before, these tests are a great asset to the community when done properly. However when they are done like this they only hurt the community and further divide people.

 

[grey]

We are questioning them know because the results defy common sense

Been content to watch so far but frankly the results and analysis presented here seem quite in line with common sense.

UGL's being underdosed for HGH is exactly what most would expect. The contrary would be what would require extraordinary proof as it would counter the general expectations.

 

[muscle96ss]

So then explain why my serum GH's and IGF-1's are in line with pharma. That means that 4iu of my grey tops are giving me the same results as 10iu of pharma. Does that make sense to you? I have a serum test I posted of 24.3 from the EXACT same kit that the vial used in this testing came from. I have a very close friend who scored over 300 IGF-1 on 3iu per day from a grey top kit that came from that same order. Common sense says that isn't possible. Common sense says the other lab test showing 11iu per vial makes more sense. In fact why would it be underdosed if it is coming from a GMP factory? We are not talking about some fake Chinese biotech company; we are talking about a legit GH factory; which is where they come from.

 

[grey]

In fact why would it be underdosed if it is coming from a GMP factory?

I... really? You don't understand why something like that would happen from people selling it illegally?

 

[muscle96ss]

So there is a legal way to sell GH in the US? All the pharm GH out there is being sold legally? I guess Genotropin, Norditropin, etc.. should all be expected to be underdosed too?

 

[ProfessorX]

"I have a very close friend who scored over 300 IGF-1 on 3iu per day from a grey top kit that came from that same order."

Did your close friend do the "Standard GH Protocol"? (Inject an entire vial before blood work was done)

 

[muscle96ss]

I have a very close friend who scored over 300 IGF-1 on 3iuper day from a grey top kit that came from that same order.

Did your close friend do the "Standard GH Protocol"? (Inject an entire vial before blood work was done)

No, IGF-1 test, not serum GH. He is not a bodybuilder and is taking it for anti-aging. The only reason he did the IGF-1 was because I told him to do it so that we would know that it is working and because I want to keep a monitor on his level so that they don't get too high or too low.

 

[CensoredBoardsSuck]

But, what most want is just to look at the data and buy some generic GH and do nothing to contribute back.

Sounds like Millard's testing program. Too many free loaders willing to sit on their fat ass and let someone else pay the bills while they reap the benefits. Fuckers, each and every one!