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

[muscle96ss]

I'll explain how the mg/mL were determined for the two gray caps tested, even though you could have figured it out yourself.


AS1776-3 GRAY CAP

The formula used was:

{3.72 mg/ml (AS1625-2 rHGH) / x1(peak area)} *x2 (peak area) = y mg/ml

The figures inside the {} are from the Humatrope standard and can be found here.

Using the formula,

{3.72 mg/ml (AS1625-2 rHGH) / x1(peak area)} *x2 (peak area) = y mg/ml

{3.72 mg/ml / 65,493,455} x 25,231,986 = 1.4 mg/ml

y = 1.4 mg/ml



AS1776-1 GRAY CAP

The formula used was:

{3.72 mg/ml (AS1625-2 rHGH) / x1(peak area)} *x2 (peak area) = y mg/ml

The figures inside the {} are from the Humatrope standard and can be found here.

Using the formula,

{3.72 mg/ml (AS1625-2 rHGH) / x1(peak area)} *x2 (peak area) = y mg/ml

{3.72 mg/ml / 65,493,455} x 24,773,978 = 1.4 mg/ml

y = 1.4 mg/ml



AS1625-2 rhGH HUMATROPE STANDARD

{3.72 mg/ml (AS1625-2 rHGH) / x1(peak area)} *x2 (peak area) = y mg/ml

{3.72 mg/ml / 65,493,455} x 65,493,455 = 3.72


As you can see, there were no errors with the mathematics, the chemist didn't use the "wrong equation," and nothing was hidden or withheld. The results are correct.

The question now becomes whether or not you will accept the results or try to find another way to discredit the test. Obviously, that was a rhetorical question.

After looking at the link you posted, it appears the standard is a 5.3mg Genotropin cartridge. Therefore the sample was 17.49 iu's and you are comparing that to a 10iu sample. Also why are you multiplying it by 3.72 if Humatrope is not the standard being used anymore?

 

[mands]

So Let's get back to the sample test results and GH Serum/IGF1
View attachment 27260 View attachment 27260 View attachment 27261 View attachment 27262 View attachment 27263
I just did a very quick glance at the GH Serum Data/IGF1 you were speaking of. If this is old and outdated them please excuse me.

Can you explain more in detail about IGF1 decreasing with these "Generics"?

Here is some Information you might find important

View attachment 27265
The source of a "Generic" is saying that GH Serum testing is the better test?

View attachment 27266
The therapeutic effects of rHGH are mediated by IGF1/IGFBP3

There are no clinical studies having subjects injecting a vial of "generic" GH to determine potency, strength, or if it's GTG.

There are no GH Serum "scores" that can determine if the product is "close" to PHARMA

You have to question the product of a source is recommending GH Serum for

I believe most sources didn't or don't have a clue about IGF-1 testing until the community brought to their attention. Gh serum were the norm and now both.

This has been my opinion for years. Gh serum scores first to see if there are further test needed. Once gh serum scores look good if you have access you send off for MS and HPLC and then lastly IGF-1 test.

Most don't have access to MS or HPLC so should go directly to IGF-1 tests.

Gh serums show nothing in my opinion. Only a indicator to more testing.

If you are going off strictly serum scores you are doing it all wrong.

mands

 

[weighted chinup]

After looking at the link you posted, it appears the standard is a 5.3mg Genotropin cartridge. Therefore the sample was 17.49 iu's and you are comparing that to a 10iu sample. Also why are you multiplying it by 3.72 if Humatrope is not the standard being used anymore?

The HPLC's were performed using the old Humatrope standard, and I believe the Geno carts were the new standard used only for the MS / qualitative component of the tests.

Look at the attachment CBS linked to in that post, AS1625 was the 'old standard' which was the Humatrope and that is the standard you can see is being used in the concentration formula.

Jim mentioned this earlier too - the Humatrope was used for the HPLC's as the standard and the new standard was used for the Mass specs.

The HPLCs however are based on the "old" standard which was Humatrope pharm GH.

All prior samples were assayed using a Humatrope standard and that includes the HPLCs of the last four that were posted

Genotrooin was the standard used for the MS results of the last FOUR samples posted.

That is how I interpreted the results so far, lmk if I'm off base here..

 

[muscle96ss]

I believe most sources didn't or don't have a clue about IGF-1 testing until the community brought to their attention. Gh serum were the norm and now both.

This has been my opinion for years. Gh serum scores first to see if there are further test needed. Once gh serum scores look good if you have access you send off for MS and HPLC and then lastly IGF-1 test.

Most don't have access to MS or HPLC so should go directly to IGF-1 tests.

Gh serums show nothing in my opinion. Only a indicator to more testing.

If you are going off strictly serum scores you are doing it all wrong.

mands

I completely agree with all but the bold. I can't recall if I have mentioned it on this thread or if it was over at PM, but serum scores mean nothing when comparing to other individuals serum scores. However, when looking at serum scores within the same individual you can pick up a lot of patterns. It still isn't exact as things change over time within the individual, but you can get a real good indication of what your dealing with. I need to update my current data of all my tests as I haven't updated it on the thread on PM in about a year, so the most recent results are scattered throughout the thread and not all in one place. I may update it this weekend and then I will post it here as well so you can see what I mean.

 

[ProfessorX]

I believe most sources didn't or don't have a clue about IGF-1 testing until the community brought to their attention. Gh serum were the norm and now both.

This has been my opinion for years. Gh serum scores first to see if there are further test needed. Once gh serum scores look good if you have access you send off for MS and HPLC and then lastly IGF-1 test.

Most don't have access to MS or HPLC so should go directly to IGF-1 tests.

Gh serums show nothing in my opinion. Only a indicator to more testing.

If you are going off strictly serum scores you are doing it all wrong.

mands

Somehow the GH Serum has morphed into "High Score Wins"

So not true

The info on PM seems to analyze the GH Serum Score as if the number actually determined something of importance

Underdosed GH and elevated IGF1 (injecting an entire vial 3.5hrs before blood work)

 

[muscle96ss]

The HPLC's were performed using the old Humatrope standard, and I believe the Geno carts were the new standard used only for the MS / qualitative component of the tests.

Look at the attachment CBS linked to in that post, AS1625 was the 'old standard' which was the Humatrope and that is the standard you can see is being used in the concentration formula.

Jim mentioned this earlier too - the Humatrope was used for the HPLC's as the standard and the new standard was used for the Mass specs.





That is how I interpreted the results so far, lmk if I'm off base here..

Ok, that makes sense. Now all we need to know is how many iu's was the humatrope sample?

 

[muscle96ss]

Somehow the GH Serum has morphed into "High Score Wins"

So not true

The info on PM seems to analyze the GH Serum numbers as if the number actually determined something of importance

Underdosed GH and elevated IGF1 (injecting an entire vial 3.5hrs before blood work)

I am not sure if you are implying that the IGF-1 scores were done from just 1 10iu injection. If you are, then that is incorrect. The IGF-1 scores were done weeks later once someone was running it at a constant dose. There was no protocol for the dose that was to be run, it was just whatever dose the person happened to be running.

 

[ProfessorX]

I am not sure if you are implying that the IGF-1 scores were done from just 1 10iu injection. If you are, then that is incorrect. The IGF-1 scores were done weeks later once someone was running it at a constant dose. There was no protocol for the dose that was to be run, it was just whatever dose the person happened to be running.

Injecting 10ius/3.5 hrs before an IGF1 is the normal protocol I see on most/all boards

 

[muscle96ss]

I'll explain how the mg/mL were determined for the two gray caps tested, even though you could have figured it out yourself.


AS1776-3 GRAY CAP

The formula used was:

{3.72 mg/ml (AS1625-2 rHGH) / x1(peak area)} *x2 (peak area) = y mg/ml

The figures inside the {} are from the Humatrope standard and can be found here.

Using the formula,

{3.72 mg/ml (AS1625-2 rHGH) / x1(peak area)} *x2 (peak area) = y mg/ml

{3.72 mg/ml / 65,493,455} x 25,231,986 = 1.4 mg/ml

y = 1.4 mg/ml



AS1776-1 GRAY CAP

The formula used was:

{3.72 mg/ml (AS1625-2 rHGH) / x1(peak area)} *x2 (peak area) = y mg/ml

The figures inside the {} are from the Humatrope standard and can be found here.

Using the formula,

{3.72 mg/ml (AS1625-2 rHGH) / x1(peak area)} *x2 (peak area) = y mg/ml

{3.72 mg/ml / 65,493,455} x 24,773,978 = 1.4 mg/ml

y = 1.4 mg/ml



AS1625-2 rhGH HUMATROPE STANDARD

{3.72 mg/ml (AS1625-2 rHGH) / x1(peak area)} *x2 (peak area) = y mg/ml

{3.72 mg/ml / 65,493,455} x 65,493,455 = 3.72


As you can see, there were no errors with the mathematics, the chemist didn't use the "wrong equation," and nothing was hidden or withheld. The results are correct.

The question now becomes whether or not you will accept the results or try to find another way to discredit the test. Obviously, that was a rhetorical question.

Ok, lets now substitute the Genotropin data into that same equation you used to calculate the grey tops concentration. You can calculate it yourself, but it comes out to 2.4mg/ml. So then the sample that is supposed to contain 5.3mg only contains 2.4mg. So why is Jim even going to use this as a new standard and it looks like pharm grade GH is underdosed too. RED FLAGS, RED FLAGS!!!

I am headed to pig out on some really good mexican food but I think we are getting somewhere now and I think you can see why there is concern.

 

[muscle96ss]

Injecting 10ius/3.5 hrs before an IGF1 is the normal protocol I see on most/all boards

No, that is incorrect, that is the protocol for the serum test ONLY. For IGF-1 we used to think that you needed to be running it for 3-4 weeks. However, some of the latest data is showing that the time may be much shorter. Also, when the blood is drawn has no bearing on the timing of the previous injection.

 

[ProfessorX]

No, that is incorrect, that is the protocol for the serum test ONLY. For IGF-1 we used to think that you needed to be running it for 3-4 weeks. However, some of the latest data is showing that the time may be much shorter. Also, when the blood is drawn has no bearing on the timing of the previous injection.

Ok I see. Other boards are injecting 10ius before both test

From "baseline", IGF1 can be elevated approx 150-200ng/mL (above baseline) with one SubQ injection

 

[pmac928]

[

From "baseline", IGF1 can be elevated approx 150-200ng/mL (above baseline) with one SubQ injecti

Is this a fact?

 

[mands]

I completely agree with all but the bold. I can't recall if I have mentioned it on this thread or if it was over at PM, but serum scores mean nothing when comparing to other individuals serum scores. However, when looking at serum scores within the same individual you can pick up a lot of patterns. It still isn't exact as things change over time within the individual, but you can get a real good indication of what your dealing with. I need to update my current data of all my tests as I haven't updated it on the thread on PM in about a year, so the most recent results are scattered throughout the thread and not all in one place. I may update it this weekend and then I will post it here as well so you can see what I mean.

I agree with you as well! Individual vs. Individual is not a good indicator as we have seen over years same batch of pharm grade can yield 22 on a serum score on one individual and another might score a 34.

Self vs. Self is useful for determining what you are implying.

I guess what I meant was that I've seen decent serum scores but when tested there were issues. Missing proteins, wrong sequencing, loss of functional groups, etc. and this will cause a lower IGF-1 score or no elevation at all.

This is another reason why want to see scores from members.

If that makes sense.

mands

 

[ProfessorX]

[

Is this a fact?

That's what my LabCorp blood work told me

I did my own testing loosely based on a bioequivalence study using a True Generic GH Product (Follow-on)

It's mind boggling seeing "product pushing" with GH Serum scores

FDA doesn't use LabCorp GH Serum test to approve a GH Product

HRT Clincs do not use GH Serum test

Maybe I'm missing something

 

[ProfessorX]

I completely agree with all but the bold. I can't recall if I have mentioned it on this thread or if it was over at PM, but serum scores mean nothing when comparing to other individuals serum scores. However, when looking at serum scores within the same individual you can pick up a lot of patterns. It still isn't exact as things change over time within the individual, but you can get a real good indication of what your dealing with. I need to update my current data of all my tests as I haven't updated it on the thread on PM in about a year, so the most recent results are scattered throughout the thread and not all in one place. I may update it this weekend and then I will post it here as well so you can see what I mean.

However, when looking at serum scores within the same individual you can pick up a lot of patterns. It still isn't exact as things change over time within the individual, but you can get a real good indication of what your dealing with.

PATTERNS?

WHAT INDICATIONS INDICATE WHAT YOU ARE DEALING WITH?

So an 18.4 ng/mL indicates?

And a 34.2 ng/mL indicates?

I'D RATHER SEE STORIES ABOUT TINGLING, NUMB FINGERS Vs THE LASTEST HIGH GH SERUM SCORE

GH SERUM "Scores" is just another marketing strategy to move a product.

Maybe pressing "Generic" sources for an actual lab analysis might be a step in the right direction (even though there are holes in that plan) instead of letting the source make you (the buyer) the guinea pig for the product he is selling.

 

[ProfessorX]

I agree with you as well! Individual vs. Individual is not a good indicator as we have seen over years same batch of pharm grade can yield 22 on a serum score on one individual and another might score a 34.

Self vs. Self is useful for determining what you are implying.

I guess what I meant was that I've seen decent serum scores but when tested there were issues. Missing proteins, wrong sequencing, loss of functional groups, etc. and this will cause a lower IGF-1 score or no elevation at all.

This is another reason why want to see scores from members.

If that makes sense.

mands

MANDS.....WHAT INFORMATION DO YOU HAVE WITH THE GREEN TOP GENLEI JINTROPIN THAT WAS TESTED (.85mg/mL)

4iu/10iu Labeled Vial?
Origin?

 

[muscle96ss]

Ok I see. Other boards are injecting 10ius before both test

From "baseline", IGF1 can be elevated approx 150-200ng/mL (above baseline) with one SubQ injection

False!!

 

[ProfessorX]

Which one is False my brutha?

10ius before both test?

IGF1 elevation?

 

[muscle96ss]

That's what my LabCorp blood work told me

I did my own testing loosely based on a bioequivalence study using a True Generic GH Product (Follow-on)

It's mind boggling seeing "product pushing" with GH Serum scores

FDA doesn't use LabCorp GH Serum test to approve a GH Product

HRT Clincs do not use GH Serum test

Maybe I'm missing something

Guys, I am not trying to advertise PM, but please read Racepick's "HGH Testing" thread in the sponsors section. All the questions you are asking have been answered many times over in that thread. I would venture to say it has more valuable information on GH than I have seen in any thread ever on the entire internet. Guys like Racepick, Viking, buck, are all neutral guys and straight shooters like myself who are just looking for answers. To start from the beginning of the thread to where it has evolved now; we have all learned a ton from each other(and probably made a lot of mistakes along the way).

 

[muscle96ss]

Which one is False my brutha?

10ius before both test?

IGF1 elevation?

Actually both for an IGF-1 test.