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

[ProfessorX]

Actually both for an IGF-1 test.

See, that's what I'm saying.....and I mean absolutely NO offense. I'm here to learn....not judge, bash....etc.

The problem I find is that everyone "Googles" GH Serum/IGF1 for information. That just brings you from one Steroid Forum to another. All stating the same misleading Bro-Science.

You need to read actual Clinical studies. Problem is, not many/any studies on counterfeit GH. But, there are some clinical studies on Follow-on (True Generic GH Product)

And yes, you can/will spike(elevate) IGF1 immediately after one SubQ injection

 

[Dr JIM]

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/IGF1 Data you were speaking of. If this is old and outdated then please excuse me.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 if the source is pushing GH Serums as a form of legitimacy

Also, it seems that GH Serum and IGF1 are usually grouped together

So injecting an entire "generic" vial will elevate both GH Serum and IGF1
IGF1 can be elevated from one injection and 3-4 weeks isn't needed to see elevation in blood work

As I've already mentioned 2-3 times that data WAS NOT obtained from the samples I ANALYZED and as such is NOT APPLICABLE bc of the concentration differences in UGL GH "batches".

We're not talking Pharm grade here fella.

Why oh why have I harped about the importance of IGF levels at the OUTSET of this thread.

Damn some just don't get, I want to KNOW the TRUTH about UGL generic GH while most just want to know if they "should run it", how scientifically shallow can some people be! (I'm not referring to you PX)

 

[Dr JIM]

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..

And I'll bet you now realize why the CHEMIST made such a wise decision.

Changing concentration standards (HPLC) can create confusion be the baseline data comparisons will change.

This is not the case with MS bc one is only assaying a substances MW which would change little bc of concentration differences.

 

[ProfessorX]

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).

My apologies for not reading the entire thread (100+ pages)

I don't see any answers.....just numbers that are being "plugged into" potency, purity, strong, overdosed, GTG

Injecting a substance that is questionable into a living, breathing, everchanging living organism (the buyer) and then extracting the blood, testing the (blood) serum......then using those results to determine how "GTG" the substance that was injected is

Vs

Injecting the questionable substance into an analysis/testing "machine" that is calibrated specifically for that substance.........

LabCorp blood test are merely "markers"

They are not designed to distinguish the quality of meds being ingested/injected

 

[muscle96ss]

See, that's what I'm saying.....and I mean absolutely NO offense. I'm here to learn....not judge, bash....etc.

The problem I find is that everyone "Googles" GH Serum/IGF1 for information. That just brings you from one Steroid Forum to another. All stating the same misleading Bro-Science.

You need to read actual Clinical studies. Problem is, not many/any studies on counterfeit GH. But, there are some clinical studies on Follow-on (True Generic GH Product)

And yes, you can/will spike(elevate) IGF1 immediately after one SubQ injection

Not true, IGF-1 levels are fairly stable; thats why they are used in the medical community for patients that are HGH for medical conditions. Once you inject the GH it needs to be absorbed into the blood and then it eventually goes to the liver where it is converted to IGF-1. Thats why some people who have liver issues will have lower IGF-1's. Its not that the GH isn't real, its that the liver is too overloaded to process it properly.

I agree there is a lot of misinformation out there. I have been using GH since the early to mid 90's when it was prescribed to me by one of the docs that is now somewhat well known for his research in the field. The information in the thread I mentioned is a mixture of bro-science and real-science in order to learn the best we can. Trust me, after you read it you will be glad you did and will understand things a lot better. Its ok to be skeptical when reading it and do research on your own on certain things that you don't agree with.

 

[muscle96ss]

My apologies for not reading the entire thread (100+ pages)

I don't see any answers.....just numbers that are being "plugged into" potency, purity, strong, overdosed, GTG

Injecting a substance that is questionable into a living, breathing, everchanging living organism (the buyer) and then extracting the blood, testing the (blood) serum......then using those results to determine how "GTG" the substance that was injected is

Vs

Injecting the questionable substance into an analysis/testing "machine" that is calibrated specifically for that substance.........

LabCorp testing are merely "markers"

They are not designed to distinguish quality of meds being ingested/injected

We obviously are reading two different threads.

 

[ProfessorX]

Not true, IGF-1 levels are fairly stable; thats why they are used in the medical community for patients that are HGH for medical conditions. Once you inject the GH it needs to be absorbed into the blood and then it eventually goes to the liver where it is converted to IGF-1. Thats why some people who have liver issues will have lower IGF-1's. Its not that the GH isn't real, its that the liver is too overloaded to process it properly.

I agree there is a lot of misinformation out there. I have been using GH since the early to mid 90's when it was prescribed to me by one of the docs that is now somewhat well known for his research in the field. The information in the thread I mentioned is a mixture of bro-science and real-science in order to learn the best we can. Trust me, after you read it you will be glad you did and will understand things a lot better. Its ok to be skeptical when reading it and do research on your own on certain things that you don't agree with.

See....again....BBing Forum Vs Clinical studies

A controlled study was done
An i.v. Infusion of octreotide was given to suppress endogenous GH secretion
Different amounts (mg/mL) of rHGH were given SubQ
IGF1 was elevated immediately
IGF1/IGFBP3 elevation within Pharmacodynamic parameters were used to determine bioequivalence

You could actually inject 10ius and do an IGF1 instead of a GH Serum test

IGF1 is used as a surrogate marker in relation to other mechanisms in relation to GH/GH Administration

 

[weighted chinup]

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

@muscle96ss

The summary of the standards has the Humatrope sample / AS1625 listed at 3.72 mg / ml. I've seen reference standards for rHGH indicate that it has a specific activity of >2.8IU/mg so I believe the samples concentration is right at the 10IU mark.

Slightly unrelated but...based on my very limited understanding of these tests, I was under the impression that any concentration can work for a standard as long as the HPLC adjusts for the known concentration of the reference standard when doing the calculations. Since reference standards indicate what their concentration is it wouldn't be hard to adjust for this. I know some AAS standards are as low as 1mg yet we use those to test far higher concentrations. The HPLC is capable of adjusting it's calculations for this I believe.

In this case it wasn't necessary though, the concentration of the reference standard is exactly what we are testing for in the submitted samples.

 

[muscle96ss]

@muscle96ss

The summary of the standards has the Humatrope sample / AS1625 listed at 3.72 mg / ml. I've seen reference standards for rHGH indicate that it has a specific activity of >2.8IU/mg so I believe the samples concentration is right at the 10IU mark.

Based on my very limited understanding of these tests, I assume that any concentration can work as long as the HPLC adjusts for the known concentration of the reference standard. I know some AAS standards are as low as 1mg yet we use those to test far higher concentrations. The HPLC is capable of adjusting for this I believe.

In this case it wasn't necessary though, the concentration of the reference standard is exactly what is being tested for the in the submitted samples.

Maybe I am confused but Humatrope doesn't come in a 3.72mg/ml, it comes in 6, 12, or 24mg cartridges. Most of what I have seen on the are the 24mg(72iu) carts. Secondly, if you plug in the numbers from the Genotropin into the same calculation used for the grey tops; the concentration comes out to 2.4mg/ml. Jim already stated that it was a 5.3 mg cartridge used for that sample. So the pharm grade then is severely underdosed is it not? And then this Genotropin is now being used as the new standard? Why use an underdosed sample as a standard? Why even use a new standard? What was wrong with the old standard?

 

[muscle96ss]

See....again....BBing Forum Vs Clinical studies

A controlled study was done
An i.v. Infusion of octreotide was given to suppress endogenous GH secretion
Different amounts (mg/mL) of rHGH were given SubQ
IGF1 was elevated immediately
IGF1/IGFBP3 elevation within Pharmacodynamic parameters were used to determine bioequivalence

You could actually inject 10ius and do an IGF1 instead of a GH Serum test

Please post the actual study, you are misinterpreting something.

 

[ProfessorX]

Please post the actual study, you are misinterpreting something.

I could do even better....I've done blood work loosely based on the controlled study

I increased my IGF1 by 182ng/mL with one SubQ injection (tested 3.5hrs after injection)
The data from the controlled study was done using SubQ injections also
Not sure about the real significance between IM/SubQ (this was addressed in the study)

 

[weighted chinup]

Maybe I am confused but Humatrope doesn't come in a 3.72mg/ml, it comes in 6, 12, or 24mg cartridges.

I suspect that 10IU's of Humatrope was withdrawn from one of the larger cartridges after it was reconstituted. IE, they obtained a 6mg or 12mg cart and withdrew 10IU's worth of GH from that to use as a standard.

I don't think you are confused, this threw me off as well because I couldn't find any 3.72mg/ml Humatrope listed anywhere on the web, but they most likely used a larger cart and took the desired amount for the reference sample.

 

[muscle96ss]

I could do even better....I've done blood work loosely based on the controlled study

I increased my IGF1 by 182ng/mL with one SubQ injection
The data from the controlled study was done using SubQ injections also
Not sure about the real significance between IM/SubQ (this was addressed in the study)

Wow, thats amazing. Guys like Racepicks took GH subq for a few weeks and didn't even get that much of a raise in IGF-1; and thats with real pharm grade GH. Perhaps you should write to the medical community as the doctors prescribing these IGF-1 tests need to know this stuff and your research completely contradicts the way they do things. You could be famous.

 

[ProfessorX]

Wow, thats amazing. Guys like Racepicks took GH subq for a few weeks and didn't even get that much of a raise in IGF-1; and thats with real pharm grade GH. Perhaps you should write to the medical community as the doctors prescribing these IGF-1 tests need to know this stuff and your research completely contradicts the way they do things. You could be famous.

I have no reason to lie my friend.

Again, try and venture outside the BBing Forums and check out some clinical studies

There's some very informative information on True Generic GH and how precise the protein must be to be approved for medical use

Trust me, I've done all those GH Testing Protocols before

Sometimes you have to step outside the tunnel and question what those test are really showing.......or better yet.....what are they "promoting"

 

[muscle96ss]

I suspect that 10IU's of Humatrope was withdrawn from one of the larger cartridges after it was reconstituted. IE, they obtained a 6mg or 12mg cart and withdrew 10IU's worth of GH from that to use as a standard.

I don't think you are confused, this threw me off as well because the summary had the concentration listed in mg/ml, but 10IU is 3.72mg / ml so there really isn't any discrepancy.

Actually 3.72 is over 11iu, but its close. I am not sure how they would withdraw only 10iu into 1ml as the GH comes in chunk form in a cylinder that is then combined with water. So you would have to reconstitute the whole sample and I don't believe there is enough room in the cylinder to make it 10iu/ml. So you would have to take out 10iu and then water it down to 1ml. Right now, all we are doing is speculating. But this is why it would be nice to have someone answer these questions and spell it out for us. It shouldn't have to be a guessing game.

Also, you didn't answer the question about the Genotropin then being underdosed as well.

 

[muscle96ss]

View attachment 27270

I have no reason to lie my friend.

Trust me, I've done all those GH Testing Protocols before

Sometimes you have to step outside the tunnel and question what those test are really showing.......or better yet.....what are they "promoting"

What date did you start GH and how much were you using per day.

 

[ProfessorX]

What date did you start GH and how much were you using per day.

I've been using rhGH since Dr Lei Jin was shipping factory direct

 

[muscle96ss]

I've been using rhGH since Dr Lei Jin was shipping factory direct

No, I meant when did you start taking the GH after having the baseline drawn? Did you just do 1 injection on the 8th and thats it? How many IU and how long before being drawn? Your results are very interesting and not something I have seen before; so I am intrigued. Heading to bed, will respond in the morning.

 

[weighted chinup]

Right now, all we are doing is speculating. But this is why it would be nice to have someone answer these questions and spell it out for us. It shouldn't have to be a guessing game.

Agreed. This is just speculation on my part, TIFWIW. There are any number of ways this could have been done though.

Also, you didn't answer the question about the Genotropin then being underdosed as well.

You're correct, I didn't. I stated before I'm not a chemist or an expert or anyone important, I'm simply here to learn more. It goes without saying - I don't know the answer to some of these questions, it's a difficult subject for someone who isn't a chemist or has a background in analytical chemistry.

Why use an underdosed sample as a standard?

So far the new standard has only been used for the Mass Spec component of the test, the MW is what is being tested for in this test, so the concentration of a standard isn't particularly important in a MS since the mW would likely remain the same. I don't know if the standard will only be used for MS's moving forward.

Why even use a new standard? What was wrong with the old standard?

The more standards you have stored in the HPLC's computer to compare future samples against, the better.

 

[ProfessorX]

No, I meant when did you start taking the GH after having the baseline drawn? Did you just do 1 injection on the 8th and thats it? How many IU and how long before being drawn? Your results are very interesting and not something I have seen before; so I am intrigued. Heading to bed, will respond in the morning.

That elevation was from 1 SubQ injection (Baseline to Elevation)
I've done these types of test using 5-15ius (SubQ) 3-4hrs after injection

I realize you have put so much effort into those GH Serums...and I was once there with ya
But they are only detecting a GH Protein (range, variations)
The don't determine a pure somatropin product

According to the clinical studies (Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic parameters):

A combination of IGF1 and IGFBP3 were used to test the ANALYTE for Bioequivalence.
(An analyte, or component (in clinical chemistry), is a substance or chemical constituent that is of interest in an analytical procedure.)

The LabCorp GH Serum test wasn't used or even mentioned

There is a controlled study for AGHD that uses GH Serum....but not for testing a pharmaceutical/counterfeit product

It's comes down to:

BroScience Vs Clinical Studies