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

[muscle96ss]

I have.

But CBS, AS1625 is not Humatrope as you are stating. Please show me where AS1625 is associated with Humatrope and the lab test where that was disclosed along with the data that determined its concentration to be 3.72mg/ml. You have simply taken Karl's GH that was determine to be 1.86mg and doubled it to get 3.72.

 

[Dr JIM]

Yes I've noticed that in the past also and have queried why that is the case and his reply was bc "that's the number that was selected" and once it's placed into the HPLC computer data bank it's very difficult to get rid of.

In fact several attempts were made but that number continued to reappear as the Humatrope standard we are using.

 

[muscle96ss]

Yes I've noticed that in the past also and have queried why that is the case and his reply was bc "that's the number that was selected" and and once it's aced into the HPLC computer data bank it's very difficult to get rid of.

In fact several attempts were made but that number continued to reappear as the Humatrope standard we are using.

So, can we get more information on this Humatrope standard? I have yet to see a lab test for it where it was verified to be of pharm grade and correct concentration. There are lab tests for everything else, so I am not sure why this one has never been posted. In any event, lets see it posted up so we can clear this up.

 

[Dr JIM]

Thank you Mands. Your first hand account is necessary because nobody at meso will believe anything else that counters CBS or Jim on this it seems. You have credibility here at Meso. I'm a fan of the board and those guys. They are generally dead on. But something is just off about this entire thing and the way Jim has handled it is strange. It's like he can't possibly admit there could have been a minor oversight when you yourself even raise some doubt. Things don't seem to add up for several reasons. The most SIMPLE being, who goes through the expense and trouble to produce or purchase almost pharm grade level gh only to GROSSLY underdose each vial (all brands, all samples). It's easily detectable and would result in shitty gh serum and IGF-1 results which is how these guys "advertise" now. This would just be a silly approach. Second, all the GH serum and IGF testing done seems to counter these massively underdosed result samples.

I have no idea what really happened but I certainly think something is off and Jim's handling of reasonable questions has been disappointing to say the least.

I don't really have any doubt about the monetary interests of detractors here (or PM's generic gh gatekeeper there), yes it's clear. That's still not the issue here. The questions raised are nonetheless valid. Just doesn't seem to add up. If the solution (equation used and data breakdown, sample/standard identification, etc) is so clear and simple, and Jim is so wise, why has he not broken it down and explained the alleged discrepancy for the laymen here. Why haven't you helped explain CBS? You're clearly more ahead on your understanding of that testing than most here, or at least portray that. All I see is you try and discredit Muscle96ss. Such an explanation would irrefutably crush the argument and detractors if it were done convincingly. Not sure why we haven't seen that yet.

Look I've already answered your questions GI smoe, otherwise start reading bc I haven't the time to explain HPLCs to every Meso member who has a question.

Crap if you knew half of what you think you do about Muscles, PM, Meso, myself, CBS you would not make such foolish comments about how much CBS has contributed to this forum.

So to that end I don't give a hoot about what you think is "off" bc you've already stated you don't understand HPLCs so you must be one of MH ducks, quack quack!

 

[muscle96ss]

Just to clarify, here is the link again to AS1625-2. If you goto page 7 it was determine that the vial contained 1.86 grams of protein(which is severely underdosed if correct).

https://thinksteroids.com/community/attachments/img001-pdf.16049/

Then in the equation posted by CBS, the 1.86 is simply multiplied by 2 to equate the 2 items since Karl's GH was supposed to be 20iu and the vials tested were 10iu:

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

So, Jims insistance that someone randomely created the exact same number for another sample(AS1625-2) and it couldn't be deleted from the computer looks real shady and not believable. Then add that to the fact that we have no data for this supposed Humatrope sample and I am beginning to wonder what is really going on here.

 

[muscle96ss]

The AS1625-2 linked by Muscles is for a MASS SPEC, not an HPLC. Whether or not the chemist uses similar identifiers for mass specs and HPLCs, or whether or not it was a typo, I have no idea, but in this instance, it's clear that AS1625 is referring to the HPLC's Humatrope standard.

The standard's (AS1625) 3.72 mg/ml concentration and 65,493,455 absorbance data were reported and you know it. You provided the link. Muscles is pretending he can't see it. Why are you giving credibility to Muscles' ridiculous objections instead of correcting his misinformation?

I see you edited your post. Please see my post above as we have no idea where that information was derived from. Please post the lab test where AS1625 was identified as Humatrope and established to be of correct concentration with the numbers posted. Those numbers posted are from Karl's GH and not Humatrope. If you dispute that then prove it. You keep saying the same thing over but leaving out the proof part where we see the data originated.

 

[mands]

The most SIMPLE being, who goes through the expense and trouble to produce or purchase almost pharm grade level gh only to GROSSLY underdose each vial (all brands, all samples). It's easily detectable and would result in shitty gh serum and IGF-1 results which is how these guys "advertise" now. This would just be a silly approach. Second, all the GH serum and IGF testing done seems to counter these massively underdosed result samples.

This is exactly what I was talking to a buddy about this weekend and just recently to @ufcguy32.

It would be most profitable like you are saying G.I Bro to make the GH of a lower purity and overfill than make their GH high purity and under-filled. And of course you are correct if it was lower concentration you wouldn't have the high GH and IGF-1 levels.

mands

 

[CensoredBoardsSuck]

I can guarantee you that @Dr JIM does NOT sell, profit or gain from any Pharm grade GH. I would bet my life on it.

I don't really have any doubt about the monetary interests of detractors here (or PM's generic gh gatekeeper there), yes it's clear. That's still not the issue here.

I'm not saying they are wrong but rather what is causing the good igf-1 scores in the "generic" gh if the concentration is low.

This! I never rejected the findings but I do want to make sense of it all.

So we can all agree that their were no ulterior motives involved with the testing, then. And if that is the case, when can also agree that the test is objective.

What we're left with is a PhD chemist who does these tests every day and a bunch of guys who subjectively believe their's a fault in a test they don't understand because the results don't meet their expectations.

So what are the chances that the PhD chemist - who does these tests every day - got it wrong, but a bunch of guys that probably couldn't pass a high school algebra test are right?

The HPLC data is just a single piece of objective data. It is what it is. Either you accept it or you don't.

 

[muscle96ss]

So we can all agree that their were no ulterior motives involved with the testing, then. And if that is the case, when can also agree that the test is objective.

What we're left with is a PhD chemist who does these tests every day and a bunch of guys who subjectively believe their's a fault in a test they don't understand because the results don't meet their expectations.

So what are the chances that the PhD chemist - who does these tests every day - got it wrong, but a bunch of guys that probably couldn't pass a high school algebra test are right?

The HPLC data is just a single piece of objective data. It is what it is. Either you accept it or you don't.

Quit deflecting and making excuses and answer the damn questions!!

 

[CensoredBoardsSuck]

I see you edited your post. Please see my post above as we have no idea where that information was derived from. Please post the lab test where AS1625 was identified as Humatrope and established to be of correct concentration with the numbers posted. Those numbers posted are from Karl's GH and not Humatrope. If you dispute that then prove it. You keep saying the same thing over but leaving out the proof part where we see the data originated.

Where are those numbers in Karl's GH test? Prove it.

 

[muscle96ss]

Where are those numbers in Karl's GH test? Prove it.

I just explained where the 3.72 came from in a post a few above this one. Please show me where they came from since you are disputing it?

You keep deflecting again without answering the question that has been asked over and over again.

 

[Dr JIM]

I have expressed my concerns to Jim about the concentration. He explained it and I'm still up in there air. To me it doesn't make sense why the biological assays DO NOT jive with the lower concentration data.

I'm not saying they are wrong but rather what is causing the good IGF-1 scores in the "generic" gh if the concentration is low.

mands

Goodness MANDS and I've explained that also. UNFORTUNATELY WE DONT HAVE ANY BIOLOGICS ON THESE SAMPLES FELLA and YOU KNOW THAT!

In addition to several other reasons I posted.

So the only thing that is up in the air is why these manufacturers haven't posted their own data (oh that's right their data won't be trusted will NEITHER is MINE lol) or can't locate one objective legitimate reason why the concentration are in error.

Because they don't correlate with Biologic data, again we don't have any on these samples.

So that being the case this thread is concluded bc the rest is pure semantics, conjecture and or a sales fraud on behalf of MH-96!

Good luck!

 

[muscle96ss]

Where are those numbers in Karl's GH test? Prove it.

The fact that nobody can produce this mysterious Humatrope report and keep making diversions only makes it clearer that it does not exist and something is going on here that is not kosher.

 

[muscle96ss]

Goodness MANDS and I've explained that also. UNFORTUNATELY WE DONT HAVE ANY BIOLOGICS ON THESE SAMPLES FELLA and YOU KNOW THAT!

In addition to several other reasons I posted.

So the only thing that is up in the air is why these manufacturers haven't posted their own data (oh that's right their data won't be trusted will NEITHER is MINE lol) or can't locate one objective legitimate reason why the concentration are in error.

Because they don't correlate with Biologic data, again we don't have any on these samples.

So that being the case this thread is concluded bc the rest is pure semantics, conjecture and or a sales fraud on behalf of MH-96!

See the bold, ARE YOU FUCKING SERIOUS??

 

[CensoredBoardsSuck]

I just explained where the 3.72 came from in a post a few above this one. Please show me where they came from since you are disputing it?

No, you the one making he claim. You show me where 3.72 is listed in Karl's mass spec. Also show me where the absorbance data can be found.

 

[muscle96ss]

Here we go round and round; heading out to see some patients(and sell some grey tops, lmao). Will be back later for more entertainment and to see what the latest diversions are.

 

[mands]

Goodness MANDS and I've explained that also. UNFORTUNATELY WE DONT HAVE ANY BIOLOGICS ON THESE SAMPLES FELLA and YOU KNOW THAT!

In addition to several other reasons I posted.

So the only thing that is up in the air is why these manufacturers haven't posted their own data (oh that's right their data won't be trusted will NEITHER is MINE lol) or can't locate one objective legitimate reason why the concentration are in error.

Because they don't correlate with Biologic data, again we don't have any on these samples.

So that being the case this thread is concluded bc the rest is pure semantics, conjecture and or a sales fraud on behalf of MH-96!

Good luck!

You know me Dr JIM. If something doesn't make sense I keep asking and asking. I understand what you posted but we do have serum and IGF-1 testing on the Grey Tops and we will on the Genotropin @Colt44.

I know you dislike @muscle96ss but he is currently running the same batch from the same kit that was sent in for testing. I didn't realize you had him blocked when he requested to send it on for testing and that he would be getting GH and IGF-1 labs with that batch.

Also, a few members have agreed to get testing done as well.

mands

 

[BigPharma]

With all the back and forth,deflecting and unanswered questions- I was convinced any agenda behind these arguments would be money, but I am beginning to believe Ego and Pride is really what is fucking up these test results... There is to much knowledge,experience and data NOT to be able to answer these questions and come to a conclusion concerning these numbers....

 

[Dr JIM]

You know me Dr JIM. If something doesn't make sense I keep asking and asking. I understand what you posted but we do have serum and IGF-1 testing on the Grey Tops and we will on the Genotropin @Colt44.

I know you dislike @muscle96ss but he is currently running the same batch from the same kit that was sent in for testing. I didn't realize you had him blocked when he requested to send it on for testing and that he would be getting GH and IGF-1 labs with that batch.

Also, a few members have agreed to get testing done as well.

mands

Oh yea a few members "agreed" to do IGF assays early on in this thread but not ONE has posted anything EXCEPT MH, lol!

You say you knew I didn't "like him" are you kidding me I despise that shill bc of what he represents, as a liar, a hypocrite and dirt ball who will do anything to make a buck.

People like him are the very reason mates can't trust anything being sold thru UGLs.

I blocked him hell yes I blocked him about ONE YEAR AGO realizing he had nothing constructive to add to ANY thread, after that fiasco he pulled in Ks Western Bio thread.

And true to form he has proven me correct again having discounted every supposed error he wanted an explanation for, MH now wants me to jump thru more hoops and post standards LMAO! He won't get shit from me bc his criticism are self serving and never ending and I honestly believe your aware of that.

Finally he would like me/us to believe IGF data he has or will post, COL, not a chance in HELL!

Lastly MANDS show me any evidence that directly correlates GH concentration as determined in vitro to an IGF level. Don't bother it doesn't exist bc that's NOT how IGF levels are used in medicine.

Bc the IGF/GH dose response curve varies considerably it's primarily used to titrate the dose of GH required to achieve the desired effect which in most instances is GROWTH VELOCITY IN CHILDREN.

It is NOT used to determine the accuracy of HPLC data period, and to suggest otherwise defines bro science at it's finest.

However we are on Meso an AAS forum where anyone can post their opinions void of logic, reason or objective data to support such claims.

Finally give me one good reason why you ever involved MH in a project you and I agreed to conduct. I'm literally shocked this was done, bc have no doubt, I would have discontinued testing immediately had I known this was the case.

Regs
Jim

 

[muscle96ss]

Thats ok Jim, I love you too!! Perhaps some day you will realize that while we don't like each other, we are on the same team and fighting for the same cause. Mands understands this and knows what I represent. You should trust his judgement. Like I have mentioned many times before, with your lab knowledge and my real world knowledge, if we could find a way to get along; we could become a very powerful weapon against the scammers and help clean up the trash out there.

Mands, can you make sure Jim sees this message and try to mediate a way that Jim and I can communicate outside the public forum; like maybe via e-mail. I think that may be the only way we are going to get a resolution. That is unless someone else who knows Jim can convince him to post the Humatrope lab test; but its obvious that my attempts are not going to be successful at this point.