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

New Member here.
I must thank the forum and its members for providing these tests and allowing them to be viewed by all. These are extremely valuable so please take your time to be sure they are properly reported.
As only an observer i have been through the thread a few times.
Why not blow a call into the lab or a e-mail, forget all the computations and calculations and ask the Lab to address how many MGS.of HGH are in each Vial. this is there area of expertise and can probably do it in there sleep in 5 mins. get it on there letterhead paste them up and go from there. Better yet pass the info off to M96ss as it looks like he is a solid member here and deeply involved in getting thiss testing correct, allow him to do the leg work.
I am sure he would much rather tap out a few question there then continue the banter that he is currently engaged in....

Peace......
 
^^^^^ "Having been through the thread a few times", BUCKY believes M-96 is a "solid Meso member" yet still asks a question about the concentration of GH in each vial? COL

Now GI schmoe do you see why I haven't the time to address the "questions of laymen" bc this poor fella is either joking, has dyslexia, ADD or perhaps is a MH duckling! Quack Quack lol!
 
Last edited:
^^^^^ "Having been through the thread a few times", BUCKY believes M-96 is a "solid Meso member" yet still asks a question about the concentration of GH in each vial? COL

Now GI schmoe do you see why I haven't the time to address the "questions of laymen" bc this poor fella is either joking, has dyslexia, ADD or perhaps is a MH duckling! Quack Quack lol!


Buck posted his GH serums from the gray tops on ProMuscle. They're not impressive. In fact, some might even say they're right in line with what one would expect from injecting 4 IUs.

Serums from Karl's world famous 99.44% pure "pharm grade" GH were unimpressive as well.


"Need a sec to xplain my testing. I test to test the tester, test the test, and test the HGH. I claim my peak @ 2:30 ( i have done several of these to come up with this) this time out i did 3 tests on the Reds. So to test the tester which is I. I did the tests @ 2:19 ,2:35, and 2:49. Peak came in early this time for some reason just being human I guess...
Now to test the test All 3 draws from the same vial so there should be some consistence in the results which there is and it shows. The conclusion can be made that its showing the HGH is being processed and the number diminishes as time elapses. And to test the HGH well no xplination necessary.
My point is I get alot more info out of 3 tests at once than I do 3 separate tests of the same product..
"


Sciroxx Soma's
3/14/15
13.8 @ 2:15
14.1 @ 2:30
12.8 @ 2:45

Sciroxx Soma's
3/19/15
20.4 @ 2:29


TP Grey's 10iu's except as noted
4/25/15
13.3 @ 2:17
13.9 @ 2:31
13.5 @ 2:48

5/16/15
15.0 @ 2:33

6/13/15
14.7 @ 2:35

6/22/15 20iu's
32.5 @ 2:40

http://www.professionalmuscle.com/forums/sponsors/118858-hgh-testing-145.html#post2158729
 
TEN IUs of GH and what we get is a range bt 10 to 15, impressive NOT, golly I wonder how impressive Big Bucks IGF results would have been.

I don't know but I wonder how MH would extrapolate these results; bad batch, lab error, individual variance or the HPLC results were in ERROR.

Why heck that batch of GH tested out at 3.32mg/ml on "our" HPLC device so "something isn't right here", no shit MH LMAO!

Hey thanks BUCKY/CBS you just added more credibility to my comments about why in-vitro and in-vivo caparisons are sketchy at best, or you just proved Ks Western Bio GH was under dosed considerably,

You pick which one it is and please obtain "Muscles" (better known as Meat Head around these parts IMO) bc of the type of explanations your about to receive by PM, haha!
 
Last edited:
I'm really hoping we can get some closure on this thread soon and get some Igf labs from the people who submitted samples.

As it stands, I think I'm going to have to recommend not only for myself but for everyone trying to keep pace to take an 800mg Motrin and a few shots of tequila every time you come back to this thread for updates.
 
Last edited:
Closure well fella if your suggesting MH will ever accept these results as genuine and reflective of the GH concentration in those vials you don't understand the meaning of AN AGENDA!

Rest assured it will matter not how much evidence I post whether it's the HPLC of the standards, or the analyses (standards) needed to certify the standard being used, (which I also have an Amino Acid Analysis and a Trypsin Frag Analysis) it will not satisfy MH, bc doing that DISCREDITS products being sold by PM vendors and quite possibly MH-96 himself.

So ultimately people will have to decide for themselves what to think using criteria they believe most important based on the evidence whether it's subjective OR objective.

I honestly have no dog in this race and NEVER have, so it really matters not to me what conclusions Meso members make.

Why do I no longer "care" what Meso members believe?

Because the truth is a "high" GH concentration like that which is on the label will make most GH users question the assays, and if the concentration is to "low" the UGL will question the analyses and Dr Jim is stuck in the middle, NO THANKS!
 
Last edited:
Closure well fella if your suggesting MH will ever accept these results as genuine and reflective of the GH concentration in those vials you don't understand the meaning of AN AGENDA!

Rest assured it will matter not how much evidence I post whether it's the HPLC of the standards, or the analyses (standards) needed to certify the standard being used, (which I also have an Amino Acid Analysis and a Trypsin Frag Analysis) it will not satisfy MH, bc doing that DISCREDITS products being sold by PM vendors and quite possibly MH-96 himself.

So ultimately people will have to decide for themselves what to think using criteria they believe most important based on the evidence whether it's subjective OR objective.

I honestly have no dog in this race and NEVER have, so it really matters not to me what conclusions Meso members make.

Trust me @Dr JIM I get it. I did product testing for years in which less than favorable results were questioned. It's funny, they never questioned average to above average results much, only the shitty ones. Actually them not questioning results always made life so much easier..lol

For you it's even worse as you went out of your way to obtain the information for us here at Meso. The results are what they are. Take from it what you will. If you do not like them or agree with them, then take the time, money, to get your own results done to challenge what has been put forth.

With that said I can appreciate @muscle96ss and what he brings to the thread. I have always believed in having a devils advocate no matter what. Motives, agenda's, blah blah blah, doesn't matter as long as it gets people thinking. Do we really want people to blindly accept what is put in front of us? If we do just blindly accept without at the very least trying to understand the process then we are right back where we started.
 
Oh I absolutely agree with your devils advocate position bc I am often involved in such questioning.

There is one HUGE difference in this instance however which is MOTIVE or AGENDA of those performing analytical testing of PEDs, especially one as profitable as generic GH apparently is.

I performed these tests for Meso members as an objective mechanism to use should they decide to make a GH purchase also wanting to know if I could uncover the cause of the musculoskeletal symptoms many mates complain of when using generic GH.

I've no connection to any lab whatsoever especially one that sells GH and damn sure don't sell Pharm GH as MH blindly suggested.

So as I've said I've no dog in this race zip, ziltch, zero and never have. Moreover not one person has ever paid me for performing analyses of this nature, period, and I've never asked.

I only am looking for the truth but I know some find that impossible to believe thinking EVERYONE has some sort of angle they are working as a means to an ends, a financial windfall or gain if you will.

So the real issue is people like MH just can't appreciate any form of altruism and likely believe it's some form of aberrant character flaw, bc it just doesn't compute since their only motive is to PROFIT !
 
Last edited:
Buck posted his GH serums from the gray tops on ProMuscle. They're not impressive. In fact, some might even say they're right in line with what one would expect from injecting 4 IUs.

Serums from Karl's world famous 99.44% pure "pharm grade" GH were unimpressive as well.


"Need a sec to xplain my testing. I test to test the tester, test the test, and test the HGH. I claim my peak @ 2:30 ( i have done several of these to come up with this) this time out i did 3 tests on the Reds. So to test the tester which is I. I did the tests @ 2:19 ,2:35, and 2:49. Peak came in early this time for some reason just being human I guess...
Now to test the test All 3 draws from the same vial so there should be some consistence in the results which there is and it shows. The conclusion can be made that its showing the HGH is being processed and the number diminishes as time elapses. And to test the HGH well no xplination necessary.
My point is I get alot more info out of 3 tests at once than I do 3 separate tests of the same product..
"


Sciroxx Soma's
3/14/15
13.8 @ 2:15
14.1 @ 2:30
12.8 @ 2:45

Sciroxx Soma's
3/19/15
20.4 @ 2:29


TP Grey's 10iu's except as noted
4/25/15
13.3 @ 2:17
13.9 @ 2:31
13.5 @ 2:48

5/16/15
15.0 @ 2:33

6/13/15
14.7 @ 2:35

6/22/15 20iu's
32.5 @ 2:40

http://www.professionalmuscle.com/forums/sponsors/118858-hgh-testing-145.html#post2158729

CBS, let me address you ignorance and hypocrisy that is glaring from your post. First, I find it ironic that you guys have called serum GH's worthless yet now in your latest post, you are able to tell how much GH is in a vial by a serum test. Well which is it, you can't have it both ways?

Secondly, let me first tell you a little bit about buck. He has been a selfless contributor to the GH Testing thread on PM and has done some crazy experiments like the data you posted. That is when doing a serum, sometimes he will take 3 tests in the same day to see where his peak is. From that he has learned that his individual peak is actually at around 2:30 which is different than most. That is $130 he is spending out of his own pocket per set of tests just for his own curiosity and to contribute. Buck is also what we call a low responder. What that means is his scores are much lower than the norm on ALL serum tests her performs; including pharm GH. Something I have mentioned before in this thread, that you obviously have ignored, is that comparing serum GH scores from one individual to the next is meaningless because of individual variability. However, comparing scores within an individual is extremely meaningful. For example if you look at the serum scores I have posted and then look at the corresponding IGF-1 levels for that same GH, you will see a distinct pattern. So when you look at a serum score you need to look at that individuals body of work to get the true meaning of what that score represents. What you have done is taken a small slice of someone's work and falsely interpreted it due to your ignorance on the subject. So, perhaps you should do more research before you comment on a subject you know very little about.

CBS, why do you guys continue to attack everyone who questions the reports in an attempt to invalidate their questions; rather than just answer the questions? Why have you still not posted this mysterious original Humatrope lab that was accidentally and ironically named identical to Karl's GH as AS1625-2? Perhaps because it doesn't exist! Prove me wrong and instead of researching buck to invalidate his questions, spend the time to find this report!!!
 
Buck posted his GH serums from the gray tops on ProMuscle. They're not impressive. In fact, some might even say they're right in line with what one would expect from injecting 4 IUs.

Serums from Karl's world famous 99.44% pure "pharm grade" GH were unimpressive as well.


"Need a sec to xplain my testing. I test to test the tester, test the test, and test the HGH. I claim my peak @ 2:30 ( i have done several of these to come up with this) this time out i did 3 tests on the Reds. So to test the tester which is I. I did the tests @ 2:19 ,2:35, and 2:49. Peak came in early this time for some reason just being human I guess...
Now to test the test All 3 draws from the same vial so there should be some consistence in the results which there is and it shows. The conclusion can be made that its showing the HGH is being processed and the number diminishes as time elapses. And to test the HGH well no xplination necessary.
My point is I get alot more info out of 3 tests at once than I do 3 separate tests of the same product..
"


Sciroxx Soma's
3/14/15
13.8 @ 2:15
14.1 @ 2:30
12.8 @ 2:45

Sciroxx Soma's
3/19/15
20.4 @ 2:29


TP Grey's 10iu's except as noted
4/25/15
13.3 @ 2:17
13.9 @ 2:31
13.5 @ 2:48

5/16/15
15.0 @ 2:33

6/13/15
14.7 @ 2:35

6/22/15 20iu's
32.5 @ 2:40

http://www.professionalmuscle.com/forums/sponsors/118858-hgh-testing-145.html#post2158729
Yaayyy CBS You just proved what we have been saying all along. Gh serum levels are an individual case by case basis and can't be used to show concentration of the actual GH. Thank you for proving my point.

He's obviously a low responder and I don't believe peak time is at 2:30 hour mark(maybe for him). It's always been 3 hours for the majority.

IGF-1 levels are what we need.

mands
 
CBS, let me address you ignorance and hypocrisy that is glaring from your post. First, I find it ironic that you guys have called serum GH's worthless yet now in your latest post, you are able to tell how much GH is in a vial by a serum test. Well which is it, you can't have it both ways?

Secondly, let me first tell you a little bit about buck. He has been a selfless contributor to the GH Testing thread on PM and has done some crazy experiments like the data you posted. That is when doing a serum, sometimes he will take 3 tests in the same day to see where his peak is. From that he has learned that his individual peak is actually at around 2:30 which is different than most. That is $130 he is spending out of his own pocket per set of tests just for his own curiosity and to contribute. Buck is also what we call a low responder. What that means is his scores are much lower than the norm on ALL serum tests her performs; including pharm GH. Something I have mentioned before in this thread, that you obviously have ignored, is that comparing serum GH scores from one individual to the next is meaningless because of individual variability. However, comparing scores within an individual is extremely meaningful. For example if you look at the serum scores I have posted and then look at the corresponding IGF-1 levels for that same GH, you will see a distinct pattern. So when you look at a serum score you need to look at that individuals body of work to get the true meaning of what that score represents. What you have done is taken a small slice of someone's work and falsely interpreted it due to your ignorance on the subject. So, perhaps you should do more research before you comment on a subject you know very little about.

CBS, why do you guys continue to attack everyone who questions the reports in an attempt to invalidate their questions; rather than just answer the questions? Why have you still not posted this mysterious original Humatrope lab that was accidentally and ironically named identical to Karl's GH as AS1625-2? Perhaps because it doesn't exist! Prove me wrong and instead of researching buck to invalidate his questions, spend the time to find this report!!!
Posting at the same time on this one.

mands
 
TEN IUs of GH and what we get is a range bt 10 to 15, impressive NOT, golly I wonder how impressive Big Bucks IGF results would have been.

I don't know but I wonder how MH would extrapolate these results; bad batch, lab error, individual variance or the HPLC results were in ERROR.

Why heck that batch of GH tested out at 3.32mg/ml on "our" HPLC device so "something isn't right here", no shit MH LMAO!

Hey thanks BUCKY/CBS you just added more credibility to my comments about why in-vitro and in-vivo caparisons are sketchy at best, or you just proved Ks Western Bio GH was under dosed considerably,

You pick which one it is and please obtain "Muscles" (better known as Meat Head around these parts IMO) bc of the type of explanations your about to receive by PM, haha!

Well Jim since you asked, his IGF-1 scores have been close to 300 on 2 occasions at 3.3iu per day. Thats a pretty good score considering he is an old fart like me(actually older) with a shriveled up liver(inside joke). I don't think that would be possible on 1.3iu per day which would be his dosage if the vials were 4iu.

So thanks Jim for proving the opposite of what you were just trying to prove. Just another example of more deflections and ignorance.
 
TEN IUs of GH and what we get is a range bt 10 to 15, impressive NOT, golly I wonder how impressive Big Bucks IGF results would have been.

I don't know but I wonder how MH would extrapolate these results; bad batch, lab error, individual variance or the HPLC results were in ERROR.

Why heck that batch of GH tested out at 3.32mg/ml on "our" HPLC device so "something isn't right here", no shit MH LMAO!

Hey thanks BUCKY/CBS you just added more credibility to my comments about why in-vitro and in-vivo caparisons are sketchy at best, or you just proved Ks Western Bio GH was under dosed considerably,

You pick which one it is and please obtain "Muscles" (better known as Meat Head around these parts IMO) bc of the type of explanations your about to receive by PM, haha!

I Did not come to irritate or agitate anyone. If you care to draw conclusions from my testing feel free However do it as a whole as there are IGF-1 tests as well, including a Pharma.
M96ss has many years as he stated on many HGh (Gen.- Pharmas) and to numerous tests to count. I would think just by accident he or anyone eles would have came across a close to properly dosed vial somewhere in those years.... Seems pretty far fetched that it never appeared even though there are other HPLC/MS tests that shows they are out there..... there are Other lab tests that are in conflict with what is reported here so again we should see i wide range of Serums and IGF-1 scores if 1 brand is 1 MG. and another is 4.7.
I agree that the type of testing HPLC MS is by far a Superior method but 1 should support the other if they do not you would have to agree something is off.whether thats our test methods or the attempt here. I think it is worth a closer look, why leave any shadow of doubt IMO. Not to prove anyone wrong but to prove everything is correct.
I xpect to be ball batted around some more not sure the reasoning other than differing views.
Liver , like a dried out old catchers Mitt.would be the quote Sir.


Peace....
 
Well at any rate, I'm going to test igf end of next week. I'll be 2 days shy of 4 weeks. That should be sufficient. I've been pinning 6iu(compensating for a 50% concentration) every day.

Definitely going to drop my dose after testing. These Genos have my hands and joints screaming.

If anything, this will at least give us more data. Never a bad thing. Hopefully the others that comitted to this testing will following suit.
 
The "real GH" you are referring to here you just stated was vials of something being sold illegally direct to people. That just makes it more black market stuff in vials. I can buy any amount of illegal things in vials today too, doesn't serve as proof of anything other than the availability of vials of stuff purporting to be drugs.

Yet, you are using illegal sales from the Chinese to state that actual regulated, tested, and legitimate drugs sold by pharmacies are over priced. Doesn't follow.

Please forgive if I don't find that to be proof of a thing other than that the Chinese have enjoyed making money off illegal sales of substances with unverifiable contents for a few decades.
.

You're an idiot if you think legit Rx Pharmaceuticals you buy from pharmacy legally in the US are not over priced...and illegal sold black market goods doesn't automatically mean it's bunk. Damn this is such an aggravating thread full of misinformation...people read stuff from a Mod or well respected member on one forum and it becomes law, spreading like wildfire everywhere without any claims being substantiated!
 
I can't believe that I'm about to indulge you with this.

The high costs associated with the purification of rhGH and other biopharmaceuticals during the manufacturing process is well known to anyone who is even remotely familiar it.

The fact that you are willing to throw out matter-of-fact statements like "People that keep insisting that GH is so expensive to manufacture, do not understand the industry. The actual cost of the machinery to initially start a factory is very expensive. But once you have the machinery, the cost is quite inexpensive." is proof that it is you who does not understand the industry. Either that or you are intentionally trying to obfuscate the issue because of an agenda.

That we are still having this ridiculous discussion is absurd. By now it should be perfectly clear to any thinking person that this cockamamie idea of so-called generic Chinese GH being readily available at an affordable price, is a fantasy. The black market Chinese GH sellers/manufactures are expert alchemists, but I assure you the only thing they're turning into gold is the cash from desperate and ignorant buyers. Keep the dream alive, Muscles96.


BioMed Research International
Volume 2013 (2013), Article ID 312709, 18 pages

Review Article
Preparative Purification of Recombinant Proteins: Current Status and Future Trends
Mayank Saraswat, Luca Musante, Alessandra Ravidá, Brian Shortt, Barry Byrne, and Harry Holthofer

Abstract

Advances in fermentation technologies have resulted in the production of increased yields of proteins of economic, biopharmaceutical, and medicinal importance. Consequently, there is an absolute requirement for the development of rapid, cost-effective methodologies which facilitate the purification of such products in the absence of contaminants, such as superfluous proteins and endotoxins. Here, we provide a comprehensive overview of a selection of key purification methodologies currently being applied in both academic and industrial settings and discuss how innovative and effective protocols such as aqueous two-phase partitioning, membrane chromatography, and high-performance tangential flow filtration may be applied independently of or in conjunction with more traditional protocols for downstream processing applications.

"...Furthermore, escalating demands for increased protein titres, primarily for economic reasons, have shifted the bottleneck step from production to purification, with downstream processes (inclusive of purification) representing between 45 and 92% of the total cost of manufacturing a recombinant protein [4, 5]. Hence, devising an efficient and economical purification strategy is a key challenge and one which is faced by industrial and, to a lesser extent, by academic laboratories."


Journal of Bioscience and Bioengineering
Volume 99, Issue 4, April 2005, Pages 303–310

Review
Solubilization and refolding of bacterial inclusion body proteins
Surinder Mohan Singh, Amulya Kumar Pand

Inclusion bodies produced in Escherichia coli are composed of densely packed denatured protein molecules in the form of particles. Refolding of inclusion body proteins into bioactive forms is cumbersome, results in poor recovery and accounts for the major cost in production of recombinant proteins from E. coli. With new information available on the structure and function of protein aggregates in bacterial inclusion bodies, it has been possible to develop improved solubilization and refolding procedures for higher recovery of bioactive protein. Inclusion bodies are formed from partially folded protein intermediates and are composed of aggregates of mostly single types of polypeptide. This helps to isolate and purify the protein aggregates to homogeneity before solubilization and refolding. Proteins inside inclusion body aggregates have native-like secondary structures. It is assumed that restoration of this native-like secondary structure using mild solubilization conditions will help in improved recovery of bioactive protein in comparison to solubilization using a high concentration of chaotropic agent. Analysis of the dominant forces causing aggregation during inclusion body formation provides information to develop suitable mild solubilization procedures for inclusion body proteins. Refolding from such solubilized protein will be very high due to restoration of native-like secondary structure. Human growth hormone inclusion bodies were purified to homogeneity from E. coli cells before solubilization and refolding. Pure inclusion bodies were solubilized at alkaline pH in the presence of 2 M urea solution. The solubilized proteins were refolded using a pulsatile renaturation process and subsequently purified using chromatographic procedures. More than 40% of the inclusion body proteins could be refolded back to the bioactive native conformation. Mild solubilization is thus the key for high recovery of bioactive protein from inclusion bodies.


The Journal of Biological Chemistry, 276, 46856-46863. December 14, 2001
High Pressure Refolding of Recombinant Human Growth Hormone from Insoluble Aggregates STRUCTURAL TRANSFORMATIONS, KINETIC BARRIERS, AND ENERGETICS*
Richard J. St. John, John F. Carpenter, Claude Balny, Theodore W. Randolph

"... Frequently, after extensive research, refolding yields remain too low to justify commercial product recovery with chemical refolding methods. In addition, low protein concentrations needed for acceptable refolding yields lead to large processing volumes and require large quantities of toxic, corrosive chaotropes, with high associated purchase and disposal costs."




Would cheap 192aa hgh which is readily available in China be the likely substitute in generic chinese hgh that is suppose to be 191aa. Cause doesn't 192aa mimic it, and elevate serum gh, and igf like real 191aa hgh? Thus the occasional little red burning bumps, 192aa is associated with sometimes causing
 
Would cheap 192aa hgh which is readily available in China be the likely substitute in generic chinese hgh that is suppose to be 191aa. Cause doesn't 192aa mimic it, and elevate serum gh, and igf like real 191aa hgh? Thus the occasional little red burning bumps, 192aa is associated with sometimes causing
192 was used early on and it will elevate igf levels.
 
Yaayyy CBS You just proved what we have been saying all along. Gh serum levels are an individual case by case basis and can't be used to show concentration of the actual GH. Thank you for proving my point.

He's obviously a low responder and I don't believe peak time is at 2:30 hour mark(maybe for him). It's always been 3 hours for the majority.

IGF-1 levels are what we need.

mands

Oh I don't know if a "low responder" is necessarily causative in this instance bc we are not talking about a metabolic process such as the physiologic production and secretion of IGF.

ALL Pharm studies I'm aware of show the peak GH is between 2-3 hours (closer to 3) and the correlation to the dose used although poor, bc it can be much higher, should reveal at least a doubling or tripling of baseline value.

However Bucky's level barely matched his dose in IUs, now that means the most likely cause is either an under dosed product or one of poor quality in my book.

Regs
Jim
 
Side effects are interesting that are stated here:
http://www.anabolic.org/growth-hormone-somatropin/
 
Back
Top