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

[muscle96ss]

There will be nothing more to discuss after I've displayed the standards. The data is what it is, ACCURATE, and posting the standards will not alter that fact at all!

To that end because defending these results has been a big fat ass waste of my time, should I ever opt to analyze a PED again, (and I suspect I will ) ONLY quantitative and qualitative results will be posted, much like Millard has chosen to do.

The bottom line, people either trust or don't trust those whom are involved in chemical analyses and posting MS, HPLC's, AAA or some Calibration curve will not change that.

Your a classic example of what I'm referring to: you entered Meso believing the data was "in error" and will depart with the same impression!

So much for my peace offering and working together.

Besides its not a matter of trust, its a matter of your conclusions conflict other lab tests, numerous serum and IGF-1 tests, not to mention personal experiences. Why would I believe your lab test over someone elses that shows the grey tops at 11iu's per vial? Is one right, the other wrong? Are they both right? Maybe they are both wrong.

Its great Jim that you are a know-it-all and have the world figured out. However I am not that naive. In addition, I have a real good sense at picking out things that don't add up or that stand out. I call it my 6th sense, its a gift I have had all my life and I have learned to trust my instincts. To me, if something does not make sense, there is usually a reason. So you are confident you are right and I am just as confident that I am right. Lets leave it at that until everything is posted or this thread is just going to go downhill again.

 

[CensoredBoardsSuck]

Lets leave it at that until everything is posted or this thread is just going to go downhill again.

I don't think there's any doubt the thread is going to go downhill again. I expect it will happen as soon as the standard is posted - or shortly thereafter. But you can rest assured it will happen.

 

[Dr JIM]

Yea well your "6th sense" of "picking things out for errors" in this thread has been a miserable failure as is your understanding of analytical chemistry!

That's another FACT, and the most credible "standard" to determine if such an accusation was truthful is posted throughout this thread. What you thought we could be chums or "bro"s bc of some lame "kind diversion" not, bc your tainted reputation preceeds you!

I DON'T TRUST YOU MH AND NEVER WILL, M.H. !

 

[heady muscle]

I guess we'll just take your word on that then...

Someone with your supposed stature and connections could get seros for around $2.75/iu

If Seros was to be had at this price, we wouldn't be having this conversation about Generics.

 

[heady muscle]

You don't see what your connections has to do with the price you pay for a kit... right. If you can't get seros cheaper than $550 I am very sad for you. Very sad.

I'm sad for me.

 

[Rick Kane]

I'm sad for me.

I live just outside of Washington DC and my cost on Seros are no where near what I see others quote. Everyone I know that is scripted for Seros already has buyers lined up.
$600 is what I was offered and only because someone else flaked on the deal. In hindsight I should've bought it.

 

[mands]

This is what I will be posting on the Humatrope standard.
1) The limited data MH requested plus

2) A Mass Spec
3) TWO HPLCS
4) The Calibration Curve
5) The Amino Acid Analysis
6) The Trypsin Cleavage assay

A brief description of the standardization process by the involved chemist will also be included.

That being said, because I never thought much of this information would ever be "needed" and bc these standard assays were conducted over ONE YEAR AGO, I don't carry all of this information in my back pocket where I can post it in "FIVE MINUTES" as MH has stated. Comments of that nature tell me how little he appreciates the amount of time and work this form of testing requires.

(It should/could also enlighten A FEW other interested parties about just how short Karl's Western Bio "standard" analyses were, but that was to be expected, IME)

I'm sure some want "more" or will never appreciate the results, but that's just to damn bad bc thereafter this thread will be completed from my perspective!

FYI
The combined out of pocket costs for all the above tests close to THREE GRAND, and for anyone to spend that kind of money on an UNKNOWN sample like Karl's GH when they have access to a prescription product would be absolutely NUTS!

(But then again people who make such accusations haven't the faintest idea about what they are talking about and that SHOULD BE OBVIOUS!)

Regs
Jim

Please post all the data on the new standard Genotropin if you would please.

Thanks,

mands

 

[muscle96ss]

Please post all the data on the new standard Genotropin if you would please.

Thanks,

mands

Is the Genotropin standard going to be used to for purity only or is it going to be used for calculating concentration as well?

 

[mands]

Is the Genotropin standard going to be used to for purity only or is it going to be used for calculating concentration as well?

I will have to look at the summary. I believe it will be if it's the new standard. Dr JIM can answer that though.

mands

 

[Colt44]

Please post all the data on the new standard Genotropin if you would please.

Thanks,

mands

And maybe the Genotropin sample I sent in. Seeing how I'm the only one that is actually following up with biologic assays. I don't think it's too much to ask.

 

[muscle96ss]

I will have to look at the summary. I believe it will be if it's the new standard. Dr JIM can answer that though.

mands

The reason I asked is because when looking at the data it is actually underdosed at roughly the same percentage as the generics tested. I had brought this up many pages earlier and CBS speculated that it would then only be used for purity. Either way, considering its underdosed, its obviously not an authentic untampered with sample of Pfizer's Genotropin. Now Jim is correct in that I don't know what is necessary to qualify a standard. However, I don't need to know anything about analytical chemistry to know that it doesn't make any sense to use a counterfeit product as your standard.

So Jim, can you elaborate on why the underdosed Genotropin was decided to be the new standard?

 

[mands]

The reason I asked is because when looking at the data it is actually underdosed at roughly the same percentage as the generics tested. I had brought this up many pages earlier and CBS speculated that it would then only be used for purity. Either way, considering its underdosed, its obviously not an authentic untampered with sample of Pfizer's Genotropin. Now Jim is correct in that I don't know what is necessary to qualify a standard. However, I don't need to know anything about analytical chemistry to know that it doesn't make any sense to use a counterfeit product as your standard.

So Jim, can you elaborate on why the underdosed Genotropin was decided to be the new standard?

I believe the standard was only off .07mg than what Genotropin states when mg's were measured.

mands

 

[CensoredBoardsSuck]

I had brought this up many pages earlier and CBS speculated that it would then only be used for purity.

CBS said no such thing. Please don't put words in my mouth.

 

[muscle96ss]

I believe the standard was only off .07mg than what Genotropin states when mg were measured.

mands

Actually the Genotropin came in at 2.4mg using the equation posted. If you switch out the equation and use the Genotropin as the standard for concentration the calculations for all the Chinese Gh's comes to over 9iu per vial. I am looking for the posts where this was discussed earlier.

 

[mands]

Actually the Genotropin came in at 2.4mg using the equation posted. If you switch out the equation and use the Genotropin as the standard for concentration the calculations for all the Chinese Gh's comes to over 9iu per vial. I am looking for the posts where this was discussed earlier.

I was referring to the summary of each sample and the two standards.

https://thinksteroids.com/community...s-rhgh-results.134364512/page-10#post-1349952

mands

 

[muscle96ss]

I was referring to the summary of each sample and the two standards.

https://thinksteroids.com/community...s-rhgh-results.134364512/page-10#post-1349952

mands

Yes, it says that in the summary, but if you calculate it using the equation used for all the other tests:

{3.72 mg/ml / 65,493,455} x 42,397,387 = 2.41 mg/ml

So it really contains 2.41mg/ml. which is 45% of what it should.

 

[muscle96ss]

CBS said no such thing. Please don't put words in my mouth.

My bad, it was actually weighted-chin up so stated that it might only be used in the HPLC.

 

[Dr JIM]

Please post all the data on the new standard Genotropin if you would please.

Thanks,

mands

Sorry I've listed what will be posted and will not waste any more time with this thread esp for a standard that was used for only four MS.

No more hoops for me, it ends NOW, good luck!

 

[mands]

Sorry I've listed what will be posted and will not waste any more time with this thread esp for a standard that was used for only four MS.

No more hoops for me, good luck!

So, it's not going to be the new standard as you stated?

Okay bud! Whatever you think is necessary.

mands

 

[Dr JIM]

Yes, it says that in the summary, but if you calculate it using the equation used for all the other tests:

{3.72 mg/ml / 65,493,455} x 42,397,387 = 2.41 mg/ml

So it really contains 2.41mg/ml. which is 45% of what it should.

Would that HPLC TYPO even if true alter the Gentropin MS results MH?