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

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

Okay bud! Whatever you think is necessary.

mands

New standard was only used to differentiate the "old" HT standard from the "new" Gen standard.

Bc there is NO WAY anyone would continue to post "new" GH data based on the negativism, doubts and accusations, that "something is in error" about the data on this thread.

You fellas want to continue to dispute the data, be my guest but that being the case why did you ever ask me to conduct these tests if you didn't trust me MANDS!
 
Last edited:
New standard was only used to differentiate the "old" HT standard from the "new" Gen standard.

Bc there is NO WAY anyone would continue to post "new" GH data based on the negativism, doubts and accusations, that "something is in error" on this thread.

You fellas want to continue to dispute the data, be my guest but that being the case why did you ever ask me to conduct these tests if you didn't trust me MANDS!
So what was the concentration of the Genetropin DR JIM if you aren't going to post the data.

I trust you man I never said I didn't and me asking questions is being thorough not having any distrust. Hell your chemist might of made a mistake like he did by naming Karl's original sample the same as the standard. I mean seriously.

FUCK I don't know what to think. I know you would be questioning these things if in reverse.

On another note... Why did I ask you? I believe you came to me about them and wanted help and we agreed on what should happen. Why does that even matter anyways. You obviously think I'm against you. I'M NOT!!!!

mands
 
WRONG I've learned to question those that have a reason to lie, or vacillate when ask direct questions because of one or several deviations from what is considered routine practice in analytical chemistry.

And of course the reason they NEVER respond to my questions except thru deflections or mentioning I have an "ego problem" is bc THEY HAVE AN AGENDA.

Here I'll give some examples; Karl's GH data was never confirmed as legit and he's hiding at PM having NEVER posted what your asking me to reveal.

Naps has never posted ONE standard.

Heck NOT ONE UGL on this forum with data, and that is few and far between, has posted a standard.

Heck not even Millard has revealed ANY analytical data MANDS.

So tell me what's my agenda that I would post TEN BOGUS ASSAYS?

Moreover every one of yours and MHs questions have been answered, although I suspect both of you believe my explanations were less than satisfactory, such as "IGF LEVELS"

See the latter is really the basis for yours and MHs argument "something is wrong" with this data. But the truth of the matter is the notion IGF levels can be utilized to determine GH dosing on an individual basis is simply flawed. Although this along with GH levels has been propagated on UGL as the best "cheap mans" substitute for an HPLC quantitative analysis, it's pure unsubstantiated bro science.

Is it at all surprising then the only place where such ideas are concocted are on PED forums rather than analytical research articles.

Nope bc it's more of the same bro science used by many in the UGL business to confuse and confabulate customers about the quality of the products being sold.

Finally bc the few naysayers on this thread are CONVINCED something is wrong with this data they have not even considered other factors or variables which could account for "the differences" AS I HAVE DONE!

I do wish you well .
 
Last edited:
New standard was only used to differentiate the "old" HT standard from the "new" Gen standard.

Bc there is NO WAY anyone would continue to post "new" GH data based on the negativism, doubts and accusations, that "something is in error" about the data on this thread.

You fellas want to continue to dispute the data, be my guest but that being the case why did you ever ask me to conduct these tests if you didn't trust me MANDS!

Come on Jim, when undertaking this project, you had to be smart enough to know that no matter what the results were, some people were going to question them. For instance, if you had posted that the samples were all 9.45iu, there would still be some people that questioned that and wanted more info. Or for instance, ironically, I still have a hard time believing that the greys and other Chinese GH's are 99% pure. Maybe middle 90's or a tad higher, but 99%, although possible, is hard to believe. So the questions that have been asked are all legitimate questions and should have been anticipated on your part.

In addition, they are all simple questions; i.e. what was the original sample of Humatrope(5mg vial, 12mg cartridge, etc..). Had you not been so evasive and had you not avoided answering these questions; none of this circus would have ensued. This whole fiasco was created by your refusal to help everyone fully understand your tests. I have published studies and presented research at national conference before. As a part of that, my research team had to field many critics and many questions; its all part of the game. Had I refused to answer questions or dodged them and developed an attitude like yours, nobody would ever take my research seriously. So I am not sure what your purpose is for performing these tests and making them public, yet then refusing to make sure they are clearly understood.
 
The chemist did not make a "mistake" MANDS and I've never suggested he did.

The alpha-numeric code the chemist used was identical to Karl's sample EXCEPT the last digit. Thus Karl's sample would have been labeled something like AS1625-1 and the standard AS1625-2. (I believe that's the code but I'm not LOOKING at it!)

If you look at the samples posted you will see this was the chemists code NORM for samples analyzed at roughly the same time.

However I do believe it would have been optimal for any standard and/or sample to have ENTIRELY DIFFERENT lab codes. But that's HIS DECISION and not mine.

However for you to suggest this typo, if your wanting to call it that, is similar to a chemist, (with well over TWENTY YEARS of experience) to suddenly develop incompetence on order with a first year technician and completely overlook such a major fuck up on all eleven samples, over the course of several MONTHS, I'd suggest you thoroughly investigate a tier one lab certification process.
 
I want to thank all who have participated in this thread, entertaining and very informative. Might mean little to you guys but I have learned quite a bit from this thread and the one over at PM(Thanks muscle96ss).

Thank you for your contributions and helping many of us understand this just a little better.
 
So tell me what's my agenda that I would post TEN BOGUS ASSAYS?

Moreover every one of yours and MHs questions have been answered, although I suspect both of you believe my explanations were less than satisfactory, such as "IGF LEVELS"

See the latter is really the basis for yours and MHs argument "something is wrong" with this data. But the truth of the matter is the notion IGF levels can be utilized to determine GH dosing on an individual basis is simply flawed. Although this along with GH levels has been propagated on UGL as the best "cheap mans" substitute for an HPLC quantitative analysis, it's pure unsubstantiated bro science.

Nobody is accusing you of posting bogus assays. We simply want to make sure that an honest mistake didn't happen. You are human right? So don't give me this line about there isn't a possibility of an error.

Secondly, my questions have clearly not been answered. I have stated in this thread NUMEROUS times what my concerns were and they have NEVER been addressed. Had they been addressed I wouldn't be here right now and your readers wouldn't think we are at a stalemate.

Lastly, if you want to have a discussion on serum GH's and IGF-1's then send me a private message and we can discuss it in more detail. I don't think you realize the amount of data I have personally collected as well as the amount of data I have seen from other unbiased sources. To not consider that data would be ignorant.
 
The alpha-numeric code the chemist used was identical to Karl's sample EXCEPT the last digit.

BOTH the standard and Karl's GH are labeled AS1625-2. There is no different last digit Jim, they are EXACTLY the same. What are the odds of that happening. Perhaps someone should play the lottery. Prove that they are different if that is your stance!!
 
Come on Jim, when undertaking this project, you had to be smart enough to know that no matter what the results were, some people were going to question them. For instance, if you had posted that the samples were all 9.45iu, there would still be some people that questioned that and wanted more info. Or for instance, ironically, I still have a hard time believing that the greys and other Chinese GH's are 99% pure. Maybe middle 90's or a tad higher, but 99%, although possible, is hard to believe. So the questions that have been asked are all legitimate questions and should have been anticipated on your part.

In addition, they are all simple questions; i.e. what was the original sample of Humatrope(5mg vial, 12mg cartridge, etc..). Had you not been so evasive and had you not avoided answering these questions; none of this circus would have ensued. This whole fiasco was created by your refusal to help everyone fully understand your tests. I have published studies and presented research at national conference before. As a part of that, my research team had to field many critics and many questions; its all part of the game. Had I refused to answer questions or dodged them and developed an attitude like yours, nobody would ever take my research seriously. So I am not sure what your purpose is for performing these tests and making them public, yet then refusing to make sure they are clearly understood.

Well I disagree bc you and MH both have insisted something is wrong with the data bc of flawed logic.

And you just posted one example ! You still find it hard to believe the greys and other Chinese GH products are 99% pure!

( I really wasn't sure what to believe but I've confidence in the chemist, the lab and those around him to believe such is the case for those samples analyzed)

Really? Give me ONE EVIDENCE BASED reason WHY MANDS?

See that's the difference by you and me in this regard. You are willing to rely on your own experience and that of others (in addition to random IGF data) to formulate a conclusion and question any data before you.

I do NOT bc the proof lied in the pudding fella bc then it's not influenced by agendas, MONEY, personal preferences etc.

And to be honest that's why I KNOW no matter what I post you and MH will insist the data Jim has posted is flawed. !
 
Well I disagree bc you and MH both have insisted something is wrong with the data bc of flawed logic.

And you just posted one example ! You still find it hard to believe the greys and other Chinese GH products are 99% pure!

Really? Give me ONE EVIDENCE BASED reason WHY MANDS?

See that's the difference by you and me in this regard. You are willing to rely on your own experience and that of others (in addition to random IGF data) to formulate a conclusion and question any data before you.

I do NOT bc the proof lied in the pudding fella bc then it's not influenced by agendas, MONEY, personal preferences etc.

And to be honest that's why I KNOW no matter what I post you and MH will insist the data Jim has posted is flawed. !

I think you have me and mands confused, I posted that, not mands!
 
BOTH the standard and Karl's GH are labeled AS1625-2. There is no different last digit Jim, they are EXACTLY the same. What are the odds of that happening. Perhaps someone should play the lottery. Prove that they are different if that is your stance!!

Golly MH you know ALL of that bc of one SUMMARY post.
 
Golly MH you know ALL of that bc of one SUMMARY post.

I know all of that because of whats been posted Jim. Perhaps you have information that was not posted. Does it maybe make sense then now why that information is necessary? Or was that just another deflection to avoid addressing the conflicting numbers.
 
I told you I don't have the data in front of me, but you guys clearly have an agenda and it's obvious the objective is to do whatever is necessary to disprove the data I've posted.

I'll post the standards as promised and I'm done here period!
 
You guys clearly have an agenda and it's clear the objective is to do whatever is necessary to disprove the data I've posted.

I'll post the standards as promised and I'm done here period!

Why does someone who questions you automatically have to have an agenda? If you truly read this thread and what I have posted and then put yourself in my shoes, you would clearly see the logic behind my questions.
 
You are FOS MH,

In "your shoes" well clown that's EXACTLY what I did on K's Western Bio thread and where was your worthless ass with all these "relevant" questions, and you have no agenda, LMFAO!

It's all yours now MH, enjoy.
 
You are FOS MH,

In "your shoes" well clown that's EXACTLY what I did on K's Western Bio thread and where was your worthless ass with all these "relevant" questions, and you have no agenda, LMFAO!

It's all yours now MH, enjoy.

No, your the one who is full of shit. I have backed up everything I have said. You are the one that has dodged and evaded every question. Perhaps your agenda is to sell lab tests, I don't know, but why else would someone who doesn't take generic GH because he believes its all underdosed, waste his time testing it.
 
I told you I don't have the data in front of me, but you guys clearly have an agenda and it's obvious the objective is to do whatever is necessary to disprove the data I've posted.

I'll post the standards as promised and I'm done here period!
I hope you're not referring to me when you say "you guys" have an agenda?

mands
 
Back
Top