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

[muscle96ss]

No offense, but I have never met you or any of these other guys. or shook your hands or had a face to face conversation with any of you. My point being, I can't possibly trust you or any variables left to "good faith" or "chance" My position is not one of personal attack, but merely an intelligent elimination of possibilities that could contaminate concrete conclusions.. ..

Thats fine and understood. However, I have been on the internet since around 2000 and my reputation in the community speaks for itself. In life, when you are researching any subject or issue, you can't take things at face value. You need to research the various people involved in order to better understand who to believe, who not to believe, who has agendas, etc... I am pretty confident you won't find anybody out there that thinks I have some vested interest in generic GH or stand to make some sort of profit from the sales of GH. I am a licensed medical professional with a family and do this for my own knowledge as well as to help others and weed out the scammers. As a result of my collaborative efforts with others over at PM, I believe we have made a profound difference in the quality of the GH and GH sources out there. So I suggest for people that are really seeking the truth and truly want to learn, do some research and thorough investigations. The information you are looking for is out there.

 

[BigPharma]

Thats fine and understood. However, I have been on the internet since around 2000 and my reputation in the community speaks for itself. In life, when you are researching any subject or issue, you can't take things at face value. You need to research the various people involved in order to better understand who to believe, who not to believe, who has agendas, etc... I am pretty confident you won't find anybody out there that thinks I have some vested interest in generic GH or stand to make some sort of profit from the sales of GH. I am a licensed medical professional with a family and do this for my own knowledge as well as to help others and weed out the scammers. As a result of my collaborative efforts with others over at PM, I believe we have made a profound difference in the quality of the GH and GH sources out there. So I suggest for people that are really seeking the truth and truly want to learn, do some research and thorough investigations. The information you are looking for is out there.

Good points----

 

[Colt44]

I did not run an AA analysis on it. I've spent enough money on this project as is.

Hey I've an idea have Meathead pay for it, LOL!

It wasn't a shot Jim. A legitimate question, as I was curious.

Hit me up M96 if you're up for it. Lol

 

[Dr JIM]

[QUOTE="Colt44, post: 1430714, member: 64738"

]It wasn't a shot Jim. A legitimate question, as I was curious.
[/QUOTE]

A shot no, and I never interpreted your question as such mate.

 

[Colt44]

So from the significant amount of literature I've been reading, as soon as I saw the Glycine readings from the AA sequence testing, this could cause false readings of serum and igf testing? Does that in fact lessen the value of these assays?

 

[Dr JIM]

So from the significant amount of literature I've been reading, as soon as I saw the Glycine readings from the AA sequence testing, this could cause false readings of serum and igf testing? Does that in fact lessen the value of these assays?

NO, to the contrary no assay is more accurate than Amino Acid analysis in determining a samples GH concentration and as a result reinforces how difficult it is to correlate IGF levels to GH "guality".

While there is an individual correlation, one needs to understand the difference in comparing and using the 10 X rule, for instance, to that of IGF levels.

That's bc the former is an evaluation based purely on the AMOUNT of an exogenously administered drug, while IGF levels are a METABOLIC BYPRODUCT of administered GH, which will vary from one mate to the next.

Consequently the only means of KNOWING an individual's IGF response to a specific quantity of GH would be to compare one's IGF level to a known quantity of Ph grade GH.

This process is the existing medical standard for GH replacement in those with growth retardation so why would generic GH be any different?

 

[OtisDriftwood]

After 55pages Im still wondering if hgh testing is more reliable than igf1 testing ore the opposite......hgh is secreted by a pulsatile secretion so Values could depend on it, even tho exogenous hgh injected...but igf1 depend on many factors too...one thing its undoubted, igf1 is used to value hgh secretion in patient, such as in gigantism...its the most important laboratory value for diagnosis...to study the hgh blood peak in 2-3 hours after hgh injection, its supposed to be bone an intravenous bolus, not an intracutaneous pin...so this will remain a mistery!

 

[muscle96ss]

Consequently the only means of KNOWING an individual's IGF response to a specific quantity of GH would be to compare one's IGF level to a known quantity of Ph grade GH.

This process is the existing medical standard for GH replacement in those with growth retardation so why would generic GH be any different?

Thats funny, thats exactly what I have done on numerous occasions. In addition, others have replicated this as well. As I have mentioned before, there is a thread on PM that is currently 178 pages titled, "HGH Testing". It contains a shitload of data and debate of serum GH's and IGF-1's from both generic and pharm GH. I am certainly not trying to advertise PM, but if people are really interested in the TRUTH, there is so much real world data in that thread that you can't ignore it. And this pertains to more than just the grey tops; there is data from almost every popular generic and pharm GH. If you think I have a vested interest in the greys, check out the data on 6-fingers red tops; definitely a GH I would recommend as well.

 

[Dr JIM]

After 55pages Im still wondering if hgh testing is more reliable than igf1 testing ore the opposite....

its the most important laboratory value for diagnosis...to study the hgh blood peak in 2-3 hours after hgh injection, its supposed to be bone an intravenous bolus, not an intracutaneous pin...so this will remain a mistery!

IGF and GH levels are both useful in the diagnosis of giantism. The predominant assay remains the patients GH level, followed by IGF if the DX remains uncertain. However such testing is not passive but
uses certain drugs such as; arginine, glucose, insulin etc, to stimulate GH secretion

A GH assay is conducted after IM administration rather than IV.

Mystery the only mistery remains the quality of UGL generic GH.

 

[OtisDriftwood]

Arginine and insuline are used to do diagnosis of hypopituitarism, not gigantism, in example insuline reduces plasma glucose levels and that stimulate hgh that increase glycemia...but they are used for hypo pituitarism...for gigantism is used glucose...and the most reliable value to consider for diagnosis is igf1 not hgh that has a circadian rhythm so it swings as fuark...said this, I dont know if igf1 is better than hgh to estimate the quality of the exogenous hgh...

 

[Dr JIM]

The point is there a HUGE difference bt passive GH assays conducted by BB and lifters and those performed in medicine which are MUCH more reliable!

And spot IGF assays can vary remarkably bt individuals.

 

[rpbb]

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

this is the big question I have at looking at test results across all the boards. and thank you Dr J and mands for doing the testing

 

[ProfessorX]

this is the big question I have at looking at test results across all the boards. and thank you Dr J and mands for doing the testing

I've just glanced at some of the results over at PM.

There "Testing Methods" are totally flawed

Since IGF1 can "reflect" mg/IU (dose) - it would seem that most of those color top generics being sold there are underdosed. Very low IGF1 results is what I glanced at.

It seems they are still being sold that GH Serum numbers reflect something of importance.

It doesn't. It's been proven with a combination of blood work, SIMEC testing, etc that the results do not accurately reflect "strength" or "dose" or "quality"

A single digit GH Serum result had a High Dosed Vial (SIMEC Tested 17.9 IU)

A 50 ng/mL GH Serum result showed extremely low IGF1
(Possibly not even Somatropin. Other GH Protein. That vial is being tested now)

It's just a cheap test (GH Serum) used by those sources to "promote" or "advertise"

I've tested both GOD and ANG (blood work, SIMEC, etc)

What I tested then is not what is being sold now

Too many issues with Generics. Too inconsistent. "Bait n Switch"

I know very little how the testing is done, or any of the questions with Jim's testing results.....but.....low/underdosed is common with Generics

 

[muscle96ss]

I've just glanced at some of the results over at PM.

There "Testing Methods" are totally flawed

Since IGF1 can "reflect" mg/IU (dose) - it would seem that most of those color top generics being sold there are underdosed. Very low IGF1 results is what I glanced at.

It seems they are still being sold that GH Serum numbers reflect something of importance.

It doesn't. It's been proven with a combination of blood work, SIMEC testing, etc that the results do not accurately reflect "strength" or "dose" or "quality"

A single digit GH Serum result had a High Dosed Vial (SIMEC Tested 17.9 IU)

A 50 ng/mL GH Serum result showed extremely low IGF1
(Possibly not even Somatropin. Other GH Protein. That vial is being tested now)

It's just a cheap test (GH Serum) used by those sources to "promote" or "advertise"

I've tested both GOD and ANG (blood work, SIMEC, etc)

What I tested then is not what is being sold now

Too many issues with Generics. Too inconsistent. "Bait n Switch"

I know very little how the testing is done, or any of the questions with Jim's testing results.....but.....low/underdosed is common with Generics

Here we go with more bullshit and unsubstantiated claims. The methods are "flawed", lol. The only flaws are Jim tests and everyone already knows this. The greys were actually recently lab tested and are accurately dosed(I believe it was 3.59mg per vial but don't quote me on this).

 

[ProfessorX]

Here we go with more bullshit and unsubstantiated claims. The methods are "flawed", lol. The only flaws are Jim tests and everyone already knows this. The greys were actually recently lab tested and are accurately dosed(I believe it was 3.59mg per vial but don't quote me on this).

You're the guy that said IGF1 levels take 4 weeks to elevate right? I remember you.

Testing the product itself is the best way....yes...I agree

Again, I just glanced over at PM.....but those IGF1 results are extremely low....not to mention the testing methods are flawed.

 

[mands]

You're the guy that said IGF1 levels take 4 weeks to elevate right? I remember you.

Testing the product itself is the best way....yes...I agree

Again, I just glanced over at PM.....but those IGF1 results are extremely low....not to mention the testing methods are flawed.

Please post your finding over here if could please. Especially the test that shows a 50 serum and low IGF-1.

How are the methods flawed in testing? Actually what testing are we talking about here?

Thank you!!!

mands

 

[muscle96ss]

There are literally 100's of different results posted in that thread, so I am not sure which ones you are calling low or what testing methods are flawed. In addition, some of the guys are doing IGF-1's starting at week 1 and continuing every week until it peaks. I would recommend doing more than glancing if you are going to make conclusions as that is the part that is flawed.

 

[ProfessorX]

Please post your finding over here if could please. Especially the test that shows a 50 serum and low IGF-1.

How are the methods flawed in testing? Actually what testing are we talking about here?

Thank you!!!

mands

Hey Mands

I'll have to put something together. I've got tons of useful info (blood work, SIMEC, Protein Mapping test results, etc)

The Flawed testing is the usual 10IU IM 3.5 HR

Testing the presence of a GH Protein in Blood Serum Vs sending a sample for MG/IU testing......totally 2 different results

GH Serum (including exo) - Short Half-Life...Very unstable and not a reliable way to show concentration in the vial itself

IGF1 reflects mg/IU dose (Norditropin Study)

 

[ProfessorX]

There are literally 100's of different results posted in that thread, so I am not sure which ones you are calling low or what testing methods are flawed. In addition, some of the guys are doing IGF-1's starting at week 1 and continuing every week until it peaks. I would recommend doing more than glancing if you are going to make conclusions as that is the part that is flawed.

Sorry brutha....really not trying to "start anything"

I've seen member "racepick" recently stating how his GH Serum reflects 10iu in the vial

That's just not so, especially when I've seen his IGF1 results extremely low (I believe he was injecting 10ius)

Product seemed extremely underdosed unless he is suffering from Protein Immunogenicity from injecting all those Generics

Again, just sharing some info.....theres a better IGF1 testing protocol that can be done as quickly as 8-10 days using only 5Ius

Saturation/Constant Peak doesn't require 4 weeks
IGF1 can be elevated immediately after Inject....same as GH Serum

 

[mands]

Hey Mands

I'll have to put something together. I've got tons of useful info (blood work, SIMEC, Protein Mapping test results, etc)

The Flawed testing is the usual 10IU IM 3.5 HR

Testing the presence of a GH Protein in Blood Serum Vs sending a sample for MG/IU testing......totally 2 different results

GH Serum (including exo) - Short Half-Life...Very unstable and not a reliable way to show concentration in the vial itself

IGF1 reflects mg/IU dose (Norditropin Study)

Thank you I would appreciate it.

I agree outside testing on samples is the best way to get accurate info if you trust your testing source.

I would have to disagree with you that stating testing GH serum levels are "flawed". It's only the first step in many additional steps in my opinion that's affordable for most.

I personally don't think when we test GH or IGF-1 levels we are testing concentration in all actuality. I believe most believe as do I if IGF-1 levels are raised similar to how they are raised while taking human grade products we can judge pretty closely what the vial contains.

mands