people talk about inconsistencies in hgh, but I believe this is the BIGGEST risk. if you get some incorrect gear, you can build an immune response to real hghDiminishing IGF1 (Tolerance or Protein Immunogenicity)
From low quality Chinese Black Market GH
But you'll never know unless you test it(Purity %)
MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
MALDI-TOF-MS/HPLC-UV-VIS rHGH results
- Thread starter mands
- Start date
This is something I would be very interested in understanding if that's the case.
How to test whether growth hormone is real or fake?
Bacterial residue in low grade Somatropin or Somatrem
"Painful red welts on injection spot can be caused by low quality growth hormone which contain too much bacterial residue. This can lead to serious problems where the body could eventually develop resistance even against its own naturally produced growth hormone.
The 192 amino acid sequence growth hormone is called somatrem while the real 191 amino acid sequence is somatropin. Somatrem is easier and much cheaper to produce. Only a proper lab analysis can show if the substance is 191 or 192 amino acid sequence.
Occasional painful welt does not automatically mean that the substance is somatrem. From time to time it can happen with somatropin too (if you hit an awkward spot). If the welts appear after every injection and persist for a day or two, then you should discontinue the cycle immediately and have a sample lab tested.
Beware of HGH supplements, sprays, pills or patches. Those are just marketing scams and do not contain any real growth hormone. See "hgh sprays, pills and patches" page for more info."
That site you quoted gives instructions on how to contact 5kits to buy gh. Not a site I'd want to quote from.
I'm looking for real info from journals, studies, et al. Btw, 192aa is FDA approved. Here is what rxlist says about 192.
Out of approximately 26,000 patients who have been treated with Protropin (somatrem) , 5 patients have had growth deceleration associated with binding capacities > 2 mg/L. If growth deceleration is observed that is not attributable to another cause, the patient should be tested for antibodies to growth hormone. Although no evidence exists to indicate that the methionine on the N-terminus of somatrem causes antibodies to growth hormone, the physician should consider transferring the patient to somatropin(rDNA origin) for injection, if a patient has antibody binding capacity > 2 mg/L, and has exhibited growth attenuation.
I'm looking for real info from journals, studies, et al. Btw, 192aa is FDA approved. Here is what rxlist says about 192.
Out of approximately 26,000 patients who have been treated with Protropin (somatrem) , 5 patients have had growth deceleration associated with binding capacities > 2 mg/L. If growth deceleration is observed that is not attributable to another cause, the patient should be tested for antibodies to growth hormone. Although no evidence exists to indicate that the methionine on the N-terminus of somatrem causes antibodies to growth hormone, the physician should consider transferring the patient to somatropin(rDNA origin) for injection, if a patient has antibody binding capacity > 2 mg/L, and has exhibited growth attenuation.
muscle96ss
Subscriber
That article is severely outdated; nobody uses 192 anymore; very old technology. That would be like talking about rotary phones.
muscle96ss
Subscriber
So Prof X, can you post your data on the various GH's you have tested thus far where you personally have a serum GH, IGF-1, and Simec results? You have drawn a lot of conclusions, but I would like to see the actual data where you are getting the conclusions from.
Sure Bud...we've got samples out now that:
Caused Red Welts
Low IGF1 results
Elevated GH Seums very High....with Low IGF1 results
(Still waiting on these results)
I posted the "Quote" a few pages back from "A Provider" of Generic GH about his GH causing diminishing IGF1 results, yet GH Serums always elevated.
I've included some links....maybe MANDS can explain the GH Mass Spec showing:
22,145,2 Da
22,411,4 Da
SOMATROPIN 22,125 Da (Per Expasy 22,115,07)
Try researching IMMUNOGENICITY and NEUTRALIZING ANTIBODY (Therapeutic Proteins)
(Information included in the file)
This is getting away from the GH Serum results having any accurate concentration results...but still some useful info.....especially since it was mentioned by a Source
Attachments
Last edited:
muscle96ss
Subscriber
Your missing my point. You keep talking about samples where there is a high serum and low IGF-1 and how serums have no relationship to the actual content(mg/iu), etc... So I want to see your data where you are drawing these conclusions from. If they are currently out for testing then you have no idea how the serum relates to the content. If they have been tested then lets see some data.
Basically what I am trying to say, is that over at PM we have a ton of blood work(serum and IGF-1) data and only a small amount of lab tests thus far. However, based on everything we have in totality we have been able to see some trends and draw some conclusions. In this discussion, you firmly disagree with some of the conclusions that I have drawn and you keep summarizing what you have found thus far over and over again. However, you have posted absolutely no data to back any of this up. I would like to see the actual data(serums, IGF-1's, lab results, etc.. that you keep referring to.
Oh, oh...I see...my bad
Very low GH Serum/SIMEC showing "overdosed" with IGF1 Blood Work in relation to the concentration
Yes I have all that....I can send you some links (there's lots of info from me HPLC,UPLC, Blood Work and others, blood work...when the new results from SIMEC are done...I can post all that info:
Low GH Serum / SIMEC shows "overdosed" kit
Very High Serum / SIMEC showing "underdosed" kit
muscle96ss
Subscriber
Yes, that is the data I want to see; data where the same individual under the same testing conditions has gotten a low serum on an overdosed kit and a high serum on an underdosed kit. That is the type of data that contradicts my data and what I need to see for me to believe it. Yes, please share!!!
Maybe because the man understands that there are numerous factors the can affect IGF results.
@ProfessorX Do you have any evidence that TP is selling gh that is causing diminish IGF, I and I'm confidant that many other members here would like to see the evidence.
If you're going to imply that, it's only fair that you substantiate said claims.
If you're going to imply that, it's only fair that you substantiate said claims.
I don't think that the prof has singled out any source, and I don't believe the debate here is about any source. For me, it's about debating testing methodologies
Exactly rpbb
It's not about a particular source, product,etc
I found that some of the GH Sources using the same old testing method (GH Serum 10IU IM 3.5Hr) caused them to get "bad batches"
It wasn't done on purpose...it's just this is the only testing they have access to ($40 GH Serum LabCorp)
Again, there is some great information (Pharma Vs Generic)
BIOEQUIVALENCE of the INNOVATOR (Genotropin) and OMNITROPE (True Generic / Follow-on /BioSimilar)
BLOOD WORK WAS DONE ONLY AFTER EXTENSIVE TESTING AND COMPARISON OF BOTH PRODUCTS
You can take it to the level with real Lab Testing.....or just do the same ole same ole and talk about LIVER ISSUES and LOW RESPONDERS
We've taken it to the next level and just concentrate on IGF1s now
Last edited:
muscle96ss
Subscriber
Thats funny because the main guy that is a low responder and who has had liver issues has had those low IGF-1's on real pharm grade GH. I am sure he is reading and would love to comment on that.
Prof X, you keep talking about various situations and drawing certain conclusions but once again the data is missing. Don't tell me:
"BLOOD WORK WAS DONE ONLY AFTER EXTENSIVE TESTING AND COMPARISON OF BOTH PRODUCTS"
Show me results, show me data!!! Prove to me what you are saying with real world examples!! I keep asking but I am not receiving.
Jeez...is it about learning and sharing some info.......
Or more about "Prove you Wrong" with more back n forth Drama like you did with JIM and MANDS
I've already put in the work....how about YOU start researching
I've posted some good info you can "Google"....start with that
I've got tons of real info now, and will have even more with the new SIMEC results
So until them......how about you put in a little work yourself
Happy Holidays
muscle96ss
Subscriber
Yeah, your right; RP, buck, Viking, I, and others have done no work at all in that thread on PM that has over 100,000 views and a shitload of data. You are the one that is disagreeing with the conclusions that I am drawing from the enormous amount of data. You keep talking about your experiments and their results. I just want to see the numbers of what you keep talking about. You can say all this stuff about serums not meaning anything and showing no relationship to content, etc... but unless you can back it up with actual real world results or data then it is just talk. You say you have done the work? What work are we talking about? I don't see any of your work being posted.
I am not trying to give you a hard time. Its just that I keep hearing your arguments and analysis but with no data that supports it. I hardly think its unreasonable to request that.
Pro X, If serum tests are only an indicator of the presence of HGH in a sample. and there is no relation of serum score to the amount of HGh in a sample.
If I were to serum test a 10 IU vial then serum test a 20 IU sample the scores should be Unpredictable and close in proximity, The higher sample may or may not have a higher score. .(The score should not indicate which sample is higher dosed.)
If Serums ARE relative to the amount of HGH in a sample The Serum scores should be higher in the higher amount tested, Possibly even predictably higher in a linear fashion.
And a 30IU serum test would be apox. triple the score of a 10 IU tests. In theory The more HGh you take the higher the score in the scenario I described above.
Understandably these scores could not be used precisely as the Lab testing CAN.
But as a general guidance (or a Poor Boy Method) I would think it is reasonable.
I Reality I have Performed such tests.
Peace
If I were to serum test a 10 IU vial then serum test a 20 IU sample the scores should be Unpredictable and close in proximity, The higher sample may or may not have a higher score. .(The score should not indicate which sample is higher dosed.)
If Serums ARE relative to the amount of HGH in a sample The Serum scores should be higher in the higher amount tested, Possibly even predictably higher in a linear fashion.
And a 30IU serum test would be apox. triple the score of a 10 IU tests. In theory The more HGh you take the higher the score in the scenario I described above.
Understandably these scores could not be used precisely as the Lab testing CAN.
But as a general guidance (or a Poor Boy Method) I would think it is reasonable.
I Reality I have Performed such tests.
Peace
I don't think there would be any argument with that whatsoever, but as a commentator from the peanut gallery, I would say the fact that you did igf tests is the important thing. Also, have you guys low serums translate into acceptable igf results as well as vice versa
muscle96ss
Subscriber
And that's what I am talking about. We have real data that we are using to draw conclusions. Prof X, I would like to see the data that you are using to draw your conclusions. I am not sure why that is such a difficult request but it seems to be the common theme on this thread.
