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

[Buck1973]

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

Yes Sir I have seen that augment in many places. "Serums are not an Indicator of amount of HGH in vial only that HGH is present..."
I will try and answer;
I am considered a low serum tester So most my serums are less than what others would score(Low compared to others, Low scorer,low responder,ect, Or just Human.). that being said On IGF-1 testing I will score about 100 Per 1 iu.
I will take that back on 3.33 IU's I will score in the range of 275-375 as this is the dose most of my IGF-1 testing has been. now the few times I have been above that it does not follow that rule. Also there are many factors that effect Igf-1 scores, the opposite is true for the simple serum. If I am on a AAS cycle forget it scores will plummet. I have no clue what compound, additive,ect.ect. that causes this alI i know is the tests are not accurate while on. Serums are not affected by this. so If I IGF-1 287 on one HGH and 326 on another can I say one contains more HGH than the other? No more than I say the same when I score a 18 vs 22 on a serum. how ever if I serum a 15 on 1 and 30 on another can I say the higher score has more HGH in the sample? I will everytime. same as the IGF-1 test 250 vs 500...
I am No DR. Or Professor and I would prefer to listen than speak.
But if my real world testing shows me different I will try and share my info.


Peace

 

[Rick Kane]

Would anybody here be interested in testing a couple vials. I have greys and 6's gh that I can donate. They are from the same batch that I used for IGF tests.

I will be switching to pharma gh in January. I will run the same dose as generics and do an IGF test.

 

[Stas]

Yes Sir I have seen that augment in many places. "Serums are not an Indicator of amount of HGH in vial only that HGH is present..."
I will try and answer;
I am considered a low serum tester So most my serums are less than what others would score(Low compared to others, Low scorer,low responder,ect, Or just Human.). that being said On IGF-1 testing I will score about 100 Per 1 iu.
I will take that back on 3.33 IU's I will score in the range of 275-375 as this is the dose most of my IGF-1 testing has been. now the few times I have been above that it does not follow that rule. Also there are many factors that effect Igf-1 scores, the opposite is true for the simple serum. If I am on a AAS cycle forget it scores will plummet. I have no clue what compound, additive,ect.ect. that causes this alI i know is the tests are not accurate while on. Serums are not affected by this. so If I IGF-1 287 on one HGH and 326 on another can I say one contains more HGH than the other? No more than I say the same when I score a 18 vs 22 on a serum. how ever if I serum a 15 on 1 and 30 on another can I say the higher score has more HGH in the sample? I will everytime. same as the IGF-1 test 250 vs 500...
I am No DR. Or Professor and I would prefer to listen than speak.
But if my real world testing shows me different I will try and share my info.


Peace

I know we all are different but what would be considered a good IGF 1 numbers on 5iu e/d ?

Around 450 ???

 

[muscle96ss]

I know we all are different but what would be considered a good IGF 1 numbers on 5iu e/d ?

Around 450 ???

450 is fine. The rough method of calculating is 100 per iu of GH, but it tends to be lower with age. Also, it doesn't appear to be a linear relationship, so that the higher the dosage, the less the increase.

 

[Rick Kane]

IGF results are in. They are posted on PM in the lab results section. Anybody can view.

*Opps, just saw that 50 posts are needed to view.

I'll post here later.

 

[Stas]

IGF results are in. They are posted on PM in the lab results section. Anybody can view.

*Opps, just saw that 50 posts are needed to view.

I'll post here later.

Please do.

 

[rpbb]

450 is fine. The rough method of calculating is 100 per iu of GH, but it tends to be lower with age. Also, it doesn't appear to be a linear relationship, so that the higher the dosage, the less the increase.

Muscle, this post will not make you happy, and I only say that because I respect you. But that thread over at pm has turned into a giant shillfest. Karl is right, Serum testing is bullshit, and you guys are trying to silence him and what I consider accurate science. Even TP posted badmouthing him. If you guys want to start up a true testing program like we have here at meso, it would help a lot if you guys new your science facts first. By the way, I have never dealt with Karl, I just hate it when people try and censor true science. It destroys credibility

 

[muscle96ss]

Muscle, this post will not make you happy, and I only say that because I respect you. But that thread over at pm has turned into a giant shillfest. Karl is right, Serum testing is bullshit, and you guys are trying to silence him and what I consider accurate science. Even TP posted badmouthing him. If you guys want to start up a true testing program like we have here at meso, it would help a lot if you guys new your science facts first. By the way, I have never dealt with Karl, I just hate it when people try and censor true science. It destroys credibility

I hate to tell you, but Karl has not produced any science. The only so-called science he produced was a study where the conclusions he drew were clearly incorrect as pointed out by another member and not what the study actually said(same study that Prof X posted here). Karl is just pissed because his recent serum scores have declined and he is very passionate about the quality of his GH. If you have read the entire thread and been there through everything that has transpired over the course of the past couple of years; it would make a lot more sense. Serum testing is not bullshit, but you are entitled to your opinion and many share your same opinion.

 

[Rick Kane]

@rpbb Karl is not being censored. It's his opinion and if you know Karl, he's going to step on a few toes.
Just like you believe serum testing is bullshit, I had someone PM me saying the IGF results I posted from 6F's gh are bullshit and that he can prove it.

The only real science is HPLC/MS.

 

[rpbb]

The problem is there's a 100 pages of serum testing and about 2 of IGF testing, and as soon as Karl says igf is what matters (which I agree is much more important, but not as good as hplc), a bunch of members and another source attack him. Not to mention people saying purity doesn't matter is complete horseshit. That's when that thread reached a new low

It just looks really bad when someone makes a scientific argument and people attack because serum tests sell alot of hgh

 

[muscle96ss]

The problem is there's a 100 pages of serum testing and about 2 of IGF testing, and as soon as Karl says igf is what matters (which I agree is much more important, but not as good as hplc), a bunch of members and another source attack him. Not to mention people saying purity doesn't matter is complete horseshit. That's when that thread reached a new low

It just looks really bad when someone makes a scientific argument and people attack because serum tests sell alot of hgh

Here is what you are missing; you are jumping in to 1 part of a conversation that has a huge history. Its hard to get the jist of things without knowledge of the history. I have no problem with Karl voicing his opinion. I think Karl actually believes his opinion 100%, but he is also biased as he has a horse in the race. When you are biased, you don't always see things as they really are because you are not open to other views. Where the problem lies is that in the manner he has chosen to debate the issue, he is doing it in a way that is disrespectful to some of the members as well as other sources. I know Karl well enough that I am not offended and understand where he is coming from. But at the same time, he needs to give it a rest because he lacks the social skills and is making things worse rather than having a productive discussion.

 

[rpbb]

I really don't see where he's being offensive in any way, in fact, I think he's presented a pretty good case.
It seems like more of a problem with people being defensive about the serum results and what they mean. For me, a good testing program allows all opinions. In fact, I didn't jump down your throat, and let you make your case with Dr j, because I always think it's healthy to debate in science, throughout history has proven that. It's when the debate stops, or people are censored, that you get into trouble, which is where I believe that thread is heading
I don't believe there is any issue with you, but I believe that thread is turning into using serum testing to sell hgh, which is wrong

 

[G.I. Bro]

I have some western biotech (Karl's) gh coming. I'm posting an IGF-1 result after I've used it about a month.

It will be the first time I've messed with anything besides Norditropin pens in a while.

I also agree regular gh serum tests are silly. Everyone is sending over-filled vials to anyone they think is testing anyway. And many are just over filling everything. IGF-1 is all I care about. You can have poorly formed low quality gh that will reflect a decent serum result but not do much at all for IGF-1; which the entire point of taking gh.

 

[muscle96ss]

Karl is right, Serum testing is bullshit, and you guys are trying to silence him and what I consider accurate science.

Let me backtrack a bit as I am not sure people really understand what a "serum GH" or "IGF-1" are and are making things more difficult than they have to be. A "serum GH" is simply that, how much GH is in the blood at the time of draw. It is very accurate in terms of it will tell you how much GH is in your serum. Now lets look at the whole scenario/process from injection. You inject your GH, it is then absorbed into the blood. It then gets metabolized and after many downstream processes, it is eventually converted by the liver into IGF-1. So when you get an IGF-1 test, it is dependent on how body processes the GH based on variables such as liver health. So in actuality, IGF-1 is dependent on more variable than the serum GH; as a serum is measuring things early on when it first enters the bloodstream while IGF-1 is measuring it much later once it has been metabolized.

Here is where the difference maker is. Serum GH is not stable in the fact that the absorption follows a curve where it increases, peaks, and decreases. While IGF-1 is relatively stable throughout the day(despite what Prof X says). So when I draw a serum, I don't really know whether I am at a peak or where I am on the curve. In addition, everyone gets their blood drawn at slightly different times when doing these tests as well as individual rates of absorption are going to vary. So what buck gets on his serum test compared to what I get on my serum test, really cannot be compared and may be vastly different for the same exact GH. And bucks results as a stand-alone score really are irrelevant and have no meaning. However, if the same person repeats the same test under the same conditions, there is no reason why the results should not be the same. Think about it, if I am taking the identical substance, at the identical time, and my body is doing the same processes; then why would you get a different result? So when you are comparing serum tests within the same individual and done with the same protocol, the only way there should be a difference is if there is a different amount of GH. No, its not going to be exact and there is going to be some variance; but there should be straightforward trends.

So the bottom line is that if I do serum scores under identical circumstances for say 3iu, 6iu, and 10iu's of GH; it only follows logic that my serum scores are going to fall in the same order. If you understand the physiology and think about it using common sense, it just makes sense. This is why we are going to do that little experiment along with the lab testing where I am going to do serum tests and predict the lab values on total GH content. It will be interesting to see what happens.

 

[rpbb]

Let me backtrack a bit as I am not sure people really understand what a "serum GH" or "IGF-1" are and are making things more difficult than they have to be. A "serum GH" is simply that, how much GH is in the blood at the time of draw. It is very accurate in terms of it will tell you how much GH is in your serum. Now lets look at the whole scenario/process from injection. You inject your GH, it is then absorbed into the blood. It then gets metabolized and after many downstream processes, it is eventually converted by the liver into IGF-1. So when you get an IGF-1 test, it is dependent on how body processes the GH based on variables such as liver health. So in actuality, IGF-1 is dependent on more variable than the serum GH; as a serum is measuring things early on when it first enters the bloodstream while IGF-1 is measuring it much later once it has been metabolized.

Here is where the difference maker is. Serum GH is not stable in the fact that the absorption follows a curve where it increases, peaks, and decreases. While IGF-1 is relatively stable throughout the day(despite what Prof X says). So when I draw a serum, I don't really know whether I am at a peak or where I am on the curve. In addition, everyone gets their blood drawn at slightly different times when doing these tests as well as individual rates of absorption are going to vary. So what buck gets on his serum test compared to what I get on my serum test, really cannot be compared and may be vastly different for the same exact GH. And bucks results as a stand-alone score really are irrelevant and have no meaning. However, if the same person repeats the same test under the same conditions, there is no reason why the results should not be the same. Think about it, if I am taking the identical substance, at the identical time, and my body is doing the same processes; then why would you get a different result? So when you are comparing serum tests within the same individual and done with the same protocol, the only way there should be a difference is if there is a different amount of GH. No, its not going to be exact and there is going to be some variance; but there should be straightforward trends.

So the bottom line is that if I do serum scores under identical circumstances for say 3iu, 6iu, and 10iu's of GH; it only follows logic that my serum scores are going to fall in the same order. If you understand the physiology and think about it using common sense, it just makes sense. This is why we are going to do that little experiment along with the lab testing where I am going to do serum tests and predict the lab values on total GH content. It will be interesting to see what happens.

Thanks muscle, I disagree, but that's ok, Debating like this is where everyone learns something. Personally, I don't think a good serum score always correlates to a good igf, especially in the world of generic. In order to validate a good serum, I feel you must run the gear for a period of time, and check igf levels for confirmation, not to mention side effects and results versus pharma. That's where the thread at pm loses its way

 

[Rick Kane]

I'm a proponent of IGF test but I also see the value in serum tests. This shouldn't be an either or issue.

Before gh serum tests became popular it was all about the IGF test. The same questions were raised back then regarding the science of IGF results that i see being raised now regarding serums.
As soon as someone would post their results people would jump all in their shit claiming it was bs or somehow manipulated. Anybody remember renegade and anabolex and the flame wars? Only difference, back then "generics" were Ansomone and Jintropin.
People swore up and down that there was no way the Chinese could produce gh for that price. Fast forward 10 years and most of us that use gh would gladly buy legit Jins or Ansomone if we had that option.

 

[muscle96ss]

Thanks muscle, I disagree, but that's ok, Debating like this is where everyone learns something. Personally, I don't think a good serum score always correlates to a good igf, especially in the world of generic. In order to validate a good serum, I feel you must run the gear for a period of time, and check igf levels for confirmation, not to mention side effects and results versus pharma. That's where the thread at pm loses its way

Let me give you some real world examples here. Before Rips stopped production, people were always getting really high serum GH's. Everyone made accusations and said that there were peptides causing this or some other excuses. The source claimed it was because they were overdosed and contained a lot more than 10iu per vail. Real lab tests were done and it was shown that the vials contained close to 14iu. Currently 6F has stated that his GH is severely overdosed. Not surprisingly, a high percentage of the serum tests are coming back really higher than the norm. Then there is a new black top GH that TP has brought to the market and lab tested at 5mg per vial. Guess what, the initial serum tests are really high. So, when you look at the trends of the data, in general can make some valid conclusions. These trends are not just coindicences. However, there will always be exceptions to the rule. Buck is a perfect example of this. All his data completely refutes everything I have been saying and is inconsistent with logic as well as others data. Why is this? We don't know; but in general you can't ignore the trends in the data and when you understand the logic behind the data, its hard to refute.

 

[Opti]

I'm a proponent of IGF test but I also see the value in serum tests. This shouldn't be an either or issue.

Before gh serum tests became popular it was all about the IGF test. The same questions were raised back then regarding the science of IGF results that i see being raised now regarding serums.
As soon as someone would post their results people would jump all in their shit claiming it was bs or somehow manipulated. Anybody remember renegade and anabolex and the flame wars? Only difference, back then "generics" were Ansomone and Jintropin.
People swore up and down that there was no way the Chinese could produce gh for that price. Fast forward 10 years and most of us that use gh would gladly buy legit Jins or Ansomone if we had that option.

Those were the days, able to order Jintr0pins directly from Gen5ci with reshippig i.c.s. at a very affordable price.

 

[Buck1973]

Let me give you some real world examples here. Before Rips stopped production, people were always getting really high serum GH's. Everyone made accusations and said that there were peptides causing this or some other excuses. The source claimed it was because they were overdosed and contained a lot more than 10iu per vail. Real lab tests were done and it was shown that the vials contained close to 14iu. Currently 6F has stated that his GH is severely overdosed. Not surprisingly, a high percentage of the serum tests are coming back really higher than the norm. Then there is a new black top GH that TP has brought to the market and lab tested at 5mg per vial. Guess what, the initial serum tests are really high. So, when you look at the trends of the data, in general can make some valid conclusions. These trends are not just coindicences. However, there will always be exceptions to the rule. Buck is a perfect example of this. All his data completely refutes everything I have been saying and is inconsistent with logic as well as others data. Why is this? We don't know; but in general you can't ignore the trends in the data and when you understand the logic behind the data, its hard to refute.

ALL, completely, Inconsistent with logic.
Brotha I purposely use others tests to show mine are not unique.
or that others scores are inconsistent with logic. #4174 was an xample

 

[rpbb]

Let me give you some real world examples here. Before Rips stopped production, people were always getting really high serum GH's. Everyone made accusations and said that there were peptides causing this or some other excuses. The source claimed it was because they were overdosed and contained a lot more than 10iu per vail. Real lab tests were done and it was shown that the vials contained close to 14iu. Currently 6F has stated that his GH is severely overdosed. Not surprisingly, a high percentage of the serum tests are coming back really higher than the norm. Then there is a new black top GH that TP has brought to the market and lab tested at 5mg per vial. Guess what, the initial serum tests are really high. So, when you look at the trends of the data, in general can make some valid conclusions. These trends are not just coindicences. However, there will always be exceptions to the rule. Buck is a perfect example of this. All his data completely refutes everything I have been saying and is inconsistent with logic as well as others data. Why is this? We don't know; but in general you can't ignore the trends in the data and when you understand the logic behind the data, its hard to refute.

Got to tell you, I am not a fan of overdosed gear