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

A
Here we go again. How about posting the links? You can make any claim you want, and you can claim that its backed up in any piece of literature that you want. But its meaningless if you don't post the actual literature. I apologize for not having my European Pharmacopoeia 5.0 handy to turn to page 2464; so perhaps you could copy and paste or post a link to the verbiage on that page.
aww mane..... You a funny guy

You want it all served to you on a platter....then you find something to keep the argument going. Why are you so unwilling to accept other info...take that info...and maybe try something new at PM. But you don't. It's the same ole dog n pony show

I've got lots of Document screen-shots (no links)

But:
FDA.gov

Citizen Petition
Pfizer Inc Citizen Petition
Requesting rejection by FDA of New Drug Application for Omnitrope 5.8 mg Somatropin Sandoz, Inc

Morgan Lewis
Counselors At Law

May try that

Happy New Year Buddy
 
Yes, that is the general standard, but what is its scientific basis? For example, there is also a standard for expiration dates of drugs. But that doesn't mean that the drug is not safe or is degraded after the expiration date.
Muscle, you have to remember that in the world of medic8ne, the compound has to be proven safe, not disproven that it's not
 
Scary stuff? Where is the science? Show me the studies or what you read.

I think I've showed you the science before. Perhaps you missed it so I'll post again.

There is a risk of a serious immunogenic reaction with untested biologics. It's already happened with Eprex, a generic eythropoietin, when patients developed pure red cell aplasia and anti-erythropoietin antibodies.

Now you may discount the risk of immunogenicity based on your personal experience and that of your friends but anecdotes don't change facts. The risk of using untested generic hGH is real.


Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2003 Nov;18 Suppl 8:viii37-41.
Pure red cell aplasia and anti-erythropoietin antibodies in patients treated with epoetin.
Casadevall N1.

Abstract
Recombinant human erythropoietin (epoetin) was first used for the treatment of renal anaemia in 1986. During the first 10 years of its use, epoetin-induced antibodies were a rare complication and only three cases of patients with epoetin-induced antibodies associated with pure red cell aplasia (PRCA) were published. Since 1998, however, there has been a significant increase in the number of patients developing severe anaemia during the course of epoetin treatment due to neutralizing antibodies. Patients with PRCA present with an absolute resistance to epoetin therapy and then rapidly develop severe anaemia with a very low reticulocyte count (<10 000/mm(3)). Consequently, patients become dependent on blood transfusions to maintain an acceptable level of haemoglobin. By December 2002, approximately 142 patients worldwide had been diagnosed with antibody-positive PRCA after receiving epoetin. The vast majority of these patients had been treated with the Eprex/Erypo brand of epoetin alfa, but there were also some cases in which patients had been receiving epoetin beta (NeoRecormon). To date, there have been no cases of antibody-mediated PRCA reported with the sole use of darbepoetin alfa (Aranesp). All patients with epoetin-induced anti-erythropoietin antibodies had received the drug subcutaneously (s.c.), and almost all had chronic kidney disease-related anaemia. To our knowledge, no patient treated exclusively by intravenous (i.v.) administration has developed anti-erythropoietin antibodies. The increase in reported cases coincides with the removal of human serum albumin from the ex-US formulation of epoetin alfa, in order to comply with new regulations from the European regulatory authorities. It has been proposed that the new formulation is less stable, allowing aggregates of erythropoietin molecules to form, which increases the probability of antibody formation. Treatment with epoetin must be discontinued if PRCA is suspected. Patients do not respond to an increase in dose. Furthermore, patients must not be switched to another form of erythropoietic therapy as the antibodies cross-react with all erythropoietic therapies available. In around 70% of cases, immunosuppressive regimens are effective in eliminating the antibodies; cessation of epoetin therapy without concomitant immunosuppression is rarely effective. Kidney transplantation seems to provide an immediate and effective cure.



Arch Immunol Ther Exp (Warsz). 2012 Oct;60(5):331-44.
Immunogenicity to biologics: mechanisms, prediction and reduction.
Sethu S1, Govindappa K, Alhaidari M, Pirmohamed M, Park K, Sathish J.

Abstract
Currently, there is a significant rise in the development and clinical use of a unique class of pharmaceuticals termed as Biopharmaceuticals or Biologics, in the management of a range of disease conditions with, remarkable therapeutic benefits. However, there is an equally growing concern regarding development of adverse effects like immunogenicity in the form of anti-drug antibodies (ADA) production and hypersensitivity. Immunogenicity to biologics represents a significant hurdle in the continuing therapy of patients in a number of disease settings. Efforts focussed on the identification of factors that contribute towards the onset of immunogenic response to biologics have led to reductions in the incidence of immunogenicity. An in-depth understanding of the cellular and molecular mechanism underpinning immunogenic responses will likely improve the safety profile of biologics. This review addresses the mechanistic basis of ADA generation to biologics, with emphasis on the role of antigen processing and presentation in this process. The article also addresses the potential contribution of complement system in augmenting or modulating this response. Identifying specific factors that influences processing and presentation of biologic-derived antigens in different genotype and disease background may offer additional options for intervention in the immunogenic process and consequently, the management of immunogenicity to biologics.


Ther Clin Risk Manag. 2011;7:489-93. doi: 10.2147/TCRM.S27495. Epub 2011 Dec 7.
Emerging patient safety issues under health care reform: follow-on biologics and immunogenicity.
Liang BA1, Mackey T.

Abstract
US health care reform includes an abbreviated pathway for follow-on biologics, also known as biosimilars, in an effort to speed up access to these complex therapeutics. However, a key patient safety challenge emerges from such an abbreviated pathway: immunogenicity reactions. Yet immunogenicity is notoriously difficult to predict, and even cooperative approaches in licensing between companies have resulted in patient safety concerns, injury, and death. Because approval pathways for follow-on forms do not involve cooperative disclosure of methods and manufacturing processes by innovator companies and follow-on manufacturers, the potential for expanded immunogenicity must be taken into account from a risk management and patient safety perspective. The US Institute of Safe Medication Practices (ISMP) has principles of medication safety that have been applied in the past to high-risk drugs. We propose adapting ISMP principles to follow-on biologic forms and creating systems approaches to warn, rapidly identify, and alert providers regarding this emerging patient safety risk. This type of system can be built upon and provide lessons learned as these new drug forms are developed and marketed more broadly.
 
Last edited:
I think I've showed you the science before. Perhaps you missed it so I'll post again.

The is a risk of a serious immunogenic reaction with untested biologics. It's already happened with Eprex, a generic eythropoietin, when patients developed pure red cell aplasia and anti-erythropoietin antibodies.

Now you may discount the risk of immunogenicity based on your personal experience and that of your friends but anecdotes don't change facts. The risk is real.


Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2003 Nov;18 Suppl 8:viii37-41.
Pure red cell aplasia and anti-erythropoietin antibodies in patients treated with epoetin.
Casadevall N1.

Abstract
Recombinant human erythropoietin (epoetin) was first used for the treatment of renal anaemia in 1986. During the first 10 years of its use, epoetin-induced antibodies were a rare complication and only three cases of patients with epoetin-induced antibodies associated with pure red cell aplasia (PRCA) were published. Since 1998, however, there has been a significant increase in the number of patients developing severe anaemia during the course of epoetin treatment due to neutralizing antibodies. Patients with PRCA present with an absolute resistance to epoetin therapy and then rapidly develop severe anaemia with a very low reticulocyte count (<10 000/mm(3)). Consequently, patients become dependent on blood transfusions to maintain an acceptable level of haemoglobin. By December 2002, approximately 142 patients worldwide had been diagnosed with antibody-positive PRCA after receiving epoetin. The vast majority of these patients had been treated with the Eprex/Erypo brand of epoetin alfa, but there were also some cases in which patients had been receiving epoetin beta (NeoRecormon). To date, there have been no cases of antibody-mediated PRCA reported with the sole use of darbepoetin alfa (Aranesp). All patients with epoetin-induced anti-erythropoietin antibodies had received the drug subcutaneously (s.c.), and almost all had chronic kidney disease-related anaemia. To our knowledge, no patient treated exclusively by intravenous (i.v.) administration has developed anti-erythropoietin antibodies. The increase in reported cases coincides with the removal of human serum albumin from the ex-US formulation of epoetin alfa, in order to comply with new regulations from the European regulatory authorities. It has been proposed that the new formulation is less stable, allowing aggregates of erythropoietin molecules to form, which increases the probability of antibody formation. Treatment with epoetin must be discontinued if PRCA is suspected. Patients do not respond to an increase in dose. Furthermore, patients must not be switched to another form of erythropoietic therapy as the antibodies cross-react with all erythropoietic therapies available. In around 70% of cases, immunosuppressive regimens are effective in eliminating the antibodies; cessation of epoetin therapy without concomitant immunosuppression is rarely effective. Kidney transplantation seems to provide an immediate and effective cure.



Arch Immunol Ther Exp (Warsz). 2012 Oct;60(5):331-44.
Immunogenicity to biologics: mechanisms, prediction and reduction.
Sethu S1, Govindappa K, Alhaidari M, Pirmohamed M, Park K, Sathish J.

Abstract
Currently, there is a significant rise in the development and clinical use of a unique class of pharmaceuticals termed as Biopharmaceuticals or Biologics, in the management of a range of disease conditions with, remarkable therapeutic benefits. However, there is an equally growing concern regarding development of adverse effects like immunogenicity in the form of anti-drug antibodies (ADA) production and hypersensitivity. Immunogenicity to biologics represents a significant hurdle in the continuing therapy of patients in a number of disease settings. Efforts focussed on the identification of factors that contribute towards the onset of immunogenic response to biologics have led to reductions in the incidence of immunogenicity. An in-depth understanding of the cellular and molecular mechanism underpinning immunogenic responses will likely improve the safety profile of biologics. This review addresses the mechanistic basis of ADA generation to biologics, with emphasis on the role of antigen processing and presentation in this process. The article also addresses the potential contribution of complement system in augmenting or modulating this response. Identifying specific factors that influences processing and presentation of biologic-derived antigens in different genotype and disease background may offer additional options for intervention in the immunogenic process and consequently, the management of immunogenicity to biologics.


Ther Clin Risk Manag. 2011;7:489-93. doi: 10.2147/TCRM.S27495. Epub 2011 Dec 7.
Emerging patient safety issues under health care reform: follow-on biologics and immunogenicity.
Liang BA1, Mackey T.

Abstract
US health care reform includes an abbreviated pathway for follow-on biologics, also known as biosimilars, in an effort to speed up access to these complex therapeutics. However, a key patient safety challenge emerges from such an abbreviated pathway: immunogenicity reactions. Yet immunogenicity is notoriously difficult to predict, and even cooperative approaches in licensing between companies have resulted in patient safety concerns, injury, and death. Because approval pathways for follow-on forms do not involve cooperative disclosure of methods and manufacturing processes by innovator companies and follow-on manufacturers, the potential for expanded immunogenicity must be taken into account from a risk management and patient safety perspective. The US Institute of Safe Medication Practices (ISMP) has principles of medication safety that have been applied in the past to high-risk drugs. We propose adapting ISMP principles to follow-on biologic forms and creating systems approaches to warn, rapidly identify, and alert providers regarding this emerging patient safety risk. This type of system can be built upon and provide lessons learned as these new drug forms are developed and marketed more broadly.
Muscle, that's a very powerful argument for what we are saying, kidney transplants suck
 
Last edited:
By the way, this is the debate you should be having in the thread at pm, not yippee, look how high the serum scores are
 
See, here is where you are missing the history. Karl DID attack TP and has done so on several prior occasions. TP is very calm, laid back, and a man of few words on most occasions. He tries to stay out of all the drama and shit. I applaud him for saying what he did and wish he would speak more often.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but TP was trying to defend his Rips which tested out very poorly for purity, and got tons of bad reviews to the point where he had to come up with a new improved renamed product? And you guys think that's defending himself and stick up for him?
 
You know, I started this research when my girlfriends trainer, an ifbb pro, recommended adding hgh to her cycle. Her trainer warned her against taking the generics because it was to risky and she felt they were all garbage. So I looked at the cost (which isn't to bad for female dosage for pharma, but still way more than generic) and was like ouch. But I don't want her injecting anything unsafe and that could hurt her for the rest of her life. Ive learned a ton, and was hoping that thread at pm would help me out. But the censorship of karl, it could have been anyone, was the last straw. It led to my conclusion that the stuff just doesn't pass the smell test, and should be avoided, there's no way I would let my girlfriend run it
 
A

aww mane..... You a funny guy

You want it all served to you on a platter....then you find something to keep the argument going. Why are you so unwilling to accept other info...take that info...and maybe try something new at PM. But you don't. It's the same ole dog n pony show

I've got lots of Document screen-shots (no links)

But:
FDA.gov

Citizen Petition
Pfizer Inc Citizen Petition
Requesting rejection by FDA of New Drug Application for Omnitrope 5.8 mg Somatropin Sandoz, Inc

Morgan Lewis
Counselors At Law

May try that

Happy New Year Buddy

I don't want anything served on a platter. I simply want to be able to have a conversation, not speak in code. If you make a claim, then simply post your proof from the study. Instead you post useless information. For example, you state, "Morgan Lewis Counselors at Law". What the fuck does this mean? Its not my job to decipher or research your gibberish. If you want to present your case then present it; but posting "Morgan Lewis" doesn't make it any more valid than me posting "Richard Hertz". And yes, post some screen-shots of the relevant information; that is fine!!
 
I don't want anything served on a platter. I simply want to be able to have a conversation, not speak in code. If you make a claim, then simply post your proof from the study. Instead you post useless information. For example, you state, "Morgan Lewis Counselors at Law". What the fuck does this mean? Its not my job to decipher or research your gibberish. If you want to present your case then present it; but posting "Morgan Lewis" doesn't make it any more valid than me posting "Richard Hertz". And yes, post some screen-shots of the relevant information; that is fine!!
Myrself and cbs posted links
 
I think I've showed you the science before. Perhaps you missed it so I'll post again.

There is a risk of a serious immunogenic reaction with untested biologics. It's already happened with Eprex, a generic eythropoietin, when patients developed pure red cell aplasia and anti-erythropoietin antibodies.

Now you may discount the risk of immunogenicity based on your personal experience and that of your friends but anecdotes don't change facts. The risk of using untested generic hGH is real.


Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2003 Nov;18 Suppl 8:viii37-41.
Pure red cell aplasia and anti-erythropoietin antibodies in patients treated with epoetin.
Casadevall N1.

Abstract
Recombinant human erythropoietin (epoetin) was first used for the treatment of renal anaemia in 1986. During the first 10 years of its use, epoetin-induced antibodies were a rare complication and only three cases of patients with epoetin-induced antibodies associated with pure red cell aplasia (PRCA) were published. Since 1998, however, there has been a significant increase in the number of patients developing severe anaemia during the course of epoetin treatment due to neutralizing antibodies. Patients with PRCA present with an absolute resistance to epoetin therapy and then rapidly develop severe anaemia with a very low reticulocyte count (<10 000/mm(3)). Consequently, patients become dependent on blood transfusions to maintain an acceptable level of haemoglobin. By December 2002, approximately 142 patients worldwide had been diagnosed with antibody-positive PRCA after receiving epoetin. The vast majority of these patients had been treated with the Eprex/Erypo brand of epoetin alfa, but there were also some cases in which patients had been receiving epoetin beta (NeoRecormon). To date, there have been no cases of antibody-mediated PRCA reported with the sole use of darbepoetin alfa (Aranesp). All patients with epoetin-induced anti-erythropoietin antibodies had received the drug subcutaneously (s.c.), and almost all had chronic kidney disease-related anaemia. To our knowledge, no patient treated exclusively by intravenous (i.v.) administration has developed anti-erythropoietin antibodies. The increase in reported cases coincides with the removal of human serum albumin from the ex-US formulation of epoetin alfa, in order to comply with new regulations from the European regulatory authorities. It has been proposed that the new formulation is less stable, allowing aggregates of erythropoietin molecules to form, which increases the probability of antibody formation. Treatment with epoetin must be discontinued if PRCA is suspected. Patients do not respond to an increase in dose. Furthermore, patients must not be switched to another form of erythropoietic therapy as the antibodies cross-react with all erythropoietic therapies available. In around 70% of cases, immunosuppressive regimens are effective in eliminating the antibodies; cessation of epoetin therapy without concomitant immunosuppression is rarely effective. Kidney transplantation seems to provide an immediate and effective cure.



Arch Immunol Ther Exp (Warsz). 2012 Oct;60(5):331-44.
Immunogenicity to biologics: mechanisms, prediction and reduction.
Sethu S1, Govindappa K, Alhaidari M, Pirmohamed M, Park K, Sathish J.

Abstract
Currently, there is a significant rise in the development and clinical use of a unique class of pharmaceuticals termed as Biopharmaceuticals or Biologics, in the management of a range of disease conditions with, remarkable therapeutic benefits. However, there is an equally growing concern regarding development of adverse effects like immunogenicity in the form of anti-drug antibodies (ADA) production and hypersensitivity. Immunogenicity to biologics represents a significant hurdle in the continuing therapy of patients in a number of disease settings. Efforts focussed on the identification of factors that contribute towards the onset of immunogenic response to biologics have led to reductions in the incidence of immunogenicity. An in-depth understanding of the cellular and molecular mechanism underpinning immunogenic responses will likely improve the safety profile of biologics. This review addresses the mechanistic basis of ADA generation to biologics, with emphasis on the role of antigen processing and presentation in this process. The article also addresses the potential contribution of complement system in augmenting or modulating this response. Identifying specific factors that influences processing and presentation of biologic-derived antigens in different genotype and disease background may offer additional options for intervention in the immunogenic process and consequently, the management of immunogenicity to biologics.


Ther Clin Risk Manag. 2011;7:489-93. doi: 10.2147/TCRM.S27495. Epub 2011 Dec 7.
Emerging patient safety issues under health care reform: follow-on biologics and immunogenicity.
Liang BA1, Mackey T.

Abstract
US health care reform includes an abbreviated pathway for follow-on biologics, also known as biosimilars, in an effort to speed up access to these complex therapeutics. However, a key patient safety challenge emerges from such an abbreviated pathway: immunogenicity reactions. Yet immunogenicity is notoriously difficult to predict, and even cooperative approaches in licensing between companies have resulted in patient safety concerns, injury, and death. Because approval pathways for follow-on forms do not involve cooperative disclosure of methods and manufacturing processes by innovator companies and follow-on manufacturers, the potential for expanded immunogenicity must be taken into account from a risk management and patient safety perspective. The US Institute of Safe Medication Practices (ISMP) has principles of medication safety that have been applied in the past to high-risk drugs. We propose adapting ISMP principles to follow-on biologic forms and creating systems approaches to warn, rapidly identify, and alert providers regarding this emerging patient safety risk. This type of system can be built upon and provide lessons learned as these new drug forms are developed and marketed more broadly.

I think everyone is misinterpreting what I am saying and what I am questioning. It all stated when rpbb took a quote out of context from the thread at PM. In that thread, Raj brought up the fact that most people would choose to buy a 6mg vial at 90% purity over a 3mg vial at 98% purity and Karl questioned whether he was crazy or not. That is where my quote came from as unless money were not an issue, I would choose the 6mg vial that has twice the GH for the same price.

Now, nowhere have I said that impurities are good or that impurities are safe. Also, nowhere, have I said that impurities cannot cause an unknown reaction in the body. What I am saying, however, is several fold. First of all, when people think of impurities, they are thinking lead, heavy metals, toxins, etc.. I am stating that impurities are part of the purification process and not to confuse that with those mentioned above. Secondly, I am stating that we don't know what the specific reaction on the body is from these impurities, nor do we know at what level it is triggered. In other words, where is the cutoff line? Why is 98% pure safe, but 90% pure is unsafe. What is the limit and how was it established? CBS, you point out the study about EPO which is quite valid for EPO. But how can you say that this then translates true to GH?
 
Muscle, that's a very powerful argument for what we are saying, kidney transplants suck

With all the generic GH on the market and all these claims of impurities; name 1 person in the bodybuilding world who needed a kidney transplant because of generic GH. I would think it would be quite prevalent in the real world by now if this were the case. I have been using GH for over 2 decades personally and taken quite a bit of the impure Riptropin; yet have suffered no ill effects yet.
 
So the article I posted by a doctor that said the impurities are protein fragments that can cause autoimmune disorders meant nothing to you? And I would take the 3 mg at higher purity all day long, you've pointed out nothing (maybe a link?) that says lower purity hgh is safe
 
And it will be discounted as reactionary and fear mongering, based on nothing more than anecdotal evidence. It always is. The desire for cheap generic hGH always takes precedence over evidence of health risk.

If there was evidence of increased health risk of one GH versus another, I don't think people would be debating about price.
 
This is an ignorant comment showing no knowledge of what has been done and discussed in that thread.
You're right, that thread is nothing but a rah rah nothing that gets people to buy hgh based on serum scores and bro science.

And I have read the whole thread from start to finish
 
And I could question where all the hgh racepick is testing is coming from, and who's paying for the testing, because the amount he's going through is awfully expensive even at generic prices. And strangely enough, he doesn't run any of it long enough to tell anything
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but TP was trying to defend his Rips which tested out very poorly for purity, and got tons of bad reviews to the point where he had to come up with a new improved renamed product? And you guys think that's defending himself and stick up for him?

TP did not come up with a new improved renamed product. You have no clue what you are talking about. Holy shit batman, I can't believe I am reading this. Rips went out of production due to legality issues with the Chinese government cracking down. EVERYONE was HUGELY disappointed that Rips were no longer available and if they became available again, people would go crazy trying to get them as they had a cult like following. The greys were never meant as a replacement for the Rips and TP contended for a while that he was still planning on bringing back the Rips but wanted to find a product worthy of the name before he did.

But, if I listen to what you are saying, he had a poor quality product and was forced off the market. WOW, just WOW is all I have to say.
 
I guess now I'm perturbed that you came here and destroyed Dr j and mands testing program, and your science and methodologies are so far out in left field that I can't believe it. Now all of your arguments are asking people to post links and anecdotes
 
TP did not come up with a new improved renamed product. You have no clue what you are talking about. Holy shit batman, I can't believe I am reading this. Rips went out of production due to legality issues with the Chinese government cracking down. EVERYONE was HUGELY disappointed that Rips were no longer available and if they became available again, people would go crazy trying to get them as they had a cult like following. The greys were never meant as a replacement for the Rips and TP contended for a while that he was still planning on bringing back the Rips but wanted to find a product worthy of the name before he did.

But, if I listen to what you are saying, he had a poor quality product and was forced off the market. WOW, just WOW is all I have to say.
Wow, these sources have more excuses than carter's got pills. His latest marketing gimmick of selling overdosed hgh to set his bogus serum testing apart to sell more shit is even worse
 
Back
Top