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

[ProfessorX]

L

I agree and don't care for that either. That being said, there are several dozen source boards and they all do that. It makes no sense to single out PM or it's members because of how the board operates and what the sources do. It's a business and the sources are all paying to be there. There is one source who states an "average number" and how much higher his gh serum tested at. If the board wasn't censored, I and I'm sure a lot of others would jump all over statements like that and turn the thread into a shit show.

IMO getting upset about what's on these boards is tantamount to having a meltdown every time you see a supplement add in Flex where 300lb land monsters claim their gains were because of their sponsors protein powder.

Lol.....Touché

Members (end users) working together is always best

Conquer and Divide happened here unfortunately

What Jim/Mands were doing could have been really great.

I think the guys at PM will soon find out how much it takes to get samples lab tested

I really hope they do not lose interest as it's the best method for learning IMO

This thread has been like eating sour patch candy on a roller coaster

 

[muscle96ss]

I think we all need to check our egos at the door guys. And realize what we have here is simple miscommunication.

Muscle, the value that px/hr's protocol brings is what we all want. By duplicating legitimate scientific research (not broscientific), we can finally in addition with HPLC testing put to rest the discussion. Is the Chinese stuff "bioequivalent" to pharma?

Px/hr, please don't give up on helping others to duplicate this test protocol. We need all the help we can get because it is more costly and time consuming than the "PM" way.

I hope we can return to respectful discussion because I am learning a lot as well as wanting to attempt experiments of my own. I am sure many others are also lurking the thread.

I don't understand how Prof X's protocol of taking time off GH to get my IGF-1 to bottom out, then injecting 15iu subq and spending $150 on 2 IGF-1's(one prior to injection and one 2 hours later); tells me more info then injecting 4iu for a few weeks and then getting an IGF-1? And how is that based on science?? What science is this; please post it? The Tanaka study presented in this very thread contradicts this. Now if you are suggesting that we run IGF-1's on pharma GH and compare it to generic GH then I understand your train of thought. I understand it so much that we have already done that on PM and have done numerous tests of different sorts with pharm GH. For those making criticism, you may not realize but the thread is "HGH Testing Thread". That includes all GH. Everyone is encouraged to do their own tests of any GH they are taking and to post them in the thread.

 

[ProfessorX]

Well no brutha, it was done with as little as 6IUs. I'll do it with 5IUs next testing.

That (doubling IGF1) was only done to show elevation of IGF1 in a different light. It also shows GH and not Peptide (GHRP). I was butting heads with GH Sources about elevation. They all claimed the same info.

GH Serum shows how strong
IGF1 takes time (4 weeks) to build up

Both are false of course

Doing 5IUs 8-10 days is another type of testing protocol

I understand the quick inject an entire vial then run a Serum

But....it's just too simple of a test for such a complex GH Protein

And I understand the testing done at PM...lots of time spent. I don't disagree

The testing I did on my own took a great deal of time, planning, etc

But....I learned a lot

 

[muscle96ss]

Well no brutha, it was done with as little as 6IUs. I'll do it with 5IUs next testing.

That (doubling IGF1) was only done to show elevation of IGF1 in a different light. It also shows GH and not Peptide (GHRP). I was butting heads with GH Sources about elevation. They all claimed the same info.

GH Serum shows how strong
IGF1 takes time (4 weeks) to build up

Both are false of course

Doing 5IUs 8-10 days is another type of testing protocol

I understand the quick inject an entire vial then run a Serum

But....it's just too simple of a test for such a complex GH Protein

But what advantage does your "doubling IGF1" protocol have over a regular IGF-1 protocol taken after using GH for a given duration on a fixed dosage? In fact, if my IGF-1 will double whether I take 6iu or 15iu; then doesn't the normal IGF-1 protocol give me more useful information?

 

[ProfessorX]

I'm not sure I follow....but....just forget the Doubling IGF1

Just running a simple boring IGF1 test is best

Same as when I go to my HRT Clinic

Never had the Doc asked me for a GH Serum test.... Only IGF1

If you guys are running IGF1s properly...then all this back in forth was for null

All I've seen is lots of GH Serum Hyped up

Bottom line...you can only determine so much with IGF1 (Generic GH)

GH Serums even less

The inject a vial/GH Serum protocol is used because it's cheap...and everyone has access to it

It's just a "marketing test"

Like I mentioned. Lab test a vial and compare blood serum vial

That's bout it brutha

 

[muscle96ss]

I'm not sure I follow....but....just forget the Doubling IGF1

Just running a simple boring IGF1 test is best

Same as when I go to my HRT Clinic

Never had the Doc asked me for a GH Serum test.... Only IGF1

If you guys are running IGF1s properly...then all this back in forth was full null

All I've seen is lots of GH Serum Hyped up

Bottom line...you can only determine so much with IGF1 (Generic GH)

GH Serums even less

That's bout it brutha

I agree that IGF-1's are better in most cases than serums; never said anything different. But IGF-1's are going to be variable between individuals as well and will not always be an accurate reflection of the amount of GH taken. For example, we have seen bucks IGF-1 levels plummet on pharm grade GH when his liver enzymes are elevated. So while he scored a high serum and we know it was pharm grade GH, he had a low IGF-1(which if it was an unknown generic GH would throw up red flags). So there are drawbacks as well as in this case the serum is more valuable than the IGF-1.

 

[ProfessorX]

I agree that IGF-1's are better in most cases than serums; never said anything different. But IGF-1's are going to be variable between individuals as well and will not always be an accurate reflection of the amount of GH taken. For example, we have seen bucks IGF-1 levels plummet on pharm grade GH when his liver enzymes are elevated. So while he scored a high serum and we know it was pharm grade GH, he had a low IGF-1(which if it was an unknown generic GH would throw up red flags). So there are drawbacks as well as in this case the serum is more valuable than the IGF-1.

And I'm not doubting your testing brutha

After I posted all my info (Blood Work, HPLC, UPLC)
Our testing is showing consistent IGF1s

2Ius - 200
3ius - 300
4Ius - 400
5ius - 500

This is results from multiple members

IGF1 "reflects" dose

But it's just blood work my friend

Lots variations can happen

But one indication would be an issue with the GH

Maybe Bucks low IGF1 is from the Generic GH
(Protein Immunogenicity or Tolerance)

I dunno bro

I suggest maybe reading about BioSimilars and Generic Drugs

 

[muscle96ss]

And I'm not doubting your testing brutha

After I posted all my info (Blood Work, HPLC, UPLC)
Our testing is showing consistent IGF1s

2Ius - 200
3ius - 300
4Ius - 400
5ius - 500

This is results from multiple members

IGF1 "reflects" dose

But it's just blood work my friend

Lots variations can happen

I suggest maybe reading about BioSimilars and Generic Drugs

IGF-1 doesn't necessarily reflect dosage and that is why the medical community uses the IGF=1 lab test to monitor dosage. That way they can adjust the dosage to get the intended result. There are just too many variables to say that if you take 4iu for 10 days, I take 4iu for 10 days, and buck takes 4iu for 10 days; that we all should have the same IGF-1's. That just isn't a reality. I already posted the 100's rule the other day, so I understand what you are saying, but it is just a rough estimate like the estimates/rules for taking testosterone for HRT. In fact if we could time a serum to hit the peak every time, then that would reflect dosage even better than IGF-1, because it relies on less variables. However, on the serums, we have no idea where in relation to the peak we are when the blood is actually drawn.

 

[ProfessorX]

"that is why the medical community uses the IGF=1 lab test to monitor dosage. That way they can adjust the dosage to get the intended result"

I agree with this

My blood work (IGF1) reflects dose

We have multiple members with similar results

I'm doing another testing starting tomorrow

It'll show IGF1 in relation to dose

Buy yes, it's based on the individual... I absolutely agree

I'll share the results with ya when I'm done

I think our difference is we are doing more IGF1s now and have gone away from GH Serums

 

[muscle96ss]

"that is why the medical community uses the IGF=1 lab test to monitor dosage. That way they can adjust the dosage to get the intended result"

I agree with this

My blood work (IGF1) reflects dose

We have multiple members with similar results

I'm doing another testing starting tomorrow

It'll show IGF1 in relation to dose

I'll share with ya when I'm
Done

I think our difference is we are doing more IGF1s and have gone away from GH Serums

At PM, we are using both. People seem to focus on our serums and criticize us for our interpretations and usage of the serums. But we have done a lot of work with IGF-1's as well which is being ignored. And many of the conclusion we have made about serums come from analysis with IGF-1's. In particular, I am very in tune with my body and have done a shitload of tests myself. That is where I have drawn a lot of my conclusions from.

 

[roastdawg]

At PM, we are using both. People seem to focus on our serums and criticize us for our interpretations and usage of the serums. But we have done a lot of work with IGF-1's as well which is being ignored. And many of the conclusion we have made about serums come from analysis with IGF-1's. In particular, I am very in tune with my body and have done a shitload of tests myself. That is where I have drawn a lot of my conclusions from.

Figure out a way to get those kits anonymously and those serum/igf's will be gold.

 

[ProfessorX]

I hear ya. But, at the end of the day.....it's just blood work not designed to tell us if our Unregulated "GENERIC" GH from China is of "Pharma" (BIOSIMILAR) quality.

A Generic is a chemically derived medicinal product, usually a simple, homogeneous small molecule, whose bioequivalence must be demonstrated. However, a Biosimilar is a medicinal product of biological origin, usually with a complex structure, and large proteins (such as antibodies) that are subject of heterogeneity. As a result of that heterogeneity, any variation must be assessed to ensure that there is no therapeutic consequence for the patient, and also the biosimilarity needs to be demonstrated through rigorous comparisons of efficacy and safety.
Therefore, the regulatory requirements of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) for the development of biosimilars are more demanding than for developing generics.

I don't think the EMA would approve the 10IU IM 3Hr GH Serum BBing Forum testing protocol

I also thought I was "In Tune" with my blood work.....until I started testing the actual vial Vs my Blood Serum

http://www.pharmacypracticenews.com/download/SR1229_WM.pdf

 

[muscle96ss]

I hear ya. But, at the end of the day.....it's just blood work not designed to tell us if our Unregulated "GENERIC" GH from China is of "Pharma" (BIOSIMILAR) quality.

A Generic is a chemically derived medicinal product, usually a simple, homogeneous small molecule, whose bioequivalence must be demonstrated. However, a Biosimilar is a medicinal product of biological origin, usually with a complex structure, and large proteins (such as antibodies) that are subject of heterogeneity. As a result of that heterogeneity, any variation must be assessed to ensure that there is no therapeutic consequence for the patient, and also the biosimilarity needs to be demonstrated through rigorous comparisons of efficacy and safety.
Therefore, the regulatory requirements of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) for the development of biosimilars are more demanding than for developing generics.

I don't think the EMA would approve the 10IU IM 3Hr GH Serum BBing Forum testing protocol

I also thought I was "In Tune" with my blood work.....until I started testing the actual vial Vs my Blood Serum

http://www.pharmacypracticenews.com/download/SR1229_WM.pdf

Nothing will tell you if what you have is identical to the pharma other than a bunch of complex expensive lab tests. Even the basic Simec tests for purity and identification won't tell you that.

 

[muscle96ss]

Figure out a way to get those kits anonymously and those serum/igf's will be gold.

I agree, and that is why with our upcoming lab testing, the vials being tested will be from trusted members that placed orders anonymously.

Also, for what its worth up until recently(the past year or so) the majority of my testing was done from my anonymous orders. In fact I have turned down numerous sponsors requesting me to test for them, because I knew that they would most likely be using me to make their product look good and I had questions about their legitimacy as a source.

 

[ProfessorX]

Nothing will tell you if what you have is identical to the pharma other than a bunch of complex expensive lab tests. Even the basic Simec tests for purity and identification won't tell you that.

My Protein Characterization test does (did) of the Ang n God. They were very similar to the Authentic GenSci

But yes, this test would run the average Joe $3000 per test unfortunately

I was surprised actually at the quality of both the generics

It's just keeping them consistent is the problem. And they are proving to be inconsistent

 

[muscle96ss]

My Protein Characterization test does (did) of the Ang n God. They were very similar to the Authentic GenSci

But yes, this test would run the average Joe $3000 per test unfortunately

I was surprised actually at the quality of both the generics

It's just keeping them consistent is the problem. And they are proving to be inconsistent

I don't know anything about those 2 GH's, but I would think if they had the capability to make a good product(which you say they demonstrated by your tests), why would they not continue to make a quality product. I know you can't answer that question, but it just doesn't make sense.

 

[ProfessorX]

Well, it's more one than the other

They do not manufacture

Merely buy product from several sources and package that product

I can tell you that the source was using GH Serum testing to "test" his new batches. None of the Generic Sources actually lab test. I think that was one issue. That, and looking for a cheaper source after the first source (quality batch) increased the price because of random Chinese Gov Inspections

 

[Buck1973]

And I'm not doubting your testing brutha

After I posted all my info (Blood Work, HPLC, UPLC)
Our testing is showing consistent IGF1s

2Ius - 200
3ius - 300
4Ius - 400
5ius - 500

This is results from multiple members

IGF1 "reflects" dose

But it's just blood work my friend

Lots variations can happen

But one indication would be an issue with the GH

Maybe Bucks low IGF1 is from the Generic GH
(Protein Immunogenicity or Tolerance)

I dunno bro

I suggest maybe reading about BioSimilars and Generic Drugs

As you cannot asign a number to a dose on a Serum you cannot do the same on the IGF-1 test. the 100 Igf-1 points per 1 iu HGh somewhat works up until 4 iu's, its very iffy after that and individual based as you must know how that specific tester tests. I am not sure what data ya have or tests preformed. But if you have a protocol that tests a set dosage and pull a IGF-1 after 1 week and repeat that for several weeks you will see varying test scores in the same individual tester on that dose. We have seen this vary a great amount. Now is this varing amounts in vial to vial, variables in the tester, or just the accuracy of the test itself?
But these variances we see are greater than 25% (crude numbers) so if we do a IGF-1 and hit a high or low . Reasonably one could say this is under or overdosed if this factor isnt taken in to consideration. so Just as you warn these Serums are not a good indicator of quantity of HGH in a vial I will say the same to you about using these IGF-1 as a indicator of the same.again many things can effect and or influence these scores.The serums are simple and simple to figure out as it is a short time in the blood and 1 singular test. anyone can do some testing and know what they are worth.The IGF-1 well quite different and not as simple, as if we test after a week on for xample, we must look back at everything we done in that week previous to that test that may effect these scores. We must also be sure the liver is in good tune to have good conversion. Hence diet would be of importance to name 1 thing ( alcohol use,AAS use,OTC meds, sups BB'rs tend to be on,) training some will make the claim that can have a huge effect on the Liver.
If we know the limitations of these serums do the same due diligence on the IGF-1 tests and Know there limitations as well of how we are using them.
By the same token it was stated that most studies done are in very controlled environments and not on BBrs. in the general public on various compounds and supplements this also pertains..
Put 1type of test under the microscope do the same for all equally.
No debate of what the progression of testing should be :
You would agree to lab test 1 vial out of so many has its limitations a well.
If we have good serums and or good IGF-1 tests and we Do a lab check after that we learn and judge. But if we have blanks on serums and poor igf-1 test would anyone proceed with full lab analysis?

Peace

 

[ProfessorX]

I'm not sure I follow buddy

But I agree with Muscle:

"that is why the medical community uses the IGF=1 lab test to monitor dosage. That way they can adjust the dosage to get the intended result"

But again....it's a "reference" or "marker"

My IGF1 is always within a range on different doses of GENLEI Jintropin (China Pharma)

Another member uses Norditropin with similar response to dose

Several members (myself included) had low IGF1 response to a bad batch of GodTropin (sample being tested)

IGF1 mediates the therapeutic properties of GH

The spurious relationship between serum IGF1 levels and growth response precludes the use of IGF1 as a surrogate marker for efficacy.

 

[muscle96ss]

I'm not sure I follow buddy

But I agree with Muscle:

"that is why the medical community uses the IGF=1 lab test to monitor dosage. That way they can adjust the dosage to get the intended result"

But again....it's a "reference" or "marker"

My IGF1 is always within a range on different doses of GENLEI Jintropin (China Pharma)

Another member uses Norditropin with similar response to dose

Several members (myself included) had low IGF1 response to a bad batch of GodTropin (sample being tested)


IGF1 mediates the therapeutic properties of GH

Let me explain what buck is saying with an analogy. The optimal range of total testosterone for those on HRT is roughly 700ng/dl. A doctor treating patients for HRT will most likely have patients with dosages of tests cyp anywhere from 50mg per week to 200mg per week to get the patient to be around that 700 range. The doctor will then monitor their test levels every so often to make sure that the same dosage is still having the same effect.

This scenario is the exact same with GH. In fact I was personally prescribed HGH in the early to mid 90's for several years, so I know how it works.

Every person is a unique individual and processed these drugs very differently. What works for one person may not work for another. In fact, there would be no reason for doctors to run blood work if everyone could take the same amount of GH to get the same IGF-1 level.