New rHGH testing method

[janoshik]

So, I'm not too good on assays, so my apologies. Most won't be interested, but I feel like it ought to be shared with community.

As some of you, who have read my thread know, I've implemented even more strict method for testing HGH this year: Janoshik Analytical laboratory testing services

Not because my old method was bad - it was already more strict than regulating authorities require in Europe, US and rest of the civilized world as well.

My aim was purely scientific - I am, to put it that way - jerking myself off to the fact that I am able test stuff more precisely than was even published by respected researchers. I felt like providing tests much more sensitive to impurities and GH degradation products can bring more information to everybody. It can provide better measuring stick for the compound that people are putting into their bodies, it can help explain why the sides are more pronounced with one product and less with other. I also hoped that more sensitive testing would incentivize generic manufacturers to provide higher quality products. Many of you had witnessed what market was like mere 5 years ago and how testing has transformed it for the better. Now I saw this as a chance to improve my work and, in a way to improve the world for everybody involved in this kind of stuff as well.

Unfortunately, it's less than 2 weeks since I've started (after more than a month of warning beforehand about method change in my email signature) and I'm already getting MASSIVE pushback. Some of it is in my email, discord, but you can already see vendors questioning my methods over here as well. There have been claims that my method is wrong, for some vague reason, or that I am screwing something up by setting a temperature wrong, or that my method is so strict, that no hormone will ever pass it.

So I have, yet again ordered a costly EU Pharma GH standard to disprove that, despite having the method standardized to it less than a month ago.



The official data for the HGH standard, which was delivered to me on ice a few hours ago are available here:
https://crs.edqm.eu/db/4DCGI/db/4DCGI/leaflet?leaflet=S0947000_3




Now, what did the new wrong method determine?




Apparently, the logic that the method is wrong, the temperature decreases the purity to less than real purity etc is not, for some reason, working on a sample purchased directly from the international authority on quality of medicines:



This also doesn't really confirm the fact that the method by itself produces severely underdosed results...

 

[janoshik]

So what will it be?

Will people have to start accepting lower purity values on the reports?
Or will the GH users force the generic manufacturers to better their quality and see what the new normal range is?

Maybe the GH manufacturers will try to switch to testing that cannot determine quality at all?

It's up to you to force better testing. It works.
You all are seeing in real time that random blind tests work like nothing else.

 

[canadian mutant]

Nice man, is this the method you used when you scammed @mands?

 

[Cashton]

I

So what will it be?

Will people have to start accepting lower purity values on the reports?
Or will the GH users force the generic manufacturers to better their quality and see what the new normal range is?

Maybe the GH manufacturers will try to switch to testing that cannot determine quality at all?

It's up to you to force better testing. It works.
You all are seeing in real time that random blind tests work like nothing else.

I’d like to see some optis tested using this method.

 

[canadian mutant]

You should call this new method “The vial 17 special”

 

[malfeasance]

I am, to put it that way - jerking myself off to the fact that I am able test stuff more precisely than was even published by respected researchers.

Eeewwwww . . . but I did not see any semen in the test report, so how accurate could it be???

 

[janoshik]

Eeewwwww . . . but I did not see any semen in the test report, so how accurate could it be???

You're looking at the wrong place - it's an GH assay, not @canadian mutant's face.

 

[TrennedOutLunatic]

This is some really interesting shit.
You should compare the results of your old method to the new one from the same sample and see if there is a standard deviation between the two methods.
This would require many samples and extra tests though..
Now regarding people and vendors not wanting that shit...who gives a fuck?
They can go somewhere else. Are they scared of something?
A good product is a good product. Full stop.
If their product is fine,they have nothing to be worried about.

 

[janoshik]

This is some really interesting shit.
You should compare the results of your old method to the new one from the same sample and see if there is a standard deviation between the two methods.
This would require many samples and extra tests though..
Now regarding people and vendors not wanting that shit...who gives a fuck?
They can go somewhere else. Are they scared of something?
A good product is a good product. Full stop.
If their product is fine,they have nothing to be worried about.

Janoshik Analytical laboratory testing services

Now, for some samples the difference is massive. For EU Pharmacopoeia reference standard, it was quite small.

 

[TrennedOutLunatic]

Janoshik Analytical laboratory testing services

Now, for some samples the difference is massive. For EU Pharmacopoeia reference standard, it was quite small.

This is confusing

In the end of the day,which method is the right one and why?
Was the older method not sufficient to determine purity ?

 

[janoshik]

This is confusing

In the end of the day,which method is the right one and why?
Was the older method not sufficient to determine purity ?

The newer one is better, the old method was not bad - it was already more strict than regulating authorities require in Europe, US and rest of the civilized world as well, but the new one is even better than that.

 

[muscletrain]

Always good to see improvements, now I just need to see some Opti's tested with this method before I do my next order. Paging Doctor @opti

 

[B Ware]

Always good to see improvements, now I just need to see some Opti's tested with this method before I do my next order. Paging Doctor @opti

Very curious to see this myself. Optis have never tested below 99% and never with dimmer. I would hope the new method would yield similar results or there will definitely be some eyebrows raised. A lot of members including myself purchased based off those lab reports.

 

[janoshik]

Very curious to see this myself. Optis have never tested below 99% and never with dimmer. I would hope the new method would yield the similar results or there will definitely be some eyebrows raised. A lot of members including myself purchased based off those lab reports.

If it tested well with previous method, then it's already better than the official pharma requirements are.

However, you can either have considerable improvement in methodology or similar results for all instances, not both. For some GH the difference is smaller, for some it's bigger between the two methods.

As 2021 will progress there will be a lot more reports done with the new method and the new normal reference values will be set for people and the bettered method will let people make choices based on more information than before.

I like to think that GH users prefer that I strive for improvement over the years, despite there being no competition in the field to speak of.

I would have never thought I'd have to advocate providing more info to the members and improving my service.

 

[Mammoth]

I have some hgh to test and I would be more than happy to use your new method. Dm'd

 

[muscletrain]

If it tested well with previous method, then it's already better than the official pharma requirements are.

However, you can either have considerable improvement in methodology or similar results for all instances, not both. For some GH the difference is smaller, for some it's bigger between the two methods.

As 2021 will progress there will be a lot more reports done with the new method and the new normal reference values will be set for people and the bettered method will let people make choices based on more information than before.

I like to think that GH users prefer that I strive for improvement over the years, despite there being no competition in the field to speak of.

I would have never thought I'd have to advocate providing more info to the members and improving my service.

Any theory to why the purity is typically dropping on the new test? Able to detect more/different filler? Could there be say a GH that has always tested 98+ on the old assay and then comes back at some number that is gonna piss ppl off like in the 80s?

 

[Mammoth]

The number of IU's drop as well or just the purity? Im confused a little

 

[janoshik]

Any theory to why the purity is typically dropping on the new test? Able to detect more/different filler? Could there be say a GH that has always tested 98+ on the old assay and then comes back at some number that is gonna piss ppl off like in the 80s?

The new test is using a bit different stationary and mobile phase conditions, which allows the impurities to get integrated better. Basically, the impurities are farther away from HGH peak, so you can calculate their amount more accurately.

For example, if impurity was 90% hidden in the main HGH peak I knew that it is there with the old method as well, however, as the two peaks partially coincided, not the entire impurity peak could've been counted into impurities. If I have a spare minute at work today I'll post up a close comparison to visualize what I mean.

 

[muscletrain]

The new test is using a bit different stationary and mobile phase conditions, which allows the impurities to get integrated better. Basically, the impurities are farther away from HGH peak, so you can calculate their amount more accurately.

For example, if impurity was 90% hidden in the main HGH peak I knew that it is there with the old method as well, however, as the two peaks partially coincided, not the entire impurity peak could've been counted into impurities. If I have a spare minute at work today I'll post up a close comparison to visualize what I mean.

Makes sense so with the new method you can get a clearer picture of impurity levels as the peaks don't overlap as much if at all compared to the previous method?

 

[janoshik]

Makes sense so with the new method you can get a clearer picture of impurity levels as the peaks don't overlap as much if at all compared to the previous method?

Correct!

Maybe some can be seen on this picture as well?
I put the red lines to point to the corresponding peak in each method.