Qingdao Sigma Chemical Co., Ltd (International, US, EU, Canada and Australia domestic

Sure but your not speaking in terms of proteins where intramolecular interactions are absolutely able to denature the fragile proteins. In this situation the solvent (bac water) is the same. If there's no change to solution there would be no visible precipitation of protein which is exactly what happened.

Not like I have a degree in biochemistry too brother, your not the only smart guy here.
Wow, I didn't mean to trigger you man. Please calm down.

But there was a change to the solution: a new solute was added. And yes, I wasn't speaking of intramolecular interactions (which ones are you alluding to, specifically?), I was purely focusing on intermolecular interactions, since those were the most pertinent given the conditions.

And I never said that it wasn't denatured; I said that just because precipitation is present does not automatically indicate denaturation.
 
But there was a change to the solution: a new solute was added. And yes, I wasn't speaking of intramolecular interactions (which ones are you alluding to, specifically?), I was purely focusing on intermolecular interactions, since those were the most pertinent given the conditions.

And I never said that it wasn't denatured; I said that just because precipitation is present does not automatically indicate denaturation.
What else would explain the visual change in solution when adding in hcg to the solution
 
In this specific example that I was commenting on.
No you laid out all the possible variables but never offered an alternative to what made the solution cloudy. If not denatured protein what caused the change? Simple question for you I'm surs

If there was a visual change in the solution you must agree that a change occurred yes? If not protein denauration in a solution that contains two proteins and bacteriostatic water? Please enlighten me in a brief response that is not buried in minutia irrelevant to the specific question I am asking.
 
In this specific example that I was commenting on.
No you laid out all the possible variables but never offered an alternative to what made the solution cloudy. If not denatured protein what caused the change? Simple question for you I'm surs
Sigh, I laid it all out in my first response. Whether you believe it makes no difference to me. This is going nowhere, so I'm stepping away. Have a good night, and no hard feelings.
 
Sigh, I laid it all out in my first response. Whether you believe it makes no difference to me. This is going nowhere, so I'm stepping away. Have a good night, and no hard feelings.
Your clearly an intelligent person, but you fall into the trap so many intelligent people do and over complicated your response to the point that you cannot lay out a simple explanation other than the one I proposed, protein denaturation.

Occams razor, the simplest explanation is often the most correct. You have a closed system where all variables are constant except for the introduction of a new protein in the same solvent. When they are combined, the solution turns cloudy. 99% that's protein being denatured. All variables you laid out were constant, and thus the intermolecular forces are causing denaturation. Which you said, but somehow when I say that the protein is being denatured I am incorrect? Or was I speaking in too much of an absolute terms for your liking? Please enlighten me. I am happy to hear what else it could be.
 
Wow, I didn't mean to trigger you man. Please calm down.

But there was a change to the solution: a new solute was added. And yes, I wasn't speaking of intramolecular interactions (which ones are you alluding to, specifically?), I was purely focusing on intermolecular interactions, since those were the most pertinent given the conditions.

And I never said that it wasn't denatured; I said that just because precipitation is present does not automatically indicate denaturation.
I see it was me being careless and speaking in absolute terms, so excuse me for my misuse of semantics, your intelligence is much better served doing things other than arguing semantics.

Seriously I respect your contributions but really dislike it when people try to drown everyone in scientific jargon.

I try to write in a way that will be understood by 99% of people who are reading my comments. If that means I get lazy and speak in absolutes my apologies. But don't try to undermine my point in minutia and confuse the majority of people reading what your write when your essentially agreeing with me.
 
Naw man, just joking around. I was legitimately curious about the outcome, maybe the green guy will comment when he comes back.
Lol ok sorry guys, I actually do enjoy his contributions genuinely. And yeah I may have upped my test and primo this week and may be a little ragey, my apologies boy's.

Idk man I feel like an asshole now sorry green amine!

I do get triggered when people with phd's try and marginalize my contributions.... I'm working on my issues sorry lol
 
I read somewhere that you shouldnt put HCG and HGH in the same syringe because of pH difference. I dunno how true that is.

I am not sure either anymore.... I think to be on the safe side I would just do 2 shots, but it could be fine.

Shit Dave palumbo used to mix the gh into his oil shots, he says just mix it up like a vinaigrette and shoot it lol but idk about that.
 
cool, I had a box that was partially ripped open when I received one order. The other 3 orders I’ve had have been fine, but that’s not always the case.

Using your one example to say others haven’t had issues is silly.
It is very clear that source pack it very well,you need to keep in mind that workers in post office could rip it. Why the hell would source rip their own package
 
Back
Top