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

[Ghoul]

There isn't great science on this but for 10 IU vials, I add 2 mL BAC and shoot it in two 1 mL subQ shots daily.

In the absence of better evidence, I'm siding with more diluted rather than more concentrated (for other peptides too).

Completely by coincidence, I was reading a study looking at HGH injection pain, and they consider reducing injection volume as a strategy, since sub-q injections over 1ml are known to be painful, but as I noted, high concentration speeds up degradation of peptides (and proteins) by forming aggregates.

One approach to reducing the injection volume is to increase hGH concentration. However, as mentioned previously, highly concentrated hGH formulations have higher viscosity and thus a higher risk of aggregate or insoluble particulate formation, compromising product stability and safety.

The compromised "safety" they mention is the immune reaction to the aggregates which causes immunity to HGH and even natural growth hormone to develop (this happens in about 2% of patients, who have to stop treatment. I'll bet there's an even higher percentage of people using UGL who don't realize they've developed immunity to HGH, it just "doesn't work", or they need really high doses).

They conclude that whatever the total HGH dose, it should "fit" into 0.5-.8ml, which is well above the minimum dilution of any dose (even BB doses), but also provides the right pharmacokinetics, allowing HGH to absorb into the body at the ideal rate, with minimal pain:

According to these results, injection volumes ≤ 1.0 mL are preferred, and 0.5-0.8 mL is ideal.

Frontiers | New insight into the importance of formulation variables on parenteral growth hormone preparations: potential effect on the injection-site pain

Reducing injection-site pain (ISP) in patients with chronic conditions such as growth hormone deficiency is a valuable strategy to improve patient compliance...

www.frontiersin.org

 

[Ghoul]

By the way, mix two peptides in the same syringe, and you have many new ways the two peptides can "stick" to each other. This not only forms more peptide wasting aggregates, but new, never before studied aggregate shapes that will have completely untested effects on the immune system. No one is studying all the combinations a reta and sema peptide can form when attaching to each other, building new, never seen aggregates and what weird immune response that can induce. It may be many years before the effects of that "in body reddit sponsored experimentation" become clear.

This is one reason the FDA stepped in and banned compounding pharmacies from combining multiple peptides. They specifically noted the potentially catastrophic long term effects this may have.

None of this is a concern if you stick to one compound, using the pharma protocol, and a reminder not to think of peptides like AAS.

 

[Grey Spartan]

Don’t make me fuck around and find out.

All jokes bro. I don't want your wife hunting me down and slapping me around. lol

 

[Middus]

Please don't take anything in this response personally, it's a reasonable question.

I use it to illustrate the absurdity of how the most basic factors don't cross the mind of people using these compounds, who are so confident making up protocols based on "feels", mixed peptide recipes, and scoff at what's taken massive amounts of effort to ensure is a safe, effective protocol.

Other factors like dosing frequency are equally significant, but this is the simplest to explain.

Reconstitution ratios affect two major factors:

First, the amount of liquid determines the pharmacokinetics, ie how quickly the dose is delivered systemically. The more liquid, the slower the rate of delivery. Cut that dose of Sema from .75ml to. .10ml, and instead of building in blood levels slowly over several hours, it'll be minutes. This intense hit of Sema can significantly increase the strength of side effects and induce transient hypoglycemia (low blood sugar).

Secondly, the more concentrated the solution is, the higher the rate of "aggregation". Aggregates are formed from peptides "sticking" together, and TLDR, they become ineffective and wasted. This gets progressively worse with time, reducing potency.

Immune response is also impacted by concentration, but too much to get into here.

For the "correct" concentrations, refer to what pharma uses. If not an approved drug, refer to the clinical trials. Finally, if it's not a pharma compound, look at what researchers are using in their studies. It tends to be uniform.

Exceeding the "correct" dilution rates isn't a significant problem, the worst impact slowing the amount of time needed to take effect. Going lower causes the problems above and should be avoided.

So, as examples:

Sema: Up to 1.4mg, .50ml per dose.
then Up to 2.4mg, .75ml per dose

Tirz: Up to 15mg, .50ml per dose

Reta: Up to 12mg, .50ml per dose

PT-141: Up to 1.75mg, .30ml per dose

HGH: No less than .05ml per iu.

This is as extrapolated as stacking IMO. For one thing, pharma didn't study lyophilized, so theories about dilution mixes for these peptides are based on extrapolations. Ideally I see no reason why dilution factor would affect anything apart from injection site reactions for certain peptides (very acidic or very alkaline). Certainly not the well buffered ones.

 

[deadbeef]

You are suggesting the concentration of the drug being delivered is affecting the time of effect? Lol

Sounds made up to me.

 

[Middus]

Completely by coincidence, I was reading a study looking at HGH injection pain, and they consider reducing injection volume as a strategy, since sub-q injections over 1ml are known to be painful, but as I noted, high concentration speeds up degradation of peptides (and proteins) by forming aggregates.

One approach to reducing the injection volume is to increase hGH concentration. However, as mentioned previously, highly concentrated hGH formulations have higher viscosity and thus a higher risk of aggregate or insoluble particulate formation, compromising product stability and safety.

The compromised "safety" they mention is the immune reaction to the aggregates which causes immunity to HGH and even natural growth hormone to develop (this happens in about 2% of patients, who have to stop treatment. I'll bet there's an even higher percentage of people using UGL who don't realize they've developed immunity to HGH, it just "doesn't work", or they need really high doses).

They conclude that whatever the total HGH dose, it should "fit" into 0.5-.8ml, which is well above the minimum dilution of any dose (even BB doses), but also provides the right pharmacokinetics, allowing HGH to absorb into the body at the ideal rate, with minimal pain:

According to these results, injection volumes ≤ 1.0 mL are preferred, and 0.5-0.8 mL is ideal.

Frontiers | New insight into the importance of formulation variables on parenteral growth hormone preparations: potential effect on the injection-site pain

Reducing injection-site pain (ISP) in patients with chronic conditions such as growth hormone deficiency is a valuable strategy to improve patient compliance...

www.frontiersin.org

I think we need to relax a bit here. Many times, even when people (which funny enough is usually around 2% in a lot of cases) develop Neutralizing antibodies to peptides, these reactions are almost always limited to injection site reactions. As with Tesamorelin and Tirzepatide, the presence of Neutralizing antibodies had no effect on the 'effectiveness' of Tesamorelin and Tirzepatide in the individuals expressing these antibodies. Phew!!

 

[thejumpingsheep]

1st, thank you Meso and QSC. My adventure here has literally been life changing and im just getting started.

Disclaimer: when I started all this I was very skeptical. I thought its mostly BS but I was desperate so I tried it. Even after early results I still didnt totally believe it.

I wanted to report a test results I got back today using QSC stuff. I think its relevent to the discussion going on about mixing stuff. These last 2 months I have been on the following:

10mg (BPC/TB)
45mg GHK-CU
30mg Tirz
30iu HGH

All fully diluted in a single 3mL insulin style cartridge. Needle = 32g x 4mm (from Walgreens). Injected to stomach region at various times. I did 0.2mL dose per day. So just take the above and divide by 15 days.

Today I got my IGL-1 and it came out 343. My doctor is not happy (lol). So I think its safe to say that the HGH likely worked.

The following is anecdotal, but I did some major healing in the shoulders and knees, as in, these were long time nagging problems that have improved so much that I cant believe its a coincidence that they healed 1mo or 2mo after starting this mix. So my "bro science" feeling is that the BPC/TB/GHK works as well. Which did what is unknown but I dont care. Ill just keep using that mix.

The Tirz is unknown. I was on moujaro prior and I know that worked but I did plateau about 4 months ago. I had not gained or lost weight in that time. With this mix, I also didnt gain or lose weight and I didnt notice any major changes in appetite. Ill switch back to weekly doses moving forward, following @ghouls advice.

Anyway, I wanted to put a number on the HGH mixture. Make what you will of it.

 

[Middus]

1st, thank you Meso and QSR. My adventure here has literally been life changing and im just getting started.

Disclaimer: when I started all this I was very skeptical. I thought its mostly BS but I was desperate so I tried it. Even after early results I still didnt totally believe it.

I wanted to report a test results I got back today using QSR stuff. I think its relevent to the discussion going on about mixing stuff. These last 2 months I have been on the following:

10mg (BPC/TB)
60mg GHK-CU
30mg Tirz
30iu HGH

All fully diluted in a single 3mL insulin style cartridge. Needle = 32g x 4mm (from Walgreens). Injected to stomach region at various times. I did 0.2mL dose per day. So just take the above and divide by 15 days.

Today I got my IGL-1 and it came out 343. My doctor is not happy (lol). So I think its safe to say that the HGH likely worked.

The following is anecdotal, but I did some major healing in the shoulders and knees, as in, these were long time nagging problems that have improved so much that I cant believe its a coincidence that they healed 1mo or 2mo after starting this mix. So my "bro science" feeling is that the BPC/TB/GHK works as well. Which did what is unknown but I dont care. Ill just keep using that mix.

The Tirz is unknown. I was on moujaro prior and I know that worked but I did plateau about 4 months ago. I had not gained or lost weight in that time. With this mix, I also didnt gain or lose weight and I didnt notice any major changes in appetite. Ill switch back to weekly doses moving forward, following @ghouls advice.

Anyway, I wanted to put a number on the HGH mixture. Make what you will of it.

Qingdao Sigma Reagent vs Qingdao Sigma chemical

 

[thejumpingsheep]

Qingdao Sigma Reagent vs Qingdao Sigma chemical

QSC, my bad. Fixed it above.

 

[UncleBuns]

1st, thank you Meso and QSC. My adventure here has literally been life changing and im just getting started.

Disclaimer: when I started all this I was very skeptical. I thought its mostly BS but I was desperate so I tried it. Even after early results I still didnt totally believe it.

I wanted to report a test results I got back today using QSC stuff. I think its relevent to the discussion going on about mixing stuff. These last 2 months I have been on the following:

10mg (BPC/TB)
45mg GHK-CU
30mg Tirz
30iu HGH

All fully diluted in a single 3mL insulin style cartridge. Needle = 32g x 4mm (from Walgreens). Injected to stomach region at various times. I did 0.2mL dose per day. So just take the above and divide by 15 days.

Today I got my IGL-1 and it came out 343. My doctor is not happy (lol). So I think its safe to say that the HGH likely worked.

The following is anecdotal, but I did some major healing in the shoulders and knees, as in, these were long time nagging problems that have improved so much that I cant believe its a coincidence that they healed 1mo or 2mo after starting this mix. So my "bro science" feeling is that the BPC/TB/GHK works as well. Which did what is unknown but I dont care. Ill just keep using that mix.

The Tirz is unknown. I was on moujaro prior and I know that worked but I did plateau about 4 months ago. I had not gained or lost weight in that time. With this mix, I also didnt gain or lose weight and I didnt notice any major changes in appetite. Ill switch back to weekly doses moving forward, following @ghouls advice.

Anyway, I wanted to put a number on the HGH mixture. Make what you will of it.

So IGF 1 of 343 from 2iu GH daily? If so, that's a crazy good response!

 

[Ghoul]

Enlighten me on that last sentence

I’ve been diluting my 15iu’s of GH on .6mL of BAC and injecting it spread out in 3 shots daily. Are you saying more BAC might affect what I’m absorbing out of the GH?

You're using a concentration more dense than the highest pharma GH which is .05 ml / iu. That formulation also has excipients to prevent aggregation, probably because it's susceptible, which UGL doesn't have.

Diluting it more would probably be a good idea.

 

[thejumpingsheep]

So IGF 1 of 343 from 2iu GH daily? If so, that's a crazy good response!

I wish I had a baseline prior but im a newb... not like doctors ever keep track of it either.

Note im 47 so I was surprised as well. Im not sure its particularly healthy.

 

[Ghoul]

I think we need to relax a bit here. Many times, even when people (which funny enough is usually around 2% in a lot of cases) develop Neutralizing antibodies to peptides, these reactions are almost always limited to injection site reactions. As with Tesamorelin and Tirzepatide, the presence of Neutralizing antibodies had no effect on the 'effectiveness' of Tesamorelin and Tirzepatide in the individuals expressing these antibodies. Phew!!

You're misrepresenting what's being offered here.

First of all, this is about best practice, for those who care. There's no panic. Some here don't believe sterility matters, unless it manifests as a lost ass cheek. Do whatever you're comfortable with.

But don't suggest to anyone, that it's "understood", with a wink and a nod, that this is a meaningless issue. After effectiveness, it's the next most important area of focus for peptide drug development, and the FDA.

The presence of anti-drug and neutralizing antibodies have no clinically meaningful effect on, for instance Tirz or HGH? Are you sure you don't mean they have no effect at the levels of antibodies that developed in the pharma trials, using the pharma protocol, with pharma formulations?

Or are you saying that regardless of how high the levels of those antibodies become, there still won't be an impact?

Because isn't that the point of the trials? To demonstrate levels don't rise to the point they become an issue?

Isn't that why, if pharma proposes changing the dose, or the frequency, or change manufacturing techniques, or even the pen it's supplied in, they have to demonstrate all over again to the FDA that those antibodies don't go higher, where they might become "meaningful"?

That's how seriously this is taken.

And what makes them higher?

-Increased frequency of administration.

-Higher concentrations.

-Higher levels of aggregates.

-Impurities.

So are you going to confidently assert that because the trials, using the strict pharma protocol, don't cause an immunogenic issue, the low grade product we use, at whatever random concentration, reconstituted with Amazon or UGL sourced tap water and rubbing alcohol 'BAC', microdosed on a daily basis, isn't, perhaps, going to result in just a slightly stronger immune reaction and maybe just a few more antibodies?

Because to me, we couldn't really design a better "worst case scenario" for immunogenicity than what's being widely practiced now,

How often does it seem some peptides just "don't work" or "stopped working" or induce very unpleasant or odd side effects?

The sterility equivalent of our approach to immunogenicity would be dipping your vial in a clogged hospital toilet before wiping it off on a dog's ass, and I'm pretty sure even the knuckle draggers understand that's not a good idea.

Nobody even pays attention to how they dilute these compounds, are you going to argue that's fine, and only a "bubble boy" would suggest that low hanging fruit might be a good, easy target to start reducing a little potential harm?

 

[TestosTyrone]

Has anyone had issues with there raws being marked incorrectly? The marked numbers are not matching the serial numbers on my order. I know what tren and EQ looks like and there marked with different numbers then my order shows.. I know there are others marked incorrectly by the weights. My first time ordering from these guys so not sure if I’m looking for the wrong numbers

Yeah me.

 

[Great_Snake]

Has anyone had issues with there raws being marked incorrectly? The marked numbers are not matching the serial numbers on my order. I know what tren and EQ looks like and there marked with different numbers then my order shows.. I know there are others marked incorrectly by the weights. My first time ordering from these guys so not sure if I’m looking for the wrong numbers

Not raws, but my last order of vials was marked incorrectly and did not match the receipt/invoice at all like it normally does.

I had to use rough consensus from other people who were also mildly screwed over with incorrect markings on their packages to figure out what was what.

For awhile they were numbering stuff 1, 2, 3, etc and those numbers would correspond with the invoice, there was no directions for that of course you just had to figure that out yourself, but now even those don't match.

 

[WilliamH.Bonney]

What is the point of taking as much as you can handle/afford if getting the desired results at a lower dose, in your mind?

The one thing I see glossed over time and time again in discussions about this class of drugs is that they were NOT designed to reduce appetite. Yet appetite reduction is seemingly the only topic on the table. Appetite reduction is a side effect of this class of drugs which were designed to reduce blood glucose/ A1C. Incretin mimetics work by switching on insulin and suppressing glucagon to control blood glucose. Ostensibly quite simple. Some people don't even experience a reduction in hunger. They simply don't "suffer" that particular side effect of these drugs.

It pisses me off to no end when people say, "______ stopped working for me!" Fill in the blank with Tirz, sema, reta, whatever. No, unless you're measuring your blood glucose on a regular basis and noted an increase, the drug is absolutely still working. Not to mention 80% of those people aren't even on the full recommended dose.

So, to answer your question, it depends on what the desired results are. There exists a multitude of reasons for which one would use these drugs. The original question was in reference to benefits outside of appetite reduction. In my opinion, the larger the dose the more benefits you will experience. But as with, say, testosterone, that dose will vary per individual.

I've used nearly 5mg/ week of sema and currently use 22mg/ week of tirz. I don't experience the same negative effects that some people report with any dose of either of these drugs. I can eat as much or as little as I want and I poop just fine. I'll probably step up to 25mg soon. I'm personally pushing to see what magic can happen for me outside of appetite control. But I won't go into that here.

The pharmaceutical companies have created dosing protocols that work for a majority of people. Use those as a guide but not a limit.

As with any other performance enhancing drug, one should be monitoring blood work and vitals and noting how they feel with each escalation in dose.

 

[Qingdao Sigma Chemicals]

Why the difference in pill shape for the 5amino I got round brown and my buddy got oblong shaped?

You ordered 60mg version
He ordered 20mg version
Two batchs as you can see in our list we have two different versions

 

[Middus]

You're misrepresenting what's being presented here.

First of all, this is about best practice, for those who care. Something remotely approaching the basic standards of a third rate hospital. Harm minimization. There's no panic. Some here don't believe sterility matters, unless it manifests as a lost ass cheek. Of whatever you're comfortable with.

But don't suggest to anyone, that it's "understood", with a wink and a nod, that this is a meaningless issue. After effectiveness, it's the next most important area of focus for peptide drug development, and the FDA.

The presence of anti-drug and neutralizing antibodies have no clinically meaningful effect on, for instance Tirz or HGH? Are you sure you don't mean they have no effect at the levels of antibodies that developed in the pharma trials, using the pharma protocol, with pharma formulations?

Or are you saying that regardless of how high the levels of those antibodies become, there still won't be an impact?

Because isn't that the point of the trials? To demonstrate levels don't rise to the point they become an issue?

Isn't that why, if pharma proposes changing the dose, or the frequency, or change manufacturing techniques, or even the pen it's supplied in, they have to demonstrate all over again to the FDA that those antibodies don't go higher, where they might become "meaningful"?

That's how seriously this is taken.

And what makes them higher?

-Increased frequency of administration.

-Higher concentrations.

-Higher levels of aggregates.

-Impurities.

So are you going to confidently assert that because the trials, using the strict pharma protocol, don't cause an immunogenic issue, the low grade product we use, at whatever random concentration, reconstituted with Amazon or UGL sourced tap water and rubbing alcohol BAC, microdosed on a daily basis, isn't, perhaps, going to result in just a slightly stronger immune reaction and maybe just a few more antibodies?

Because to me, we couldn't really design a better "worst case scenario" for immunogenicity than what's being widely practiced now,

How often does it seem some peptides just "don't work" or "stopped working" or induce very unpleasant or odd side effects?

The sterility equivalent to our approach to immunogenicity would be dipping your vial in a clogged hospital toilet before wiping it off on a dog's ass, and I'm pretty sure even the knuckle draggers understand that's not a good idea.

Nobody even pays attention to how they dilute these compounds, are you going to argue that's fine, and only a "bubble boy" would suggest that low hanging fruit might be a good, easy target to start reducing a little potential harm?

Bruh I didn't even read the article you posted before I made that comment.. lol.
Thanks for the good work but nah. it's Mountain out of a mole hill (in my very personal opinion)
Allow me to nerd-out for 5 mins.
I was deliberate in listing those two peptides. You see when it comes to immunogenicity, the peptides you worry about the most are the ones that are similar to peptides found in pathogen proteins. These are usually the peptides that have tightly conserved amino-acid chains that have hydrophobic and hydrophillic residues. The Hydrophobic residues allow for interaction with cell membranes and the hydrophilic residues allow for enough solubility to bind receptors.
Bang in this class are the Ghrelin mimetics i.e The "--morelins" and the incretin mimetics i.e The Glp-1s.
These have been studied for immune responses and it has been demonstrated that the responses didn't affect the efficacy of the peptide. Just caused a shitload of irritation.

Interestingly enough there is another popular peptide with highly conserved amino acid sequence and with Hphilic and Hphobic residues. I am yet to see anyone bat an eyelid about the use and abuse of this peptide:
Tb500.
I know what I am talking about. I received some formal education losely pertaining to this field, albeit a meagre 6 semester credits (of which the lab was 2 out of this).
Again, if we are basing our reaction to what's happening on existing and peer reviewed knowledge, and not on extrapolation, the worries (per immunogenicity) are a tad bit exaggerated. I can not speak to the other dangers.

okay.. maybe that was 10 mins

 

[y777]

I guess night sweats and heartburn was the main one for me.. I ran tren for about 6 months this year.. I feel like I tolerated it well. The last 8-10 weeks bumped up to about 800mg a week.. For me it didn't seem much difference in side effects from 400 a week to 800.. very tolerable imo..

Omeprazole is good to take daily to prevent heart burn on tren or orals.

And for sweats check if you’re not going hypo at
Night.

Some compounds can nuke your blood glucose pretty hard. Doesn’t happen to me w tren but I get it with deca (not NPP).

If you have a glucometer and wake up at night in sweats check your bg

 

[bigtom343]

Qui

Protein based drugs don't work like AAS.

GLPs aren't diet pills.

There are extremely complex dynamics and risks at play. Even changing seemingly simple things like the dosing frequency, dilution rate, or combining these peptides can have negative short term effects that reduce efficacy, induce a long term immunity to the entire class of drugs, or even train the immune system to treat the hormones being mimicked as invaders to be destroyed.

99% don't even choose the dilution rate of their peptides using the correct proportions, because they think as long as the solution appears clear it's of no consequence.

Are you saying that there is absolutely 100% no possible way that a fine tuned “stack”of peptides could have a positive effect?