THE new "Generic" HGH Assay PAGE! AAA testing

[mands]

You are correct, they are taking a huge risk! If they would get caught, the penalties are quite severe over there. But what you gotta understand is that they can't short change the vials and not get caught; there isn't really any way around it. And you can see with the testing results of the greys you did, they are damn consistent.

Who are sellers going to complain to if they do short fill the vials?

Manufactures sell all sorts of different concentrations and sell them as 10 iu vials. Usually at the request of the re-seller.

I'm not saying that's going on here with the grey tops. It's actually the opposite. I know TP is always trying to sell the best product with accurate dosing.

My point is if the manufacture wants to short him a couple iu's what the hell is anyone going to do about it?

mands

 

[muscle96ss]

Who are sellers going to complain to if they do short fill the vials?

Manufactures sell all sorts of different concentrations and sell them as 10 iu vials. Usually at the request of the re-seller.

I'm not saying that's going on here with the grey tops. It's actually the opposite. I know TP is always trying to sell the best product with accurate dosing.

My point is if the manufacture wants to short him a couple iu's what the hell is anyone going to do about it?

mands

What you are saying is true in most situations. However what i was specifically referring to was the grey tops. Tp does not have the luxury of being able to order short filled vials nor can the factory short fill them without legal risk. It would be similar to if Serono decided to take a risk and sell their kits to the black market. The buyers/re-sellers can only sell the products serono produces. And serono is not going to start shorting their kits at risk of getting caught in an audit or inspection.

 

[Dr JIM]

Thats funnys Jim, because my income from selling PED's last year happened to be the exact same as your income was for selling them. In fact the amount of free product I got last year for shilling GH was the exact same as yours too.

You just can't admit it when you are wrong. You have absolutely no idea about who I am or what I do and continue to ignore logic and common sense and make personal attacks as a diversion to having a factual discussion.

Like I said, PM me an email address I can send you the HPLC data to and I will forward it to Jano since he has everything that is needed and can edit personal information out of it.

An email addy why all the secrecy just post the data on Meso as I've done.

I've layed off your ass hoping you would cease all the BS but nope it's the same ol' MH defending PMs home plate and it's resalers.

This is the THRID GH assay thread you have found reason to criticize wo an iota of proof you blindly state well "I'm
not saying Jim manipulated the data but I don't believe it accurate".

Of courses it can't be accurate bc YOURE not in charge right, but I'm "wrong" about YOU, BS!

 

[janoshik]

An overdose of GLYCINE is a common feature of generic GH. I KNOW this bc somewhere bt 50-75% of generic GH samples tested have glycine concentrations that FAR exceed that which would be expected on a proportional basis, that is as compared to the other KNOWN AA concentrations.

From this info one could reasonably conclude GLYCINE is either NOT being removed in the filtration phase of production, is being added at some point in time, OR both.

And before one of our MH-96 parrots mentions a "fact", yes I understand a few Pharma manufactures may add GLYCINE but at a concentration that "often reaches or exceeds SIX THOUSAND nano-moles" hardly. The latter quote came from the biochemist who conducts ALL these assays and was his/her reply when asked to define "huge amounts of glycine".

Look at the "raw data" on the far right of any sample page for a comparison of what should be expected in NANO-MOLES, bc it's in the TEENS!

So a sheer amount of... 0.45042 milligrams? Damn, that a horse dose.

Also a 5 year old kid can remove glycine from HGH. It's just that easy.

Well, maybe not for you, but it just is.

MH, we already established in the old thread that mathematics isn't your forte. With that being said:

6000nmol x 848.952 g/mol = 5,093,712 ng = 5093.712 µg = 5.094 mg​

glyine molar weight - Hledat Googlem

How does it feel being retarded again?

 

[janoshik]

...the sensitivity of HPLC pales to that of an AAA...

Post one source confirming that, JIM.

Good luck.

AAA can't by definition be any more sensitive than HPLC... Just sayin'

An expert on everything like you should kinda know that, Mr. JIM.

Have a nice evenin'

 

[muscle96ss]

An email addy why all the secrecy just post the data on Meso as I've done.

I've layed off your ass hoping you would cease all the BS but nope it's the same ol' MH defending PMs home plate and it's resalers.

Because it is not public information and belongs to the members who funded it, which is why it is in a private area. That decision is not something i have any control over. However i have no problem disclosing it to you privately for your critique and further discussion. I can even have it sent to mands if you prefer.

 

[Dr JIM]

Dr J, one thing I'd like to hear more about is the fact that the grey tops were missing some of the amino acids

I'm awaiting the chromatograms
which arrive in the mail somewhere bt 5-7 days after the raw data is released.

 

[Dr JIM]

Post one source confirming that, JIM.

Good luck.

AAA can't by definition be any more sensitive than HPLC... Just sayin'

An expert on everything like you should kinda know that, Mr. JIM.

Have a nice evenin'

Do you know what a "Gold Standard" is Janeo?

Oh try reading the the review article I posted for starters, the rest SHOULD be easy since you're the HPLC expert.

Just remember we are talking about AMINO ACID sensitivity!

 

[janoshik]

Do you know what a "Gold Standard" is Janeo?

Oh try reading the the review article I posted for starters, the rest SHOULD be easy since you're the HPLC expert.

Just remember we are talking about AMINO ACID sensitivity!

Posting a direct quote should take you less time than writing down that banter.

Except you can't because there is not any.



But okay, Mr. JIM - how EXACTLY are those amino acids quantifyied in AAA? I'll be happy to hear your answer. It will certainly help to convince everybody how inferior the HPLC is!

 

[muscle96ss]

Do you know what a "Gold Standard" is Janeo?

Oh try reading the the review article I posted for starters, the rest SHOULD be easy since you're the HPLC expert.

Just remember we are talking about AMINO ACID sensitivity!

So Jim, where exactly does it say that AAA is the gold standard for testing Gh for the application that we are using it for?

Secondly, you still have not answered the question on why it is not part of the USP standards required for pharmaceutical companies to perform. If it is in fact the gold standard then why is it not required and why dont any of them do it?

 

[Eman]

Lol.

 

[Dr JIM]

AAA requires the use of H

Posting a direct quote should take you less time than writing down that banter.

Except you can't because there is not any.



But okay, Mr. JIM - how EXACTLY are those amino acids quantifyied in AAA? I'll be happy to hear your answer. It will certainly help to convince everybody how inferior the HPLC is!

Oh right like I didn't know an AAA uses an HPLC to quantify AA, Janeo thats the SECOND question I posed to you in the first thread!

The fact is when a particular protein is fractionated and then derivatized into AA it greatly enhances the sensitivity of HPLC Hello!

Or perhaps you were not aware the HUMATROPE standard listed on PM should have undergone an IDENTICAL quantification process before it was used in your "machine".

 

[mands]

So Jim, where exactly does it say that AAA is the gold standard for testing Gh for the application that we are using it for?

Secondly, you still have not answered the question on why it is not part of the USP standards required for pharmaceutical companies to perform. If it is in fact the gold standard then why is it not required and why dont any of them do it?

Many blogs and sites state that it's the Gold Standard for protein and peptide quantification.

I'm sure nobody here can answer your second question including @Dr JIM if it indeed isn't used in USP standards. Maybe contact them?

mands

 

[Dr JIM]

So Jim, where exactly does it say that AAA is the gold standard for testing Gh for the application that we are using it for?

Secondly, you still have not answered the question on why it is not part of the USP standards required for pharmaceutical companies to perform. If it is in fact the gold standard then why is it not required and why dont any of them do it?

What a shame you don't understand the difference bt a RESEARCH standard and a Pharm standard! "PHARM standards", if there is such a thing, should NEVER be used to conduct RESEARCH, and I've no doubt that's at least one error you and Janeo have made in those HPLCS.

The fact is youre NOT a research lab but a couple clowns using bogus data to sell product so post the data I've requested and lets find out!

How ironic you and Janeo can pose about being scientists or "almost doctors" and question the data from a bonafied LAB that's CERTIFIED in RESEARCH, CLINICAL and COMMERCIAL analytical testing. What a joke!

 

[janoshik]

AAA requires the use of H


Oh right like I didn't know an AAA uses an HPLC to quantify AA, Janeo thats the SECOND question I posed to you in the first thread!

The fact is when a particular protein is fractionated and then derivatized into AA it greatly enhances the sensitivity of HPLC Hello!

Or perhaps you were not aware the HUMATROPE standard listed on PM should have undergone an IDENTICAL quantification process before it was used in your "machine".

Well then, how is the AAA more sensitive than HPLC? Could you explain to us, mere amateurs?

Or more exactly how is protein derivatized into AA? You sure you know what derivatisation means regarding HPLC?


And yes, I do suggest you were unaware about that up until a (very recent) point.

Also which HUMATROPE standard, can you point it out? I don't recall any Humatrope being used over on PM... Glad to hear you have such insider info even I don't have.

Many blogs and sites state that it's the Gold Standard for protein and peptide quantification.

I'm sure nobody here can answer your second question including @Dr JIM if it indeed isn't used in USP standards. Maybe contact them?

mands

Mr. Mands, I am sure that when you perform a simple search over a google for "gold standard for protein quanfication" you yourself will find out it points to at least to 5 different methods on the first page of the results only.

Also, blogs and sites should not really be considered relevant in cases like these.

What a shame you don't understand the difference bt a RESEARCH standard and a Pharm standard! PHARM standards should NEVER be used to conduct RESEARCH,
and I've no doubt that's at least one error you and Janeo have made in those HPLCS!

Like the time you used Karl's hgh in your testing? Was it a pharma or research standard when you used it then? Not sure which one of the two, let me know please!

 

[Dr JIM]

Excuse me I've a PHD researcher calling me ever heard of those, oh that's right PMs got "Janeo". You two are PATHETIC!

 

[Dr JIM]

Well then, how is the AAA more sensitive than HPLC? Could you explain to us, mere amateurs?

Or more exactly how is protein derivatized into AA? You sure you know what derivatisation means regarding HPLC?


And yes, I do suggest you were unaware about that up until a (very recent) point.

Also which HUMATROPE standard, can you point it out? I don't recall any Humatrope being used over on PM... Glad to hear you have such insider info even I don't have.



Mr. Mands, I am sure that when you perform a simple search over a google for "gold standard for protein quanfication" you yourself will find out it points to at least to 5 different methods on the first page of the results only.

Also, blogs and sites should not really be considered relevant in cases like these.



Like the time you used Karl's hgh in your testing? Was it a pharma or research standard when you used it then? Not sure which one of the two, let me know please!

I'm not your librarian Janeo try Google!

 

[Dr JIM]

Lol.

View attachment 51955

OMG and MH-96 is just an innocent PM bystander with aberrant SIMEC data he just couldn't be a part of. I pity anyone who listens to a word you say MH

Be back

JIM

 

[mands]

Well then, how is the AAA more sensitive than HPLC? Could you explain to us, mere amateurs?

Or more exactly how is protein derivatized into AA? You sure you know what derivatisation means regarding HPLC?


And yes, I do suggest you were unaware about that up until a (very recent) point.

Also which HUMATROPE standard, can you point it out? I don't recall any Humatrope being used over on PM... Glad to hear you have such insider info even I don't have.



Mr. Mands, I am sure that when you perform a simple search over a google for "gold standard for protein quanfication" you yourself will find out it points to at least to 5 different methods on the first page of the results only.

Also, blogs and sites should not really be considered relevant in cases like these.



Like the time you used Karl's hgh in your testing? Was it a pharma or research standard when you used it then? Not sure which one of the two, let me know please!

Yes I did just now google and I'm going with Pete Holt with Cambridge He's stating it's the gold standard as well. As well is many others.

mans

 

[janoshik]

Excuse me I've a PHD researcher calling me ever heard of those, oh that's right PMs got "Janeo". You two are PATHETIC!

Whoah, whoah, we got a big boy over here.

I'm not your librarian Janeo try Google!

How interesting you don't have the time for this after you spat pages long rant only a tiny while ago.

Guess you don't like proving to be a pretentious ass like the one you are.