THE new "Generic" HGH Assay PAGE! AAA testing

[janoshik]

Janos, why didn't you ever respond to all of CBS's evidence that you're a total fraud

Becuase I don't feel comfortable talking to mentally ill people, who should be institutionalised. Also it seems that you don't quite grasp the concept of the word evidence, but no worries, no need for understanding too much stuff for you - maybe except how to not get your knees scratched.

...a known fraud (janos) who just makes pm look like they are a bunch of idiots. he is as far from an independent accredited lab as you can get...

Well, try taking the D out of your mouth, so you can focus better on the post above this.

Read it nice and slow. Twice.

Then, before you call me a fraud again post the evidence (should I link you to a dictionary regarding the meaning of the word?) of me being a fraud, you little cocksucker.

Thank you and have a nice evening.

 

[Sdryx]

1. You've never ever talked to my partner and you don't have any knowledge about the partner, as we don't even really work together too much anymore

2. I was never ever in my life in the UK.

3. I did not ever post a picture of any mass spectrometer on this forum. You probably have one chromosome extra, but well, I'll take my time with you.

4. The pictures were posted by xupc, who contacted me regarding the testing.

5. It's not a mass spec, not like uneducated prick like you would ever know the difference.

6. He literally posted "It should be noted that the spectofotometry machine outputs blinking numbers (they look like this http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/@api/deki/files/8472/Spc20Blnk.gif) that you"

So the guy posts AN EXAMPLE MACHINE FROM WIKIPEDIA. A PICTURE OF EXAMPLE OF SPECTROPHOTOMETRIC MACHINE - SO YOU CAN SEE IT FIRST TIME IN YOUR LIFE.

LITERALLY THE FIRST PICTURE THAT GOOGLE PROBABLY SPAT OUT.

7. CBS (cretinous bullshit spammer) and JIM think that's my lab WHILE IT WAS NEVER STATED SO BY ANYBODY BUT HIM AND JIM. It takes a special kind of retard to think that and to think that my lab is on wikipedia, haha.

8. ALSO, Cretinous Bullshit Spammer proves he is retarded again in this mere post:
UK GENTECH LABS where he shows he is even uncabable of understanding the DATE system.

9. I don't think I have to add I was never associated with the lab and never supported it, just stood past my results. If anybody can find anywhere where I shilled for this lab I'll send him a cookie.



There are also other GEMS to be found in that thread from JIM, like:
"Sorry mate but although PHOTOSPEC or GS/MS are quite useful to identify sample compounds NONE are capable of sample QUANTIFICATION!" - no comment, just lol

"You just can't slam all that crap into a Spec and obtain results, the constituents MUST first be isolated into individual compounds and then run SEPARATELY." - he seems to no have ever heard of chromatography being a separation technique, haha

"If you just run an oil with the BA, NaB, Tren-A and a monoglyceride in a MS the fragments will form dimers trimers and sodium adducts for sure. Now that's excluding any other adulterants EVERY UGL uses in their formulation.

How odd is it NO sodium adducts or adulterants were detected, only those substances that were likely listed on the vial labeling.." - sodium in oils? where exactly? you put table salt in your injectables JIM? that would explain a lot of stuff going on with your brain

Chemistry 101, failed again by JIM.

Do you want me to quote him in another thread, where he says the MS is awesome for quantitation? Or do you want me to quote you about 500000 publications from REAL SCIENTISTS unlike JIM, who USE MS for Uv/VIS for quantitation?


Come at this you little a-hole, I'll enjoy it.






It's cool that you got a pic with JIM, which one it who?



See up, little doggie.



Try forming a coherent sentence you uneducated fuck.

What you wrote is mess both gramatically both factually and has no basis in truth.

Forming coherent sentences is kinda a requirement to get into and pass the med school, which again makes me wonder...



I'll make a thread saying you are dickless... And don't you dare to post there! If you disagree measure your dick by YOURSELF and START A NEW THREAD. Or better off LEAVE.


>5 hplcs
JIM being at it in maths again.

Also your evidence... I don't know, it kinda lacks the 'evidence' part.

Also MY LINE WAS NOT BAD DATA. I am not as retarded to claim that without ANY EVIDENCE - SOMETHING WHAT YOU DO ALL THE TIME (which makes you a retard I guess?).

My line is that you are a liar and an uneducated ass.

Something for you, Mr. JIM again, as you keep forgetting to respond to this:
"Generic" GH ASSAYS
"Generic" GH ASSAYS
"Generic" GH ASSAYS

Also, the HPLC is brand new, thank you.



Sorry, can't hear you, just got off the phone with Mr. President.

He cries in his sleep because of that?

Jano... I would gladly prove my dick is larger than yours. Let's do this HAMMER style! Pic of the biggest dick with "Meso" and date written straight down the shaft!

 

[janoshik]

Jano... I would gladly prove my dick is larger than yours. Let's do this HAMMER style! Pic of the biggest dick with "Meso" and date written straight down the shaft!

And there goes my rule of not sending my dick pics to the public. Oh well, everybody has to make a sacrifice!

 

[rpbb]

Becuase I don't feel comfortable talking to mentally ill people, who should be institutionalised. Also it seems that you don't quite grasp the concept of the word evidence, but no worries, no need for understanding too much stuff for you - maybe except how to not get your knees scratched.



Well, try taking the D out of your mouth, so you can focus better on the post above this.

Read it nice and slow. Twice.

Then, before you call me a fraud again post the evidence (should I link you to a dictionary regarding the meaning of the word?) of me being a fraud, you little cocksucker.

Thank you and have a nice evening.

You're a fraud, CBS proved it. At least you're able to get paid for it

 

[janoshik]

Oh well

 

[CensoredBoardsSuck]

What you wrote is mess both gramatically...

Grammatically*

I won't bother correcting your grammatical errors, but there are at least two in that 7 word passage.

Try forming a coherent sentence you uneducated fuck.

Forming coherent sentences is kinda a requirement to get into and pass the med school, which again makes me wonder...

Okay...

It's cool that you got a pic with JIM, which one it who?

You were saying?

Hilarious. This stuff writes itself. Lmfao

 

[janoshik]

I just love your factual comebacks, Mr. Cretin. You got me so burned with hard facts. Damn. I should hold you even in higher regard now.

 

[Dr JIM]

I just love your factual comebacks, Mr. Cretin. You got me so burned with hard facts. Damn. I should hold you even in higher regard now.

Don't you have an uncertified "lab" of ONE to supervise.

Why bother no ones watching, until that junk which is posted on PM and is refered to as an HPLc, is questioned from an evidence based perspective.

I still have not seen, nor do I expect to, that data which should accompany any legitimate HPLC Janeo, how prophetic.

MESO mates know this, if you opt to use an uncertified lab like Janeo's for GH analyses, there will be no reliable means of authenticating the data, excepting of course a "trust me" from the likes of Janeo.

But wait Jim according to Janeo, "he's the only one doing this/that type of testing".

Yea one can only HOPE, lol!

 

[janoshik]

Working right now, thanks for your concern.

Also, yes guys, you can always opt for a lab, that will never be disclosed to any of you!

Also, you are talking as if I was trying to compete with you, which is just funny. You got it all wrong.

 

[muscle96ss]

Don't you have an uncertified "lab" of ONE to supervise.

Why bother no ones watching until that junk you refer to as an HPLC is questioned from an evidence based perspective.

I still have not seen, nor do I expect to, that data which should accompany any legitimate HPLC Janeo.

MESO mates know this, if you opt to use an uncertified lab like Janeo's for GH analyses, there will be no reliable means of authenticating the data, excepting of course a "trust me" from the likes of Janeo.

But wait Jim according to Janeo, "he's the only one doing this/that type of testing".

Yea one can only HOPE, lol!

Then please explain why when samples are tested with Jano and his HPLC they come back with the correct amount of GH that they are supposed to and match other HPLC and other testing methods done on the same samples. Yet, when your tests come back, the results are different than what they are supposed to be and different from what other non-Jano tests have come back as? Are you suggesting that everybody is wrong and you are the only one who is right?

Please don't interpret this as an attack and come back with some irrelevant deflection. I am trying to be serious and bring some common sense to the thread. We have multiple tests that have been done on some of these products over time such as Karls GH, Tp's blacks, and tp's greys and all tests thus far have been congruent. So we need to look at this with some logic and say, "Hey something doesn't add up here!" and figure a path forward rather than knocking each other down.

 

[CensoredBoardsSuck]

So we need to look at this with some logic and say, "Hey something doesn't add up here!"

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is MH's claim to fame! If only I had a dollar...

Unless the test results give MH what he wants, they are no good.

 

[muscle96ss]

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is MH's claim to fame! If only I had a dollar...

Unless the test results give MH what he wants, they are no good.

Talk about misinterpreting things. In case the English was too difficult for you, what I was saying is that if a bunch of tests shows something to be exactly as it is claimed to be and one test show it to be something different; then obviously something is either wrong with the "bunch of tests" and the manufacturer claims, or something is wrong with the one test. And no matter which side you believe, you need to figure out why there is a difference. How does that not make sense to you; please tell me you are not devoid of all logic.

 

[CensoredBoardsSuck]

How does that not make sense to you; please tell me you are not devoid of all logic.

It doesn't make sense to me because I have yet to see you agree with ONE SINGLE GH test that didn't give you the results you were looking for.

Your objections to the tests in the Maldi-TOF thread became so inane, I stopped taking you seriously.

 

[heady muscle]

Any chance we can stop this fucking childish bantering and get back to the test results and more testing? Are you guys fucking kidding me with this bullshit behavior? How old are you guys? Jesus fucking Christ already.

 

[Dr JIM]

1) Then please explain why when samples are tested with Jano and his HPLC they come back with the correct amount of GH

2) they are supposed to and match other HPLC and other testing methods done on the same samples.

Yet, when your tests come back, the results are different than what they are supposed to be and different from what other non-Jano tests have come back as? Are you suggesting that everybody is wrong and you are the only one who is right?

Please don't interpret this as an attack and come back with some irrelevant deflection. I am trying to be serious and bring some common sense to the thread. We have multiple tests that have been done on some of these products over time such as Karls GH, Tp's blacks, and tp's greys and all tests thus far have been congruent. So we need to look at this with some logic and say, "Hey something doesn't add up here!" and figure a path forward rather than knocking each other down.

1) Talk is cheap MH SHOW ME THE DATA that supports such comments

2) Really! And how close is "this match" ?

3) Other testing methods ……. such as

I mean give me a brake bc once again you are comparing "results" from non-US certified labs, using questionable or certainly NOT published methodologies and equipment, under the guise of under-qualified (or not declared) "techs" or employees AND I've no doubt many of these labs receive fully labeled samples.

BUT ONCE AGAIN YOU are comparing apples to oranges, yet only SEE apples OR oranges bc that's what you want to see!

For example:

 

[CensoredBoardsSuck]

Any chance we can stop this fucking childish bantering and get back to the test results and more testing? Are you guys fucking kidding me with this bullshit behavior? How old are you guys? Jesus fucking Christ already.

Did you not see where Jim said there will be NO MORE GH assays posted in this thread? And that there will be a new thread created for future tests? That means this thread is finished. IOW, there will be no more data posted.

Maybe if you stopped writing posts at least once or twice every page in which to whine about all the childish bantering and bullshit behavior, you would have seen it. Jesus fucking Christ already.

 

[Dr JIM]

For example as I understand it rather than using a CERTIFIED molecular GH standard, Jano substituted ELISA as a means of developing the required HPLC calibration curve?

Such deviations from analytical lab norms are VERY PRONE to error UNLESS such a product is specifically listed as: may be used for HPLC, LC/MS, calibration, set point determinations, analytical "crossover" applications etc.

That's NOT to say ELISA cant be used, but unless there is published evidence to the contrary, it would required proof of reproducibility to include a list of variables that
may effect it's reliability and or accuracy.

WHY would anyone even consider ELISA over a certified research standard is beyond reason.

 

[mands]

Then please explain why when samples are tested with Jano and his HPLC they come back with the correct amount of GH that they are supposed to and match other HPLC and other testing methods done on the same samples. Yet, when your tests come back, the results are different than what they are supposed to be and different from what other non-Jano tests have come back as? Are you suggesting that everybody is wrong and you are the only one who is right?

Please don't interpret this as an attack and come back with some irrelevant deflection. I am trying to be serious and bring some common sense to the thread. We have multiple tests that have been done on some of these products over time such as Karls GH, Tp's blacks, and tp's greys and all tests thus far have been congruent. So we need to look at this with some logic and say, "Hey something doesn't add up here!" and figure a path forward rather than knocking each other down.

Sent you a PM.

What's concerning to me is that a few people think the all samples are testing 20-25% under label claims. We have sample vials that tested right on the money. Does that mean they are over dosing their product by 20-25%?

Black Tops were only 1.3 iu's under over-fill claims. That's not 20-25%. That's like 9% With a margin of error for testing at 5% I'll take that all day long.

mands

 

[janoshik]

For example as I understand it rather than using a CERTIFIED molecular GH standard, Jano substituted ELISA as a means of developing the required HPLC calibration curve?

Such deviations from analytical lab norms are VERY PRONE to error UNLESS such a product is specifically listed as: may be used for HPLC, LC/MS, calibration, set point determinations, analytical "crossover" applications etc.

I did no such thing

Also you keep using that word molecular rather melodramatically.

Also, if I recall correctly, you did HPLC testing of your own - have you used a 'certified molecular standard'? Where exactly did you get it? An amateur like me might be interested in getting it, so please, share the wealth to prove your superiority

Sent you a PM.

What's concerning to me is that a few people think the all samples are testing 20-25% under label claims. We have sample vials that tested right on the money. Does that mean they are over dosing their product by 20-25%?

Black Tops were only 1.3 iu's under over-fill claims. That's not 20-25%. That's like 9% With a margin of error for testing at 5% I'll take that all day long.

mands

That still quite contradicts another of JIMs bombastic claims, though:
"Finally with a margin of error of around 0.1% it's considerably less sensitive and/or specific than an AAA!" (talking about HPLC, stating that AAA has margin of error less than 0.1%)

 

[Dr JIM]

MH I'd like you or ANYONE else to cite an ELISA publication on it's usefulness from an analytical rather than an clinical perspective.

I'm not saying it can't be used for GH testing, bc it IS what most labs use to determine
one's serum GH level BUT bc this involves the use of antibodies that bind to a SPECIFIC PORTION of the GH molecule, ELISA lacks the degree of specificity required for analytical research.

LC/MS is what most manufacturers use to determine the reliability of "their ELISA product" so using ELISA for developing an HPLC calibration curve is ass-backwards.

I mean heck that's like using generic GH as a baseline for PHARMA GH quantification.