THE new "Generic" HGH Assay PAGE! AAA testing

[Dr JIM]

And if it is GH, then logic would dictate that those AA's that are shown as being absent would need to be added into the contents somewhere.

.

And how would that be done if the measure of quantification can not be relied upon?

What you're suggesting is NOT logical but ,,,, does sound like a valid argument from the world of bro-science.

Data that is not reliable is SIMPLY EXCLUDED and AAA are no exception.

 

[muscle96ss]

I have defended you few times but we are all still waiting for the standard used on Pm
Test. Mands couldn't find it, you said you were going to post it... but nothing.

Can you please?

If I had that information, I would not be able to post it publicly as explained in detail before. However, that is irrelevant as I realized friday when I went to the thread to find the information. I was wrong, we posted Jano's HPLC info for the purity, but the HPLC data for the contents was never posted. What I was referring to was mistakenly part of the purity results.

When it came to the content results, we did not contract Jano to produce those, so it was something he did for fun out of his own time and curiousity. The original contract with Jano was that he would have the immunoassay peformed at the licensed and accredited lab and he would perform the purity via HPLC himself. Then it was agreed that if it appeared that the results of the immunoassay were incorrect(i.e Serostim sample comes back vastly different than expected) then he would perform HPLC to confirm that they were correct or to identify if they were incorrect. He ended up doing a HPLC for all the samples as he was just curious as to how far off they would be from the immunoassay; and we ended up reporting the results but never posted up the actual data as it wasn't part of the agreement and there really wasn't any question about its validity.

When it comes to the standard used, I know it was discussed but I don't remember what specifically was used. The reason I remember this is because during the planning stages of the project, TP was had a number of questions as he wanted to make sure that the methodology had no flaws. He was very particular in what things he was looking for and one of those questions was that he wanted to make sure that the standard was legit as he knew that without a legit standard the results would not be correct.

I still don't understand why everyone is so focused on PM's HPLC testing of GH; especially while ignoring the immunoassay results. Our testing has nothing to do with yours and this thread is not about our testing or PM. You can go back and look at the beginning of this shit show and see that I did not bring this up and was drawn into this whole thing by Jim and his obsession with including some negative attack against PM, myself, or both in every post he makes. It has made a great diversion and wasted a ton of time, but really has very little relevance to the big picture.

 

[Sampei]

Because you asked for a standard here. Didn't you? So it's legit that we ask for the same

If I had that information, I would not be able to post it publicly as explained in detail before. However, that is irrelevant as I realized friday when I went to the thread to find the information. I was wrong, we posted Jano's HPLC info for the purity, but the HPLC data for the contents was never posted. What I was referring to was mistakenly part of the purity results.

When it came to the content results, we did not contract Jano to produce those, so it was something he did for fun out of his own time and curiousity. The original contract with Jano was that he would have the immunoassay peformed at the licensed and accredited lab and he would perform the purity via HPLC himself. Then it was agreed that if it appeared that the results of the immunoassay were incorrect(i.e Serostim sample comes back vastly different than expected) then he would perform HPLC to confirm that they were correct or to identify if they were incorrect. He ended up doing a HPLC for all the samples as he was just curious as to how far off they would be from the immunoassay; and we ended up reporting the results but never posted up the actual data as it wasn't part of the agreement and there really wasn't any question about its validity.

When it comes to the standard used, I know it was discussed but I don't remember what specifically was used. The reason I remember this is because during the planning stages of the project, TP was had a number of questions as he wanted to make sure that the methodology had no flaws. He was very particular in what things he was looking for and one of those questions was that he wanted to make sure that the standard was legit as he knew that without a legit standard the results would not be correct.

I still don't understand why everyone is so focused on PM's HPLC testing of GH; especially while ignoring the immunoassay results. Our testing has nothing to do with yours and this thread is not about our testing or PM. You can go back and look at the beginning of this shit show and see that I did not bring this up and was drawn into this whole thing by Jim and his obsession with including some negative attack against PM, myself, or both in every post he makes. It has made a great diversion and wasted a ton of time, but really has very little relevance to the big picture.

 

[Dr JIM]

Also I don't understand what you want to discredit this info is. They show black tops being pretty fucking great, and I thought you support and recommend pd and tp, both of whom carry that. Why not point to that and be happy? I'm not trying to instigate, I'm just a little confused

How ironic bc that was exactly my thought MH would be happy to see much better results than what I previously reported on my second thread.

But noooooo bc he's reviewed "manufacturers data", that is conveniently "not available for public scrutiny" which revealed the "Greys" and a few others I suppose, that are at least 95% of what's listed on the label!

Yep that's the essence of HIS belief "Jims data CAN NOT BE ACCURATE".

And this is in spite of those reasons I listed earlier (which he IGNORED) which could readily explain the "discrepant results".

You know like; different batches, some middleman w sticky fingers etc.

Have you ever heard of the term
witch hunt, well that's what MH is all about.

And to that end rest assured every one of his "questions" are an effort to discredit the data MANDS and I have posted.

 

[justaphan]

Is it part of the plan for this project to be an on going thing, what with batch changes and what not?

 

[muscle96ss]

How ironic bc that was exactly my thought MH would be happy to see much better results than what I previously reported on my second thread.

But noooooo bc he's reviewed "manufacturers data", that is conveniently "not available for public scrutiny" which revealed the "Greys" and a few others I suppose, that are at least 95% of what's listed on the label!

Yep that's the essence of HIS belief "Jims data CAN NOT BE ACCURATE".

And this is in spite of those reasons I listed earlier (which he IGNORED) which could readily explain the "discrepant results".

You know like; different batches, some middleman w sticky fingers etc.

Have you ever heard of the term
witch hunt, well that's what MH is all about.

And to that end rest assured every one of his "questions" are an effort to discredit the data MANDS and I have posted.

Here we go round and round in circles again. I have explained, probably 10 times why I think the data is slightly off. You can either trust my experience and reputation in the community and believe what I say or not. But there is no point in continuing to waste time on this stupid argument. The fact remains, once a pharm sample of known concentration is tested then it will either prove me right or it will prove me wrong. Why so many samples have been tested without a control such as this, I have no idea. I would think the responsible thing would be to have a control posted in the first round to ensure accuracy. From someone who preaches science; this methodology that lacks a control group has no scientific basis.

 

[Dr JIM]

Our testing has nothing to do with yours and this thread is not about our testing or PM.

.

Oh but all that changed once you used PM or "manufacturers" sample data as the BASIS for your proclaimation the assays MANDS and I posted "just can NOT be accurate".

Why you don't "get it" while many others DO is beyond reason.

It's called a level playing field MH and while you "don't get it"
while many others do, reeks of bias, or absolute ignorance on your behalf.

Wait you expect me to trust your reputation on experience, well your reputation precedes you!

Pharm GH is NEVER used as the CONTROL for analytical research, and once again such as suggestion reflects your ignorance of GH assays.

Tell me AND DONT RUN AWAY, before answering!

1) What "Pharm standard" would be used as the "control"

2) How would we KNOW the "Pharm standard" contains the amount of GH listed on the vial, or are we to assume "Pharma is perfect".

3) Finally what QUANTATIVE ASSAY WAS USED to establish the international WHO GH standard, the latter also serves as the USP standard

I mean if you would cease thinking like some bro-scientist and investigate what I KNOW to be FACTUAL, maybe then you would discover how WRONG you are, and cease all this nonsense.

 

[Buck1973]

Because you asked for a standard here. Didn't you? So it's legit that we ask for the same

The topic is;

THE new "Generic" HGH Assay PAGE! AAA testing

Ya want info bout the testin @ PM go there get yr 50 post ask away...
Question Mr. Jano send him a PM... or start a thread "ask Mr. Jano".

it seems everytime this cools down someone throws more fuel on the fire.
Thanks Dr. Jim for the last few answers.

 

[muscle96ss]

Oh but all that changed once you used PM or "manufacturers" sample data as the BASIS for your proclaimation the assays MANDS and I posted "just can NOT be accurate".

Why you don't "get it" while many others DO is beyond reason.

It's called a level playing field MH and while you "don't get it"
while many others do, reeks of bias, or absolute ignorance on your behalf.

You are such a liar!!! Prove that statement!!

 

[Dr JIM]

Is it part of the plan for this project to be an on going thing, what with batch changes and what not?

ABSOLUTELY, and arrangements are being made with the involved lab to ensure that's exactly what happens.

The alternative Meso members would have to rely on "unpublished data" on PM, EROIDS or some other pay to play (see) forum.

 

[muscle96ss]

Oh but all that changed once you used PM or "manufacturers" sample data as the BASIS for your proclaimation the assays MANDS and I posted "just can NOT be accurate".

Why you don't "get it" while many others DO is beyond reason.

It's called a level playing field MH and while you "don't get it"
while many others do, reeks of bias, or absolute ignorance on your behalf.

Wait you expect me to trust your reputation on experience, well your reputation precedes you!

Pharm GH is NEVER used as the CONTROL for analytical research, and once again such as suggestion reflects your ignorance of GH assays.

Tell me AND DONT RUN AWAY, before answering!

1) What "Pharm standard" would be used as the "control"

2) How would we KNOW the "Pharm standard" contains the amount of GH listed on the vial, or are we to assume "Pharma is perfect".

3) Finally what QUANTATIVE ASSAY WAS USED to establish the international WHO GH standard, the latter also serves as the USP standard

I mean if you would cease thinking like some bro-scientist and investigate what I KNOW to be FACTUAL, maybe then you would discover how WRONG you are, and cease all this nonsense.

Jim you are the master of editing. I reply and you edit your post after I already replied.

Now let me address the issue of the control/standard because you completely understand what I am saying but try to twist it around and make it out to be something different than it is. There is a real simple concept here. You are performing a test to determine the contents of many GH's actually contain what they are supposed to. However, there is no way to know if your results are correct if you don't have a control group of known values to ensure that the test is accurate. In other words, you have no way to know if you are actually measuring what you think you are if you don't test some vials which are known. So, if you test a 6mg vial of Serostim and the AAA comes back at 4.5mg, then we know that there is an accuracy problem. If it comes back 5.7mg, then we know that it is relatively accurate. Please tell me that you are intelligent enough to understand what I am saying. I not am insinuating that using the pharm grade GH is equivalent to using a standard or turns this into a study the quality that passes scrutiny to publish, but it is necessary if you want to validate that it is accurate. In fact I would be willing to concede that they are accurate if the pharm samples comes back within a 5% margin of error.

 

[muscle96ss]

ABSOLUTELY, and arrangements are being made with the involved lab to ensure that's exactly what happens.

The alternative Meso members would have to rely on "unpublished data" on PM, EROIDS or some other pay to play (see) forum.

And here we go again, you just can't make a post without attacking me or PM, can you? Can't you be a real man and rise above this?

 

[Dr JIM]

You are such a liar!!! Prove that statement!!

You have GOT TO BE JOKING, COL.

So your no longer relying upon PM or MANUFACTURERS data as the reason you KNOW our data
"Just can't be accurate", LMAO

Oh yea BUT I see oh you once again declined to answer my question about your suggestion
"PHARMA should be used as the control"

Pharm GH is NEVER used as the CONTROL for analytical research, and once again such as suggestion reflects your ignorance of GH assays.

Tell me AND DONT RUN AWAY, before answering!

1) What "Pharm standard" would be used as the "control"

2) How would we KNOW the "Pharm standard" contains the amount of GH listed on the vial, or are we to assume "Pharma is perfect".

3) Finally what QUANTATIVE ASSAY WAS USED to establish the international WHO GH standard, the latter also serves as the USP standard

HELLO WHY WONT YOU ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS MH?????

It's hard, no for you impossible, reflecting upon how often you tout you own reputation and experience, to admit an error isn't it MH.

I mean when one reaches your iconic pinnacle the only "way out" is down or to simply disappear, it's your choice, lol!

 

[muscle96ss]

You have GOT TO BE JOKING, COL.

So your no longer relying upon PM or MANUFACTURERS data as the reason you KNOW our data
"Just can't be accurate", LMAO

Oh yea BUT I see oh you once again declined to answer my question about your suggestion
"PHARMA should be used as the control"



HELLO WHY WONT YOU ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS MH?????

Firstly, I have explained over and over again the reasons why I think the way I do. It is a combination of like 10 different factors that all logically tell me something doesn't make sense. I will list them again if you really want and promise to pay attention this time.

Secondly, I answered your question, read the post below it.

 

[AlphaLife]

Doc,

I really appreciate your work in the HGH Assays.

I know this is off topic but it is similar and I couldn't PM you.

I wanted to get your take on these research chem sites offering IGF-1 LR3. I have heard great things about legit IGF-1, but I hear the real pharma stuff is prohibitively expensive and extremely hard to find. I don't like the idea of taking something I can test to verify it's legit.

Do you know of any way to test this stuff?

Do you think any of it is legit?

Thank you for your time.

 

[Just Fish]

Doc,

I really appreciate your work in the HGH Assays.

I know this is off topic but it is similar and I couldn't PM you.

I wanted to get your take on these research chem sites offering IGF-1 LR3. I have heard great things about legit IGF-1, but I hear the real pharma stuff is prohibitively expensive and extremely hard to find. I don't like the idea of taking something I can test to verify it's legit.

Do you know of any way to test this stuff?

Do you think any of it is legit?

Thank you for your time.

Just look up amino acid analysis. I found a place that charges under 200$.

 

[Dr JIM]

Oh I see now, so I'll inform the research lab to use an unconventional and UNVALIDATED standard bc MH from Pro Muscle believes that's the ONLY acceptable standard, LMAO!

If I wanted or needed your approval I would have asked but surprise surprise, I don't bc I know what is required to obtain accurate data and what your suggesting is absurd, but typical of bro-scientists who extrapolate data or modify methodologies to suit THEIR NEEDS.

Absolutely pathetic but expected !

 

[Mr.B66]

I " MAY" have jumped the gun [emoji848]

 

[Just Fish]

Doc,

I really appreciate your work in the HGH Assays.

I know this is off topic but it is similar and I couldn't PM you.

I wanted to get your take on these research chem sites offering IGF-1 LR3. I have heard great things about legit IGF-1, but I hear the real pharma stuff is prohibitively expensive and extremely hard to find. I don't like the idea of taking something I can test to verify it's legit.

Do you know of any way to test this stuff?

Do you think any of it is legit?

Thank you for your time.

http://www.newenglandpeptide.com/services/analytical-services/amino-acid-analysis

I haven't used them yet. I just posted it to show you their price

 

[muscle96ss]

Oh I see now so I'll tell the research lab to use an unconventional and UNTRSTED standard to please MH on Meso bc he believes that's the only acceptable standard, LMAO!

If I wanted or needed your approval I would have asked but surprise surprise, I don't bc I know what is required to obtain accurate data and what your suggesting is absurd, but typical of bro-scientists who extrapolate data or modify methodologies to suit THEIR NEEDS.

Absolutely pathetic but expected !

What the fuck is wrong with you man? Can you not fucking read?? Everything I say you turn around and say something completely opposite that is completely untrue!! I wouldn't trust a word that comes out of your mouth if your tongue is notarized. You are an instigator and only interested in talking shit.

I never said anything of the sort about a "standard", I am not even talking about standards. I am simply talking about using a known substance to see what the results are to ensure accuracy. You keep going on this tangent about standards that has nothing to do with any of this. Jesus christ man, this absolutely ridiculous!!