THE new "Generic" HGH Assay PAGE! AAA testing

[Dr JIM]

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.

Sure as those are polypeptides any Protein analytical lab can perform that testing.

Just be aware as some PEPS have
a proprietary AA sequence and content obtaining a standard for comparison may prove difficult.

 

[Dr JIM]

known substance to see what the results are to ensure accuracy.

!!

Here let me simify the problem for you. What KNOWN substance
would be used for comparison?

 

[muscle96ss]

Here let me simify the problem for you. What KNOWN substance
would be used for comparison?

If you test several pharma grade samples, i.e. Serostim, omnitrope; they should fall within the normal range of error. Please don't try to make that argument that if you ran some samples of 6mg Serostim vials the same way you ran the grey tops that they could come out 4.8mg and you would conclude that the AAA is accurate and without error. And please don't turn this around into something else; you know exactly what I am talking about and no need to be difficult.

 

[Dr JIM]

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

There are several lab that perform several forms of AAA
I'll post the link I cited earlier
whenever MH recovers from his temper tantrum.

 

[muscle96ss]

There are several lab that perform several forms of AAA
I'll post the link I cited earlier
whenever MH recovers from his temper tantrum.

That may be a while!

 

[Dr JIM]

If you test several pharma grade samples, i.e. Serostim, omnitrope; they should fall within the normal range of error. Please don't try to make that argument that if you ran some samples of 6mg Serostim vials the same way you ran the grey tops that they could come out 4.8mg and you would conclude that the AAA is accurate and without error. And please don't turn this around into something else; you know exactly what I am talking about and no need to be difficult.

And that's what you fail to understand bc such a suggestion asking for inaccurate results and is an unequivocal deviation from the analytical standard.

And since you obviously don't believe me call a few research labs for another opinion.

I'm not jumping thru your silly hoops MH but if that's the type of data you want conduct the assays yourself and why not post the "results" on PM as accurate analytical data.

NUTS!

 

[muscle96ss]

And that's what you fail to understand bc such a suggestion asking for inaccurate results and is an unequivocal deviation from the analytical standard.

And since you obviously don't believe me call a few research labs for another opinion.

I'm not jumping thru your silly hoops MH but if that's the type of data you want conduct the assays yourself and why not post the "results" on PM as accurate analytical data.

NUTS!

Jim its real simple, if your testing is unable to test a real 6mg vial of Serostim and come up with a value close to 6mg, then your testing does not have a real world application. If you think that testing a 6mg vial of Serostim and deem it accurate if it reveals 4.8mg then this type of testing is of no value to the community. I dare someone here reading this to disagree with this. And you guys wonder why these threads become a shit show. Jim knows exactly what I am talking about and so does anybody reading this with half a brain.

I can see it now, he is just prepping us for when a pharm sample comes back underdosed too. He is going to insist the results are accurate and we are all just dumb-fucks.

 

[Dr JIM]

If you test several pharma grade samples, i.e. Serostim, omnitrope; they should fall within the normal range of error.

.

Oh I overlooked your "testing suggestion" bc how would your "control" be quantified and/or qualified?

What assay would be used?

What's that you say an LC/MS or HPLC?
Ok fine and what "control" would be used for COMPARISON?

 

[muscle96ss]

Oh I overlooked your "testing suggestion" bc how would your "control" be quantified and/or qualified?

What assay would be used?

What are you talking about? You are skimming my posts and not reading them and having a completely different conversation.

 

[Dr JIM]

Forget it I'm wasting my time bc you just don't understand analytical testing and WHY a standard for comparison is MANDATORY!

 

[muscle96ss]

Forget it I'm wasting my time bc you just don't understand analytical testing and WHY a standard for comparison is MANDATORY!

Yes, forget it, you are not paying attention to a word I am saying and on some tangent. I don't know if you are trying to do 2 things at once or just not capable of understanding simple concepts; but I am pretty sure the whole board understands what I am saying except for you.

 

[Dr JIM]

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.

Ok Google the following:
AMINO ACID ANALYTICAL LABS

SCROLL DOWN until you reach the "Science Exchange"

Click on their web-site and thereafter a list of roughly 10
labs will avail themselves.

Understand like many things in life NOT all labs are created equal so ask questions. PM me if desired.

 

[Dr JIM]

Oh and based on the list of PEP you cited a standard SHOULD be available for comparison BUT assume nothing and ask before any testing is done.

Expect to pay between $100 to $200 per sample. In general the more samples you have tested the lower the price for EACH sample

 

[Dr JIM]

Oh and since the IGF market is
soooo limited, I wouldn't be surprised if the overwhelming majority of IGF on the "black market" is actually GH!

Probably of the lower quality and underdosed Grey variety

 

[Just Fish]

Oh and since the IGF market is
soooo limited, I wouldn't be surprised if the overwhelming majority of IGF on the "black market" is actually GH!

Probably of the lower quality and underdosed Grey variety

New testing venture Jk

 

[janoshik]

Glycine as a buffer? I think that's unlikely but is added bc it can enhance endogenous GH secretion, the difference is bc it' an AMINO ACID it reacts in a manner similar to the characteristics of the sample, AND that can be a real problem

Patent US5763394 - Human growth hormone aqueous formulation

Here is a list of prepararations they use glycine as a buffer an it is specifically listed as so in there.

Glycine being used as a 'GH secretion enhancer' is absolute nonsense, Mr. JIM, as I had pointed out in the previous thread.

Let me quote myself:
"So 4 grams of glycine made about 5ng raise in HGH blood levels. In fasting subjects.

The reaction seems to be dose dependent from the articles you have quoted.

4g of glycine 5ng HGH raise
8g glycine 9ng raise in HGH levels
12g glycine 16ng raise

So are you saying that the producers are adding 4 grams of glycine to vials with a goal in their mind to produce HGH levels raise?

I think 4 grams are the minimum, because if they only added 2 grams, it could be extrapolated as 2.5ng raise in HGH levels and that would be useless, right?

So are you saying, that the manufacturers are adding multiple grams of glycine into the HGH vials? I'd be seriously worried about them doing that!!!"

The last two sentences were sarcasm, because with average weight of the content (and volume) of 100mg per vial ... even adding 500mg of glycine, which would do literally nothing that couldn't be labelled as measuring error, would be noticed by everybody.

Also, regarding testing - I'll let anybody think for themselves, if the smallest amino acid can have the same characteristics as 191 amino acid long chaing full of amino acids with widely different characteristics, weighting 300 times less per molecule.

Glycine is NOT being used as a buffer and you should know that Jano, as its presence will have a minimal effect on
PH !

Every amino acid is, by definition, also a buffer - some better, some worse, but each has dissociable amino and carboxyl group.

That was my first lesson at med school regarding chemistry and was part of each and every lesson.

Glycine is much more likely to be added (or not removed) bc it may enhance endogenous GH production.

See up

The problem arises when it's concentration becomes excessive as is typical of generic GH.

True, 5mg of a buffer can seem excessive compared to what would be expected of content of glycine in 3.33mg of HGH alone - but if the buffer is there to be expected (or unexpected and found out), the analyst shouldn't have any issue with working with it.

Obviously you don't understand the difference bt a matrix stabilizer, emulsifier, tonic agent and a BUFFER, and GLYCINE is NO "BUFFER", especially at those Phs used for HPLC
AA analysis.

https://www.chem.purdue.edu/courses/chm333/Spring%202013/Lectures/Spring%202013%20Lecture%207%20&%208.pdf

All amino acids are buffers by definition. And if you have anything to do with chemistry you should know that.

Almost all of those added agents "fall out" of rather than "fall onto" the HPLC grid, bc if they did "fall into" the grid, HPLC data interpretation could be much more difficult.?

Yes, but glycine can in no possible realisting way interfere with HPLC analysis of HGH.

1. Vastly different polarity and size, so RP-HPLC can separate it incredibly easily.
2. SEC-HPLC can differentiate peptides 100 of Daltons away from each other in molecular weight. I think separating something that is over 22 000 Da away from each other doesn't really have to be talked about.
3. HGH can be quantified by fluorescence of aromatics included - even if there was a ton of glycine and I used the worst possible column in existence, the glycine would not interfere. Same with 280nm absorbtion... Then there is 214/280nm ratio... Etc etc

Once again glycine poses a problem bc it falls onto the grid in an area VERYY close to where His and Try elute and THAT results in an interference when large quantities of the former are involved, bc it can obscure visualization of the SMALLER HIS and THY peaks.

This is what I was thinking might be the case, true.

 

[janoshik]

1) I've posted TWO abstracts that revealed parenteral Glycine CAN increase GH secretion and knowing that makes me skeptical
about Pharmas non-therapeuti motives, especially since such info would likely be considered PROPRIETARY.

Please, re-read what AMOUNTS of glycine are necessary for increasing GH secretion.
Then, tell me if you can fit that much into a HGH vial.

See? Case closed.

I just don't want to make any ERRORS bc I've every reason to suspect what your really looking for, a "defect" in the data you can run with!

Kinda like "anything and everything I say can or will be used against me" in
MHs court of law.

Especially when the verdict has already been rendered "Jims data can NOT be accurate".

Exactly the same thing happening on the other side, oh well.

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?

The standard was not posted and most of the data from 6 month old testing is not available anymore, except the original immunoassay sheets, payments to the company doing the immunoassay and stuff related.

Like M96ss said (and as you will see if you read the forum on PM.com).
The tests paid for were immunoassays, hplc was done because it was believed I was sent 6mg vial of serostim as a control which tested a little below 4mg.

HPLC said thing very similar to immunoassay and after a little while, it was confirmed a mistake had happened and it 4mg sero sent to me by mistake.

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.

True this.

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.

Well, you did HPLC testing of HGH before, did you not?
What standard had you used?
Was it international WHO GH standard?

Also, HPLC done only for informational purposes I can use any standard of known concentration I want.

I could use a snot for standard, if it had contained HGH.

The process is really simple - it goes like this:
fraction collection - dry - weight - repeat
(please, don't get too worked up on this semi-joke)

1. Pharma sample obtained from pharmacy
2. Well, your claim is that pharma is reliable and consistent - are you now saying it is not?
3. oh just please, stop with the nonsense

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 !

Well, you have not used any kind of a standard, so even SOMETHING would be better than that, I would assume.

Also, are you going to imply that ELISA done by REPUTABLE INTERNATIONAL LAB SPECIALISED IN ANALYTICS WORTH BILLIONS (doneitthejimway) is also wrong?



When did this become PM vs MESO talk again?

All I'm doing is pointing out distinct flaws in JIMs rhetoric and 'facts'

 

[Sampei]

Where is the pharma hgh vial (serostim) Immunoassay/hplc? On pm?

I can't read pm. I have less ten 50posts.

Please, re-read what AMOUNTS of glycine are necessary for increasing GH secretion.
Then, tell me if you can fit that much into a HGH vial.

See? Case closed.


Exactly the same thing happening on the other side, oh well.



The standard was not posted and most of the data from 6 month old testing is not available anymore, except the original immunoassay sheets, payments to the company doing the immunoassay and stuff related.

Like M96ss said (and as you will see if you read the forum on PM.com).
The tests paid for were immunoassays, hplc was done because it was believed I was sent 6mg vial of serostim as a control which tested a little below 4mg.

HPLC said thing very similar to immunoassay and after a little while, it was confirmed a mistake had happened and it 4mg sero sent to me by mistake.



True this.



Well, you did HPLC testing of HGH before, did you not?
What standard had you used?
Was it international WHO GH standard?

Also, HPLC done only for informational purposes I can use any standard of known concentration I want.

I could use a snot for standard, if it had contained HGH.

The process is really simple - it goes like this:
fraction collection - dry - weight - repeat
(please, don't get too worked up on this semi-joke)

1. Pharma sample obtained from pharmacy
2. Well, your claim is that pharma is reliable and consistent - are you now saying it is not?
3. oh just please, stop with the nonsense


Well, you have not used any kind of a standard, so even SOMETHING would be better than that, I would assume.

Also, are you going to imply that ELISA done by REPUTABLE INTERNATIONAL LAB SPECIALISED IN ANALYTICS WORTH BILLIONS (doneitthejimway) is also wrong?



When did this become PM vs MESO talk again?

All I'm doing is pointing out distinct flaws in JIMs rhetoric and 'facts'

 

[Buck1973]

Dr. Jim
I will go at this from another angle,
we have seen several, and based on the results posted, I wont even call them generic but rather bio similar HGH samples compared to the standard.
Will we see How a Pharma sample compares to the standard?
How close will the Pharma grade sample have to be to the standard to still be allow for use and sale as HGH by the FDA?
What would you xpect would b acceptable?

also I tried the science xchange route several times. no luck thus far.
this is there response to me from a few days ago......


Dear Buck,
My name is JR and I am a Customer Success Manager at Science Exchange. I am writing to follow-up on your request forAmino Acid Analysisservice that you've submitted to one of our service providers,Proteomics and Mass Spectrometry Facility.
Science Exchange is an online marketplace where scientists can outsource research services to our network of expert service providers. These research services typically encompasses scientific research in the pre-clinical and clinical pipeline.
The request that you have submitted presents several legal complications and Science Exchange is unable to support your project at this time. We cannot support and facilitate requests for services that are intended for personal use, therefore your request for quotation has been deleted from our platform.
If you would like to pursue this request, please provide me with the following information and our team can reassess the request:

1. Please provide me with your work affiliated email (not a Hotmail, Gmail, or Yahoo email address).
2. What is the intended use of the data or product? If it will be used for basic scientific research, please provide me with references to your past publications.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Best regards,

JR

 

[heady muscle]

@mands
When can we expect more test results?
Thanks.