Use more or less bac water for hgh?

[zpped]

Things we thought we had figured out, turns out aren't that clear. Used to think vacuum was mandatory and dimer was the devil. Now, not so sure.

The purpose of the vacuum is to prevent oxidation during storage. But it's such a small theoretical amount as to be irrelevant. The real use is to confirm who has a more professional finishing process.

 

[BeardedGuy]

That's the highest concentration of GH I ever found in a commercial formulation. Of course that's under perfect conditions, with anti-aggregation excipients, so going a little more dilute than that with UGL is probobly a good idea, especially if it's going to take more than a few days to get through the vial. 36iu I'd use 3ml.

The other factor with dilution is the pharmacokinetics, ie, how fast or slow the drug is absorbed. Higher concentration the faster blood levels rise. But unlike other peptides like GLPs where too quick absorbtion can worsen sides or hypoglycemia, none of the pharma companies seem to care about that with GH, so I assume it doesn't matter.

You almost can't go wrong with GH as long as it's not more than about 15iu / ml. More dilution is better for long term stability (stuffing more peptide molecules in a small volume of liquid always worsens aggregation since they bump into each other).

Can we add anti aggregation excipients ourselves?

 

[Ghoul]

Can we add anti aggregation excipients ourselves?

TLDR no, it's not practical for us, or even UGL to do this properly (UGL should just copy a pharma formula).

There's a study I posted months ago that walked through the process of a company developing a new formulation of growth hormone.

They spent a year testing the impact of numerous excipients, then various combinations, to determine what was the best for the particular condition (a new type of injector) it would be delivered in.

The bottom line was that every excipient was a mix of helpful and harmful characteristics, and had to be carefully balanced to come up with a formula that didn't cause too much initial damage to the growth hormone, while preventing it from aggregating to the greatest degree possible over its shelf life, and the less than ideal conditions once in the hands of a patient (left out of refrigerator, shaken too much etc).

I suspect QSC dropped all excipients from their HGH except mannitol once they realized that even though it would keep the HGH in better condition, it cost them on "purity" tests, which they knew is all most people look at. No one was measuring aggregate formation 5 days after reconstitution.

These formulations not only have to pass FDA approval, but they're monitored once they're in the market to ensure aggregation doesn't get worse than the company says it will at any time up to its expiration date, so it's done with great care. By the way, in these applications sent to the FDA for approval, every type of aggregate expected to form in a particular peptide/protein has to be specifically identified ("aggregate characterization") and justified as not being dangerous. Something that doesn't happen with UGL, which is why it's safer to remove them.

All we can do is minimize the conditions we know worsens aggregation. Keep refrigerated, Avoid agitation, bubbles and foaming. Keep as dilute a concentration as is practical. Use smaller dosed vials as much as is practical since time is a factor in aggregation growth. If you're really dedicated you can check PH and adjust it to ensure it's between 6.5-7.5. Low PH speeds up HGH aggregation 10x or more.

And finally, you can simply filter so whatever does form is removed to the greatest extent possible. Large aggregates are inactive, at best, anyway, and depending on what they are exactly (fibrils, amorphous with epitopes that resemble natural hormones), have the potential to cause harm, especially given the large amount of cumulative exposure from a long term daily use drug like HGH.

 

[BeardedGuy]

TLDR no, it's not practical for us, or even UGL to do this properly (UGL should just copy a pharma formula).

There's a study I posted months ago that walked through the process of a company developing a new formulation of growth hormone.

They spent a year testing the impact of numerous excipients, then various combinations, to determine what was the best for the particular condition (a new type of injector) it would be delivered in.

The bottom line was that every excipient was a mix of helpful and harmful characteristics, and had to be carefully balanced to come up with a formula that didn't cause too much initial damage to the growth hormone, while preventing it from aggregating to the greatest degree possible over its shelf life, and the less than ideal conditions once in the hands of a patient (left out of refrigerator, shaken too much etc).

I suspect QSC dropped all excipients from their HGH except mannitol once they realized that even though it would keep the HGH in better condition, it cost them on "purity" tests, which they knew is all most people look at. No one was measuring aggregate formation 5 days after reconstitution.

These formulations not only have to pass FDA approval, but they're monitored once they're in the market to ensure aggregation doesn't get worse than the company says it will at any time up to its expiration date, so it's done with great care. By the way, in these applications sent to the FDA for approval, every type of aggregate expected to form in a particular peptide/protein has to be specifically identified ("aggregate characterization") and justified as not being dangerous. Something that doesn't happen with UGL, which is why it's safer to remove them.

All we can do is minimize the conditions we know worsens aggregation. Keep refrigerated, Avoid agitation, bubbles and foaming. Keep as dilute a concentration as is practical. Use smaller dosed vials as much as is practical since time is a factor in aggregation growth. If you're really dedicated you can check PH and adjust it to ensure it's between 6.5-7.5. Low PH speeds up HGH aggregation 10x or more.

And finally, you can simply filter so whatever does form is removed to the greatest extent possible. Large aggregates are inactive, at best, anyway, and depending on what they are exactly (fibrils, amorphous with epitopes that resemble natural hormones), have the potential to cause harm, especially given the large amount of cumulative exposure from a long term daily use drug like HGH.

Awesome thanks see you at 10!

 

[Ghoul]

Awesome thanks see you at 10!

I realize not everyone wants to read a wall of text or dig into this obscure topic so here's a pic of aggregate analysis done on a shaken vial of hgh that illustrates what we're talking about, Some glass shedding, common in cheap vials even without impact, mixed in for good measure, All of this is removed with a .22um PES.

.

 

[BeardedGuy]

I realize not everyone wants to read a wall of text or dig into this obscure topic so here's a pic of aggregate analysis done on a shaken vial of pharma hgh that illustrates what we're talking about, Some glass shedding, common in cheap vial, mixed in for good measure, All of this is removed with a .22um PES.

View attachment 322309View attachment 322310.

Well shit. Glass shedding too?!? Ok ok… filters on order!

 

[Ghoul]

Well shit. Glass shedding too?!? Ok ok… filters on order!

Pharma switched to boron free and other shed proof glass for protein drugs years ago. The reason is that even when the protein (like hgh/glps) or aggregates don't cause a strong immune response, injecting contaminants like glass at the same time triggers it, making a non-immunogenic drug, immunogenic.


View: https://youtu.be/Ag0Yya6jK3E

 

[SenorSuperdrol]

Idk much about much. I’m using optis blues, 17iu or something a vial. I add 1.5 ml of BaC and inject .5ml or “50 units”

I couldn’t tell you the most optimal way. Idk none of the science it’s not that serious. Put the drugs in your body.

 

[glpfun]

Use the most you can conveniently get away with