Use more or less bac water for hgh?

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?
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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!
 
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.

IMG_0893.webpIMG_0894.webp.
 
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!
 
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

So, we should be filtering our GLPs and HGH from CN every time? And 4um PES 13mm is best. There are vids on YouTube on how to do this.
I wonder if there are sterile, non-boron vials to filter into. Interesting stuff.
Ok thanks, I feel safer. Cheers!
 
I'll tell you all a story: I reconstitued for close to 6 months 3x 36IU QSC vials 1 ML each, all placed in a 3ml cartridge and injected 10IU every night.

Now I stopped using QSC and started using lobster, 0.5ml each 10IU vial.
6 vials all together in 1x 3ml cartridge and injecting 10IU every night.

No CT sides on both, maybe hands are a big tighter like some fingers lock themselves xD but nothing changed from one administration to the other and the dilution of the QSC is a lot less than the lobster HGH.

So to speak... My personal experience has been doesn't matter at all.

Btw I was filtering the HGH too and stopped doing it and I saw no difference.

Not saying filtering is useless mind you, it's a smart thing to do to enhance sterility and reduce degradation probably but my personal experience is it didn't change a thing on how I felt.

This doesn't mean shit however, same as most of what is discussed here, because there are so many variables on why you get sides from HGH that reducing it all to: aggregates and whatever it's silly same as saying the complete opposite.


You know when I get the most side? When I eat like shit :)
 
So, we should be filtering our GLPs and HGH from CN every time? And 4um PES 13mm is best. There are vids on YouTube on how to do this.
I wonder if there are sterile, non-boron vials to filter into. Interesting stuff.
Ok thanks, I feel safer. Cheers!

These are more than sufficient. Pharma grade, low reactive, certified particulate free, quality stopper, and cheap.

 
Don't be dissuaded from using best practices whether or not anyone else thinks it's worth it to them.

Half of the people scoffing at filtering injectables wouldn't drink water out of the tap at home without filtering it first. Cleaning up whatever garbage may be in a Chinese vial supplied by an underground lab rather than blindly injecting whatever might be in there is a sensible precaution, especially if you consider the cumulative amount of exposure over the years.

I would do it just to prevent injecting the junk from the cheap ass, uninspected vials and stoppers the Chinese use.

It's low effort, minimal expense, and the only real potential objection, that it somehow may make things worse, has been settled.
 
Don't be dissuaded from using best practices whether or not anyone else thinks it's worth it to them.

Half of the people scoffing at filtering injectables wouldn't drink water out of the tap at home without filtering it first. Cleaning up whatever garbage may be in a Chinese vial supplied by an underground lab rather than blindly injecting whatever might be in there is a sensible precaution, especially if you consider the cumulative amount of exposure over the years.

I would do it just to prevent injecting the junk from the cheap ass, uninspected vials and stoppers the Chinese use.

It's low effort, minimal expense, and the only real potential objection, that it somehow may make things worse, has been settled.
I wasn’t. I went to my buddies at peptide test and got filters and vials. Your points are all very sensical. Like a UGL Pascal’s wager.
 

Sponsors

Latest posts

Back
Top