W&M Analytical Liaison (U.S. Domestic)

[mercury]

Now regarding the hGH tests:


It is possible that I should have picked a different standard from Sigma. I sent the money and the chemist ordered the one I picked.
1)If it turns out that the standard is inferior for these purposes; I will purchase the correct one.

Find another chemist he is an idiot if he does not know what standards are needed.

If he has to rely on you to pick them up he does not have clue what he is doing.

In that case I doubt he can produce reliable results.

 

[MisterSuperGod]

Wonder if the forum software is glitching?

i've had this malcontent on ignore after he tried to explain away the link i posted that shamed him for his match-a-color kits.

i didn't get an alert, but this thread showed up in my watched threads list as if someone else replied. i opened it to find this.



Strange how it does that. Doesn't happen every time. Seems like a random occurrence.

 

[janoshik]

You know, you are an extremely lucky person.

You have brought here two, totally separate, testing services for an extremely niche and illegal market within a few months. Not many people are that lucky.

What a sad coincidence that both have had issues with the discrepancies testing GH.

...you are using shit for standard, which is a FACT, and that based on experience, which can be easily proved with logic as well I believe that the graphs you put on GH reports are phoney?

To clarify myself, the main argument is that either you are using that "standard" and the graph is phoney, or you are just claiming to use that "standard" or both.

Another one - with your turnaround of GH tests (I counted 4) and the fact that a real standard lasts about a week, max two, when reconstituted you are going to claim you have paid for your "standards" 268 USD, used 2 and charge:

hGH identification and quantitation: $225
hGH identification and quantitation+ dimer content: $275

So, is your chemist doing these tests for near free or are you paying for those tests out of your pocket because of the goodness of your heart?

So what is it?

Or am I bad bad person for pointing out facts and relying on logic?


If I'm wrong it should be fairly easily to blow me out with facts and what could be better satisfaction than wrecking my knowledge, intelligence and experience out in the public?

 

[Weights & Measures]

You know, you are an extremely lucky person.

You have brought here two, totally separate, testing services for an extremely niche and illegal market within a few months. Not many people are that lucky.

What a sad coincidence that both have had issues with the discrepancies testing GH.


To clarify myself, the main argument is that either you are using that "standard" and the graph is phoney, or you are just claiming to use that "standard" or both.

Another one - with your turnaround of GH tests (I counted 4) and the fact that a real standard lasts about a week, max two, when reconstituted you are going to claim you have paid for your "standards" 268 USD, used 2 and charge:

hGH identification and quantitation: $225
hGH identification and quantitation+ dimer content: $275

So, is your chemist doing these tests for near free or are you paying for those tests out of your pocket because of the goodness of your heart?

So what is it?

Or am I bad bad person for pointing out facts and relying on logic?


If I'm wrong it should be fairly easily to blow me out with facts and what could be better satisfaction than wrecking my knowledge, intelligence and experience out in the public?

Wow, you really are inflamed aren’t you?

I’ve said it countless times: I don’t know this science. But still, you need to tout your superiority of expertise in this area over me. Does that make you any less wrong when you’re wrong?

No, I can’t match you in arguement in this area. It’s already been disclosed. However, I know someone who is smarter, better, and more ethical than you in this line of work.

It’s the weekend so I won’t get any info till days from now; but I will.

And you won’t “get away with” your obvious attempt to continue your malice in this field forever. Someone, some day is going to end your malignancy for good.

BTW: I don’t live in MS, but I did receive there.
It’s odd that we never spoke about my residence; but you knew something only customers could have known.
Your presence is a risk to every person in the underground.

I have more to say. Just busy with my kids. Wait for me....

 

[janoshik]

Wow, you really are inflamed aren’t you?

I’ve said it countless times: I don’t know this science. But still, you need to tout your superiority of expertise in this area over me.

You mean in direct reply (post #519) to your need to tout somebody else's superiority over me? Now who's inflamed.

No, I can’t match you in arguement in this area. It’s already been disclosed. However, I know someone who is smarter, better, and more ethical than you in this line of work.

Sure, this ethical authority risking reputation and license of accredited laboratory for black market testing.

Anyway, I'll be happy to wait for you to address my arguments.

So far you have somehow managed to avoid that even in cases where you don't really need to consult with a chemist.

 

[mercury]

I believe that the graphs you put on GH reports are phoney?

What exactly is your description of "not getting away with?"

I cannot even see any numbers on the graphs, so I not even sure what they are about. But it is obvious it was copied and pasted and the report was made in photo editor.

There is a difference in resolution quality so it was patched from many pieces.

I could consider to run a few samples on my HPLC if we could find anonymous remailer. Free of charge, anonymous, no questions asked and no answers given, no names / descriptions on samples.

 

[Weights & Measures]

You mean in direct reply (post #519) to your need to tout somebody else's superiority over me? Now who's inflamed.



Sure, this ethical authority risking reputation and license of accredited laboratory for black market testing.

This is a dead horse. The lab is real. The certs are real. The chemist is real. Your word against mine.



So far you have somehow managed to avoid that even in cases where you don't really need to consult with a chemist.

This makes no sense. #519 is your post, not mine. When I did speak about someone knowing this field better than you; it was preceded by my declaration of not having this knowledge personally.

"Sure, this ethical authority risking reputation and license of accredited laboratory for black market testing."

This is a dead horse. The lab is real. The certs are real. The chemist is real. Your word against mine.

I'm not sure what you are referring to with this last comment. About the only thing I can argue without the chemist's help is the legitimacy of the tests. They are real; and that's all there is to it. Again, your word against mine.

 

[janoshik]

This makes no sense. #519 is your post, not mine. When I did speak about someone knowing this field better than you; it was preceded by my declaration of not having this knowledge personally.

"Sure, this ethical authority risking reputation and license of accredited laboratory for black market testing."

This is a dead horse. The lab is real. The certs are real. The chemist is real. Your word against mine.

I'm not sure what you are referring to with this last comment. About the only thing I can argue without the chemist's help is the legitimacy of the tests. They are real; and that's all there is to it. Again, your word against mine.

Sigh, never mind the first part, not important.

I'm sure you don't need the chemist's help to answer questions aimed directly at you, such as: "So you picked a standard which is not a standard at all and your chemist didn't object at all? Do you pick all the standards for him?" Especially after all your declarations that you know nothing about all this. But, whatever.

I have no doubt about the lab being real. So was EC's uni lab. Except there were things that just kept not adding up. Like here.

There can be a good enough explanation, but I just can't see any one that would be likely. You can call me unethical or insult me in the meanwhile. Again.

 

[rpbb]

Aside from all the back and forth, there's some serious questions regarding this latest test. Unfortunately, it always seems to be hgh causing all the drama

 

[Weights & Measures]

Sigh, never mind the first part, not important.

I'm sure you don't need the chemist's help to answer questions aimed directly at you, such as: "So you picked a standard which is not a standard at all and your chemist didn't object at all? Do you pick all the standards for him?" Especially after all your declarations that you know nothing about all this. But, whatever.

I have no doubt about the lab being real. So was EC's uni lab. Except there were things that just kept not adding up. Like here.

There can be a good enough explanation, but I just can't see any one that would be likely. You can call me unethical or insult me in the meanwhile. Again.

I overlooked that question the first time you asked. My fault.
Yes, I did pick the standard. No, I do not pick them all; and I have not picked any others.

This is how it went:
I asked if he had hgh standard before I even accepted a sample. He said no; so I asked if he would order one if I paid for it. He said yes. I got on the internet and found it, sent him the item number and the money. He ordered it, sent me a receipt, and a pic of it after it arrived. I felt good about it all.

He did ask me if I was sure that is the one I want because it will not be refundable. I said yes. He never said anything about the things you are saying; but he and I have a mild to moderate language barrier.

I have a barrage of emails awaiting reply from the chemist; and I will update here as soon as I know anything.

I’m pretty adamant about admitting where I am wrong; and, should it turn out that this reference is truly unacceptable for this purpose, I accept all the fault.

It’s important for you and everyone else to know that I did not and do not object to your criticisms of the testing method. It is not within my scope of practice to argue it. Sure, I don’t like your criticism; but I’m plenty equipped to handle criticism except when it is of my integrity.

My only objections were to the accusations of dishonesty. I may have done things incorrectly in my life, but I haven’t and won’t ever intentionally mislead someone.

I truly wish you had said something to me before this. It disappoints me a little because I thought we had mutual respect and desire for the other to succeed. But it’s cool....I’ll figure out and implement what is needed to make this right; and leave this scenario with a couple of great learning experiences regarding trust and money.

So actually, thank you.

 

[Weights & Measures]

Aside from all the back and forth, there's some serious questions regarding this latest test. Unfortunately, it always seems to be hgh causing all the drama

It will get sorted out. I will not leave it like this.
If the test turns out to be unacceptable after I gather more information; everyone who tested will have the choice of full refund or retest against another standard.

 

[janoshik]

My only objections were to the accusations of dishonesty. I may have done things incorrectly in my life, but I haven’t and won’t ever intentionally mislead someone.

I truly wish you had said something to me before this. It disappoints me a little because I thought we had mutual respect and desire for the other to succeed. But it’s cool....I’ll figure out and implement what is needed to make this right; and leave this scenario with a couple of great learning experiences regarding trust and money.

So actually, thank you.

I am honestly sorry I got carried away more than I should have that night. We both did. I could've handled it other way, but I have not intentionally insulted you, because of the respect I had for you.

I have to admit I have issues with paranoia in this field due to some recent and not so recent events, but there were too many things that did not add up for me and I boiled over, partly because I vouched for your service and I felt my trust was broken.

Unfortunately my paranoia turned out to be right most of the time. I'll be happy if I'll be proven wrong this time.

 

[Weights & Measures]

I am honestly sorry I got carried away more than I should have that night. We both did. I could've handled it other way, but I have not intentionally insulted you, because of the respect I had for you.

I have to admit I have issues with paranoia in this field due to some recent and not so recent events, but there were too many things that did not add up for me and I boiled over, partly because I vouched for your service and I felt my trust was broken.

Unfortunately my paranoia turned out to be right most of the time. I'll be happy if I'll be proven wrong this time.

Apology accepted and thank you.
I have nothing to gain by you being proved wrong. All I intend to prove is personal trustworthiness in my actions.

Thank you for the willingness to return to objective and amicable conversation.

 

[mercury]

It will get sorted out. I will not leave it like this.
If the test turns out to be unacceptable after I gather more information; everyone who tested will have the choice of full refund or retest against another standard.

sounds good, can you give good explanation what the third curve is ?

one is standard the other one is Boder, and the third one ?

Can you provide with a better quality picture so you can read whatever is on the graph ?

This is not how data looks like when it is comes out. You can read description but nothing on the graph. Like somebody stitched it from all over the place.

 

[bickel29]

sounds good, can you give good explanation what the third curve is ?

one is standard the other one is Boder, and the third one ?

Can you provide with a better quality picture so you can read whatever is on the graph ?

This is not how data looks like when it is comes out. You can read description but nothing on the graph. Like somebody stitched it from all over the place.

View attachment 109350

I am just curious if you have a mental disability that prevents you from remembering ALL OF THE TIMES that he has said that - no, in fact - he CAN NOT break down the graphs, nor how the test is performed?

Or are you purposely continuing to ask questions that you know he can not answer, just to be a dick?

Which is it?

You have a mental disability, or you're just purposely being a dick?

 

[mercury]

I am just curious

ask your doctor he can help you out. I do not work with mentally disabled.

 

[bickel29]

ask your doctor he can help you out. I do not work with mentally disabled.

Well, you just answered my question. Your lack of reading comprehension and ignorant responses confirms that you do indeed have mental issues.

Thank you for answering my question with your response.

 

[Weights & Measures]

Please read all the way through:

I have communicated with the chemist. He doesn’t feel that there is any need to purchase an additional reference when the purpose of this test is to compare and quantify an unknown vial’s contents to authentic r(hGH) from a reputable source.

One question he asked made a lot of sense. He asked if I was doing R&D for developing a new multi-million dollar bio-pharmaceutical; or analyzing black market drugs to assess legitimacy of the contents? It really put things into perspective for me.

I feel like even I have over-prioritized the gnashing and ranting that has surrounded hGH on MESO for several years. There are companies that sell vials with no or very little growth hormone in them; but suggesting that anything other than the 191AA polypeptide can falsely correlate with a commercially marketed authentic r(hGH) sample is absurd. I think what is being asked of me is beyond ID and quantitation at this point.

Regarding the reference from Sigma Aldrich:

The sample I purchased contains r(hGH) expressed in HEK-293 cells (catalog# H5916). This is opposed to the one from the same site that was mentioned as “somatropin” (catalog# 1615708) containing r(hGH) expressed in E. coli.

There is another sample available from them called “Somatotropin from human pituitary” (S4476). It is “recombinant, expressed in E. coli, ≥95%”. Reading the title alone makes one think that the sample came from an actual human pituitary gland. But does anyone think they would sell a sample from a pituitary abscess (the only way e. coli would be in the gland)? Not possible.

In the chemist’s words: “hGH is hGH is hGH” (yes he was talking about the 22kDa isoform; so no need for speculation) and all I did was pay a higher price per iU than the USP standard. I can see why too when I imagine the cost of human embryonic kidney cells to the cost of bacteria. He thinks it is a waste of time and money to validate an already validated test.

With that said: I am willing to go the extra mile and squash this for good. I’m willing purchase the USP standard ($450 from Sigma or $315 from USP [same item number at both places]) plus the $130 cold transport shipping fee; and pay him to test it against the reference I already bought. So it would be Sigma Aldrich H5916 vs 1615708. He said they will be identical because they are already identical. Again……“hGH is hGH is hGH”.

With the price of the standard and the test being potentially over $900; it will probably be a week or more from now before I will be able to buy this.

When the two references are shown to be compatible; is it acceptable from a MESO standpoint to then deduce that the prior customer tests, performed with H5916 as the reference, are valid?

The chemist says this is unnecessary and wasteful; but I’m truly growing tired of this nitpicking and constant conspiracy. It would cost me money anyway to refund people since the doubt has already been introduced in my thread. So I am willing to pay for another reference and the cost of testing to get it over with.

It is important to note that I am willing to do this only because it is my fault for not realizing there were so many different authentic r(hGH) samples available from Sigma Aldrich. I picked the one I could afford at the time; but being lower in price does not mean that it isn’t real authentic recombinant human growth hormone. My mistake makes my evidence refutable; so I will accept the burden of clarification.

Furthermore:

If this is done, and I pay for all this; this is the last time I will entertain this type of attack on my integrity.

It has now officially cost me more to do this for MESO than I have kept.

I will be happy to abandon this effort before I go financially negative for this again after today.

I hope I have addressed this satisfactorily.

Thank you all for reading this through.

 

[janoshik]

I let out the parts of your post that I didn't view as relevant to the discussion. I've also omitted some things I wanted to point out, as it would be incredibly long, boring and nobody would read it anyway.

I hope you won't mind.

I feel like even I have over-prioritized the gnashing and ranting that has surrounded hGH on MESO for several years. There are companies that sell vials with no or very little growth hormone in them; but suggesting that anything other than the 191AA polypeptide can falsely correlate with a commercially marketed authentic r(hGH) sample is absurd. I think what is being asked of me is beyond ID and quantitation at this point.

If people only wanted to determine whether there is GH or not in a vial, they could purchase a LFIA test to do at home for 1/3rd the cost of either of our tests.

ID with only the test that is shown on the graph, SEC, wouldn't distinguish isoforms, oxidized and deaminated variants, not even 192aa if it was around, assessing them as perfectly good GH. That is a fact that can't be disputed.

Quantitation using what you call "standard" is unreliable. I can't provide exact numbers, but I'd expect variations of about 10% to not be too rare. Or even higher. With proteins and peptides of very low concentrations there any many issues processing them, such as protein adsorbtion. When 2 micrograms out of 3.86 mg standard adsorb to a surface of equipment used, it's not an issue at all. When 2 micrograms out of 10 do... Again, this is a well known fact to people doing protein chemistry, which can be easily verified by a simple google search and I can't see anybody working with 10 ug willingly and not acknowledge the potential severe issues at all.

Regarding the reference from Sigma Aldrich:

The sample I purchased contains r(hGH) expressed in HEK-293 cells (catalog# H5916). This is opposed to the one from the same site that was mentioned as “somatropin” (catalog# 1615708) containing r(hGH) expressed in E. coli.

In the chemist’s words: “hGH is hGH is hGH” (yes he was talking about the 22kDa isoform; so no need for speculation) and all I did was pay a higher price per iU than the USP standard. I can see why too when I imagine the cost of human embryonic kidney cells to the cost of bacteria. He thinks it is a waste of time and money to validate an already validated test.

I could paraphrase that "a scale is a scale" and attach a picture of grocery store scale and one used in laboratory.

It has absolutely nothing to do with the origin of the GH. It doesn't matter whether the reference standard is made by recombinant technology or extracted from brains of cadavers. It doesn't influence the molecule and as long as it is characterized it can become a reference standard.

HEK293 produced GH you have purchased does not have standardized mass and the issue I have pointed out is not that you have overpaid per IU, but rather that 10 microgram "standard" is like using a single nickel to measure a kilometer long line. Is it possible? Yes. Is it gong to be reliable measurement? No at all. Is any person in their right mind going to do it that way? ...

That's the best comparison I can make this early in the morning.

With that said: I am willing to go the extra mile and squash this for good. I’m willing purchase the USP standard ($450 from Sigma or $315 from USP [same item number at both places]) plus the $130 cold transport shipping fee; and pay him to test it against the reference I already bought. So it would be Sigma Aldrich H5916 vs 1615708. He said they will be identical because they are already identical. Again……“hGH is hGH is hGH”.

That's a nice move from you. Do you think it would be possible to provide the raw data here? It would be appreciated.

Also, that's weird, Sigma not once charged me for the cold transport. Maybe it's different in the US. You might also want to check out EU Pharma reference sample, as it is cheaper: Somatropin S0947000


Thank you for your reaction, I appreciate it and apologize for the trouble caused, however, I am sorry, but I am not entirely convinced. Again, stuff doesn't add up for me. In the comments I believe I have adhered to easily verifiable facts as much as possible and I hope clearly stated where I am talking about a fact and when I expressed my personal opinion.

I will observe how this proceeds further with intention no other than having a factual discussion.

 

[movingiron88]

I let out the parts of your post that I didn't view as relevant to the discussion. I've also omitted some things I wanted to point out, as it would be incredibly long, boring and nobody would read it anyway.

I hope you won't mind.


If people only wanted to determine whether there is GH or not in a vial, they could purchase a LFIA test to do at home for 1/3rd the cost of either of our tests.

ID with only the test that is shown on the graph, SEC, wouldn't distinguish isoforms, oxidized and deaminated variants, not even 192aa if it was around, assessing them as perfectly good GH. That is a fact that can't be disputed.

Quantitation using what you call "standard" is unreliable. I can't provide exact numbers, but I'd expect variations of about 10% to not be too rare. Or even higher. With proteins and peptides of very low concentrations there any many issues processing them, such as protein adsorbtion. When 2 micrograms out of 3.86 mg standard adsorb to a surface of equipment used, it's not an issue at all. When 2 micrograms out of 10 do... Again, this is a well known fact to people doing protein chemistry, which can be easily verified by a simple google search and I can't see anybody working with 10 ug willingly and not acknowledge the potential severe issues at all.



I could paraphrase that "a scale is a scale" and attach a picture of grocery store scale and one used in laboratory.

It has absolutely nothing to do with the origin of the GH. It doesn't matter whether the reference standard is made by recombinant technology or extracted from brains of cadavers. It doesn't influence the molecule and as long as it is characterized it can become a reference standard.

HEK293 produced GH you have purchased does not have standardized mass and the issue I have pointed out is not that you have overpaid per IU, but rather that 10 microgram "standard" is like using a single nickel to measure a kilometer long line. Is it possible? Yes. Is it gong to be reliable measurement? No at all. Is any person in their right mind going to do it that way? ...

That's the best comparison I can make this early in the morning.

That's a nice move from you. Do you think it would be possible to provide the raw data here? It would be appreciated.

Also, that's weird, Sigma not once charged me for the cold transport. Maybe it's different in the US. You might also want to check out EU Pharma reference sample, as it is cheaper: Somatropin S0947000


Thank you for your reaction, I appreciate it and apologize for the trouble caused, however, I am sorry, but I am not entirely convinced. Again, stuff doesn't add up for me. In the comments I believe I have adhered to easily verifiable facts as much as possible and I hope clearly stated where I am talking about a fact and when I expressed my personal opinion.

I will observe how this proceeds further with intention no other than having a factual discussion.

Fuck you and leave this thread.

@Weights & Measures please keep being respectful, honest and provide reliable testing. I recommend to put the con man @janoshik on ignore. You do not have to answer to him he is not your customer. He is also not a member here. He is simply looking out for his financial interests.