johnnyBALLZ
Well-known Member
I don't think Karl would do that given his reputation... Wait, fuck yes I would!!!!!!! hahahah, the ole' bait n' switch....
:yawn:
MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
Western-BioTech - Pharma quality GH
- Thread starter Western-Biotech
- Start date
I don't think Karl would do that given his reputation... Wait, fuck yes I would!!!!!!! hahahah, the ole' bait n' switch....
:yawn:
It can be done but requires an MRI stereoscopic spectrograph - to determine the Alpha/Beta positions of attached Hydrogen atoms - at a cost of $2500 bucks, so it's unlikely anyone will have any interest in pursuing such an endeavor.
That is a good point dnml. I want to state first, Meso is my favorite board due to it being uncensored. Having said that, I am probably an overly cautious consumer nowadays. If I were to say I think us consumers should wait and see if the gh is being consistently produced for say 6 months or longer, would that be wrong? I say this due to the fact that I have seen many sources start out like gangbusters, then turn and burn with the $$. I now always assume there is a scam until it is proven otherwise by quality product over time. Notice how I am just stating my opinion, not necessarily about the product being sold on this thread by Karl, but about all product being sold on the underground. I know that suppliers and shills who want product to sell probably won't like this theory of mine, but if it helps save anyone from getting scammed then I am happy to hear it.
Yes some good points Mands. I appreciate being able to have some meaningful conversation about this issue with you. I made a post in response to dnml about "opinions". If you get a chance, give it a read and let me hear your thoughts on it.
dnml
New Member
Yeah I hear you... I read this not so much as your opinion on sources, their quality, reliability, etc.; but on your approach to working with them. Which is totally valid IMO to post. I was thinking more along the lines of "My buddy just pinned it and said it was 'smooth', so it's g2g" type of posts. Stay cautious man, they ALL go bad at some point and if that's when we let our guard down....
Interesting dynamic to this game btw: We usually get burned not by the sources we think will take us, but by the ones we have some level of trust in. The srcs we are skeptical of we usually stay away from for that reason. It's the ones we vet and have some level of comfort with that we order from, and then it's just a numbers game as to when we'll get burned. The only source I've ever been outright burned by is the guy I thought was most trustworthy- and he was, until he wasn't. How's that for an off topic opinion
Western-Biotech
New Member
For the doc's question -
In each step of production we use HPLC test to follow and monitor the purity of the HGH we produce, as well as SDS-page on the final summarize part to confirm purity.
We used MS tests in the R@D level, and if necessary to determine or monitor a specific issue, we don't do it on a regular basis at the production line. I may ask for the specific explanation for the usage of MS for my professor, I'm not an analytic chemist. I may certainly do for u mess spec for other products, my team has the best knowhow in this field, we'll just need to get some standards of some AAS which we don't posses now.
The most important test is actually the biological assay test - it's monitoring and confirming carefully the ACTUAL CLINIC EFFECT IN VIVO OF OUR PRODUCT, and I'm surprised that the doc hasn't directed this unique test. You could have not use any other tests here but this test, as it simply confirm that the GH is working on living tissue and determines it's clinical potential. We use of course the rest of the test to monitor the actual production and quantify the purity to achieve the max results in vivo (as shown in the biological assay tests)
In each step of production we use HPLC test to follow and monitor the purity of the HGH we produce, as well as SDS-page on the final summarize part to confirm purity.
We used MS tests in the R@D level, and if necessary to determine or monitor a specific issue, we don't do it on a regular basis at the production line. I may ask for the specific explanation for the usage of MS for my professor, I'm not an analytic chemist. I may certainly do for u mess spec for other products, my team has the best knowhow in this field, we'll just need to get some standards of some AAS which we don't posses now.
The most important test is actually the biological assay test - it's monitoring and confirming carefully the ACTUAL CLINIC EFFECT IN VIVO OF OUR PRODUCT, and I'm surprised that the doc hasn't directed this unique test. You could have not use any other tests here but this test, as it simply confirm that the GH is working on living tissue and determines it's clinical potential. We use of course the rest of the test to monitor the actual production and quantify the purity to achieve the max results in vivo (as shown in the biological assay tests)
Karl what the doc is asking is where is the test by you on amino acid sequence and protein. His point is that this is something you should have. The doc is far more knowledgeable on the tests than I am so it's definitely a good learning experience how extensive you need to have good gh.
Western-Biotech
New Member
Sorry - I still haven't understood the question on the AA ?
In order to examine out production process there is no need to make AA evaluation of course, if you're interested from the scientific point of view I'll get tomorrow a summery from my professor on this subject
In order to examine out production process there is no need to make AA evaluation of course, if you're interested from the scientific point of view I'll get tomorrow a summery from my professor on this subject
Western-Biotech
New Member
If you inspect the AA chart shown on Mands list you'll see that 6 AA are missing, the last AA on the list BTW is always lost in the procedure in the colon, you may see this also in the results
My professor had a couple of question which we addressed to Mands, he's also happy to discuss it by phone if necessary, he is an authority in this field, so anyone may rely on his knowledge
My professor had a couple of question which we addressed to Mands, he's also happy to discuss it by phone if necessary, he is an authority in this field, so anyone may rely on his knowledge
lightspan
New Member
pardon me if i step into the lovefest here, but after catching up on this thread i need to drop a quick comment and question for Karl. Karl, you repeatedly are referring to the "SDS" to validate the purity of your gh. Now let me be clear, I have not injected or analyzed your gh, but I do know a little something about gel electrophoresis. SDS-PAGE is not quantitative. every time you say "the SDS shows the purity is over XX%" you are making a false statement. i assume this is because you are unfamiliar with gel electrophoresis, and not because you are intentionally making false statements to promote your product. or has your lab developed a technique for quantitative electrophoresis? please clarify. thanks.
@mands, let me get this in now, because you have come on strong that basically no one should say anything unless they have purchased and run the gear. while i have not run Karl's alleged gh, nor purchased it, i do have the requisite technical background to call Karl out on scientifically incorrect statements that could be deceptive to other members of the Meso community, such as the one above. if you have issues with that, i don't know what to tell you. the vast majority of meso members do not have the scientific training to evaluate the statements and data that have been thrown around in this thread. we each bring something to the table to help protect the meso community as a whole.
i hope karl has revolutionized the gh market and his shit will make people bust rainbow unicorns. i expect it will all go horribly wrong, which is why i AM willing to "pay 4x" (see Karl's comment, above) for the QA from Pfizer.
furthermore @mands, a question for you: i have run labmax for other guys, they ship me the sample and i test it for them. does that entitle me to comment on the gear i've tested? to post the video? i want to be clear just how far your "don't say anything about gear you have not purchased or run " position goes. it's not personal, and i hope you don't take it that way, but i'd like the metes and bounds of your position to be delineated.
how one approaches the exchange of information and ideas determines credibility, imo. i believe random drive-by bullshit remarks about a source or gear are not useful. i think on that we agree. i believe members with knowledge about a source, his gear, his past behavior (past behavior is the best indicator of future behavior), or about the technical aspects of testing should be encouraged to speak up. on this i don't think we see eye to eye, but i'd like to know what you think about this. you are a vet, respected by many, so your views help shape what meso is. thanks.
@mands, let me get this in now, because you have come on strong that basically no one should say anything unless they have purchased and run the gear. while i have not run Karl's alleged gh, nor purchased it, i do have the requisite technical background to call Karl out on scientifically incorrect statements that could be deceptive to other members of the Meso community, such as the one above. if you have issues with that, i don't know what to tell you. the vast majority of meso members do not have the scientific training to evaluate the statements and data that have been thrown around in this thread. we each bring something to the table to help protect the meso community as a whole.
i hope karl has revolutionized the gh market and his shit will make people bust rainbow unicorns. i expect it will all go horribly wrong, which is why i AM willing to "pay 4x" (see Karl's comment, above) for the QA from Pfizer.
furthermore @mands, a question for you: i have run labmax for other guys, they ship me the sample and i test it for them. does that entitle me to comment on the gear i've tested? to post the video? i want to be clear just how far your "don't say anything about gear you have not purchased or run " position goes. it's not personal, and i hope you don't take it that way, but i'd like the metes and bounds of your position to be delineated.
how one approaches the exchange of information and ideas determines credibility, imo. i believe random drive-by bullshit remarks about a source or gear are not useful. i think on that we agree. i believe members with knowledge about a source, his gear, his past behavior (past behavior is the best indicator of future behavior), or about the technical aspects of testing should be encouraged to speak up. on this i don't think we see eye to eye, but i'd like to know what you think about this. you are a vet, respected by many, so your views help shape what meso is. thanks.
Oh that no "theory" F it's a PROVEN FACT with UGL.
Why do they do this?
Because they can, since UGL products are not TESTED by an established "authority" since they are illegal.
Oh and the more important reason, MONEY!!!
Jim
Western-Biotech
New Member
Lightspan - let me get back to you after consulting with my professor regarding your comments, I certainly know differently, but I'll give u an authorized and specified reply, I appreciate your input, and we'll all get more knowledge from this
Dr - I agree, but any descent businessman would rely on long run well established reputation for his biz, then on a quick scam, especially if invested much in technology and unique facility
The obvious solution is to keep testing my statement and the quality I provide, I'm here and will be here to prove myself and my products
Dr - I agree, but any descent businessman would rely on long run well established reputation for his biz, then on a quick scam, especially if invested much in technology and unique facility
The obvious solution is to keep testing my statement and the quality I provide, I'm here and will be here to prove myself and my products
Western-Biotech
New Member
Lighstpan - simple "google" search yields the following description which confirms that SDS-page is a very effective took to assay of purity in proteins just as I claimed - QUOTE FROM WIKIPEDIA - "For proteins, SDS-PAGE is usually the first choice as an assay of purity due to its reliability and ease. The presence of SDS and the denaturing step make proteins separate, approximately based on size, but aberrant migration of some proteins may occur. Different proteins may also stain differently, which interferes with quantification by staining. PAGE may also be used as a preparative technique for the purification of proteins. For example, quantitative preparative native continuous polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (QPNC-PAGE) is a method for separating native metalloproteins in complex biological"
I'll give u more info from my professor
I'll give u more info from my professor
I've never had the clap but I still know it hurts when you pee. Just sayin'.
lightspan
New Member
Karl, wikipedia is not sufficient, and does not provide the answer to the question i have asked. If you had read and understood the wikipedia page you copied and pasted, you would realize that you posted information that, in fact, seriously detracts from the credibility of your claim. This is consistent with your previous demonstrations, when pressed on sceintific details, that you do not understand the science behind what you are saying, you are merely parroting what you see and have been told. that's fine, just parrot accurate statements.
Please provide the experimental details of how you are determining the numerical purity values, which you have repeatedly claimed in your posts above ("the SDS shows greater than XX.X% purity"), from SDS-PAGE. Thanks.
muscle96ss
Subscriber
Dr. Jim and lightspan: These tests are way too technical for me to understand. So my question is this; are you guys stating that there are further tests that need to be done in order to prove the purity or what exactly are your complaints about his GH?
Western-Biotech
New Member
Lightspan - I'm not an analytical chemist I know clearly the facts behind my claims.
SDS-page is used to determine purity of the GH, just like stated on any literature , so you claim that not ?
I said from start that a proper authorized specified answer from my professor,
the purity of the Somastim was quantified and determined by 4 analytical methods by MAnds team on 99.5%. I'm not the authorized lab, but this is the fact that interests here everyone I guess
SDS-page is used to determine purity of the GH, just like stated on any literature , so you claim that not ?
I said from start that a proper authorized specified answer from my professor,
the purity of the Somastim was quantified and determined by 4 analytical methods by MAnds team on 99.5%. I'm not the authorized lab, but this is the fact that interests here everyone I guess
Of course your correct LS. But for K to use a WIKI post to support HIS COMMENTS belies the facts.
Oh yea GEP or PEP are both used as the initial stages of protein analysis because they are cheap and relatively accurate in determining the MW of macromolecules such as; DNA, RNA, GH, insulin etc.
(They are NOT sensitive enough to evaluate the MW of smaller compounds like AAS however)
However they are semi-quantative assays at best whose accuracy is primarily a function of the operators experience.
How is this done? By comparing the well SIZE at the beginning of a GEP run to it's SIZE at the end!
Now that means you would have to KNOW the well SIZE at the beginning of a GEP run for any meaningful interpretation of purity!
However this is NOT true of that substances MW.
Damn I hope that makes sense!!!
Jim
Oh yea GEP or PEP are both used as the initial stages of protein analysis because they are cheap and relatively accurate in determining the MW of macromolecules such as; DNA, RNA, GH, insulin etc.
(They are NOT sensitive enough to evaluate the MW of smaller compounds like AAS however)
However they are semi-quantative assays at best whose accuracy is primarily a function of the operators experience.
How is this done? By comparing the well SIZE at the beginning of a GEP run to it's SIZE at the end!
Now that means you would have to KNOW the well SIZE at the beginning of a GEP run for any meaningful interpretation of purity!
However this is NOT true of that substances MW.
Damn I hope that makes sense!!!
Jim
Western-Biotech
New Member
So - I'm confused - you're all smarter then me - I wanna hear this - SDS-page is not used for assay of proteind purity ? not ?
My claims on purity of 98% are not valid ? Mands claims of purity of 99.5% are not valid ?
CLEARLY PLS, AND BACK UP YOUR CLAIMS
My claims on purity of 98% are not valid ? Mands claims of purity of 99.5% are not valid ?
CLEARLY PLS, AND BACK UP YOUR CLAIMS
Similar threads
- Sticky
