You guys would know better than me but isn't Lightspan? trained in gc\ms operations?
I don't know if it would be beneficial for a med doc to go up against a chemist in readings , results etc BUT I don't want to speak for Jim.
I don't know what your referring to in the statement "a chemist challenging a practicing physician".
Any chemist SHOULD be MUCH MUCH MUCH more knowledgeable in the field of analytical chemistry than a practicing physician, and that certainly includeds me.
However EVERY SINGLE objection I've made regarding K analyses have been reluctantly confirmed by Ks "professor".
That's correct not only does Ks SDS-PAGE reveal a MW that approximates 19Kd, 3Kd lower than legit GH, it's of such a poor quality any purity estimates would have a marked margin of error (around 20-40%).
Also the copies of the three to four chromatographs are of such poor quality, no conclusions about purity can or should be determined,
(Once again since the X and Y axis and narrative type set are NOT at all perceptible, any conclusions reached using this data would contain gross errors)
LS has been on this thread earlier and he also agrees a AA and trypsin peptide cleavage analysis is required for conclusive proof any sample is indeed rHGH
We discussed a few other issues by PM yet I don't recall any substantive areas of disagreement.
Again the fact is K professor agreed with my assertion the existing testing by K was fully inadequate yet we disagreed whether an AA or TPC analysis was not necessary.
Indeed that's correct for a R & D lab, both tests are definitely required for any PHARM lab to reach purity standards set forth by the WHO and FDA.
?
Last edited: