Man I can't find anything saying what the molecular weight is for 191 vs 192 ...i found this from another forum but it's just regurgitated information with no source of where it came from.
Molecular Weight of 191residues: 22,125.19 Da or Molecular Weight of 192 residues: 22,256.39 Da?
Fisher isn't made up its the standard for comparison...I absolutely hate chemistry but I think it has something to do with the computer model used in determining theoretical molecular weight unless I am completely off course with my basic understanding of it
I see. And looking at another sources hgh mass spec it's ran the same way as well. This could be legit post but waiting on Angus to chime in to authenticate the report
I dunno bro. But this is my last post on this thread here homie. 192aa has been taken off the market long ago for any medical purposes because of the issues I'm always ranting about but nobody gives 2 shits because their IGF-1 is 400-600. It's bout to get ugly. Unsafe product for someone that needs it for IGF-1 deficiency let alone a bunch of 25year olds pinning random vials with blue tops because someone says it's GTG.
angusThe best I can do is ask the dr bruh.
no worries i was just wondering
so its 192aa??
Mr KfizzleMan I can't find anything saying what the molecular weight is for 191 vs 192 ...i found this from another forum but it's just regurgitated information with no source of where it came from.
Molecular Weight of 191residues: 22,125.19 Da or Molecular Weight of 192 residues: 22,256.39 Da?
http://3hbiomedical.jetshop.se/pub_docs/files/Prospec/3HCYT_202.pdf
There's others (protein data banks/amino sequence, etc)
can you post the rest of the report?
Mr KfizzleIt's so close to this it's crazy
http://forums.steroid.com/attachments/igf-1-lr3-hgh-insulin-questions/13...
They said here "Fischer's " is a made up name... is this just common practice for mass spec or did Angus type up both of these reports?
http://forums.steroid.com/igf-1-lr3-hgh-insulin-questions/521138-riptrop...
Trust me I want these to test good, I'm sitting on several kits myself. I just want honesty around here.
Fisher isn't made up its the standard for comparison...I absolutely hate chemistry but I think it has something to do with the computer model used in determining theoretical molecular weight unless I am completely off course with my basic understanding of it
Mr KfizzleI see. And looking at another sources hgh mass spec it's ran the same way as well. This could be legit post but waiting on Angus to chime in to authenticate the report
angusThe summary page is genuine. The testing was done yesterday.
Thanks for the honest post.
22256 is Met-hGH if I'm reading the results correct
Met-hgh http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/3123873/
Yip. 192aa. Red Welts is common with this.
I wonder if ironbox even knows this and what he will do to remedy this cause he advertises that it's 191aa on his website
I dunno bro. But this is my last post on this thread here homie. 192aa has been taken off the market long ago for any medical purposes because of the issues I'm always ranting about but nobody gives 2 shits because their IGF-1 is 400-600. It's bout to get ugly. Unsafe product for someone that needs it for IGF-1 deficiency let alone a bunch of 25year olds pinning random vials with blue tops because someone says it's GTG.
True. Thanks for chiming in here bro.
111.3 point difference from fishers. I have know clue what this means. I hope Angus or I think Mac even knows a little on hgh mass specs.
Post the whole test. I think we deserve more then a summary page
I think he's just learning how to post, cause he PM'd me on how to post up results. Hopefully he will edit it and add the rest for us to evaluate.
Mr KfizzleSomeone explain this...
Never mind.
Microsoft word, font of 12, bold lettering. Lol that's about it
rocketballzNo kidding!! My 8 yr old could have done this!
Mr KfizzleCTFU! Well I Guess that narrows it down!
x2
what a joke