posted Sat, 03/03/2018 - 13:39
3492
+ 14 Igf1 test #1 at 4iu gh and test #2 at 10iu gh and 20mcg igf1 lr3 daily.
ad
The product is godtropin. Batch # 120617
The first test is at, if memory serves, six weeks at 4iu gh. The number was 478. The second is a test I had done two weeks after I went up to 10iu. I don’t know weather the igf1 lr3 or something else is up but it should be much higher.
This was the hplc test I had run on this batch. I could not get it to upload due to my vpn, so I had another member do it. It clearly shows it’s under dosed a bit but I only use 2ml bag water not 2.4ml. So the dose is pretty close. The numbers per vial were 19iu at 97% purity and 5.6% heavy weight proteins.
https://www.eroids.com/pics/lab-tests-for-thconcentrate
Ordered from:
- Bookmark
- 14
- 0
andrejcutlerThanks for sharing++
So the kit you ran tested positive for legit HGH just dosed at 20IUs Vs 24IUs
But, you reconstituted as 20IUs
So basically the Kit is legit but your blood work didn't come out as you expected
So again, this has been addressed many times over
The problem lies with you, or how you are reacting to this product, or many other variables.....plus you have no other blood work using other HGH products to compare it to
So again, product has always tested as real HGH:
https://www.eroids.com/pics/lab-tests-for-thconcentrate
30% ??? What does that even mean ?
You said said you had a vial tested for elevated endotoxins (immune response)........so now it's different?
<13 %
< 6 %
(Analyzer used European Pharmacopoeia 7.0 version)
Example:
https://www.eroids.com/sites/default/files/gearpic/86841/IMG_0002.jpg
You keep copy/pasting my post showing % info from Ph Eur 5.0 version
So I for one appreciate real lab testing Vs blood work........but let's just keep the facts straight and not spread misinformation
(A simple email to Analyzer can confirm the product falls within Ph Eur standards)
I will contact him and ask. I don’t want to get it wrong. I did not know there was a revised addition.
Thanks TC
Keep us posted on his response
I got a response. I did some looking and it looks to be 4% in the USA.
“Hello, as far as I know, limit is 4% according to USP. I am not sure if this limit was updated in later revisions.”
Analyzer
So this product look like it’s 28% over the limit! 5.6- 4=1.6 now 1.6/5.6= 0.28= 28%
That where I got the 30% figure.
As to the endotoxins thats a sore subject. I have about $500 wrapped up in testing for this with zero conclusive results. I personally think it’s over the limit but I can’t prove that that’s why I have dropped this issue. I did the test two different times on two different machines. Neither got even close to the same readings on the same sample. So I can’t conclude anything other than I need to have a professional lab donthis test. I have not found one that will.
No
Still not the right info
Just ask if the testing method used to test your sample complies with Ph EUR version 7.0
Another HGH sample was recently posted here by another member stating 7.0
The product is made in China right (United States Pharmacopeia)
I’m just going to send him a PM and get the correct info
Thx
I am not in Europe! I am in the USA. So I will hold this product to USA standards. 4% is the limit here. I don’t care where it was made. China is not Europe either.
I do know different countries have different standards. Any producer of a world wide distributed product should adhere to the country with the strictest protocols. Not the lowest. That how I see it.
In either case the results do suggest why this brand has a higher reaction rate than others according to the literature. It also suggest why, at such a high dose, my igf1 was so low. To me this all adds up to a conclusion that the product is the problem. Now I know that it’s not proper science but there you are.
I will simply let others make there own decision based on the tests from now on and not give my opinion or and conclusions on said product.
USP and European Pharmacopoeia should be similar
I know for a fact (SIMEC) tests to current European Pharmacopoeia standards
Hence the results
Less or equal to 13%
Less or equal to 6%
Hence the result complies
So I dunno your 4% Vs 5.6%
Your rationality is this 1.6% higher of other proteins is causing all your issues
Welts...low IGF1.....that's just nonsensical
So......I sent Analyzer a message.....best to get the correct info
You are totally right the data does not prove anything I am saying is the problem, and this is all my personal feeling on the issue. I should state that.
And for record:
I don’t use this product or ANY generic for that matter
And I’m with you on the elevated endotoxins theory
BUT....without a real test for that specific result.....it’s all speculation on our part
Let’s see ANALYZERS response
And if I’m totally wrong......I will post that info up Brutha
I really just wanna get the correct info and answers
Especially with your blood results
I’d be bummed to :(
You are correct about the limit being 6% in Europe.
I can’t find the usp US limits. I have search but nothing.
This is all I need to answer this question FOR
ME. I asked if the level was average or higher than the average he sees. This was his response.
“The truth is that this samples has higher dimer content than most of GH samples I have tested”
So regardless of where the criteria is (Complies on SIMECs assays)... (<13% / <6%)...
Looking at some of SIMECs and ANALYZERs other HGH sample results when it comes to purity/other proteins.....I will agree with you...
This Batch of GT is higher on 'other proteins'......Quality/purity doesn't seem in step with other samples.....PLUS....it's slightly underdosed as to what is labeled
You can see here an older/better Batch of GT here: (<3.9% / <.7%)
https://www.eroids.com/sites/default/files/gearpic/21800/image_174.jpg
The <4% / <6% that I have posted in the past is from information in regards to JINTROPIN - GeneSci HGH
So I think that's a good criteria to compare
Thanks so much. So it officially is a pass but not numbers one would really want.
I will amend my post in the discussion thread after I get done working.
I’d leave like it is TC
I think it’s sum good info
Plus ANALYZER might find the newest version to confirm. (I’m sure SIMEC should be the latest we can assume)
And you are right......the results seem to be “higher” than other test results I’ve seen (as ANALYZER mentioned)
I don’t think I’d be happy with this batch either after comparing it to the other older batches tested
Thanks for the blood work and sample analysis comparison
Appreciate it
Look forward to your newest sample results
Message sent. I will quote him directly when I get a response.
Thanks for the heads up. I am not trying to roast the source. I can see how it looks like that. I just want to know once and for all if this stuff is testing properly.
I like you prefer these hplc tests over blood work. I am curious what factors could lead to a low igf1 reading at such a high dose. I just don’t have enough knowledge.
Very concerning. +2 for testing!
What’s funny is that if he had refunded my money when I asked at the beginning none of this testing would have been done. It’s a good thing he refused to refund me forcing me to find a testing source and get it properly tested. Good for everyone else.
Fr sent
Appreciated is a understatement. Thank you for saving all of us. I don't like hearing red welts and a lot of people having issues and now we know why. +1
Thanks for testing +1
Yes I am personally not going with this source again. I got 8 o total kits and he sent me a free one. Total of 9 kits at a cost of around 2 grand. I to was told something similar about refunding and blood work.
The product is what he says but it’s got problems. The heavy weight proteins are to high. 30% over the range the industry allows. This is, in my opinion, causing an immune response. This can happen with foreign proteins in the body, in fact it’s not that rare. The body attaches an antibody to the foreign gh rendering it boalogically inert. The literature on gh states the heavy weight proteins are the cause and sets a limit at 4%.
If the heavy weight proteins were in check I would be using him again. His price is soooo low but if it’s not biologically active due to the high level of denatured proteins I am not buying.
Thanks for the blood work, thanks for the analysis of the product. Only objective data like these can allow us a correct choice.
Thanks for sharing thumbs up
Thanks for posting bloodwork
Too bad the numbers weren't what you were hoping for. +1
Dominick77I am so glad I saw results like these before I placed an order. I was so close to just flushing money down the toilet. This source is just like the product he sells, no good. Another member threw up results that were not so good and the source promised full refund without any special circumstance if the member agrees to run the gh for 3 more weeks and then get another test, the member agrees. He also promised to pay for the blood tests. He did neither things he promised. Now he is asking for the gh to be sent back to him BEFORE he refunds. What kinda source asks for the product back? I have never, in all my years of ordering, had a source ask that crazy shit. I am glad and very thankful for you taking the time to post these results. You saved me $ and headaches that come from dealing with sources such as this.
Quality over quantity! We have a couple really good HGH sources on here so don’t worry too much. I just placed an order myself from one of them.
Fr sent
Yes absolutely horrible results. Should have been over 600.
Good to see you did blood work. But horrible results....
.+ for posting, those numbers are horrible for that dose.