Accidental double post, was deleted my bad.
Printable View
Accidental double post, was deleted my bad.
[QUOTE=davesah1;6868407]What do you think of this method?
"As a molecular biochemist that routinely works with Peptides I can tell you guys a simple test that you can do at home to see if your human growth hormone - somatropin - is the real deal. Also, for those of you that have red welts, itching, and sore spots at injection sites, I will explain here briefly what is likely going on.
You all know the HCG - human chorionic gonadotropin - test with the pregnancy strips so I won't go into that. To test you human growth hormone - somatropin - ,
1. Reconstitute it.
2. Bring a pot of water to a boil.
3. Put your human growth hormone - somatropin - vial (which you are sacrificing) into the boiling water for 2 min.
4. Look to see if the solution turns milky/cloudy white.
If your human growth hormone - somatropin - is real it will turn cloudy/milky white after this procedure.
5. Let the vial set aside at room temperature for one day.
6. If the solution becomes clear again and you don't see any milkyness then the human growth hormone - somatropin - is fake.
Posted below is a COA obtained from a large manufacturer. Note the contaminants that are commonly found in human growth hormone - somatropin - powders and their threshold limit values per WHO regulations. human growth hormone - somatropin - is produced through recombinant gene expression in e.coli bacteria. These bacteria produce a lot of toxins in the manufacturing process that are painstakingly removed from the human growth hormone - somatropin - whilst maintaining human growth hormone - somatropin - in its active form.
Depending on the quality of the isolation process varying amounts of these toxins will be present in the powder. Even the most expensive human growth hormone - somatropin - preparations will contain at least some of these toxins. These bacterial produced toxins are likely the cause of many of the skin reactions reported here as they are triggers for the bodies immune response. They are nothing to worry about so long as they are not present in any lethal quantity which they are nowhere near.
Hope that clears things up for everyone."
Source:http://www.************.com/forum/an...de-764031.html
http://www.************.com/forum/an...de-764031.html
It wont let me upload the link.... it was from elite fitness.
If you would have searched you would see it has been known here for several years as well but thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by davesah1
The problem is the scammers know this also so most have stopped using hcg because it's so easy to detect. Now they use other peptide that will mimic sides that people THINK legit hgh should give them and not show up on a pregnancy test.
I don't believe there is a way to test for the legitimacy of HGH from home.
The only fool proof way would be a mass spectrometer test. I haven't checked it out, but I have heard of a place or two that will test your substance for a couple of hundred bucks. I'm not sure how that would work in any way unless under the table, so I'm a little skeptical of what I have heard.
From what I read, the fact the HGH will completely denature and "most" other peptides will not such as HCG and return to their normal state after is pretty useful. Peptides that are that sensitive tend to cost quite a bit of money, so if it isn't HGH and still stays denatured than whatever it is, it is definitely not cheap making for a stupid choice to rip people off. But like any home method yes, it does have its flaws, plus your basically flushing 150$+ down the toilet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Times Roman
Isolating HGH is a pretty complex endothermic process, which requires a lot of heat/work. The more endothermic, the more unstable and sensitive the new substance is and as we know the more energy required to procure something the more $ it costs. So adding another compound that denatures as easily as HGH and remains that way probably means it was not cheap and shouldn't be a common occurrence.
at best, the home remedy as you suggest only indirectly tests it. I think most here would agree the test is too unreliable.Quote:
Originally Posted by davesah1
Ok, I was just spitballin. Thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Times Roman