The generic vs pharma GH discussion

[justaphan]

Id like to start an official conversation on generic/UG vs verified pharma name brand GH. I've seen it come up in other threads and there's lots of opinions. I thought we could centralize it. This is NOT the place to mention sources or lab names. This IS the place to talk about noticed effects of lab made or pharma sourced. Anecdotal observations are fair enough, especially if you have experience with both. Blood panels are even better, especially if you can show both. Third party purity results from janoshik or similar are all well and good if you or someone you trust submitted the sample for testing but I have a hard time trusting results when the sample was sent by the supplier.
What I'm particularly interested is quality changes over time. If you've been in the game a while and have tried both, have you noticed a trending change over time or do you think things have stayed relatively the same.
I'll go first.
I have been using gh on and off for about 15 years. When I first started I remember 3 units per day used to be my sweet spot for generic. More and i would get pins and needles, less and i wouldn't notice a change on my labs. About 12 years ago I tried pharma pens and 2 units would effect my labs but as much as 5 units wouldn't give me the pins and needles effects.
I took several years off. About 2 years ago I tried generic again and it took 4 to 5 units to reliably increase my labs but I didn't notice any real negative sides even when I ran 10 units for a short period of time. I have not tried pharma again. I plan to next time I incorporate gh, but I plan to do more of a forever ghrt protocol moving forward. That's beside the point I guess though.
I'm assuming the impurities or varied ingredients in generic cause the sides (I sometimes wonder if generic is actually gh) but I would have thought quality would have improved over the years.
What are the thoughts of the community?

 

[readalot]

Relevant discussion in case you had not seen it.

https://thinksteroids.com/community/threads/whats-the-current-state-of-generic-gh.134427828/

 

[pigeonhed]

While you may get some responses and a few arguments, a search will provide way more robust group of opinions.

This issue has been a big one for the last 15 years or so...

Search for results

 

[Sampei]

Id like to start an official conversation on generic/UG vs verified pharma name brand GH. I've seen it come up in other threads and there's lots of opinions. I thought we could centralize it. This is NOT the place to mention sources or lab names. This IS the place to talk about noticed effects of lab made or pharma sourced. Anecdotal observations are fair enough, especially if you have experience with both. Blood panels are even better, especially if you can show both. Third party purity results from janoshik or similar are all well and good if you or someone you trust submitted the sample for testing but I have a hard time trusting results when the sample was sent by the supplier.
What I'm particularly interested is quality changes over time. If you've been in the game a while and have tried both, have you noticed a trending change over time or do you think things have stayed relatively the same.
I'll go first.
I have been using gh on and off for about 15 years. When I first started I remember 3 units per day used to be my sweet spot for generic. More and i would get pins and needles, less and i wouldn't notice a change on my labs. About 12 years ago I tried pharma pens and 2 units would effect my labs but as much as 5 units wouldn't give me the pins and needles effects.
I took several years off. About 2 years ago I tried generic again and it took 4 to 5 units to reliably increase my labs but I didn't notice any real negative sides even when I ran 10 units for a short period of time. I have not tried pharma again. I plan to next time I incorporate gh, but I plan to do more of a forever ghrt protocol moving forward. That's beside the point I guess though.
I'm assuming the impurities or varied ingredients in generic cause the sides (I sometimes wonder if generic is actually gh) but I would have thought quality would have improved over the years.
What are the thoughts of the community?

Ummmmmmm NO.

Use the search function, this fucking horse has been beaten to death. Holy fucking shit

 

[AlexDavis43]

Id like to start an official conversation on generic/UG vs verified pharma name brand GH. I've seen it come up in other threads and there's lots of opinions. I thought we could centralize it. This is NOT the place to mention sources or lab names. This IS the place to talk about noticed effects of lab made or pharma sourced. Anecdotal observations are fair enough, especially if you have experience with both. Blood panels are even better, especially if you can show both. Third party purity results from janoshik or similar are all well and good if you or someone you trust submitted the sample for testing but I have a hard time trusting results when the sample was sent by the supplier.
What I'm particularly interested is quality changes over time. If you've been in the game a while and have tried both, have you noticed a trending change over time or do you think things have stayed relatively the same.
I'll go first.
I have been using gh on and off for about 15 years. When I first started I remember 3 units per day used to be my sweet spot for generic. More and i would get pins and needles, less and i wouldn't notice a change on my labs. About 12 years ago I tried pharma pens and 2 units would effect my labs but as much as 5 units wouldn't give me the pins and needles effects.
I took several years off. About 2 years ago I tried generic again and it took 4 to 5 units to reliably increase my labs but I didn't notice any real negative sides even when I ran 10 units for a short period of time. I have not tried pharma again. I plan to next time I incorporate gh, but I plan to do more of a forever ghrt protocol moving forward. That's beside the point I guess though.
I'm assuming the impurities or varied ingredients in generic cause the sides (I sometimes wonder if generic is actually gh) but I would have thought quality would have improved over the years.
What are the thoughts of the community?

If you have them and don't mind sharing, please post some of your testing results: GH dose vs IGF-1 response.

 

[D CAPO]

Anyone who says generics are equivalent to pharma are full of shit and trying to convince themselves the can save the money. I keep trying to do it myself then always going back to the ridiculous $ 1,500.00 a month. For IGF-1 response then yes. Generics will do the same. But for sleep, visceral fat reduction, skin, general well being, etc. it does not compare. Pharma is absolutely superior. 5 years straight of trial and error.

 

[xrayphoton13]

Anyone who says generics are equivalent to pharma are full of shit and trying to convince themselves the can save the money. I keep trying to do it myself then always going back to the ridiculous $ 1,500.00 a month. For IGF-1 response then yes. Generics will do the same. But for sleep, visceral fat reduction, skin, general well being, etc. it does not compare. Pharma is absolutely superior. 5 years straight of trial and error.

I've only used qsc rHGH but it does everything you just mentioned that only pharma does. Igf1 response, Great sleep, pulls all the fat off my abdomen, body hair never grown so long or in as many places before (kinda sucks) , feel great. I'll be sad when I run out

 

[Sampei]

Anyone who says generics are equivalent to pharma are full of shit and trying to convince themselves the can save the money. I keep trying to do it myself then always going back to the ridiculous $ 1,500.00 a month. For IGF-1 response then yes. Generics will do the same. But for sleep, visceral fat reduction, skin, general well being, etc. it does not compare. Pharma is absolutely superior. 5 years straight of trial and error.

This specific debate is useless as fuck. You wanna run pharma GH do it, you wanna run generic GH do it.
you feel it's worth running pharma gh only and spending 1500$ a month? great! I'm happy for you.

I feel like this is the most retarded thing we are still talking about in 2025.
One could argue it's all placebo cuz you need to justify all those money spent on just GH, see what I did there?
There is NO WAY we will ever have an answer to this question, so why the fuck are we still talking about it?

 

[D CAPO]

I agree. Try both. Do what works for you. Kind of pointless discussion. I just wish I knew where the fuck to get pharma in 2025 without paying ridiculous amounts to some POS scam clinic.....

 

[Ghoul]

This question could be definately answered by performing the same series of tests that pharma does and comparing results.

1. HPLC-MS to establish the correct chemistry,

2. NMR to establish correct structure and some nuances in the chemistry not detectable by MS.

3. Bioactivity using cells to check that it correctly binds to GH receptors and stimulates IGF at the level inspected.

That's it. That would show you absolutely everything about the rHGH sample you have.

MS is commonly done by Jano and others.

A number of places offer NMR, including Jano.

The last isn't difficult for a biology lab, there are kits for performing the test. I don't know of any place that offers it to individuals.

By the way, 1mg rHGH isn't automatically 3IU.

IU is a measure of bioactivity, and 3 is the "ideal standard". Almost all pharma results are under 3iu, Most of the world including the EU requires 2.5 IU/mg minimum, the US 2.69 IU/mg minimum.

Purity doesn't tell you what the bioactivity is. Two samples could be 99% pure, no dimer, and one is 2.5IU and the other 2.9IU.

 

[AlexDavis43]

Anyone who says generics are equivalent to pharma are full of shit and trying to convince themselves the can save the money. I keep trying to do it myself then always going back to the ridiculous $ 1,500.00 a month. For IGF-1 response then yes. Generics will do the same. But for sleep, visceral fat reduction, skin, general well being, etc. it does not compare. Pharma is absolutely superior. 5 years straight of trial and error.

If trial & error is a legitimate argument to bring to this debate (it's not), then mine cancels out yours.

I've bounced back and forth between pharma and UGL a few times and could never tell the difference.

 

[Sampei]

This question could be definately answered by performing the same series of tests that pharma does and comparing results.

1. HPLC-MS to establish the correct chemistry,

2. NMR to establish correct structure and some nuances in the chemistry not detectable by MS.

3. Bioactivity using cells to check that it correctly binds to GH receptors and stimulates IGF at the level inspected.

That's it. That would show you absolutely everything about the rHGH sample you have.

MS is commonly done by Jano and others.

A number of places offer NMR, including Jano.

The last isn't difficult for a biology lab, there are kits for performing the test. I don't know of any place that offers it to individuals.

By the way, 1mg rHGH isn't automatically 3IU.

IU is a measure of bioactivity, and 3 is the "ideal standard". Almost all pharma results are under 3iu, Most of the world including the EU requires 2.5 IU/mg minimum, the US 2.69 IU/mg minimum.

Purity doesn't tell you what the bioactivity is. Two samples could be 99% pure, no dimer, and one is 2.5IU and the other 2.9IU.

View attachment 330483

I'll organize it, will you chip in?

 

[Ghoul]

A few years ago, "to avoid consumer confusion", the FDA and EMA (EU) declared that if the minimum standard was met, rHGH products should all be labeled as 3iu/mg.

Humatrope has a bioactivity of 2.7iu/mg, and a purity of 98.9%. Nothing has changed but the label.:

 

[readalot]

I'll organize it, will you chip in?

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1046592814000965

Sequence and structure identity confirmed by mass-spec and CD.

Activity testing by Nb2 cell line proliferation assay.

2 tests in addition to the purity / aggregates offered by Jano today. Would give structural confirmation and biological activity (IU/mg).

Already did the leg work with Jano. He doesn't have access to Nb2 cell line proliferation assay but does have a lab that will do the circular dichroism comparison between pharma standard and UG GH sample to compare secondary structure. Better bang for buck than NMR and Native PAGE unless you have someone to analyze results. 400 USD for the comparison.

 

[Ghoul]

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1046592814000965

In addition to the purity / aggregates. Would give structural confirmation and biological activity (IU/mg).

Already did the leg work with Jano. He doesn't have access to Nb2 cell line proliferation assay but does have a lab that will do the circular dichroism comparison between pharma standard and UG GH sample to compare secondary structure. Better bang for buck than NMR. 400 USD for the comparison.

Whatever works. You can see in the FDA rHGH approval docs every pharma company seems to submit a set of tests done using different techniques, so there's more than one way to skin a cat.

Too bad about bioactivity though. If you could only perform one test, THAT would be the one that gives you the bottom line in terms of potency and effectiveness.

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

I'll organize it, will you chip in?

 

[Pupil B]

This question could be definately answered by performing the same series of tests that pharma does and comparing results.

1. HPLC-MS to establish the correct chemistry,

2. NMR to establish correct structure and some nuances in the chemistry not detectable by MS.

3. Bioactivity using cells to check that it correctly binds to GH receptors and stimulates IGF at the level inspected.

That's it. That would show you absolutely everything about the rHGH sample you have.

MS is commonly done by Jano and others.

A number of places offer NMR, including Jano.

The last isn't difficult for a biology lab, there are kits for performing the test. I don't know of any place that offers it to individuals.

By the way, 1mg rHGH isn't automatically 3IU.

IU is a measure of bioactivity, and 3 is the "ideal standard". Almost all pharma results are under 3iu, Most of the world including the EU requires 2.5 IU/mg minimum, the US 2.69 IU/mg minimum.

Purity doesn't tell you what the bioactivity is. Two samples could be 99% pure, no dimer, and one is 2.5IU and the other 2.9IU.

View attachment 330483

Has generic hgh ever been tested by jano with NMR? This would assess for correct tertiary structure/correct folding?

 

[Pupil B]

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1046592814000965

2 tests in addition to the purity / aggregates offered by Jano today. Would give structural confirmation and biological activity (IU/mg).

Already did the leg work with Jano. He doesn't have access to Nb2 cell line proliferation assay but does have a lab that will do the circular dichroism comparison between pharma standard and UG GH sample to compare secondary structure. Better bang for buck than NMR and Native PAGE unless you have someone to analyze results. 400 USD for the comparison.

Wouldn't secondary structure be useless without tertiary structure since that's what matters?

 

[BamaCrazy]

I'll organize it, will you chip in?

I’m also in if Ghoul and Readalot chip in. lol

 

[Ateam2023]

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1046592814000965

2 tests in addition to the purity / aggregates offered by Jano today. Would give structural confirmation and biological activity (IU/mg).

Already did the leg work with Jano. He doesn't have access to Nb2 cell line proliferation assay but does have a lab that will do the circular dichroism comparison between pharma standard and UG GH sample to compare secondary structure. Better bang for buck than NMR and Native PAGE unless you have someone to analyze results. 400 USD for the comparison.

readalots back,,,