Is HGH worth it?

[Liska]

Well, then you surely do have some evidence that the pharmacokinetics are different and an issue, such as IGF or blood GH level readings that are unexpected and not in line with the HPLC tests, right?

Pharmacokinetics is a critical aspect of drug development and evaluation, including for HGH. You are not testing Pharmacokinetics but purity of the substance.
It is widely recognized in the pharmaceutical industry that understanding the pharmacokinetic profile of a drug is crucial for optimizing dosing regimens, predicting drug interactions, minimizing side effects, and ensuring patient safety. This is why pharmaceutical companies typically conduct pharmacokinetic studies during drug development to assess the behavior of the drug in vivo.
Moreover, it is important to note that relying solely on "purity control" is not sufficient to fully evaluate the safety and efficacy of a drug. While purity control is necessary, additional studies, such as pharmacokinetic studies, are typically required to support regulatory approval and ensure patient safety and understanding of the safety profile, potential side effects as well as long term safety.
Pharmaceutical companies conduct these studies themselves, often with oversight from regulatory bodies, to eliminate bias and ensure the scientific rigor of the study. There is no evidence that Chinese UGs follow the same level of rigorous scientific standards. I am unsure why you even debate this with me.

 

[janoshik]

Pharmacokinetics is a critical aspect of drug development and evaluation, including for HGH. You are not testing Pharmacokinetics but purity of the substance.
It is widely recognized in the pharmaceutical industry that understanding the pharmacokinetic profile of a drug is crucial for optimizing dosing regimens, predicting drug interactions, minimizing side effects, and ensuring patient safety. This is why pharmaceutical companies typically conduct pharmacokinetic studies during drug development to assess the behavior of the drug in vivo.
Moreover, it is important to note that relying solely on "purity control" is not sufficient to fully evaluate the safety and efficacy of a drug. While purity control is necessary, additional studies, such as pharmacokinetic studies, are typically required to support regulatory approval and ensure patient safety and understanding of the safety profile, potential side effects as well as long term safety.
Pharmaceutical companies conduct these studies themselves, often with oversight from regulatory bodies, to eliminate bias and ensure the scientific rigor of the study. There is no evidence that Chinese UGs follow the same level of rigorous scientific standards. I am unsure why you even debate this with me.

It seems like there may have been a misunderstanding in our previous discussion. I appreciate your insights on the importance of pharmacokinetics in drug development and evaluation, and I agree that it is a critical aspect that cannot be overlooked. My original question was intended to determine if there was any evidence of pharmacokinetic differences or issues with the Chinese UG HGH that could explain the discrepancies between the HPLC tests and the reported effects on blood GH and IGF levels.
I understand that purity control is necessary but not sufficient for evaluating the safety and efficacy of a drug. That is why I was asking about pharmacokinetic studies, as I wanted to know if there was any evidence to suggest that the Chinese UG HGH had a different pharmacokinetic profile compared to other HGH products, which could potentially explain the discrepancies.
I apologize if my previous message was not clear, but I hope this clarifies my intent. Thank you for your input on this important topic.

 

[Csshotty]

Well, then you surely do have some evidence that the pharmacokinetics are different and an issue, such as IGF or blood GH level readings that are unexpected and not in line with the HPLC tests, right?

That’s exactly my point - we don’t know. You don’t know! Where’s your evidence? What we know is that even pharmacokinetics between different pharmaceutical HGH brands differ because of differences in potency, purity, excipients, stabilizers, buffers and bioequivalence. That’s why you still need an RCT with phase I and III even for biosimilar HGH - they’re similar but not the same. Why would you believe that you can just assume that pharmacokinetics are the same in Pharma HGH and Chinese UG HGH? You are not even allowed to extrapolate data in this context when you’re developing a pharma HGH.

 

[janoshik]

That’s exactly my point - we don’t know. You don’t know! Where’s your evidence? What we know is that even pharmacokinetics between different pharmaceutical HGH brands differ because of differences in potency, purity, excipients, stabilizers, buffers and bioequivalence. That’s why you still need an RCT with phase I and III even for biosimilar HGH - they’re similar but not the same. Why would you believe that you can just assume that pharmacokinetics are the same in Pharma HGH and Chinese UG HGH? You are not even allowed to extrapolate data in this context when you’re developing a pharma HGH.

Yep, we don't know.

But provided there's absence of evidence for the fact that the pharmacokinetics vary wildly (or enough to matter) with GH and are not correlated with HPLC tests, despite thousands if not tens of thousands of anecdotals... I dare to have some strong assumptions, that I can support with sound logic.

 

[janoshik]

Based on the current scientific evidence and thousands of anecdotal reports, it is reasonable to assume that the pharmacokinetics of HGH do not vary significantly enough to cause a discrepancy between HPLC tests and blood GH or IGF levels. While it is true that pharmacokinetic studies are crucial in evaluating drug behavior in vivo and optimizing dosing regimens, it is important to acknowledge that there are limitations to these studies, and they may not always reflect real-world situations accurately.
Furthermore, it is worth noting that anecdotal evidence can provide valuable insights into the effects and side effects of a drug, especially in cases where clinical studies are lacking or limited. While anecdotal evidence should not be the sole basis for making decisions regarding drug safety and efficacy, it can still be a valuable tool in guiding further research and investigation.
Therefore, in the absence of compelling evidence suggesting that the pharmacokinetics of HGH vary significantly and are not correlated with HPLC tests, it is reasonable to assume that the reported discrepancies are likely due to other factors such as individual variability, dosing regimens, or analytical errors. It is important to continue to conduct rigorous scientific studies to evaluate the safety and efficacy of drugs, but we should also consider all available evidence, including anecdotal reports, in making informed decisions.

 

[Csshotty]

Yep, we don't know.

But provided there's absence of evidence for the fact that the pharmacokinetics vary wildly (or enough to matter) with GH and are not correlated with HPLC tests, despite thousands if not tens of thousands of anecdotals... I dare to have some strong assumptions, that I can support with sound logic.

While anecdotal evidence can be valuable for generating hypotheses and identifying potential issues, it is not a reliable substitute for scientific evidence. The absence of evidence for differences in pharmacokinetics between Chinese UG and Pharma somatropin is not proof that such differences do not exist or do not matter.

In fact, there is scientific evidence to suggest that there can be variations in the pharmacokinetics of different Pharma somatropin products, as I explained in my previous response (see studies below). These variations can be due to differences in formulation, manufacturing process, delivery method, and regulatory requirements, among other factors. This evidence suggests a high confidence of theses differences also being present in Chinese UG somatropin.

And while HPLC tests can detect variations in the composition of somatropin products, they may not necessarily reflect the pharmacokinetics or clinical effects of the drug.

Therefore, while strong assumptions based on sound logic can be a useful starting point for further investigation, it is important to rely on scientific evidence and rigorous testing to evaluate the pharmacokinetics and efficacy of Chinese vs Pharma somatropin products. Unfortunately, we will never be in a position to reliably test these products in a RCT and therefore we will never have scientifically validated evidence.

Differences in Pharmacokinetics in different somatropin products:

1. A study published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism in 2004 compared the pharmacokinetics of two different HGH products, using a randomized, double-blind, crossover design in healthy men. The study found significant differences in the pharmacokinetic parameters of the two products, including the area under the curve (AUC), maximum concentration (Cmax), and half-life. The authors concluded that there were clinically relevant differences in the pharmacokinetics of the two products.
2. Another study published in the European Journal of Endocrinology in 2007 evaluated the pharmacokinetics of three different HGH products in children with growth hormone deficiency. The study used a randomized, crossover design and found significant differences in the pharmacokinetic parameters of the three products, including the AUC, Cmax, and time to maximum concentration (Tmax). The authors concluded that the differences in pharmacokinetics could have clinical implications for the management of growth hormone deficiency.
3. A review article published in the Journal of Pediatric Endocrinology & Metabolism in 2016 summarized the available data on the pharmacokinetics of different HGH products. The review identified several studies that had found variations in the pharmacokinetics of different products, and noted that these variations could be due to differences in formulation, manufacturing process, and delivery method. The authors concluded that understanding the pharmacokinetics of different HGH products was important for optimizing treatment outcomes and minimizing adverse effects.

 

[janoshik]

While anecdotal evidence can be valuable for generating hypotheses and identifying potential issues, it is not a reliable substitute for scientific evidence. The absence of evidence for differences in pharmacokinetics between Chinese UG and Pharma somatropin is not proof that such differences do not exist or do not matter.

In fact, there is scientific evidence to suggest that there can be variations in the pharmacokinetics of different Pharma somatropin products, as I explained in my previous response (see studies below). These variations can be due to differences in formulation, manufacturing process, delivery method, and regulatory requirements, among other factors. This evidence suggests a high confidence of theses differences also being present in Chinese UG somatropin.

And while HPLC tests can detect variations in the composition of somatropin products, they may not necessarily reflect the pharmacokinetics or clinical effects of the drug.

Therefore, while strong assumptions based on sound logic can be a useful starting point for further investigation, it is important to rely on scientific evidence and rigorous testing to evaluate the pharmacokinetics and efficacy of Chinese vs Pharma somatropin products. Unfortunately, we will never be in a position to reliably test these products in a RCT and therefore we will never have scientifically validated evidence.

Differences in Pharmacokinetics in different somatropin products:

1. A study published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism in 2004 compared the pharmacokinetics of two different HGH products, using a randomized, double-blind, crossover design in healthy men. The study found significant differences in the pharmacokinetic parameters of the two products, including the area under the curve (AUC), maximum concentration (Cmax), and half-life. The authors concluded that there were clinically relevant differences in the pharmacokinetics of the two products.
2. Another study published in the European Journal of Endocrinology in 2007 evaluated the pharmacokinetics of three different HGH products in children with growth hormone deficiency. The study used a randomized, crossover design and found significant differences in the pharmacokinetic parameters of the three products, including the AUC, Cmax, and time to maximum concentration (Tmax). The authors concluded that the differences in pharmacokinetics could have clinical implications for the management of growth hormone deficiency.
3. A review article published in the Journal of Pediatric Endocrinology & Metabolism in 2016 summarized the available data on the pharmacokinetics of different HGH products. The review identified several studies that had found variations in the pharmacokinetics of different products, and noted that these variations could be due to differences in formulation, manufacturing process, and delivery method. The authors concluded that understanding the pharmacokinetics of different HGH products was important for optimizing treatment outcomes and minimizing adverse effects.

Thank you.

That's a text long enough for me to conclude you are using AI to appear smart on an internet forum.

Waste somebody else's time and sod off, you cancerous waste of oxygen.

 

[jJjburton]

Cheap generics. Aren’t all Phama Chinese made too?
Anyway I’m hesitant to think it’s a product quality issue, I just seem to be sensitive to sides more than some. It’s only been three months. I’m not reaching any final conclusions, just annoyed I feel so crappy.

It happens, adjust dose. I was a sleeping mess on hgh until i wasnt. Have to go slow. You feel tirer?

 

[T&H]

Thank you.

That's a text long enough for me to conclude you are using AI to appear smart on an internet forum.

Waste somebody else's time and sod off, you cancerous waste of oxygen.

I'm surprised you even went back and forth with this guy, remember this thread?

Witch HGH you prefer?

Alone the health risk is worth it IMO. You’re putting an illegal, non-tested (no studies) biological compound that was created by gene manipulation without any data about efficacy, short or long term safety or pharmacokinetics into your body. A minuscule variation in the master cell or...

thinksteroids.com

 

[janoshik]

I'm surprised you even went back and forth with this guy, remember this thread?

Witch HGH you prefer?

Alone the health risk is worth it IMO. You’re putting an illegal, non-tested (no studies) biological compound that was created by gene manipulation without any data about efficacy, short or long term safety or pharmacokinetics into your body. A minuscule variation in the master cell or...

thinksteroids.com

Oh yeah. I do make mistakes too, but we can't really have people like that run around unchecked, so what's there to do?

AI now gives these wastes of oxygen the ability to look superficially intelligent, which can confuse people who are not too well versed in the field talked about.

 

[tenba12]

I like it a lot .
Been on and of GH for some years now and i prefer to be on Pharma grade 3-6iu 5 days a week.
When my diet is on point i get no side effects .
Recovery and sleep is the best part for me.
A bettet pump and better skin is also a nice effect.
Gh for me is like a bullet proof vest i feel it protects my body from wear and tear i do with lifting and running .
I plan on going back to generics to see if i keep feeling this good.
I am tempted to try this new wave of generics that test over 97% purity but will go trough the remaining mauve tops i still have in the fridge first.
I did some hardcore training from a young age and my body got pretty broken down.(lower back,shoulders,wrists,neck,knee's)
I did not use gh through that time as i was afraid of the side effects and it was also more expansive back then.
Other guys that i know used it and still compete at a high level well past they're 40s others that did not where finished by the age of 28-30.
Im very sure a lot of it is because of GH .

What does "diet on point" mean for you on HGH?

 

[tenba12]

Based on the current scientific evidence and thousands of anecdotal reports, it is reasonable to assume that the pharmacokinetics of HGH do not vary significantly enough to cause a discrepancy between HPLC tests and blood GH or IGF levels. While it is true that pharmacokinetic studies are crucial in evaluating drug behavior in vivo and optimizing dosing regimens, it is important to acknowledge that there are limitations to these studies, and they may not always reflect real-world situations accurately.
Furthermore, it is worth noting that anecdotal evidence can provide valuable insights into the effects and side effects of a drug, especially in cases where clinical studies are lacking or limited. While anecdotal evidence should not be the sole basis for making decisions regarding drug safety and efficacy, it can still be a valuable tool in guiding further research and investigation.
Therefore, in the absence of compelling evidence suggesting that the pharmacokinetics of HGH vary significantly and are not correlated with HPLC tests, it is reasonable to assume that the reported discrepancies are likely due to other factors such as individual variability, dosing regimens, or analytical errors. It is important to continue to conduct rigorous scientific studies to evaluate the safety and efficacy of drugs, but we should also consider all available evidence, including anecdotal reports, in making informed decisions.

I agree that the one you called out was AI-generated.

But your post above it (quoted here) was also largely AI-generated.

 

[GuerillaPete]

What does "diet on point" mean for you on HGH?

The opposite of “not on point”

 

[Rido]

The opposite of “not on point”

ROFL

 

[janoshik]

I agree that the one you called out was AI-generated.

But your post above it (quoted here) was also largely AI-generated.

Yes, it was entirely generated by an AI.

Wanted to try out if it really was that, because that guy's posts read superficially smart and slimy, while deeply retarded underneath - and the difference in this thread was obvious when he posted himself and through the AI.

 

[MB101]

Didn’t want to start a new thread just to ask a hgh question hope it’s ok off topic op. If your planning to try a different gh should you titrate up again or ok to continue at the dose your on. Specifically ecoli to mammalian.

 

[GuerillaPete]

Didn’t want to start a new thread just to ask a hgh question hope it’s ok off topic op. If your planning to try a different gh should you titrate up again or ok to continue at the dose your on. Specifically ecoli to mammalian.

Where did you find mammalian gh? Just asking becouse i have not seen or heard of that type of gh since the 2000’s

 

[MB101]

Where did you find mammalian gh? Just asking becouse i have not seen or heard of that type of gh since

 

[MB101]

I could be wrong also. Serostim was what I was referring to tho..

 

[Rido]

Yes, it was entirely generated by an AI.

Wanted to try out if it really was that, because that guy's posts read superficially smart and slimy, while deeply retarded underneath - and the difference in this thread was obvious when he posted himself and through the AI.

Now it's making me wonder how much of his overall posts were AI generated..