MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
I like private MD lab’s athletic ultimate anti-aging panel, I get it twice a year just for a catch all. Then piece tests together if I have something specific going on the rest of the time. Trying to find the correct combo of panels is a pain in the ass sometimes but buying individual test is way too expensive.
Common things occur commonly, uncommon thing, uncommonly.
LoL, I was confused. You gave it a thumbs-down
I got it and it feels the same as his 10mg I've gotten before.
Not Ghoul, but I am assuming he means not both in same injection/syringe. He has mentioned before that mixing peptides in the same syringe or even vial, basically mixing of diff peptide solutions, can create aggregates of the proteins which leads to less efficacy or worse outcomes.
There are a few communities you can join now that have solved this problem through group testing. You voluntarily join a group that wants to test a specific product and all contributors get access to the tests. I've done a few this year and the most expensive one was $10.
Just so you know, Tesa resulted in immunogenicity in roughly half of people that took it in the trial stage (anti tesa antibodies). Of the half that had immunogenic rxn, 85% developed neutralizing antibodies. Of that 85%, Almost a third (60%) developed cross reaction to natural growth hormone releasing hormone.
So I only have a undergrad biochem degree, and I don't claim to be an expert at all but I am seeing some possible glaring flaws in your theories of aggregation esp with suggesting filtering as a solution. If aggregates are readily forming from peptides or peptide blends they should be interfering with any optical based analytic technique unless said aggregates just so happen to have the same absorbances of the targeted substances(incredibly unlikely). This should be very easy for some one like Jano to test for. Love to hear him chime in on this.Don't mix them in the same vial or syringe.
It's a good idea if injecting them at the same time to use sites on opposite sides. Tesa is highly immunogenic, almost everyone experiences site reactions. You don't want another peptide in the same area the immune system is responding to.
Vaccines, proteins engineered to maximize immunogenicity, will sometimes use another compound or particulate that causes a strong immune reaction to induce a stronger response to the vaccine than would ordinarily happen. This is the opposite of what we want to occur with the peptides/proteins we don't want to build an immunity to.
BTW: these "immune stimulators" are called adjuvants. Particulate trash like glass and rubber particles in cheap Chinese vials act as adjuvants, as do aggregated proteins. Filtration removes these, lessening the overall immune response to peptides.
Immunologic adjuvant - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
Wow this is quite interesting! Because I have read just as your quoted study states, that there are higher amounts of immunogenicity in Tesa, I suppose I haven't seen the latter of your comment on the affect on efficacy, but if this is true then that is pretty remarkable.Just so you know, Tesa resulted in immunogenicity in roughly half of people that took it in the trial stage (anti tesa antibodies). Of the half that had immunogenic rxn, 85% developed neutralizing antibodies. Of that 85%, Almost a third (60%) developed cross reaction to natural growth hormone releasing hormone.
In the end, It didn't mean anything, as this did not affect efficacy. Turns out that the antibodies may be binding to nonfunctional parts of the peptide.
Just another useless contribution from me
He gives me thumbs down sometimes so i do it to him
Just so you know, Tesa resulted in immunogenicity in roughly half of people that took it in the trial stage (anti tesa antibodies). Of the half that had immunogenic rxn, 85% developed neutralizing antibodies. Of that 85%, Almost a third (60%) developed cross reaction to natural growth hormone releasing hormone.
In the end, It didn't mean anything, as this did not affect efficacy. Turns out that the antibodies may be binding to nonfunctional parts of the peptide.
Just another useless contribution from me
It's in the Egrifta document itself on page 8
Great read. Came with receipts. Thanks man. Not sure if it matters, but I wonder if there is any variability if this is applied to UGL Tesa. Obviously, no way to for sure know since there are no studies on the matter for UGL. But that was a nice document to skim through on the immunogenicity heading.
It may or may not be applicable. Then again the paients trialed on Egrifta weren't healthy either. There is a Tesamorelin study on healthy individuals but they did not assess for immunogenicity
