Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I heard real IGF is incredable, but nobody carries real IGF, its all fake.
I heard real IGF is incredable, but nobody carries real IGF, its all fake.
You would think that igf-1 would yield greater results than gh for the simple fact that gh stimulates igf but igf directly would definately have better results. I'm not saying it's true, saying it from a perspective of basically of most anabolics.(prohormone precursor vs direct steroid) or taking something to raise test vs injecting test. I'm not disagreeing by any means, and I don't think there is anything better than high dose test stacked with high gh. But the one thing I don't understand is the cost factor. Gh is expensive no matter if it's pharma or not, how can igf peptide companies sell be so cheap and the pharma stuff so expensive? Easy to produce? I just see a lot of these peptide companies selling stuff like myostatin inhibitors and things to this nature and find it hard to believe that Wyeth pharmaceuticals is still developing
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
When I mentioned GH being more effective than Increlex from a clinical standpoint, I was referring to the reasons for which GH and IGF-1 is used; namely for short stature children. Regardless, IGF-1 still faired rather poorly as an abolic in comparison to AAS, which is why it is rarely prescribed even for aids patients or others with wasting diseases. GH is prescribed much more readily for aids victims than Increlex. You alos need to keep in mind that IGF-1 elevation is not the only mechnism by which GH causes muscle growth. Science has recently shoiwn that the Gh molecule itself alos causes muscle growth, so Gh causes growth through multiple ,mechnaims, not just IGF-1 elevation.
However, IGF-1 is still more effective for muscle growth than GH when both are used at optimal dosages, but LR3 and DES are more effective than either. Compared to AAS...IGF-1 isn't even close.
In terms of pharma price vs. peptide company price, you need to realize that the cost of pharma drugs is dependent on production difficulty only to a very small degree. The ultimate price of the drug is primarily determined by the all the time and money that went into its research & development, as well as the greed of the compoany owners. Bringing a single new drug to market takes years from the time it was first invented until it hits pharmacy store shelves. In some cases it can be over 10 years. Who do you think pays for those 5-10 years of research & development? You do. You are paying for all the costs assumed by the company during that time. It costs a pharm company literally millions...or even 10's of millions to bring a single new drug to market...even the most simple of drugs. The entire process, from the intial research & development phases, until the final FDA approval is granted, takes a long time and costs a tremendous amount of money.
On top of that, when you pay for a new drug, you are not just paying for that drug alone...you are also paying for all the many years of failed research & development that were spent on drugs which never made it to market. For every new drug which gains FDA approval and ends up being sold in pharmacies, dozens of potential drugs are rejected. These trial drugs can be worked on for a couple months or many years. In many cases a drug will make it all the way until the final phase of the animal or human testing before it is rejected due to unsatisfactory test results. By that point the company may have invested many millions in research & development on a drug which will never earn a single penny. Who do you think makes up for that loss? You do. The cost gets passed along to the small percentage of drugs which do get approved.
Of course, don't forget the millions in advertising that is spent...not to mention that tremendous GREED of these companies which set profit margins ridiculously high. When you add all this up, you can see how pharmacy IGF-1 is so damn expensive. Other factors are involved, as well. Does the drug meet a need that no other drug can? What does the drug do? Does is save lives? Does it help short-stature children grow to a normal height (Increlex)? Or, does it just treat heartburn? All of this plays a role as well.
Peptide companies don't incurr any of these costs. They don't have to do any research & development. They don't have to pay any employees. They don't have to gain FDA approval. They don't have to do anything. They take a drug that a pharm company spent many years working on and which they have millions invested in...and sell it without asking anyone for permission or contributing anything to the cost of bringing it into existence. They simply hire out a lab to make the drug and then sell it. Cheap & easy. These labs make drugs for all sorts of companies every day. Their only jib is to make drugs. They aren't involved in research & development, advertising, or anything else, so they have no costs to pass down. The raw materials used to synthesize these drugs cost literally a few pennies per vial. Most of the cost goes towards paying the emlpoyees and on overhead. All forms of IGF-1 are cheap & easy to manufacturer. I won't tell you how much these labs are charging peptide companies per vial, but I have seen what they are being charged with my own eyes...and it is a fraction of what the customer ends up paying.
In the end, peptide companies bypass all the costs associated with big pharma and therefore, they can charge $60-$70 a vial for IGF-1 and still have high profit margins. Of course, not all products have the same profit margin, but the point is that these drugs are not hard or expensive to produce. These savings are then passed down to the customer.
You ask how a peptide company can sell a drug that a pharm company is still developing. Easy. For one, the pharm company is no longer still "developing" the drug. The drug was already developed. There is much more involved in getting a drug approved by the FDA than simply making it. They need to prove that it is safe for use in humans, which is a long, extensive process. In some cases 10 years can pass from the time a drug was initially developed until it is sold in stores. There are many steps involved in this entire process, which the FDA requires them to undertake in order to gain final approval.