Generic Chinese Blue Tops

[heavyiron]

4 separate batches of Blue Tops were tested via HGH serum blood work. The results demonstrate low quality.

11/30/11 5iu injected, 90 minutes later 6.5ng/mL slightly under dosed-PASS

1/9/12 6iu injected, 120 minutes later 0.4ng/mL FAKE-FAIL

1/11/12 10iu injected, 120 minutes later 0.1ng/mL FAKE-FAIL

1/25/12 6iu injected, 101 minutes later 3.0ng/mL under dosed-FAIL

 

[hypo_glycemic]

Leave it to China to rip you off !!

 

[bmw]

what source?

 

[exphys88]

That seems to be the norm these days. Hopefully, we can start weeding these guys out with all the testing going on.

 

[Thresh]

I had been so tempted for Chinese blue tops!


5"10
195lbs

Currently cycle:
Cruising on 250mg Test Cyp/week.

 

[parsifal09]

Nice

 

[OldSchoolLifter]

How can you state that "101" min batch was under dosed?? You didint even give it time to peak? How does that call for an under dosed result? Look at my levels with the same damn batch? 210 min before draw

You clearly stated in your original thread you drew blood too soon, and now your saying 101 min? lol

 

[exphys88]

at 90 minutes in the study, they're levels were about 7-8 ng/mL. they used about 8 iu.

 

[squigader]

Most disappointing; just goes to show the wide variation in potency in one manufacturer.

If these are heavy's results, we can count out the possibility of it not being mixed/injected properly and conclude that these just plain suck. Not a good buy. God knows what's in that powder they sold... it's clearly not all HGH.

 

[OldSchoolLifter]

Most disappointing; just goes to show the wide variation in potency in one manufacturer.

If these are heavy's results, we can count out the possibility of it not being mixed/injected properly and conclude that these just plain suck. Not a good buy. God knows what's in that powder they sold... it's clearly not all HGH.

He used the same GH I tested.... in his last test but now claims 100 min but his original post was 90 min... How can you make an under dosed assumption when he did not give proper time for levels to peak for testing. especially when we used the same exact batch of blue's

 

[squigader]

He used the same GH I tested.... in his last test but now claims 100 min but his original post was 90 min... How can you make an under dosed assumption when he did not give proper time for levels to peak for testing. especially when we used the same exact batch of blue's

Actually, that's a great point, I didn't notice the times. 180-200 minutes would be the ideal time, 100 is definitely on the early side. 90 is way too early. Hell, I think the study was posted here - http://www.ironmagazineforums.com/lab-testing/158572-how-test-hgh.html#post2745767 .

However, it's still really interesting to see the huge differences in batches
11/30/11 5iu injected, 90 minutes later 6.5ng/mL slightly under dosed-PASS
1/9/12 6iu injected, 120 minutes later 0.4ng/mL FAKE-FAIL

Notice the one with 5iu - even less time was given before the test, but the levels were much higher.

Still, the waiting time is a really legitimate concern. These aren't results we can compare fairly to the others being posted here, IMO.

 

[exphys88]

Actually, that's a great point, I didn't notice the times. 180-200 minutes would be the ideal time, 100 is definitely on the early side. 90 is way too early. Hell, I think the study was posted here - http://www.ironmagazineforums.com/lab-testing/158572-how-test-hgh.html#post2745767 .

However, it's still really interesting to see the huge differences in batches
11/30/11 5iu injected, 90 minutes later 6.5ng/mL slightly under dosed-PASS
1/9/12 6iu injected, 120 minutes later 0.4ng/mL FAKE-FAIL

Notice the one with 5iu - even less time was given before the test, but the levels were much higher.

Still, the waiting time is a really legitimate concern. These aren't results we can compare fairly to the others being posted here, IMO.

I think now that we've established a protocol, the numbers will be much easier to compare.

 

[heavyiron]

The levels should have been much higher after 101 minutes. 3.0ng/mL is barely outside the reference range. 0.1 to be exact. That vial failed however it did contain some HGH.

 

[bmw]

lol, I think I can answer my own question now.

 

[heavyiron]

I do want to state that once these results were brought to the attention of the advertiser he immediately replaced the fake kits with new ones. He published a public recall and made sure every customer was satisfied then he put quality control measures into place. This advertiser did NOT deny or try to cover up the results from the Chinese HGH. Ultimately the Chinese supplier was held accountable.

 

[blergs.]

That seems to be the norm these days. Hopefully, we can start weeding these guys out with all the testing going on.

Yahh it seems the more people want it the more fakes are being pumpped out. when normally the prices drop and the quality gets better. with this its the other way around due to greed in my op.
but if you where smart you would make the long term choice and only carry HIGH quality HGH.
Any sources out there that want to prov there HGH is GTG feel free to pm me ill run a log here for you .

Nice post Heavy Iron!

 

[blergs.]

I do want to state that once these results were brought to the attention of the advertiser he immediately replaced the fake kits with new ones. He published a public recall and made sure every customer was satisfied then he put quality control measures into place. This advertiser did NOT deny or try to cover up the results from the Chinese HGH. Ultimately the Chinese supplier was held accountable.

and has now lost what could have been a great parnership!
people man i tell ya!

 

[vannesb]

4 separate batches of Blue Tops were tested via HGH serum blood work. The results demonstrate low quality.

11/30/11 5iu injected, 90 minutes later 6.5ng/mL slightly under dosed-PASS

1/9/12 6iu injected, 120 minutes later 0.4ng/mL FAKE-FAIL

1/11/12 10iu injected, 120 minutes later 0.1ng/mL FAKE-FAIL

1/25/12 6iu injected, 101 minutes later 3.0ng/mL under dosed-FAIL

These results are from the batches recalled correct in December/Begging of January?

Is the 1/25/12 batch the same one OSL posted his results ? If so why is there a extream difference in final results other than the testing protocal is not the same?

Thanks

 

[SloppyJ]

What's the protocol in here of listing sources. It's one thing to test GH but it's another to call out the people who sold you bullshit. I think some source talk would be required.

 

[exphys88]

What's the protocol in here of listing sources. It's one thing to test GH but it's another to call out the people who sold you bullshit. I think some source talk would be required.

The board rules would still apply. Only discussing brands/labs is the way to go about it. Usually, if you do some research and/or have put your time in here, you can figure out the source.

 

[exphys88]

These results are from the batches recalled correct in December/Begging of January?

Is the 1/25/12 batch the same one OSL posted his results ? If so why is there a extream difference in final results other than the testing protocal is not the same?

Thanks

There will undoubtedly be some discrepancies, especially when different protocols are used, but if we keep at this and get uniform in our testing procedures, we should be able to see some strong trends. It will take some time, but soon we'll know exactly who has gotten their quality control dialed in.

 

[Vibrant]

The board rules would still apply. Only discussing brands/labs is the way to go about it. Usually, if you do some research and/or have put your time in here, you can figure out the source.

discussing brands/labs will not work because some sources only sell one brand of gear(usually their own) and everyone knows who its from.

 

[vannesb]

There will undoubtedly be some discrepancies, especially when different protocols are used, but if we keep at this and get uniform in our testing procedures, we should be able to see some strong trends. It will take some time, but soon we'll know exactly who has gotten their quality control dialed in.

I understand that the point I was asking was these test the same everyone already new about in January as being bad and replaced? if so I guess I don't understand the point? Everyone new they were bad and replaced. This is a new thread several months after the fact? Am I missing something here?

Second was it the same batch that was heavy last test or a new one?


I do not claim to be an expert I would assume that there should be a standard protocol like heavy lined out for testing test.

Then when you post lab results it is apples to apples

 

[exphys88]

I understand that the point I was asking was these test the same everyone already new about in January as being bad and replaced? if so I guess I don't understand the point? Everyone new they were bad and replaced. This is a new thread several months after the fact? Am I missing something here?

You are correct, these are the same results. We are just compiling all the recent data on hgh. We would like to see more sponsors being as transparent on quality control as this sponsor has. Every sponsor is going to run into problems, how they handle it is the most important part IMO.

Second was it the same batch that was heavy last test or a new one?

I'm not sure, maybe Heavy can clarify.

I do not claim to be an expert I would assume that there should be a standard protocol like heavy lined out for testing test.

Then when you post lab results it is apples to apples

This is our goal.

 

[heavyiron]

I understand that the point I was asking was these test the same everyone already new about in January as being bad and replaced? if so I guess I don't understand the point? Everyone new they were bad and replaced. This is a new thread several months after the fact? Am I missing something here?

Second was it the same batch that was heavy last test or a new one?


I do not claim to be an expert I would assume that there should be a standard protocol like heavy lined out for testing test.

Then when you post lab results it is apples to apples

The point is blue tops are all over the map and you cannot trust the Chinese. Just because some bro says the blue tops are GTG you need to test your GH yourself. I test every batch for this very reason.

The 1-25 labs were the replacements. Apparently I'm not as lucky as others.

 

[vannesb]

The point is blue tops are all over the map and you cannot trust the Chinese. Just because some bro says the blue tops are GTG you need to test your GH yourself. I test every batch for this very reason.

The 1-25 labs were the replacements. Apparently I'm not as lucky as others.

I agree, your own labs are always good! So the 1-25 were your replacements? I thought they were tested by several people that said they were G2G? So i am just a little confused now are these different test?

 

[heavyiron]

I agree, your own labs are always good! So the 1-25 were your replacements? I thought they were tested by several people that said they were G2G? So i am just a little confused now are these different test?

Why would you assume all vials will test the same? Just because one guy gets a good test on one vial that does not mean every vial is properly dosed.

 

[OTG85]

I'm confused also.

 

[heavyiron]

I'm confused also.

What exactly is confusing you brother?

 

[OTG85]

So your saying one bottle is a hit other a miss?