QSC Retatrutide

[Mounjamen]

My request was not so much directed at the zip but at the many speeches of the participants here. Today, while reading the What's new posts, I put together a whole list and then asked the chatbot if it could explain it to me:
Okay, let me explain these acronyms for you:

HGH - Human Growth Hormone: A hormone that controls growth and development in the human body. It is commonly used as a dietary supplement.

HLFT - High Lift Fitness Tonic: A blend of vitamins, minerals and herbs that is said to increase physical performance.

HBFL-Tech - Hormone Balanced For Life Technology: A technology that is said to regulate and optimize hormonal balance in the body.

OSC-Xce - Organo-Spinal Complex Xanthine Chromium Extract: A composition of herbal extracts that is said to support metabolic functions.

Heibei Orono-Biotech - Believed to be a biotechnology company from Hebei Province in China.

Lipo C - Liposomal Vitamin C: A form of vitamin C that is packaged in fatty shells to allow for better absorption in the body.

Mots-C - Mitochondrial Derived Peptides: Short peptide sequences that are said to be derived from mitochondria and are said to have health benefits.

IMO - Intermittent Fasting Mimicking Oligosaccharides: Special carbohydrates that are said to have similar effects to intermittent fasting.

PTDS - Possibly Toxic Dietary Supplements: A term for dietary supplements that have possible health risks.

Xcel - Probably a brand or product that I don't have any more information about.

Hallandale Version - Also a term that I don't have any information about.

AC-Peptides - Probably a series of peptides that are used in cosmetics or dietary supplements.

LB-Loss - Probably a term for weight loss or fat loss.

Bioboost plus - A mixture of vitamins, minerals and/or other active ingredients that are said to increase physical performance.

I hope these explanations were helpful for you! If you have any further questions, please let me know.

 

[Deeubee]

@Deeubee looks like wants to simply argument here (or trolling), keep on twisting statements etc. just to keep discussion going without any additional value
I just hope all new members will have their own judgement.

I take no responsibility for your lack of comprehension. I have been pretty consistent. If you aren't clear ask questions. I'm not the one conflating grades here.
The thing is, I wasn't prepared to go into a long diatribe about the various grade requirements for biologics like peptides, but I can tell you that it is not as simple as represented here. Whether something meets USP grade is not merely about 99% Purity. There are other issues like minimum impurity levels, acceptable degradation e.t.c. Lest I digress, my main point has been you will not find an industry wide standard of 99%.. Perhaps I should stop saying "industry wide", and substitute with 'blanket' purity standard of 99%.

The accepted (i use that loosely) minimum is usually 95% Purity. However, to meet USP or NF (well they're merged now and NF will likely soon be done away with), you must refer to a document called a monograph. The monograph is like an FDA ID card for an approved compound. The monograph will tell you the specific purity levels (which may actually vary depending on usage). the tests you will use to identify the compound and specific characteristics of the compound. There is no blanket monographs. Minimum purity of pharma grade compounds will vary from compound to compound and from Use to use. When we tested for antibodies for some ocular pathologies, the minimum purity that would elicit a response was 80%. When a dose dependent response for a peptide therapy was assessed, the minimum was 95% purity.
I'm not here to advise you to buy 96% grade stuff. Just calling out the inaccuracy that FDA regulation is 99 or bust

 

[milos]

My request was not so much directed at the zip but at the many speeches of the participants here. Today, while reading the What's new posts, I put together a whole list and then asked the chatbot if it could explain it to me:
Okay, let me explain these acronyms for you:

HGH - Human Growth Hormone: A hormone that controls growth and development in the human body. It is commonly used as a dietary supplement.

HLFT - High Lift Fitness Tonic: A blend of vitamins, minerals and herbs that is said to increase physical performance.

HBFL-Tech - Hormone Balanced For Life Technology: A technology that is said to regulate and optimize hormonal balance in the body.

OSC-Xce - Organo-Spinal Complex Xanthine Chromium Extract: A composition of herbal extracts that is said to support metabolic functions.

Heibei Orono-Biotech - Believed to be a biotechnology company from Hebei Province in China.

Lipo C - Liposomal Vitamin C: A form of vitamin C that is packaged in fatty shells to allow for better absorption in the body.

Mots-C - Mitochondrial Derived Peptides: Short peptide sequences that are said to be derived from mitochondria and are said to have health benefits.

IMO - Intermittent Fasting Mimicking Oligosaccharides: Special carbohydrates that are said to have similar effects to intermittent fasting.

PTDS - Possibly Toxic Dietary Supplements: A term for dietary supplements that have possible health risks.

Xcel - Probably a brand or product that I don't have any more information about.

Hallandale Version - Also a term that I don't have any information about.

AC-Peptides - Probably a series of peptides that are used in cosmetics or dietary supplements.

LB-Loss - Probably a term for weight loss or fat loss.

Bioboost plus - A mixture of vitamins, minerals and/or other active ingredients that are said to increase physical performance.

I hope these explanations were helpful for you! If you have any further questions, please let me know.

these are funny explanations! 😉

 

[milos]

I take no responsibility for your lack of comprehension. I have been pretty consistent. If you aren't clear ask questions. I'm not the one conflating grades here.
The thing is, I wasn't prepared to go into a long diatribe about the various grade requirements for biologics like peptides, but I can tell you that it is not as simple as represented here. Whether something meets USP grade is not merely about 99% Purity. There are other issues like minimum impurity levels, acceptable degradation e.t.c. Lest I digress, my main point has been you will not find an industry wide standard of 99%.. Perhaps I should stop saying "industry wide", and substitute with 'blanket' purity standard of 99%.

The accepted (i use that loosely) minimum is usually 95% Purity. However, to meet USP or NF (well they're merged now and NF will likely soon be done away with), you must refer to a document called a monograph. The monograph is like an FDA ID card for an approved compound. The monograph will tell you the specific purity levels (which may actually vary depending on usage). the tests you will use to identify the compound and specific characteristics of the compound. There is no blanket monographs. Minimum purity of pharma grade compounds will vary from compound to compound and from Use to use. When we tested for antibodies for some ocular pathologies, the minimum purity that would elicit a response was 80%. When a dose dependent response for a peptide therapy was assessed, the minimum was 95% purity.
I'm not here to advise you to buy 96% grade stuff. Just calling out the inaccuracy that FDA regulation is 99 or bust

ok one more last message:

@dionysos wrote that HE PERSONALLY would not use anything below 99%, I said that FOR ME its 98% which is also inline with peppys accepted levels for purity. Most good vendors offer products with >99% purity and that's why we are choosing them over those with 95%...

admin said "If you don't like a the peptide purity of a vendor's product, don't buy it." and "It's also stupid to get so worked up about purity."
- and I agree

so, you take whatever you want and end of discussion.

 

[dionysos]

ok one more last message:

@dionysos wrote that HE PERSONALLY would not use anything below 99%, I said that FOR ME its 98% which is also inline with peppys accepted levels for purity. Most good vendors offer products with >99% purity and that's why we are choosing them over those with 95%...

admin said "If you don't like a the peptide purity of a vendor's product, don't buy it." and "It's also stupid to get so worked up about purity."
- and I agree

so, you take whatever you want and end of discussion.

@milos @Broken Chef
If we as users do not care about product quality then vendors certainly will not.
Being indifferent to product Purity is not some noble Libertarian ideal we should uphold.
It is intellectually lazy, and it is poor leadership.

 

[milos]

@milos @Broken Chef
If we as users do not care about product quality then vendors certainly will not. Being indifferent to product Purity is not some noble Libertarian ideal we should uphold. It is intellectually lazy, and it is poor leadership.

true, true @dionysos im just wondering, consider your timezone, what are you doing online! 🤔
Our discussion about purity maybe contributed to the fact that Tracy/QSC acknowledge the issue and is promising now some solution and even if not, it still shows to vendors that we accept only the best they can deliver - and it is extremely important. If we don't care they will soon start feeding us with rubbish....
but this particular discussion with @Deeubee is really going nowhere, wasting our time only, not adding any value here; and that's why I understand @ZippityDooDah comment about not to get so worked up about purity (but the comparison to street drugs - impurities or cutting agents in street drugs significantly contribute to mortality - so its actually a good example why pure staff matters, Walter White would agree)

 

[dionysos]

true, true @dionysos im just wondering, consider your timezone, what are you doing online! 🤔
Our discussion about purity maybe contributed to the fact that Tracy/QSC acknowledge the issue and is promising now some solution and even if not, it still shows to vendors that we accept only the best they can deliver - and it is extremely important. If we don't care they will soon start feeding us with rubbish....
but this particular discussion with @Deeubee is really going nowhere, wasting our time only, not adding any value here; and that's why I understand @ZippityDooDah comment about not to get so worked up about purity (but the comparison to street drugs - impurities or cutting agents in street drugs significantly contribute to mortality - so its actually a good example why pure staff matters, Walter White would agree)

You make my point precisely milos!
Our behavior and expectations MATTER.
They matter to people around us, and they matter to the vendors..
Quality in all its forms is an ideal that is worthy of our efforts. If it is absent here then I will also be absent.

 

[Deeubee]

true, true @dionysos im just wondering, consider your timezone, what are you doing online! 🤔
Our discussion about purity maybe contributed to the fact that Tracy/QSC acknowledge the issue and is promising now some solution and even if not, it still shows to vendors that we accept only the best they can deliver - and it is extremely important. If we don't care they will soon start feeding us with rubbish....
but this particular discussion with @Deeubee is really going nowhere, wasting our time only, not adding any value here; and that's why I understand @ZippityDooDah comment about not to get so worked up about purity (but the comparison to street drugs - impurities or cutting agents in street drugs significantly contribute to mortality - so its actually a good example why pure staff matters, Walter White would agree)

It wasn't really a discussion. You ignorantly assumed I was trolling, and Lacoste bruv also dropped his insinuations. It's a pet peeve of mine. As is misrepresentation of standards. That's how confusion starts.
Just be aware that a few pharma biologics you take are being sold with purity percentage specifications of NLT 90%.

 

[ZippityDooDah]

Tired of reading the childish back and forth, so making the rare move to close a thread. Discussion over.