Engadin
#287
Dr. Harold Katcher’s NEEL GSHK-Cu gel available here.
2 Likes
I bought some shortly after it came out. Horrible stuff, at least to me. I’m scent sensitive and it’s way to heavily scented for me to use, and many reviews indicate the same thing.
While topical GHK-cu is good for the skin, that is about all, as it will not be “systemically” absorbed.
Many peptide vendors do add excipients to their products and it is totally unnecessary. These excipients are NOT part of the peptide mfg process. The most common additive is mannitol, supposedly to “increase” stability. This is not necessary.
I’ve purchased several “samples” from various vendors and it is more common that I expected, the first time I saw it I was shocked. I immediately knew something was up…
I think one of the reasons is to “bulk it up” so the average consumer thinks they are getting what they ordered.
One good example is AOD9604 (I ordered a 2mg vial), which is often sold in smaller amounts, 2mg is not uncommon. As soon as I saw the vial I knew something was up as I weigh this stuff all the time. 2mg is a VERY small amount of powder and I’m guessing most people who have never used a lab grade scale that can weight mcg would never know how small it should be and then complain all over the internet that they got shafted on their order. When I weighed it, it was 30mg of powder.
5 Likes
Sounds a bit like you don’t know how peptides are made. It is a fairly well establish science and the equipment and raw materials are more than well known.
I do get the concern about some of the points you are making. I’ve been very selective on the Chinese companies I work with and to date have had excellent products from them. This is where a significant amount of raw materials for supplements, drugs and many other things we consume daily come from.
If you want to make your own peptides, all you need is a $30k to $60k desktop peptide machine and a few other machines to get into production.
I read Durk Pearson and Sandy Shaws first book Life Extension: A Practical Scientific Approach when it came out (1982) and one of the things that has stuck with me is that they said “in the not to distant future, everyone will have a peptide machine in their garage” at that time these machines were $250k plus.
Making peptides is not rocket science 
3 Likes
Davin8r
#293
So the peptide manufacturing process is different and far easier than drug synthesis?
1 Like
No, but since there no major or even minor alarm bells going off from the use of common peptides such as BPC-157, TB-500, Epithalon, Selank, and Semax,.etc. mentioned in this thread from even some dubious vendors, all of which probably obtain their peptides from a few primary sources even if they say made in the USA.
The only peptide I have tried so far is Semax, which I liked.
I have been scouring forums and literature for the evidence of safety of the aforementioned peptides and so far have not even found a smoking gun
Therefore, I must conclude that they are relatively safe.
These products have been on the market for over a decade and have been used by thousands and there seem to be fewer negative side effects than big-pharma promoted peptides.
If you can furnish any studies that indicate they are unsafe I would like to know.
In the meantime, there is nothing but speculation about the negative effects of using these "research chemicals’
In any case, all we have is anecdotal evidence as to their safety, but there are thousands of anecdotal reports that they are.
5 Likes
Yes it is. A peptide machine is more like a knitting machine. There are 20 amino acids, they go in cartridges and with a few other reagents it assembles the peptide according to the basic structure that gets programmed into the machine.
And peptides are much more robust than you would expect, the peptide bond is quite strong.
Here is a simple automated peptide machine…
Then you will need to lyophilize the results, freeze dry it into a stable powder.
And a few other tools and you are in the peptide manufacturing business.
At large scale, high throughput, it’s a bit different.
9 Likes
I’m my own guinea pig, I’m going to try them all
So far 10 different peptides.
5 Likes
The interesting thing about “made in” is that if any type of secondary processing, like bottling, encapsulating, pressing, mixing, allows you to use that term as per the FDA requirements.
With our supplement, we sourced the raw materials off-shore from vetted, reputable companies and had it all processed (mixed, tested, encapsulated, bottled, labeled) in an FDA and HC inspected contract mfg in New Jersey and voilà, “made in the USA”
3 Likes
Davin8r
#298
Thanks Steve, that is very helpful and seems reassuring. It appears that the testing lab who wrote that blog post (and specifically does peptide testing) doesn’t know how easy it is to make peptides because they’re comparing it to synthetic drug manufacturing. I’ll ask them about this and see how they respond.
Pretty sure because there is most water and air stuck in the peptide. It’s never 100% dried peptide powder.
Ulf
#300
Perhaps it should and I appreciate your warning, but I have to prioritize my attention and trust my recommended suppliers do not have the fillers screwed up. A risk, yes, but not not the biggest risk I´m taking
1 Like
Interestingly, when stored at -21c lyophilized peptides will keep for 2 to 3 years and retain their >98% purity. My supplier does 3 year stability testing. This tells us that the moisture content is extremely low as water is reactive and will wreck many chemicals in storage. Not to mention storage temp 
Many people don’t understand what >98% means and that makes some companies claim >99% when that is probably not possible for this grade (consumer) of peptides. The “greater than” means it’s is not less than 98% so it could be 99.9%
True “research grade” samples can be at the highest “purity” >99% but they cost 100x more due to the extreme methods required to get that last little level of purity. These products are used as reference standards and are not used in high volume.
I’ve had to purchase reference standards to supply to a testing lab so they could effectively identify and measure the purity of certain compounds we used.
4 Likes
Ulf
#302
I appreciate your concenns they are valid. if epithalamin had been available at my suppliers, I would have chosen it.
The group around Khavinson has used epitalon repeatedly and it has similar benefits to epitahlamin, so we can rest assured on that account. The question you correctly raise is the dosage.
Confusingly, from a Khavinson article and slide presenation a mere one hundredth or less dose of Epitalon was injected compared to Epithamin. Going by this, the question is rather how much other stuff there is in a 10 mg epitalon vial (which by this reasoning is not pure, despite what is written). “The same effect was achieved by administering a significantly lower course dose of Epitalon (0.1 mg) as compared to Epithalamin (50 mg), which indicates the higher biological activity of the synthetic tetrapeptide”. One five hundredth of the dose!
A mystery. I have asked my supplier and will try contacting the St Petersburg institute, but it will be a happy surprise to get an answer.
5-10 mg is usually recommended for epithalon, but I saw one for just 2.5 - 5 mg. 5mg would be playing it safe, IMO. Start with that the first injections and then go up to 10 mg? But as desertshores points out, there have been no reports of people bummed out by the 10 mg doses that surely many have taken.
I have a fascinating 90-page slide presentation by Khavinson from 2015 that shows data from more longevity studies on T+E. It is behind a pay-wall so cannot link it but if anyone wants I can email it. (one of the slides shows a mere 0.1 mg of epitalon injected IM compared to 10 mg of Epithalamin in the second group) .
I also have a 17-page Khavinson paper describing those trials below is a link it was behind a pay-wall if it doesn´t work I can email. I´m coming round to seeing an increased likelihood of the effects being real. It will have to be quite a scam for the results to be all bogus.
Short Peptides Regulate Gene Expression, Protein Synthesis and Enhance Life Span | Anti-aging Drugs: From Basic Research to Clinical Practice | Books Gateway | Royal Society of Chemistry (rsc.org)
3 Likes
curt504
#303
Have you come across any studies comparing dosages?
We’ve started the whole suite of peptides on top of rapa and medical devices. I type as I site inside our at home sit up hyperbaric chamber, 1.3ata for an hour.
-
Doses; search on youtube, the now place for frustrated MDs to monitize true healthful tips, and bloggers who are self experimentors to share their (and their coaching) experience. Just type the peptide name - dose
-
The confusion with a few peptide name spellings is; The Russian (30-50 yrs ago) animal organ extract has many components and is weaker then the modern mfgered single molecule peptide. The spelling difference is often just one vowel. ;( ;( Just go to the peptide co websites: core peptides, polaris peptides; THAT is the correct spelling of the modern single molecule.
-
Theres SOO many typos in doses; 10mg / day might actually supposed to be; 10mcg (1/1000’th). Most peptidese are packaged in 5mg, 10mg, 15mg, 20mg rarely larger although I have seen 100mg BPC-151 viles. The thymus/pituitary peptides are usually 10mg +/- and diluted with 2mg BAC water and injection is around 10u to 20u on a 0.5mg insulin needle. Much easier to measure pulling out the small doses using a 0.5mg needle.
-
That said I have seen huge doses of 5mg , 10mg per day of some… for bolis acute issues.
Double check that mg maybe really mcg…
Heres a handly dose calculator: Peptide Calculator – Prime Peptides™
Here’s a dose cheat sheet but I think there’s typos in it too re mg vs mcg and 10mg vs 1mg… Too many errors in even research given auto-correct changing mcg to mg here and there…
New language… Good luck, curt
3 Likes
My first post. I skimmed through the peptides thread and see a lot of interest and some folks asking about sources. Many of the sources mentioned are local research resellers that are sourcing out of China. If the group is looking for very economical purchases there are many options out of China, but the vendor with the most volume and that has been around for a while is QSC. They have started a group buy server where you can participate in group buys of peptides at costs equal to buying in 100 kit quantities ( a kit is 10 vials of the designated dose). They have both a discord and Telegram server for info, but you still will need to order through WhatsApp or email. With bank transfer and crypto as the method of payment. Invite below.
2 Likes
They also have raw Rapa for $135 per gram. I have not started rapa yet, what is the opinion of compounding with raw?
1 Like
Compounding Rapa is not preferred. Rapa tablets have an enteric coating that prevent degradation. People who have tried compounded Rapamycin find that it usually loses 90% of it’s potency due to not having the protective coating.
3 Likes
Jay
#307
Deeinflorida, this may not relate directly to your vision problems, but I’ve come across something related to cataracts that I will be watching closely. It’s a process called Ledinbio by Edinburgh Biosciences which may complete clinical trial work sometime in 2025. The treatment during testing is eye exposure to 415 nm wavelength light for 15-20 minutes 3 times a week for 3 weeks with an 84 day follow-up period. I have not found any more data at this time. The website for more information is: Ledinbio - Edinburgh Biosciences LTD
Something else related to cataracts I found recently is LumenPro, an eyedrop for dogs that uses Lanosterol and NAC. I can’t find much research data at this time and it has not appeared on sites like Chewy.com, only on the site https://shop.lumenpro.com/, but I will watch to see if it’s something more than a new company with more hype than reality. If it really works for animals I may want to try it.
3 Likes
The dog cataract eye drop sounds very interesting . I hope it is not just hype. Regarding the other cataract removal for humans having had cataract surgery it was so fast and uneventful with absolutely no pain whatsoever. I think I prefer that system because it’s quicker and painless. I have a telescope in my left eye, which was inserted by a clinic in London, England, and to remove the cataract to enable the placement of the telescope, they had a piece of equipment that dissolved the lens, I saw stars and the lens had disappeared completely, I don’t know what that equipment was, but I am surprised that we are not using it in the USA.
2 Likes
