*** Mass Specs on CBL HGH ***

[enjoy_tren]

a few of us guys at Anabolic Board decided to pool our money together (thank you schultz, bravo11, and italian muscle). CBLS HGH was tested. Below are the results and contained 0 HGH.

 

[enjoy_tren]

pics of sample

 

[Thaistick]

Sounds right to me.

 

[Dr JIM]

a few of us guys at Anabolic Board decided to pool our money together (thank you schultz, bravo11, and italian muscle). CBLS HGH was tested. Below are the results and contained 0 HGH.

This is a HPLC graph and NOT a MASS SPEC

A mass spec is needed to confirm
HPLC results unless an established standard is used for comparison and
depicted alongside your sample

 

[janoshik]

This is a HPLC graph and NOT a MASS SPEC

A mass spec is needed to confirm
HPLC results unless an established standard is used for comparison and
depicted alongside your sample

And where exactly do you see a HPLC graph on that report?


Also, mass spec is of course inferior method to AAA, why don't you suggest that?

Get lost, stupid, and go pretend you are a doctor somewhere else.

 

[janoshik]

Also, if you'd dig around you can see a timestamped picture of one of the EU Pharmacopoeia Somatropin standards that I use for the analyses.

Howgh.

 

[Den84]

a few of us guys at Anabolic Board decided to pool our money together (thank you schultz, bravo11, and italian muscle). CBLS HGH was tested. Below are the results and contained 0 HGH.

I opened the file but I can’t see anything , it’s better if you can put picture of the report. Thank you

 

[Carlito]

a few of us guys at Anabolic Board decided to pool our money together (thank you schultz, bravo11, and italian muscle). CBLS HGH was tested. Below are the results and contained 0 HGH.

AB has no have no credibility and has gone to shit.

This is a HPLC graph and NOT a MASS SPEC

A mass spec is needed to confirm
HPLC results unless an established standard is used for comparison and
depicted alongside your sample

That is correct sir.

 

[G2Ready]

@enjoy_tren

If your worried about the client name u blocked out ... might want to have post edited to not show unique key or have @janoshik put something else in there

Just heads up

Thanks for testing

 

[G2Ready]

This is a HPLC graph and NOT a MASS SPEC

A mass spec is needed to confirm
HPLC results unless an established standard is used for comparison and
depicted alongside your sample

@janoshik do you put full lab reports in there upon request? I feel most are the cover sheet

 

[G2Ready]

And where exactly do you see a HPLC graph on that report?


Also, mass spec is of course inferior method to AAA, why don't you suggest that?

Get lost, stupid, and go pretend you are a doctor somewhere else.

@janoshik.... come on man— u making a come back don’t have to call people stupid....

Professionalism please... @Dr JIM can be a bit much at times— but I’ve gotten a lot of good info from talks with this respected member—-
Maybe some more explanation on your part, rather than name calling?

 

[Brolloks]

You don't need to be a rocketsurgeon to establish that there's nothing in that vial.

 

[G2Ready]

You don't need to be a rocketsurgeon to establish that there's nothing in that vial.

Heard some bros, talking about source has is own hgh powder... and it’s microscopic with no filler... LoL

Don’t even think there vacuum sealed

(Never used source)

 

[Brolloks]

Heard some bros, talking about source has is own hgh powder... and it’s microscopic with no filler... LoL

Don’t even think there vacuum sealed

(Never used source)

Lol yeah. And there were probably loads of user reports that they were getting great gains on the gaseous/invisible gh.

There was a scammer on BOP a few years ago that imported his own bulk "GH raws" and then put it into vials. He openly stated that, and people still bought from him, only to be shocked that it turned out to be bunk.

I've got 3kg of pharma grade GH raws in a protein tub if anyone is keen. 99.3% purity.

 

[mtt]

AB has no have no credibility and has gone to shit.

That is correct sir.

How so? How has AB gone to shit? They tested your hgh and it came out bunk. If you consider the test invalid then the burden of proof now falls on you. Get it tested independently.

Just because the board came back with a result you don't agree with that doesn't discount the credibility of the entire board. Dispute the claim with real evidence. To say you feel it, your customer's feel it, your customer's buy it, is not evidence.

 

[janoshik]

@janoshik do you put full lab reports in there upon request? I feel most are the cover sheet

Yes Sir.

@janoshik.... come on man— u making a come back don’t have to call people stupid....

Professionalism please... @Dr JIM can be a bit much at times— but I’ve gotten a lot of good info from talks with this respected member—-
Maybe some more explanation on your part, rather than name calling?

You are right. I shouldn't have lost my temper, however, while I admit Jim might be well-versed in areas, he had been, again and again, proven to be completely inept in the field of analytical chemistry and not hesitating to spread misinformation and lies.

My advice would be to disregard anything Jim says in regard to analytical chemistry, he clearly doesn't understand basic concepts as every single person with background in chemistry around here had already agreed. No offense meant here - just stating as it is. I hope he can use his knowledge to help member in the areas of his expertise and I'm glad he's doing so.

Also you are right and I should hold myself to a higher standard. My apologies.

In regard to the explanation - while a simple HPLC run is, traditionally, not considered to be conclusive proof of identity, the difference from 'traditional' conclusive proofs is so negligible with the modern instrumentation that the well developed methods are on par with spectral identification. (To avoid confusion I'm talking mostly about protein chemistry. )

However, what HPLC is conclusive about is proof of non-identity ( made up term ) as in this case. Simply if HPLC of standard and unknown sample doesn't match, there is no need to ANY further tests. Contrary to what Jim tried to express.

I'll be very happy to explain any other technicalities you'd like me to explain.

 

[Doug_S]

Lol. I was going to ask the same thing. I even tried scrolling. I was going WTF is he talking about. There is no abundance peak here.

And where exactly do you see a HPLC graph on that report?


Also, mass spec is of course inferior method to AAA, why don't you suggest that?

Get lost, stupid, and go pretend you are a doctor somewhere else.

 

[master.on]

This is a HPLC graph and NOT a MASS SPEC

A mass spec is needed to confirm
HPLC results unless an established standard is used for comparison and
depicted alongside your sample

And where exactly do you see a HPLC graph on that report?


Also, mass spec is of course inferior method to AAA, why don't you suggest that?

Get lost, stupid, and go pretend you are a doctor somewhere else.

There are no charts whatsoever

Yes Sir.


You are right. I shouldn't have lost my temper, however, while I admit Jim might be well-versed in areas, he had been, again and again, proven to be completely inept in the field of analytical chemistry and not hesitating to spread misinformation and lies.

My advice would be to disregard anything Jim says in regard to analytical chemistry, he clearly doesn't understand basic concepts as every single person with background in chemistry around here had already agreed. No offense meant here - just stating as it is. I hope he can use his knowledge to help member in the areas of his expertise and I'm glad he's doing so.

Also you are right and I should hold myself to a higher standard. My apologies.

In regard to the explanation - while a simple HPLC run is, traditionally, not considered to be conclusive proof of identity, the difference from 'traditional' conclusive proofs is so negligible with the modern instrumentation that the well developed methods are on par with spectral identification. (To avoid confusion I'm talking mostly about protein chemistry. )

However, what HPLC is conclusive about is proof of non-identity ( made up term ) as in this case. Simply if HPLC of standard and unknown sample doesn't match, there is no need to ANY further tests. Contrary to what Jim tried to express.

I'll be very happy to explain any other technicalities you'd like me to explain.

What column and mobile phases did you use for the test?

 

[janoshik]

What column and mobile phases did you use for the test?

C18 and H2O + MeCN. C18 I've used either Ace SuperC18 2.5um 4.6*100mm superficially porous or Kinetex 2.6um CoreShell 4.6*150mm. Not 100% sure, but the difference is very little.

 

[mtt]

Yes Sir.

However, what HPLC is conclusive about is proof of non-identity ( made up term ) as in this case. Simply if HPLC of standard and unknown sample doesn't match, there is no need to ANY further tests. Contrary to what Jim tried to express.

I'll be very happy to explain any other technicalities you'd like me to explain.

Jano, can you explain to us what these graphs mean?