Can these contaminants kill me faster than the steroids themselves ? Honest question, I’m not that well versed about these things.
I home brew thus all my raws come from China even I use different sources.
MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
Source QC and C of A (do you have one?)
- Thread starter readalot
- Start date
I home brew thus all my raws come from China even I use different sources.
readalot
Member
This reminds me of a similar debate I've had a few times from guys dropping dead from "TRT". Do you think there is a sign sitting of every poor dude who dies of cardiac event that was running his modest 250 or 500 mg/week regimen. The long term controlled studies will never be done and if this is happening daily I am sure it is being missed all the time.
Similar argument with ugl. If there is a major health implication from let's say one supplier leaving 1% residual class 1 / class 2 solvents in their product there is no system in place to detect health effects 5 or 10 years down the road. Could be hiding in plain sight just no one looking. Think about the reporting bias associated with ugl gear use and even legal androgen use. How many attending ER docs know what their patients have used over last 1, 5 or 10 years? Same question with primary care doctors.
Perhaps we should have our own VAERs like database for ugl. What hurt/killed the patient? The AAS active ingredient or the contaminants?
Last edited:
readalot
Member
Great question.
For example, here's a primer on class 1, 2 and 3 solvents (or as @lonewolf54321 and @Spaceman Spiff call them...heavy metals haha) :
Screened in pharma gear.
Class 2 and 3 have specific limits and reporting schemes. Class 1 to be avoided.
Yes, plenty of pharma products have been found with known carcinogens. That does not discredit the concepts in this thread.
Last edited:
That's pretty spot on. Everyone who sticks needles into his body on a regular basis and thinks he is not an addict is in denial.
I understand that some people want to know why their raws are only 94% pure and what are the other 6% ... but i also understand why some people prefer not to know it. In the end they would most probably use it anyway, and it's easier to use it when the exact contamination is not known.
janoshik
Subscriber
I'd recommend GCMS screening (170 USD) to resolve AAS API from side products and related molecules.
For this:
I apologize, but I'd need a tldr, we're running on the verge of our capability this month.
Already offered - 120 USD for As, Pb, Cd, Hg. Can be expanded as per request. ICP-MS.
We can do moisture analysis for 30 USD, which, while rather primitive, can easily identify abundance of residual solvents in a sample. Other than that, we can't run more elaborate test as of now without significant investments, as we're not focused on analysis of highly volatile samples.
janoshik
Subscriber
We've started an experimental TAMC/TYMC screens this very month.
Spaceman Spiff
Well-known Member
That's great and everything, but can you make sure there isn't synthol contamination in my AAS vial?
janoshik
Subscriber
With +- 40% confidence!
gynoflareup
New Member
I remember emailing a certain raws source that is no longer with us about how when using a neodymium magnet why there was metal shards stuck to it after it was done spinning the solvent out.
readalot
Member
readalot
Member
moving here as per Millard'recommendation to maintain continuity. I also don't want to further clog Stanford's thread.
See link below for C of A from routine QC check of Pharma vial:
thinksteroids.com
Yes, metals are routinely checked on Pharma finished product vials are part of USP standard.
See link below for C of A from routine QC check of Pharma vial:
Source QC and C of A (do you have one?)
I like ur ideas they do go hand and hand with harm reduction. ur a smart dude, I'm starting to think u have some type of stake in a heavy metal testing operation lol. This is 2023 we are surrounded by heavy metals, in our food air water u name it. it's in our water and kids baby food? Untill...
thinksteroids.com
Yes, metals are routinely checked on Pharma finished product vials are part of USP standard.
I've now clarified the scope for impurities testing at least 10 if not 20 times so why do you continue to refer to these potential contaminants as simply "heavy metals"? Genuinely curious.
nightprowler7
Well-known Member
But did you email a pharmaceutical company and recieve a contaminates report?moving here as per Millard'recommendation to maintain continuity. I also don't want to further clog Stanford's thread.
See link below for C of A from routine QC check of Pharma vial:
Source QC and C of A (do you have one?)
I like ur ideas they do go hand and hand with harm reduction. ur a smart dude, I'm starting to think u have some type of stake in a heavy metal testing operation lol. This is 2023 we are surrounded by heavy metals, in our food air water u name it. it's in our water and kids baby food? Untill...
Yes, metals are routinely checked on Pharma finished product vials are part of USP standard.
I've now clarified the scope for impurities testing at least 10 if not 20 times so why do you continue to refer to these potential contaminants as simply "heavy metals"? Genuinely curious.
readalot
Member
Yes was not easy but did get 3 page C of A posted in the link I shared. Pharma companies don't seem to want to share these with end users today. You can see all the testing done on those 3 pages.
Did you read the 3 pages? Check out the scope of testing.
readalot
Member
Thank you for your time.
Your HR LCMS is dedicated to gh/peptide testing, correct?
1. So you have indicated your GCMS is set up to screen for AAS side products/androstane raw materials/other assorted organics. Understood. Cost: 170 USD
2. ICP-MS expandable as needed. Cost: 120 USD
3. Residual solvent analysis not available via preferred GC methods since you would need significant investment on the injection system for lower boilers. Got it. Can you provide a little more detail on the moisture analysis? Karl Fischer? Loss on drying? Cost TBD. Need to understand what this 30 USD is doing.
Ok so as we see above a decent starter package will run ~500 USD to test AAS raw. Let's do some calculations.
Assume 1 kg of raw. At 2g per vial that is 500 vials. Let assume a conscientious source who samples from raw bag with 3 samples for testing (triplicate). That is 1500 USD on incremental impurity testing per batch. 1500 USD / 500 vials is an additional 3 USD per vial.
Let's take a relatively smaller source (5x smaller batch size):
200 g of raw powder / 2 g per vial is 100 vials.
1500 USD / 100 vials = additional 15 USD per vial.
@Pinnacle Elements
Not far off:
Source QC and C of A (do you have one?)
Also, as long as the product is filtered through a sterile 0.22ug filter- mold and bacteria will not pass through. It doesn’t matter if raws have mold in them. For reference - a water particle theoretically is the size of your thumb nail. An oil particle with testosterone dissolved may be the...
thinksteroids.com
Rough order of magnitude
@Axle Labs
@Stanfordpharma1
@GoodLyfe
@Qingdao Sigma Chemicals
Any feedback on my assumptions? Improvements on the rough estimates given above? Yes triplicate is conservative approach. More confidence in the screening may allow that 5 (relatively larger source) to 15 (relatively smaller source) USD per vial to drop.
Last edited:
CrooklynZoo
New Member
This. Whether accurate or not, fair or not, smart or not, a message is only going as far as the messenger is able to take it. OP rubs a lot of folks the wrong way, and it's likely diluting potential impact. I'd suggest another, less obstinate, approach, or (and this is prob the better option) recruiting someone else to be the "face of the movement."
Change, and change management, is hard.
5 Steps in the Change Management Process | HBS Online
The change management process includes: Preparing the organization for change, planning, implementation, embedding the change, and review & analysis.
readalot
Member
Great points. Thanks for linking the article. You don't want your horribly anti-charming R&D dude running the marketing dept. Volunteers from the "cool" club to run marketing?This. Whether accurate or not, fair or not, smart or not, a message is only going as far as the messenger is able to take it. OP rubs a lot of folks the wrong way, and it's likely diluting potential impact. I'd suggest another, less obstinate, approach, or (and this is prob the better option) recruiting someone else to be the "face of the movement."
Change, and change management, is hard.
5 Steps in the Change Management Process | HBS Online
The change management process includes: Preparing the organization for change, planning, implementation, embedding the change, and review & analysis.online.hbs.edu
Is Bill Clinton busy?
janoshik
Subscriber
Well, we can do LCMS testing on AAS too, but it provides zero benefit compared to GCMS. GCMS is simply way more suitable for the task.
Our GCMS is set up for semivolatile, high boiling point chemicals, such as AAS and their common impurities.
ICP MS each additional element is like 30 USD or so.
Loss on drying.
lonewolf54321
Member
An additional $15 per vial is nothing when you don't buy any fucking vials. I buy 10 or more at a time. You expect me to pay $150 or more per order just so you can feel good about yourself? Go fuck yourself on that ideaThank you for your time.
Your HR LCMS is dedicated to gh/peptide testing, correct?
1. So you have indicated your GCMS is set up to screen for AAS side products/androstane raw materials/other assorted organics. Understood. Cost: 170 USD
2. ICP-MS expandable as needed. Cost: 120 USD
3. Residual solvent analysis not available via preferred GC methods since you would need significant investment on the injection system for lower boilers. Got it. Can you provide a little more detail on the moisture analysis? Karl Fischer? Loss on drying? Cost TBD. Need to understand what this 30 USD is doing.
Ok so as we see above a decent starter package will run ~500 USD to test AAS raw. Let's do some calculations.
Assume 1 kg of raw. At 2g per vial that is 500 vials. Let assume a conscientious source who samples from raw bag with 3 samples for testing (triplicate). That is 1500 USD on incremental impurity testing per batch. 1500 USD / 500 vials is an additional 3 USD per vial.
Let's take a relatively smaller source (5x smaller batch size):
200 g of raw powder / 2 g per vial is 100 vials.
1500 USD / 100 vials = additional 15 USD per vial.
@Pinnacle Elements
Not far off:
Source QC and C of A (do you have one?)
Also, as long as the product is filtered through a sterile 0.22ug filter- mold and bacteria will not pass through. It doesn’t matter if raws have mold in them. For reference - a water particle theoretically is the size of your thumb nail. An oil particle with testosterone dissolved may be the...
Rough order of magnitude
@Axle Labs
@Stanfordpharma1
@GoodLyfe
@Qingdao Sigma Chemicals
Any feedback on my assumptions? Improvements on the rough estimates given above? Yes triplicate is conservative approach. More confidence in the screening may allow that 5 (relatively larger source) to 15 (relatively smaller source) USD per vial to drop.
readalot
Member
Do you have orthogonal method for water to get at incremental loss of solvent on drying? Or would we have to lump water and RS into one bucket? How to do you propose getting a non water residual solvent estimate?
readalot
Member
Thanks for reading. I don't expect you to do anything except what you've been doing. You're welcome on the estimates.
