MESO-Rx Sponsor Axle Labs - US Domestic

[dirthand]

Im not sure I under

@dirthand can you do this for the sample you sent?

Not sure i understand what it means to review the test GCMS.b. but I sent the email and copied you It @Axle Labs

 

[freedom69]

New Testing Results:

NPP 200mg/ml (New batch) -> 192.25 mg/ml (-4%)
Deca 400mg/ml -> 384.39 mg/ml (-4%)

Both items we will add 10% raws.View attachment 275388View attachment 275387

192.25 mg/ML NPP

I want to start by saying that I like axle and hiw he has handled some if the problems he has faced on meso. I wasn't sure on how to handle this but it would be a disservice to the community if I didn't post these. I run testc primo and npp. The first sample I sent was from a vial I draw from daily so I thought I must have contaminated it somehow.. so I paid for and sent another sample this time from a brand new separate vial. (Carefully) this is from npp200 batch 50. The new batch after the underdosed batch. I hate this!! But here you go axle how are we going to handle this.View attachment 279073View attachment 279074

196.6 mg/ML - Test 1
193.6 mg/ML - Test 2



Not saying it would be impossible to dial in a dose like this with two different compounds (highly unlikely IMO), but for all samples tested from three different vials to return with a 4.4mg/ML variance seems extremely odd to me that they would return like that with two different compounds had these come from different brewed batches. I’m also not an expert on how these test are conducted just looking at the total on overall dose mg/ML.

 

[Killze022]

192.25 mg/ML NPP




196.6 mg/ML - Test 1
193.6 mg/ML - Test 2



Not saying it would be impossible to dial in a dose like this with two different compounds (highly unlikely IMO), but for all samples tested from three different vials to return with a 4.4mg/ML variance seems extremely odd to me that they would return like that with two different compounds had these come from different brewed batches. I’m also not an expert on how these test are conducted just looking at the total on overall dose mg/ML.

That's why I thought something funky might be going on with the testing.. They are so insanely close total mg wise. Just a guess though.

 

[janoshik]

This is sample from 1st of March, retested twice as all AAS oils:



This is the raw data from the sample tested yesterday:

 

[janoshik]

Given the straight out insane accuracy and precision of my testing (@readalot can run the numbers on these two duplicates, eg. on BB), the one notable thing about the sooner and later tests is the slight difference in proportion of NPP and what was identified as Testosterone Cypionate - which could go unnoticed if these particular tests weren't so precise and tested within 2 weeks apart (thank you @dirthand ! )

This gave me an inquisitive thought - if Axle's claims are all true, what if there is something in the oil that makes the NPP degrade into new, unknown compound that looks like testosterone cypionate [on HPLC, due to retention characteristics and spectrum]?

That'd be exciting and require an attempt of structural elucidation with MS!

We'll see.

 

[janoshik]

Oh, nevermind, we had GCMS data from the previous sample.

It's plain old test. cyp.

Sorry, I got too excited and my inquisitive thought was interesting, but wrong.

 

[janoshik]

The GCMS spectrum is not as nice as it could be, due to relatively low abundance of the testosterone cypionate contamination, but when you compare it to undeniable test cyp 250, it's the same thing.

 

[nightprowler7]

Janoshik, bb...I'm confused

Can you dumb it down for a ol hillbilly?

 

[Fattyone]

This testing from you is from January. Does that mean you’re selling a new untested batch of npp200?

I can’t find what the old npp200 tested at before. Did it indeed get thrown out or test cyp added to it?

New Testing Results:

NPP 200mg/ml (New batch) -> 192.25 mg/ml (-4%)
Deca 400mg/ml -> 384.39 mg/ml (-4%)

Both items we will add 10% raws.View attachment 275388View attachment 275387

 

[Dmiran84]

Axles Test E 300 wk bloods

 

[janoshik]

Janoshik, bb...I'm confused

Can you dumb it down for a ol hillbilly?

Oh, I thought, that if it's not test c it might be an interesting degradation byproduct and wanted to run GCMS to see, but then, scouring through old data I realized I took GCMS of the samples tested on 1st of March and it really is just plain old boring test c.

 

[Axle Labs]

This testing from you is from January. Does that mean you’re selling a new untested batch of npp200?

I can’t find what the old npp200 tested at before. Did it indeed get thrown out or test cyp added to it?

No, that's the point I was making. It's the same brew. Same raws, same brew. So I'm at a dead end. We've pulled it off shelves and giving refund/store credit to anyone who ordered NPP batch C50.

We will just have to re-brew and I guess this time send multiple vials of NPP in for testing (? although not sure how this will help vs. just sending in 1 vial, but I can't think of any other confirmation)

And if anyone has batch C50, please send it in for testing also (we'll cover the cost). Just out of curiosity, I want to see another person's vial tested.

 

[Axle Labs]

Thanks for the analysis and confirmation @janoshik

 

[Axle Labs]

Axles Test E 300 wk bloods

Nice results, shoot us an email for bloodwork credit.

 

[Sector]

This is sample from 1st of March, retested twice as all AAS oils:
View attachment 279093
View attachment 279094

This is the raw data from the sample tested yesterday:
View attachment 279095
View attachment 279096

Pretty cool program

 

[readalot]

although not sure how this will help vs. just sending in 1 vial, but I can't think of any other confirmation

How about testing the raws before making batches? Have you ever considered that approach?

Do you have any raw left over that was used to make that batch?

Doing this extra step would protext you from some hypotheticals like an immaculate contamination event.

Batch C48 and C50 were both made with the exact same raw AAS source material?

 

[readalot]

Of course Sources would do themselves a big favor if they screened for impurities as well as purity on the APIs (aka raws) upfront so no surprises on the finished batches. First things first.

There should never be any surprises with a batch. Completely addressable.

 

[vaIdosta]

Oh, I thought, that if it's not test c it might be an interesting degradation byproduct and wanted to run GCMS to see, but then, scouring through old data I realized I took GCMS of the samples tested on 1st of March and it really is just plain old boring test c.

but the sample sent in by axle didnt contain any test c?

 

[FastBunny]

Unless he got it from a domestic source and they mixed it up before packing up

 

[janoshik]

but the sample sent in by axle didnt contain any test c?

I'd need report number and client permission to check