Citropin / EU

[lynks8]

LOL ... seriously? You could not have chosen shittier excuses even if you were trolling. This thread is a masterclass in drug dealer bullshit.

First it was lies about sending the gh off for testing, then it was "the tests are wrong!" and now he thinks he can condescend to us and try to confuse us with what will no-doubt be laughable BS couched in obtuse scientific jargon. Newsflash chinaman: your 3" dick doesn't make you smart, and our muscles don't make us dumb. I guarantee there are guys here who have forgotten more about chemistry than you'll ever learn.

Just. Fuck. Off.

...or don't. Keep digging that hole. I'm sure you'll get out soon.

 

[M@NU]

Hey, guys.
Before finding out what is going on, we won't leave this thread.
We're checking on the testing methods and talking with the factory now.
Will keep everybody updated on this HGH testing issue.



If this is really a failure brand, we'll let everybody know and make an official statement.

Ci let me be honest with you and you know quite well that we have a good relationship so..
1.) i Assume the factory will not tell you "yeah Ci, we have sold you crappy HGH, the test report from 2019 is real but it is a whole different batch, our quality went downhill and this is what we have now".
They will probably tell you a story about the chemistry (that is why you mentioned it) and that purity and dimer is not representative for quality, that @janoshik testing method has huge flaws blablbala..

2.) the "big lab from germany" you have told me that said @janoshik testing method is not good is a shitty lab to say it right away. There are tons of unsatisfied customers in their thread in german board, customer service is terrible and as far as ive seen, some test reports are done and them and come way off (seems they do not take brewing very serious).
they use the same excuse to their customers as they have told you.. lab tests are wrong which i assume is BS..

Right now you have a handful customers (around that i guess) of your HGH and 1 unsatisfied customer of your test cyp quality. That is not much and therefore it's quite easy to do the right thing. And
there is only 1 right thing to do but there is also one way to totally ruin your brand, at least on meso and every affiliated forum.
Choose wisely.. and you know, i am not speaking as a mad customer but as a rational thinking human being..

 

[janoshik]

There's a big lab from Germany that is unhappy with me?
Interesting, I'd love to hear more about that.

Anyway, I've heard the reasoning of the Chinese lab in the email and Crius would like to post it here, which I do welcome, but I will, unfortunately have to dispute such explanations, as I often do, so that everybody can make their own idea.

 

[Crius]

There's a big lab from Germany that is unhappy with me?
Interesting, I'd love to hear more about that.

Anyway, I've heard the reasoning of the Chinese lab in the email and Crius would like to post it here, which I do welcome, but I will, unfortunately have to dispute such explanations, as I often do, so that everybody can make their own idea.

Lol. Thx buddy.

 

[janoshik]

Email convo shared with permission of Crius to clear out the possible difference in our opinions on what purity is below.

I believe that everybody can interpret that themselves, I apologize, but I've spent more time than I'd like to on this issue already.

ciraws:
Yeah.
For example, my DNP raws is wet(Coz it's a explosive compound)

The weight ratio of water is 15%.
But the purity is 99.9%. The essay is only 85%.

Janoshik wrote:

So, are you saying, that if 30 mg of the Test Cyp. raw powder contain 27 mg of Test. Cyp. it can be 99% purity?

With best regards,
Janoshik

ciraws

Dude, you are totally messing purity and essay...........Lots of people do. You can google "the difference between purity and essay"

27/30=essay
Peak area percentage=purity


Regards
Ciraws.com


Janoshik wrote:

Mate, with all due respect, if, for example 30 mg of test cyp raw powder contains 27 mg of actual testosterone cypionate it is of 90% purity and there's no way around it.

That is a fact that cannot really be disputed.

With best regards,
Janoshik

Janoshik wrote:

Yes, I am using an external standard method and it is much better method than area normalisation.

>In HPLC, purity can only be tested by area normalization method.
This is not true at all.

With best regards,
Janoshik

ciraws:

But you are using a standard sample sample.
So it has to be Internal standard method or external standard method, which are testing essay.

In HPLC, purity can only be tested by area normalization method.


Regards
Ciraws.com

 

[Crius]

1. In the pharmaceutical raw materials industry, we usually use the area normalization method to test the purity of a compound.

And in United States Pharmacopoeia or European Pharmacopoeia, there's certain standards for each compound, HGH and test cyp for example. Basically, those standards are asking you to follow some setting way to test the purity.


2. But, in Jano, they are using the internal standard method, which is not a standard testing method for purity.
In the pharmaceutical industry, people use it to find out the absolute content, which is called "essay"

 

[janoshik]

1) Area normalisation method is used only in samples, where it can be expected that impurities are of the same nature as the main compound.

Eg. with HGH the impurities are also long peptides, which all have similar response at the same wavelengths as HGH, so area normalisation is a good method.

Testosterone Cypionate is not in European Pharmacopoeia at all, if I recall correctly of the top of my head, and in US Pharmacopoeia there is no such "purity assessment" as per what you are describing as far as I can see: USP Monographs: Testosterone Cypionate

Only assay is mentioned there as far as I can see.

2) I use external standard method and yes. It is to find out absolute content and that is called an assay. However, the result of the assay can be a purity as far as I believe I'll leave it to others to decide.

 

[M@NU]

Ci what does that mean for peope that are not so much into the whole chemistry of raws etc.?
Why do pharma HGHs/very good generics constantly test at 96%+ with the new test method (98%-99% old method)?

 

[janoshik]

That was mostly about test cyp, not GH.

 

[MrLoop]

That was mostly about test cyp, not GH.

And whats with GH?

 

[Crius]

Ci what does that mean for peope that are not so much into the whole chemistry of raws etc.?
Why do pharma HGHs/very good generics constantly test at 96%+ with the new test method (98%-99% old method)?

And whats with GH?

After the test cyp issue pls

 

[janoshik]

And whats with GH?

*shrug*

General issue of vendors with my GH testing seems to be that I am more strict than pharma requirements, now that we have ascertained that I'm not making the tests up.

 

[M@NU]

*shrug*

General issue of vendors with my GH testing seems to be that I am more strict than pharma requirements, now that we have ascertained that I'm not making the tests up.

well, noone cares if method x is stricter or less strict than method y in my opinion.
We have results from other GH Brands with your testing method that came out good. So a comparision can be made and i have never seen a GH that tested at 90% with your method before.
The question is: Is your method reliable? I think yes and therefore it holds value until a vendor proofs that there is a flaw within the method that makes GH X look worse than it is but GH Y not, which i highly doubt.

After the test cyp issue pls

Ci i want to respectfully disagree here. The test cyp issue was brought up by yourself to argue about the HGH impurity.
The main focus of this whole thread was the HGH. The raws already had another thread. Therefore the main focus should stay on solving the HGH issue.

and yes, sure a compound like DNP can pull water which then maybe affects the testing. GH Vials should be vacuum sealed so no water should be able to be drawn. And if it still is possible, i am sure @janoshik would have the technology (like an oven) to dry the compound before testing.

 

[BigBaldBeardGuy]

I’m not a chemistician but if my raws contain 15% water then when I mix everything together, filter it and bottle it and it sits for a year, how come there is no separation? Wouldn’t every vial have water sitting at the bottom?

 

[janoshik]

So a comparision can be made

Exactly. That's what is important IMO and the new method, despite being more strict provides much better idea when comparing the samples.

Is your method reliable? I think yes and therefore it holds value until a vendor proofs that there is a flaw within the method that makes GH X look worse than it is but GH Y not, which i highly doubt.

I think so too.

and yes, sure a compound like DNP can pull water which then maybe affects the testing. GH Vials should be vacuum sealed so no water should be able to be drawn. And if it still is possible, i am sure @janoshik would have the technology (like an oven) to dry the compound before testing.

Steroids are not hygroscopic, so water is not an issue with them.

Water also doesn't affect purity reading (which is ratio of HGH/total HGH related peptides including HGH, as water is not a peptide), nor amount with HGH reading (as water doesn't increase of decrease the amount of GH in the vial) .

 

[Night_Owl]

I found this:

Difference between Assay and Purity

Difference between Assay and Purity

www.pharmaceuticalsky.com

Assay and purity are two types of analyzing methods used to determine components of a sample both in chemistry and biochemistry.
Both methods can quantify the amount of a particular component in a sample.

I think Jano is right.

 

[janoshik]

I’m not a chemistician but if my raws contain 15% water then when I mix everything together, filter it and bottle it and it sits for a year, how come there is no separation? Wouldn’t every vial have water sitting at the bottom?

Water is a very bad example in that case.

However, if I tested purity with the method Crius suggest, imagine it's test c mixed 50:50 with oxandrolone - with Crius method it would come back as 99.99% pure Testosterone Cypionate, with mine as 50% pure Testosterone Cypionate. Simply because at 240 nm you can't see oxandrolone.

So which purity assessment is right?

 

[Alphalfa]

@Crius , is that you?

 

[M@NU]

Water is a very bad example in that case.

However, if I tested purity with the method Crius suggest, imagine it's test c mixed 50:50 with oxandrolone - with Crius method it would come back as 99.99% pure Testosterone Cypionate, with mine as 50% pure Testosterone Cypionate. Simply because at 240 nm you can't see oxandrolone.

So which purity assessment is right?

Then the other method makes no sense?
in what cases would it show less purity?
i mean if i mix test c with anything else (lets say heavy metals) i will not see the heavy metals at 240nm and it will state its pure test c?

 

[Pantera]

I'd like to say something important here @Crius

It really doesn't matter if Jano is accurate or not, as long as he is consistent. Let me explain why: If your test cyp tested at 92% with Jano and another source's test cyp tested at 98% with Jano, then as long as Jano is consistent with his testing method, then the one that tested at 98% is better quality.

Similar with the GH. If yours tested at 90% with Jano and another source's tested at 99%, then as long as Jano is consistent, the one that tested at 99% is better.

We all (generally speaking) believe that Jano is consistent (and accurate) in his testing. He is the standard that almost all of us go by on this forum and on others. Therefore all products we buy has to be measured against Jano's methods. For example, if someone comes here and says they have the best testosterone, or the best GH, then they have to prove that it is the best according to Jano.

As Manu has already mentioned, it is very easy to do the right thing here...there are plenty of people watching. Will you do the right thing?