Dr Jims Hplc/ms Data

[Dr JIM]

OVER THE COURSE OF THE NEXT SEVERAL MONTHS I SHALL BE POSTING EVIDENCE USUING LEGITIMATE LC/MS OF THE FOLLOWING:

1) THE MAJORITY OF WEB BASED UGL ARE SCAMMING YOU
2) THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF ON LINE "ANALYTICAL LABS" ARE SCREWING YOU

And the posting will start TODAY. Please limit discussions to THESE LAB TESTs bc anything more is conjecture which I want no part of and neither do YOU!

 

[Boilermech]

I will follow along. Sounds interesting brother.
Which labs are you going to be testing?

 

[jonsal]

nice. This should get interesting! Subd

 

[Dr JIM]

FIRST) item any HPLC MUST include a calibration curve of the reference or "stock solution". This is very important bc this curve ensures as the substance becomes more concentrated as in mg/ml the HPLC PEAKS increase in size and/or width. And measuring the peaks surface area DETERMINES an AAS concentration.

SECOND) The ultra violet wavelength MUST BE MENTIONED in an HPLC, period! Why bc as you will see certain compounds have different UVWL absorption characteristics and these features allow the HPLC to QUALIFY the sample in many instances.

THIRD) Because "stock solutions" are the benchmark for which samples will be judged against, their PURITY must be as close to 99% as possible. Consequently defining how the stock solutions were derived is a perfectly legit question

FOURTH) ALL HPLCs have TWO axes. The horizontal axes reveals the time IN MINUTES while the vertical axes MAY display absorbance as a PERCENTILE.
However the analytical lab standard if to show ABSORBANCE as mAU or Absorptive Units.
So to ensure we are NOT comparing apples to oranges ensure the UA is displayed as a NUMERICAL VALUE ranging from 1-1000 in most cases. If the HPLC chromatograph is "coned in", which is much like a camera zoom, the absorptive units SHOULD reflect this change often between 1-100. This is one simple mechanism scammers can "trick" the unwitting mate into believing their product is "pure" the other one being simply NARROWING THE SCOPE of time. More on that later.

 

[Dr JIM]

I'll start with a few examples and thereafter post some analyses recently completed.

1) Will be an procedural introduction which defines the methodology required to achieve the customer specifics or end results. (IMO all labs should mention what needs to be performed at least in a general sense)

2) The second is an excellent, and genuine, example of the absorption characteristics of TT and how a calibration curve is generated using this data. What one should observe as the concentration of the STANDARD INCREASES so does the height or width of the PEAK!!!

 

[Dr JIM]

Ok here is some food for thought. This sample was supposed to contain 200mg/ml of Tren-E but the HPLC data revealed and I quote "POSSIBLE TRACES of Tren-E were detected" and nothing more.

Unfortunately this trend will repeat it's self on regular basis as we proceed thru the samples.

Please please ask questions at your leisure bc reading an HPLC or MS is really not that difficult and if you are going to use an analytical testing service you better know how to interpret the data AT LEAST on a fundamental level. (Or you can send your tests my way and I'll do whatever I can to clarify the results)

FYI I would strongly suggest those interested in lab "proof" ask for a sample of a recent LC/MS before taking the plunge and purchasing this form of lab service. Also insist that it be a reproduction of their results, rather than someone else's. Bc otherwise the involved lab will use the "subcontractor" as a scapegoat when the bogus nature of their testing is revealed.

 

[Dr JIM]

This is unequivocal evidence some in this lab business are either intentionally deceiving Meso and other forum members, or have a very limited fund of knowledge regarding ANALYTICAL AAS testing.

Regardless I personally believe this activity is outright FRAUD bc the nature of the errors are not only repetitive but also so glaring that malfeasance must be the predominant motive IMO!

This was originally posted as an "oxanadrolone purity of 100%"

 

[Dr JIM]

1) The summary page must be read to follow along and understand the testing BUT to suffice if to say the sample represented IS AS1646-7

2) The FIRST Chromatograph reveals the elution of 6-7 compounds with their corresponding peaks. Notice the absorptive units are 'coned down" with a max of 100 mAU, which makes the peaks larger especially when compared to identical peaks at a normal reference range.

3) What tells us none of these agents represents AAS is NONE ELUTE at time 10-14 min!

4) The SECOND Chromatograph performed at a WL of 245 reveals the presence of on small peak at 15 minutes (again note the vertical AU scale) Because AAS do NOT elute so late that peak quite likely represents "AAS byproducts" esters in particular.

5) the THRID chromatograph at 340 again reveals a small peak but it's coned in with a MAXIMUM at 80 MAU. Now look at the AUG percentage, which reads 88% NOT. But this is how purity is often claimed to be accurate!

6) Finally the last PIC represents the relationship between a HYDROPHILIC and a HYDROPHOBIC stationary phase.

SO WHAT DOES ALL THIS MEAN?

It means a pill I received and tested failed to reveal ANY AAS excepting AAS byproducts and/or TRACES of Tren-E. Yet another sample from the SAME LOT submitted to an "on line" lab revealed a PURITY OF 100% !!

(I will try to locate the thread and post the first labs analyses)

MORE TO COME !

 

[ebkallday]

1) The summary page must be read to follow along and understand the testing BUT to suffice if to say the sample represented IS AS1646-7

2) The FIRST Chromatograph reveals the elution of 6-7 compounds with their corresponding peaks. Notice the absorptive units are 'coned down" with a max of 100 mAU, which makes the peaks larger especially when compared to identical peaks at a normal reference range.

3) What tells us none of these agents represents AAS is NONE ELUTE at time 10-14 min!

4) The SECOND Chromatograph performed at a WL of 245 reveals the presence of on small peak at 15 minutes (again note the vertical AU scale) Because AAS do NOT elute so late that peak quite likely represents "AAS byproducts" esters in particular.

5) the THRID chromatograph at 340 again reveals a small peak but it's coned in with a MAXIMUM at 80 MAU. Now look at the AUG percentage, which reads 88% NOT. But this is how purity is often claimed to be accurate!

6) Finally the last PIC represents the relationship between a HYDROPHILIC and a HYDROPHOBIC stationary phase.

SO WHAT DOES ALL THIS MEAN?

It means a pill I received and tested failed to reveal ANY AAS excepting AAS byproducts and/or TRACES of Tren-E. Yet another sample from the SAME LOT submitted to an "on line" lab revealed a PURITY OF 100% !!

(I will try to locate the thread and post the first labs analyses)

MORE TO COME !

Which UGL was the sample from?

 

[brutus79]

Excellent thread and resource dr jim.

 

[lucabratzi]

All this stuff goes right over my head. So I'm glad I have you fine people here to interpret and explain to people like me.

Great thread

 

[mercury]

there is small detail missing, those chromatographs are not HPLC/MS but HPLC

there is nothing new that webs/ sources are scamming they even make fake GC, GC/MS, HPLC, etc. reports to make heir bunk gear look legit.

 

[MassTurk]

@Dr JIM will you mention the name of the labs with these tests?
Positive or negative !!!

 

[Colt44]

Which UGL was the sample from?

Only 1 Var that I know of that tested 100% here lately.

 

[mercury]

Only 1 Var that I know of that tested 100% here lately.

it is impossible, even best purified powder will have 99.9 %. it is called standard used for calibration.

Most commercial powders used by pharmaceutical companies are in the range over 98%.

 

[Colt44]

it is impossible, even best purified powder will have 99.9 %. it is called standard used for calibration.

Most commercial powders used by pharmaceutical companies are in the range over 98%.

You're not saying anything I don't already know. I was merely pointing out that 1 lab had Var "tested" @ 100%.

 

[heady muscle]

This will be interesting and hopefully informative. Too reiterate what many posters already have said, please name the ugls.
Thanks for doing this.

 

[mercury]

You're not saying anything I don't already know. I was merely pointing out that 1 lab had Var "tested" @ 100%.

then you cannot called them lab, it was done unprofessionally like somebody did not clue what he was doing.

 

[Colt44]

then you cannot called them lab, it was done unprofessionally like somebody did not clue what he was doing.

The test was obviously not conducted correctly or at all. That was the point. Hence the quotations around tested.

 

[Dr JIM]

Here let me post something a little more in line with most know to be factually based.

Yea thats right another company the majority (yep me to)SWORE was GTG.
Now Angus tested this crap using "MS" and showed "purities" of 20-30% yet I have tested at least 8 of their samples and ALL WERE TRASH!