Dr Jims Hplc/ms Data

[Dr JIM]

I could be wrong, but I believe Jim skipped one. 46-1 is probably Astro as well.

I sent in Astro test e and tren e, Superior test e and tren e, and Sciroxx test e and tren e.

Sciroxx tren e contained 75mg/ml instead of the 100mg/ml on the label. The rest were essentially bunk.

That could be F. I'll be the first to admit I never knew how time consuming and tedious this process would become. That's one reason this analysis and the report was repeated almost entirely.

Let me compare that HPLC result 46-1 with the one which I KNOW was the PL "Tren" submission. Oh don't worry it shouldn't take long I only have well over FIFTY,

JIM

 

[flenser]

That could be F. I'll be the first to admit I never knew how time consuming and tedious this process would become. That's one reason this analysis and the report was repeated almost entirely.

Let me compare that HPLC result 46-1 with the one which I KNOW was the PL "Tren" submission. Oh don't worry it shouldn't take long I only have well over FIFTY,

JIM

It's probably not worth pursuing, since you know the private lab's tren was also bunk. The test and tren I sent you from Astro also failed LM, and he has since replaced them, hopefully for everyone who received it.

 

[Dr JIM]

Perhaps but now you have piqued my interest!

 

[Dr JIM]

So Astro knew it was you and still sent bunk? Makes ya wonder.

I've no doubt some sources honestly don't know what their raw supplier is forwarding them but if that's the case do you really want to buy product from someone that inexperienced or stupid?

It's for this reason I've suggested new UGL should submit a MS or HPLC obtained from their raw supplier as a good faith source baseline.

But it matters not what we do with or without an SCOC because NOTHING will convince potential scammers the game is over faster than posting clearly objective ANALYTICAL DATA such as an HPLC.

(IMO it's ludicrous for ANY lab to submit they "did not know" THREE OF THREE products were BUNK, bc they either "known or SHOULD HAVE known" or had no damn business selling AAS from the outset!)

Of course I have every intent of continuing to expose the good and the bad, but Meso members can do their part also by having serum Testosterone levels tested after using a sources TT product.

And I acknowledge some have done exactly that, but it's important bc the posting of both biological and analytical data will make any UGL squirm knowing they must now face the Meso music or LEAVE!

 

[bickel29]

I've no doubt some sources honestly don't know what their raw supplier is forwarding them but if that's the case do you really want to buy product from someone that inexperienced or stupid?

It's for this reason I've suggested new UGL should submit a MS or HPLC obtained from their raw supplier as a good faith source baseline.

But it matters not what we do with or without an SCOC because NOTHING will convince potential scammers the game is over faster than posting clearly objective ANALYTICAL DATA such as an HPLC.

(IMO it's ludicrous for ANY lab to submit they "did not know" THREE OF THREE products were BUNK, bc they either "known or SHOULD HAVE known" or had no damn business selling AAS from the outset!)

Of course I have every intent of continuing to expose the good and the bad, but Meso members can do their part also by having serum Testosterone levels tested after using a sources TT product.

And I acknowledge some have done exactly that, but it's important bc the posting of both biological and analytical data will make any UGL squirm knowing they must now face the Meso music or LEAVE!

Amen brother Jim. This is exciting work you are providing. The community really is VERY fortunate to have you doing this. Thank you!

 

[Moose]

I've no doubt some sources honestly don't know what their raw supplier is forwarding them but if that's the case do you really want to buy product from someone that inexperienced or stupid?

It's for this reason I've suggested new UGL should submit a MS or HPLC obtained from their raw supplier as a good faith source baseline.

But it matters not what we do with or without an SCOC because NOTHING will convince potential scammers the game is over faster than posting clearly objective ANALYTICAL DATA such as an HPLC.

(IMO it's ludicrous for ANY lab to submit they "did not know" THREE OF THREE products were BUNK, bc they either "known or SHOULD HAVE known" or had no damn business selling AAS from the outset!)

Of course I have every intent of continuing to expose the good and the bad, but Meso members can do their part also by having serum Testosterone levels tested after using a sources TT product.

And I acknowledge some have done exactly that, but it's important bc the posting of both biological and analytical data will make any UGL squirm knowing they must now face the Meso music or LEAVE!

You've made MESO light years more advanced than any other forum.

 

[Dr JIM]

Amen brother Jim. This is exciting work you are providing. The community really is VERY fortunate to have you doing this. Thank you!

And it's mates like B-29 and KKM (and many many others) whom are willing to overtly support this endeavor for the BENEFIT OF ALL MESO MEMBERS, which enables me to endure the seemingly never ending criticism often levied bc my approach to exposing the many untruths of illicit PED sales does not satisfy all comers.

Well no surprise there IMO, and I also realize the criticism, from top to bottom side to side, will become MUCH MUCH louder as more and more scamming labs are exposed!

 

[Dr JIM]

Amen brother Jim. This is exciting work you are providing. The community really is VERY fortunate to have you doing this. Thank you!

Actually even I'm much more excited bc our testing diversity is oh soooo much broader bc of ONE FACT, the greatly enhanced availability of ANALYTICAL STANDARDS. Not to be condescending but folks please try to understand how important this was.

The fact is, the reproducibility of HPLC data can be no better than the standard a sample is being compared to. Consequently if the standard is sub par so will be the results. We are talking about some remarkable differences and in some cases as much as a 90% in a samples concentration estimate!

(Which is THE REASON no Deca, Masteron, Bolo etc HPLC data was ever posted, we didn't have the research standards)

So yea I'm really looking forward to these "new" results (elution and retention times, cali curves, AUG data etc, I know I know but it's just interesting stuff from my perspective) and the almost unlimited ability to test the entire gamut of AAS available today

 

[rpbb]

Fantastic thread, thanks for getting the testing done and posing results.

 

[Jimmyhoffa59]

None of this is surprising to me. Appreciate the tests Jim. Can you imagine EVERYONES gains here if everything was dosed 100% and pure? No wonder labs pop up every fucking day, easy damn money.

 

[Kinikuman]

@Dr JIM
Question. With the difficult to find compounds like Adrol would it be possible/easier to reverse engineer a standard using a known good product as your prototype?

 

[Colt44]

Why reverse engineer if you have a known good product? That would be the standard, would it not?

 

[Dr JIM]

@Dr JIM
Question. With the difficult to find compounds like Adrol would it be possible/easier to reverse engineer a standard using a known good product as your prototype?

Good question KKM, in fact that's what I thought also, NOT, and it cost me dearly, lol!

It's actually much more complicated.

We have attempted this process on Oxandrolone for example using PHARMACEUTICAL Anavar.

It required EIGHT extractions, FOUR distillations yielding less than ONE MG of Oxanadrolone precipitate at 93% purity!

And a purity of 93% just won't cut it!

Moreover we ruined one column and clogged two.

See the problem is ALL THE other stuff, buffers, carriers, surfactants and/or chelating agents etc that is added to a PILL of VAR which causes all the difficulty.

For instance although the pills we used weighted 183mg only 10mg was VAR!

The remaining 173 mg MUST BE REMOVED for use as a AAS STANDARD.

Fact is a considerable portion of whatever those pills contain EXCLUDING VAR is considered proprietary and may be excluded from public disclosure rules according to USP guidelines.

That very fact creates HUGE problems bc only minute "inactive or inert ingredients" are needed to alter the solubility characteristics of known ingredients.

 

[Kinikuman]

Good question KKM, in fact that's what I thought also, NOT, and it cost me dearly, lol!

It's actually much more complicated.

We have attempted this process on Oxandrolone for example using PHARMACEUTICAL Anavar.

It required EIGHT extractions, FOUR distillations yielding less than ONE MG of Oxanadrolone precipitate at 93% purity!

And a purity of 93% just won't cut it!

Moreover we ruined one column and clogged two.

See the problem is ALL THE other stuff, buffers, carriers, surfactants and/or chelating agents etc that is added to a PILL of VAR which causes all the difficulty.

For instance although the pills we used weighted 183mg only 10mg was VAR!

The remaining 173 mg MUST BE REMOVED for use as a AAS STANDARD.

Fact is a considerable portion of whatever those pills contain EXCLUDING VAR is considered proprietary and may be excluded from public disclosure rules according to USP guidelines.

That very fact creates HUGE problems bc only minute "inactive or inert ingredients" are needed to alter the solubility characteristics of known ingredients.

Ah, I see that our minds functions on a similar wavelength... to naught this time. I was hoping that Anadrol, with it's miniscule size and high potency would be an easy candidate.

Oh well, it was a stab at the problem you mentioned before about not having standards for older compounds (like Oxymetholone) that are not currently being produced commercially. Any new thoughts on how to tackle this?

 

[Dr JIM]

Ah, I see that our minds functions on a similar wavelength... to naught this time. I was hoping that Anadrol, with it's miniscule size and high potency would be an easy candidate.

Oh well, it was a stab at the problem you mentioned before about not having standards for older compounds (like Oxymetholone) that are not currently being produced commercially. Any new thoughts on how to tackle this?

Will have to repost since cyberspace grabbed another!

 

[CensoredBoardsSuck]

Ah, I see that our minds functions on a similar wavelength.

I believe that is what BBC refers to as being on the same vector, or your vectors are in tune with your pineal antennas, or something like that. Just be careful BBC doesn't use the Vulcan mind meld on you.

 

[Dr JIM]

Really I don't see the inability to test only FOUR of some THIRTY or so AAS as particularly problematic since there are many other AAS that can be analyzed to determine a UGLs credibility.

The problem currently is the only research facility producing those four standards in compatible solvents, is overseas.

And rest assured the DEA requires a full "backround check" for any individual or private entity wanting to import controlled substances regardless of intent.

Now that is exactly the type of DEA scrutiny no lab wants, and I wholeheartedly support that sentiment.

So although I'd love to be able to analyze ALL UGL AAS (especially Var) the priority is to remain operational and accept the fact we will not be able to test roughly 10% of UGL AAS at this juncture.

It's a small price to pay to watch these scammers "squeal like a pig", bc of testing that can be reliably performed!

 

[Dr JIM]

Last time BBC referred to vectors it was a reference to a "dream come true"!

See in this particular instance BBC was recanting an experience of how alien captures used teleportation vector microsonic/macrocosmic technology to ensure "every molecule of my very being"was moved from one intra-stellar planetary system to the next without "loosing a single atom" in the process!

Now of course BBC was fully amped on Adderal, coffee and Proventil so it's difficult to tell if his comments were merely whimsical thoughts OR he continues to partake of intra-stellar "vector travel", in part explaining his absence from Meso of late!

Anyone know how to communicate with those "traveling by vector".

Just curious of he's still GTG and all !

 

[Kinikuman]

@Dr JIM , I think you mentioned in another thread that there had been some technical issues with the testing. Any news to report as to progress or maybe you could even share some of the "alleged" compounds in the queue? We're all getting a little anxious out here... Like waiting for Santa...

 

[Dr JIM]

See my last post in the "Mass Spec"
thread, KKM.

As an update, I just received notice today 11 of the 15 new standards have been calibrated.

However bc a "considerable number" of the samples DO NOT contain the AAS or concentration listed on the label (like that's some surprise) the chemist believes several samples must undergo MS analysis.

This is being done PRIMARILY to "double check" the accuracy and reproducibility of HPLC sample data already collated.

Its another means of ensuring retention/elution continuity between that of the new standards AND the new column.
This becomes very important as both will be used for comparative sample analysis.

Damn I hope that makes sense mate.

Stated another way, the MS are needed to ensure, once completed, the labs analysis are NOT BUNK, but rather accurate reflections of a samples AAS concentration and content.

Really at this juncture I don't believe it's wise for me to complain since I'm not being charged for the required "extra" MS testing. (around $2300 bucks worth)

Regs
Jim