Dr Jims Hplc/ms Data

[Dr JIM]

Ok take a gander at this chromatograph.

Did you notice those errors which would GREATLY hamper any analysts ability to accurately determine a samples concentration or it's "purity is 90%" ?

1) Remember whenever the UVa is listed as a PERCENTILE RATHER THAN as mAU

2) Notice the retention time of 5 MINUTES, this feature alone greatly reduces the likelihood the large peak at 4.37 is an AAS. (The sample was supposed to be a generic GH)

3) Note how asymmetric the 4.37 peak is! The left side is almost vertical while the rightward aspect forms several slopes with "spikes".

4) Observe the "shouldering" between 5-6 min!

5) Compare this large peak to the majority I have posted (symmetric wo spikes, tailing or shouldering

6) I mean even the smaller peak at 8.64 has much more reliable features.

*7) Compounded these features should create considerable angst about the reproducibility of any purity or concentration estimate.

BUT HECK THERE IS EVEN MORE WRONG HERE!!!

8) No UV wavelength is mentioned

9) No concentration curve is displayed or even mentioned

10) The run duration is LIMITED TO TEN MINUTES! (Go back and look at the HPLC's I posted bc several of the sample AAS peaks occur AFTER 10 MINUTES) FYI the standard run time is about 30 min, and if more detail is desired the peak or peaks of interest are "coned in"!

TEN SHOULD DO FOR NOW, PATHETIC! AND TO THINK SOMEONE PAID FOR THIS ANALYSIS!

 

[devildog93]

The main reason someone would choose to not post the results is if the source provided a sample knowing it would be tested. A pharma grade result would be meaningless in that situation, and posting the results would be a disservice to fellow members.

The next most likely reason would be if the results of the test were in question. There are no regulatory organizations protecting us. No product or service is risk free.

Flenser in what way would it be a disservice? I don't think i understand what you are saying. I understand why it would be pointless if a source sent something in he knew was going to be tested, but why would we do that anyway? I thought it had been decided long ago the only way to test was to do so blind and randomly. I guess perhaps you mean a source could ask to have something tested that he actually knew was good to make him look good while posing as a member? That is the only thing i can think of. Please clarify.

 

[Dr JIM]

Here is a legit GH chromatograph for comparison.

 

[Dr JIM]

Flenser in what way would it be a disservice? I don't think i understand what you are saying. I understand why it would be pointless if a source sent something in he knew was going to be tested, but why would we do that anyway? I thought it had been decided long ago the only way to test was to do so blind and randomly. I guess perhaps you mean a source could ask to have something tested that he actually knew was good to make him look good while posing as a member? That is the only thing i can think of. Please clarify.

And that's exactly why I will NOT post samples supplied or forwarded by the UGL itself.

F is on spot since which source would be so foolish as to send a sample that doesn't match the listed specs?

The net effect is, source derived results are NOT TRUSTWORTHY and posting any analytical data that is UNRELIABLE does do a dis-service to Meso and it's members!

No I/we need test samples that are representative of what they are selling to their ON-LINE customers rather than the purity of their raws, the latter being what I've received thrice previously, from "sources".

And one of those sources was GETM, and I did a disservice to Meso members by believing and posting that crap! And it won't happen again!

Regs
jim

 

[Dr JIM]

Incidentally there is no requirement that those individuals who forwarded the sample my way needs to be mentioned. They may remain anonymous since I will NOT mention members names personally.

However I HAVE NO DOUBTS the word of well respected and trusted Meso vets will only enhance the credibility of this thread. (Yet for some a "fear of Karls", making statements such as "do you know who I am", is all that is required for action to morph into inaction).

Remember if we all had such unsubstantiated anxiety about the "big AAS wheelers and dealers" NOTHING would be accomplished IMO.

The fact is most of those dudes are FOS just like their products and the only control they may possess is either linked to a particular CENSORED forum or a refusal to sell their BUNK to "certain mates".

Well so what, there's another lab around the corner selling AAS that are GTG and I intend to find them, period!

JIM

 

[micro2000]

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%.

It's not impossible for a result to be 100% or even greater than 100%. All analytical methods have accepted ranges of variability, so say the acceptable range of variation is +\- 2%, then a sample of 99% purity can have an acceptable test result if the result is within 97-101%. Greater than 100% test results are not uncommon. Its an inherent limitation of testing.

 

[Marcus]

It's not impossible for a result to be 100% or even greater than 100%. All analytical methods have accepted ranges of variability, so say the acceptable range of variation is +\- 2%, then a sample of 99% purity can have an acceptable test result if the result is within 97-101%. Greater than 100% test results are not uncommon. Its an inherent limitation of testing.

Huh? Are you serious about a sample having a purity greater than 100% in reality? How does that work? Just because there is a variation, does not mean a sample can have this kind of purity

 

[Marcus]

Great information here doc Jim... While I do not understand everything by any means, I am learning a lot.

 

[micro2000]

Huh? Are you serious about a sample having a purity greater than 100% in reality? How does that work? Just because there is a variation, does not mean a sample can have this kind of purity

No. A sample cannot be purer than 100% but its test result can be greater than 100% and still be an acceptable result. It seems some have made the claim that a test result cannot be 100%, which is not true.

 

[CensoredBoardsSuck]

Ok lets try something that had something of value in it AND that something will be revealed by the HPLC. This sample was submitted as VAR but what did it contain?

 

[Dr JIM]

No a sample can NOT have a purity of greater than 100%.

What is being referred to is a tests sensitivity.

Yes and some TESTS may "overshoot" the actual chemical concentration enabling the registration of a higher or lower than possible result.

But the problem is the TESTING procedure itself AND not a matter of whether a purity that exceeds 100% is factually possible, bc it is NOT! Is it possible for a student to achieve a grade higher than 100% why no, unless the scale is changed.

Thats probably a reasonable comparison.

 

[CensoredBoardsSuck]

Nice to see this thread. Testing is desperately needed and hopefully it will shake things up. It's high time these UGLs were held accountable for the garbage they peddle.

Props to you for doing it, Dr Jim.

 

[Dr JIM]

In the past few months I've tested FOUR to FIVE UGL Anavar samples and just how many of those samples actually contained measurable quantities of Oxandrolone?

Drum roll please. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . NONE, ZIP, ZILTCH, ZERO, NADA.

But really no one should be surprised bc VAR is one of the most expensive AAS to manufacture.

So bottom line chances are if a labs VAR is GTG (based on purity AND concentration) the probability is quite high whatever else they are selling will be also.

Just my opinion and we will discover if it's true or not!

 

[flenser]

Flenser in what way would it be a disservice? I don't think i understand what you are saying. I understand why it would be pointless if a source sent something in he knew was going to be tested, but why would we do that anyway? I thought it had been decided long ago the only way to test was to do so blind and randomly. I guess perhaps you mean a source could ask to have something tested that he actually knew was good to make him look good while posing as a member? That is the only thing i can think of. Please clarify.

Back when labmax was just catching on I did some tests for a few UGLs at their request. They sent me samples, I tested them and gave them the results. One UGL told me it would be "OK" if I posted the results of the tests on MESO. Had I done so, even with all the warnings that the UGL knew I would be testing the sample, my post would have increased their sales.

I consider the testing I did as a form of harm reduction. If something I tested was bad, the UGL would have advance warning to not sell it. If they did sell it, I would be able to speak up when the complaints started, and everyone would know they intentionally sold bad products. This IMO is a service to MESO members, NOT the UGL. Pointing members toward a UGL that sent me GOOD products is a service to the UGL, NOT MESO members.

For the record, I didn't accept compensation for the testing. And for any new UGL reading this please don't ask me to test your drugs.

 

[Dr JIM]

Back when labmax was just catching on I did some tests for a few UGLs at their request. They sent me samples, I tested them and gave them the results. One UGL told me it would be "OK" if I posted the results of the tests on MESO. Had I done so, even with all the warnings that the UGL knew I would be testing the sample, my post would have increased their sales.

I consider the testing I did as a form of harm reduction. If something I tested was bad, the UGL would have advance warning to not sell it. If they did sell it, I would be able to speak up when the complaints started, and everyone would know they intentionally sold bad products. This IMO is a service to MESO members, NOT the UGL. Pointing members toward a UGL that sent me GOOD products is a service to the UGL, NOT MESO members.

For the record, I didn't accept compensation for the testing. And for any new UGL reading this please don't ask me to test your drugs.

What no compensation! Well I'm receiving billions F

 

[johnnyBALLZ]

Ok lets try something that had something of value in it AND that something will be revealed by the HPLC. This sample was submitted as VAR but what did it contain?

This is "anavar" from Karius, Alpha..

 

[Voltrader]

My brain hurts but I am getting it...great work @Dr JIM . Yes CBS the clouds are rolling in.

 

[mercury]

I have a lot of reservation to a testing done by some student at the university lab while the other is watching the door.

About 10 years ago I knew two labs in New Jersey and Colorado, they would do a test for $150. Ant it was test done by reliable and serious lab. But they will not longer accept samples from people. I guess they were busted or warned by FDA or LE.

 

[Colt44]

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.

Ok the printouts in this post are from a sample I sent in. They are labeled C-44. These are the Norma amps I purchased from Granabolic. They are supposed to be 250mg/ml of Test E. Obviously, as per Jim's testing, that is not the case. It appears they contain traces of Tren E.

Edit: These were also tested by Angus and came back as 4% purity of Test E with a 56mg/ml concentration.

 

[Dr JIM]

This is "anavar" from Karius, Alpha..

This is "anavar" from Karius, Alpha..

Damn JB wasn't that the lab in which several fellas from other forums were OVERTLY SUPPORTIVE of their quality?

So much so that they openly challenged you to produce "proof" that their products were ANYTHING BUT GTG?

I could be wrong and have the threads confused, but let Meso members know for sure.
(I also need to know for another reason.)

Regs
JIM