Dr Jims Hplc/ms Data

[mands]

Perhaps but there comes a time when one must conclude those in charge "known or should have known" about the quality of their products.

I've received 3 more samples from the Karius line so folks can decide for themselves.

But I do wonder if any of the "vets" whom have overtly supported Karius in the past will be critical of this lab IF NONE of the compounds to be tested prove GTG, from either a qualitative or quantitative perspective.

Totally agree with all of this! And that's the whole point of you testing these things @Dr JIM

Shit, I have a private lab I use and swear it's the best gear ever. But, it has it's problems. And when those problems arise he most definitely fixes it if he can. A few here can attest to that.

mands

 

[mands]

Isn't it, though!



What was your question?

So I'm guessing the following. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

On the analysis above:
ID - Stands of the Identification of the product being tested.?
Steroid (?) - Stands for the steroid in question.?
[C] - Conclusion of the product tested.?

mands

This one^

mands

 

[Dr JIM]

Totally agree with all of this! And that's the whole point of you testing these things @Dr JIM

Shit, I have a private lab I use and swear it's the best gear ever. But, it has it's problems. And when those problems arise he most definitely fixes it if he can. A few here can attest to that.

mands

Oh come on a private lab others have complemented, now why would I believe that, lol

 

[Dr JIM]

This is a very educational thread. From what the good doctor is telling us, the majority of the AAS that are coming out of UGLs are simply Test labeled as the flavor of the day, be it Tren or whatever. From there things get worse, as there also seem to be those that either intentionally underdose their Test marked as XYZ compound, or simply don't bother to verify the purity and / or concentration of their raw material before passing it on to the customer. Knowing that running an MS is well beyond the means of most end users for every product they buy, I can see how it would be tempting when the only other alternative to measure product quality is blood work, which as Jim alludes to, measures for Test levels. If the customer is looking for high Test levels as proof of quality / authenticity then give them high Test levels. If not for the legal issues involved, this whole UGL scene would make a fascinating business study case on how supply chain management failures, poor or non-existent QC, and unethical marketing practices can all come together to yield extraordinary profits...

Although your assessment is quite likely correct,

No conclusions should be reached until this thread becomes much more inclusive with at LEAST 25 and hopefully 50 more samples.

Just think it's far to early to decide BUT I must agree the results from 10 samples (not all posted) have been absolutely abhorrent, IMO!

 

[Dr JIM]

Oh come on a private lab others have complemented, now why would I believe that, lol

On second thought don't answer that

 

[Dr JIM]

This one^

mands

That seems correct to me, but I've really never scanned over the fine lines as you have.

But then again I'm much more familiar with the tests performed and the results obtained.

 

[Dr JIM]

I honestly believe you would understand this process much more thoroughly if you focused more on HOW THE DATA WAS OBTAINED.

Because that's the best means of determining the credibility of either an HPLC or a MS.

 

[Kinikuman]

Although your assessment is quite likely correct,

No conclusions should be reached until this thread becomes much more inclusive with at LEAST 25 and hopefully 50 more samples.

Just think it's far to early to decide BUT I must agree the results from 10 samples (not all posted) have been absolutely abhorrent, IMO!

You're right. I should have begun my post with a qualifier such as, "Based on the currently available data...", but with 10 samples in at even a 50% fail rate, it does not look good extrapolating that out over 50 samples, even if the fail rate substantially declines as we go. Statistically speaking, I'll be willing to lay odds that we don't see any drastic change to these preliminary results, as disheartening as they are.

 

[Dr JIM]

You're right. I should have begun my post with a qualifier such as, "Based on the currently available data...", but with 10 samples in at even a 50% fail rate, it does not look good extrapolating that out over 50 samples, even if the fail rate substantially declines as we go. Statistically speaking, I'll be willing to lay odds that we don't see any drastic change to these preliminary results, as disheartening as they are.

Well that we agree on no doubt but time will tell

 

[Dr JIM]

Oh the "fail rate" was NOT 50% but rather 100%. Which means either the specific AAS listed was not present OR it was quantitatively in error.

Only ONE sample contained the correct AAS but it was at half the listed concentration. (Tren-E at 75mg/ml)

I'll post the latter sample tonight.

 

[Kinikuman]

Oh the "fail rate" was NOT 50% but rather 100%. Which means either the specific AAS listed was not present OR it was quantitatively in error.

Only ONE sample contained the correct AAS but it was at half the listed concentration. (Tren-E at 75mg/ml)

I'll post the latter sample tonight.

Shit. Nevermind, I retract the qualifier statement. The data we have now pretty much seals it, again, statistically speaking..

 

[Dr JIM]

Shit. Nevermind, I retract the qualifier statement. The data we have now pretty much seals it, again, statistically speaking..

LOL

 

[mands]

I honestly believe you would understand this process much more thoroughly if you focused more on HOW THE DATA WAS OBTAINED.

Because that's the best means of determining the credibility of either an HPLC or a MS.

Actually Jim I do have a little knowledge of "how" and have seen the process on more than one occasion. I just like to know all aspects. I gather info before I make a conclusion or ask another question.

My next one.

During the testing when does the written analysis take place? In particular the steroid (?) portion/column of the test? Does the person testing right it down after marking (ID) and before they do the test or after the [C] is written in the column at the conclusion of the test?

mands

 

[mands]

Oh the "fail rate" was NOT 50% but rather 100%. Which means either the specific AAS listed was not present OR it was quantitatively in error.

Only ONE sample contained the correct AAS but it was at half the listed concentration. (Tren-E at 75mg/ml)

I'll post the latter sample tonight.

This is no bueno!

mands

 

[WMSuperSport]

I can't wait until yall test some stuff thats actually good product, so then I can confidently get some good shit.

 

[Dr JIM]

Actually Jim I do have a little knowledge of "how" and have seen the process on more than one occasion. I just like to know all aspects. I gather info before I make a conclusion or ask another question.

My next one.

During the testing when does the written analysis take place? In particular the steroid (?) portion/column of the test? Does the person testing right it down after marking (ID) and before they do the test or after the [C] is written in the column at the conclusion of the test?

mands

I can't say there is some well defined protocol BUT typically brief notes are jotted down on the hard copy of the chromatograph unreal time during "the blank run". These notes usually include items sic as the Injection Peak, baseline interference, suspected parent ion, marked Ph changes etc.

(The blank run serves several purposes such as ensuring a stable (level) baseline as the solvents WO the sample is authenticated for stability, consistent PH changes, and timing of the IP. Thus only when the blank run is "stable" is the sample introduced for the primary analysis)

(As you can see all of the samples had THREE RUNS CONDUCTED at WL 210, 245 and 340
The entire process for ONE SAMPLE ABOUT TWO HOURS including prep time)

The notes are then combined for each sample as a rough draft, for each HPLC. After all the data is collated and reviewed for accuracy, only then is a summary is written.

 

[Dr JIM]

Let me say when one understands the overall complexity, technically challenging and time consuming aspects of performing an accurate HPLC analysis it's no wonder so many are faked, IMO!

But fortunately bc of the same factors I just mentioned, creating an accurate counterfeit HPLC is quite difficult, especially if the results are NOT DIGITIZED, the latter also being true for MS.

Point NEVER ACCEPT or PAY FOR A DIGITIZED HPLC or MS bc a "hard graphic copy" should always available by convention, and is much more difficult to alter.

 

[BigAngus]

@BigAngus Can you answer an interpretation question on the results of your tests? I'm not sure if the concentration listed is the concentration of the powder, or of the intended aas.

For example, a test p result recently posted had a purity of 29% and concentration of 76 mg/ml. Does that mean the UGL uses 76 mg/ml raw powder or 2.6 times that?

This has been the source of some very long arguments here, and I don't think we have reached a consensus.

FLENSER, I don't get involved in the explanation of the results anymore because I am not a chemist nor an expert. Even the most basic answers I am hesitant to answer because of the way that it gets twisted around. I am happy with helping someone out from time to time. That being said, I DID ask the dr at the University your question and his reply follows but I fear it is not as black and white as I had hoped it to be.

For that particular sample, the purity was low (29%), because many ions present (245, 397, 548, 700, 873, doubly charged and all related to each other) in abundant quantities that reduced ionization of 345 (Test Propionate), thus affect its purity estimation. These ions were not normally seen in the similar samples where we used them for reference, it must be something added other than the vegetable oils normally seen.
The concentration estimation was based on vegetable oil background for ionization from most other samples, so it was off, due to, the ionization competition in the electrospray, so that 76 mg/ml could be underestimate. Very likely, the manufacture did have 1 gram pure material dissolved in 10 mL solvent to make a 100mg/ml solution, but when it was analyzed by ESI, because of other ions in the solvent that are so much ionized, they reduced amount of Testosterone Propionate detected.
In short, our estimation can be affected by many variables, only when the variables are controlled (with reference compound, known amount in the same environment), then the estimation can be accurate.

 

[WMSuperSport]

Sounds like the tests he's doing are pretty much unreliable.

 

[Kinikuman]

These ions were not normally seen in the similar samples where we used them for reference, it must be something added other than the vegetable oils normally seen.

This is really the key part of his answer, isn't it? I would be curious to know just what those ions represent materially.