Fackts about Analyzer

They probably (almost certainly) don't test raws, so something as simple as Test E could be half dosed.

i doubt any lab that's interested in longevity would purposely underdose something just to overdose another.

As for the Halo, i'm willing to bet they didn't properly measure and/or mix the powder and filler. So you may have a bunch of underdosed tabs in there too.

i'm very interested in seeing your Swiss lab results.
Don't leave us hanging when they come in.
Still maybe on the halo...

but labmax is simple pass/fail on the anavar and that shit was clear as dsy green for anavar... oh well
 
Many folk need to take a real close look at the HGH assays MANDS and I posted some time ago.

Why bc THOSE results are what
every analytical lab should be posting from methodology, format sheets to graphics etc.

And their absence in anabolic assays has always concerned me bc no analytical assay can be verified with such a huge void.

Jim
 
They must make some sense if he can identify a blind sample. @mercury has gotten to you, hasn't he!?

Sample identification IS actually
relatively simplistic requiring a
Mass Spec. The sample combined with the appropriate solvent, usually Methanol and or ACN and graphically depicted as spike/s with specific MW.

A more precise MW can be determined using contemporary computer technology.

The MW of the predominant substance (we hope) can then be compared to the MW of known AAS for confirmation.

They probably (almost certainly) don't test raws, so something as simple as Test E could be half dosed.

However QUANTIFICATION is an entirely different matter and can be VERY challenging for a variety of reasons.

The LC technology in use today
requires the use of a grid with a potential that must created/generated for EACH run,
solvents and certified standards.
(The latter is of utmost importance bc the STANDARD will be used for comparison to the AAS sample and define its concentration.)

In brief these forces work in tandem to allow the SOLUTE AAS to separate out of the liquid phase and onto the grid where they can be quantified and compared to the KNOWN STANDARD concentration.

But if ANY of the above, such as the PH, solvent concentrations, standards or grid type are out of whack accurate quantification becomes impossible.

And I’ve no doubt the difficulties I incounterd are one of several reason the UCLA lab in California is the only WADA certified lab in the US.

And while I agree an MD is far cry from analytical testing, a BS in Chemistry was my pre-MED degree.

Jim
 
Last edited:
When it involves UGL or the testing of UGL products due diligence is the best course.

Folk must understand no analytical lab is any better than
the capabilities of the testor AND the STANDARDS they use for comparison.

I can only tell you I spent well over a year trying to assay AAS
with a PHD fella and the results
never seemed consistent or satisfactory.

We had all the solvents, the technology, the standards and the education and still could NOT get it right.

Jim
What machines did you use?
There are lots of methods around, already proven for repeatability.


They probably (almost certainly) don't test raws, so something as simple as Test E could be half dosed.

i doubt any lab that's interested in longevity would purposely underdose something just to overdose another.

As for the Halo, i'm willing to bet they didn't properly measure and/or mix the powder and filler. So you may have a bunch of underdosed tabs in there too.

i'm very interested in seeing your Swiss lab results.
Don't leave us hanging when they come in.
Who doesn't test raws?
Simec? Analyzer?


Many folk need to take a real close look at the HGH assays MANDS and I posted some time ago.

Why bc THOSE results are what
every analytical lab should be posting from methodology, format sheets to graphics etc.

And their absence in anabolic assays has always concerned me bc no analytical assay can be verified with such a huge void.

Jim
Who tested that GH? Simec? Analyzer? Other?
Would you mind posting links?


Sample identification IS actually
relatively simplistic requiring a
Mass Spec. The sample combined with the appropriate solvent, usually Methanol and or ACN and graphically depicted as spike/s with specific MW.

A more precise MW can be determined using contemporary computer technology.

The MW of the predominant substance (we hope) can then be compared to the MW of known AAS for confirmation.



However QUANTIFICATION is an entirely different matter and can be VERY challenging for a variety of reasons.

The LC technology in use today
requires the use of a grid with a potential that must created/generated for EACH run,
solvents and certified standards.
(The latter is of utmost importance bc the STANDARD will be used for comparison to the AAS sample and define its concentration.)

In brief these forces work in tandem to allow the SOLUTE AAS to separate out of the liquid phase and onto the grid where they can be quantified and compared to the KNOWN STANDARD concentration.

But if ANY of the above, such as the PH, solvent concentrations, standards or grid type are out of whack accurate quantification becomes impossible.

And I’ve no doubt the difficulties I incounterd are one of several reason the UCLA lab in California is the only WADA certified lab in the US.

And while I agree an MD is far cry from analytical testing, a BS in Chemistry was my pre-MED degree.

Jim
GC-MassSpec is relatively simple because as long as your method (column/solvent/flow-rate/injection-volume) is good enough so that no two substances arrive at the MS detector at the same time, the peaks can often be identified by library-match alone, without needing reference standards, although they help a lot for validation (which ain't really required in UG testing).

As for quantification
lots of proven HPLC methods all around
You won't believe how many Quality Control chromatographers, some even pharma QC
use the same calibration curve for several dozens tests (all with the same method), often taking several days nonstop leaving the machine working at night with the autosampler.

They tell you: nah, as long as you don't replace the column the peaks won't vary much.



I have read about UG testers who don't own any GC machines whatsoever
instead relying on HPLC retention-times for "substance identification".
While far from ideal but this can work OK if they use long testing times so the peaks show quite far away from each other, and have some kind of reference-standards.
I have read about them using real pharma-grade raws as makeshift reference-standards. This still works fine for UG testing, where a large error margin doesn't matter much.
After all a perfectly fine HPLC machine can be purchased for under $40k.
So charging $80 (about $50 net, after subtracting column and solvent costs), with 100+ customers per month means a paid in full HPLC machine in less than 6 months. This makes sense.


But @Analyzer claims to own GC-MS, GC-FID, and several HPLCs (as evidenced by @mercury in Agilent auto-numbering comment, at the beginning of this thread)

That's a $700k to 1Mil investment (plus columns, solvents recurring costs) to charge just 40 bucks for testing (and risk going to jail for doing so)?

That doesn't make any sense
let's hope he ain't no:
A. Photoshop artist (probably with access to real pharma QC data)
B. He really has access to all those machines, but is really a GIP looking for TNEF (if you're lucky), or a GIP looking for an easy TSUB to get a raise.

I'm not pointing fingers YET
but his low Return On Investment looks really suspicious.
I don't think his 40 bucks even cover for Helium, solvents, columns, filters costs. Let alone recovering his 6-7 figures investment. Simple math.
 
Last edited:
What machines did you use?
There are lots of methods around, already proven for repeatability.



Who doesn't test raws?
Simec? Analyzer?



Who tested that GH? Simec? Analyzer? Other?
Would you mind posting links?



GC-MassSpec is relatively simple because as long as your method (column/solvent/flow-rate/injection-volume) is good enough so that no two substances arrive at the MS detector at the same time, the peaks can often be identified by library-match alone, without needing reference standards, although they help a lot for validation (which ain't really required in UG testing).

As for quantification
lots of proven HPLC methods all around
You won't believe how many Quality Control chromatographers, some even pharma QC
use the same calibration curve for several dozens tests (all with the same method), often taking several days nonstop leaving the machine working at night with the autosampler.

They tell you: nah, as long as you don't replace the column the peaks won't vary much.



I have read about UG testers who don't own any GC machines whatsoever
instead relying on HPLC retention-times for "substance identification".
While far from ideal but this can work OK if they use long testing times so the peaks show quite far away from each other, and have some kind of reference-standards.
I have read about them using real pharma-grade raws as makeshift reference-standards. This still works fine for UG testing, where a large error margin doesn't matter much.
After all a perfectly fine HPLC machine can be purchased for under $40k.
So charging $80 (about $50 net, after subtracting column and solvent costs), with 100+ customers per month means a paid in full HPLC machine in less than 6 months. This makes sense.


But @Analyzer claims to own GC-MS, GC-FID, and several HPLCs (as evidenced by @mercury in Agilent auto-numbering comment, at the beginning of this thread)

That's a $700k to 1Mil investment (plus columns, solvents recurring costs) to charge just 40 bucks for testing (and risk going to jail for doing so)?

That doesn't make any sense
let's hope he ain't no:
A. Photoshop artist (probably with access to real pharma QC data)
B. He really has access to all those machines, but is really a GIP looking for TNEF (if you're lucky), or a GIP looking for an easy TSUB to get a raise.

I'm not pointing fingers YET
but his low Return On Investment looks really suspicious.
I don't think his 40 bucks even cover for Helium, solvents, columns, filters costs. Let alone recovering his 6-7 figures investment. Simple math.

He can't photoshop and fake the 4 blend test I sent him.
I didn't tell anyone about the test, so he couldn't find who the lab was. Or which vial it was unlabeled.
So whatever the case was, he had every Ester detected in the right ratio but the sample itself was underdosed.

So whatever he does, he couldn't fake that test.
 
In an attempt to satify the PED masses, many of whom can barely afford a vial of T-e, it’s quite possible Analyzer is trying to accomplish to much for far to little MONEY!

For comparison SIMEC, last I heard charges around $250 to analyze one sample while MANDS and I paid $150 for each GH assay.

But I absolutely agree with @mands at least Analyzer seems to be utilizing contemporary analytical technology while
Reagent colorimetric assays
such as Labmax are incapable of Quantification and are LIKELY to have a variable degree of false positive cross reactivity with other AAS, esp those in the same structural catategory, 19-Nors being one example.

I say LIKELY bc this type of cross reactivity has been noted in field testing of certain drugs of abuse
such as amphetamines AND Labmax has yet to publish evidence based data supporting the use of their product for AAS.

Finallly of interest mail order ELISA / AAS testing is now becoming more available over the
net and may be a viable alternative esp compared to Labmax IMO.

Jim
 
In an attempt to satify the PED masses, many of whom can barely afford a vial of T-e, it’s quite possible Analyzer is trying to accomplish to much for far to little MONEY!

For comparison SIMEC, last I heard charges around $250 to analyze one sample while MANDS and I paid $150 for each GH assay.

But I absolutely agree with @mands at least Analyzer seems to be utilizing contemporary analytical technology while
Reagent colorimetric assays
such as Labmax are incapable of Quantification and are LIKELY to have a variable degree of false positive cross reactivity with other AAS, esp those in the same structural catategory, 19-Nors being one example.

I say LIKELY bc this type of cross reactivity has been noted in field testing of certain drugs of abuse
such as amphetamines AND Labmax has yet to publish evidence based data supporting the use of their product for AAS.

Finallly of interest mail order ELISA / AAS testing is now becoming more available over the
net and may be a viable alternative esp compared to Labmax IMO.

Jim
Why would anyone spend almost a Million$ to actually lose money on every test?

Besides, @Analyzer doesn't seem to be the Chromatographer (lab technician) himself
so he must shell out AT LEAST $70k per year on every Chromatographer salary.

Supposing he has just 2 college-dropout but still knowledgeable chomatographers working 16 hours shifts for peanuts, $50k each, that's $100k per year = more than $8000 per month.
That's more than 200 tests per month, just to cover salaries.

Add filters, columns, solvents, electricity bills to that.
It just doesn't make economic sense.

theres-always-free-cheesein-the-mousetrap-if-its-too-good-27119901.png
 
Back
Top