Finding Powder

[ChemStar]

In the example u just posted I can think of 50 ways it could become contaminated. And that's a simple reaction. Tell me, what's harder to get? Pure grapeseed oil or pure deca? How about BA? Is that full of contamination? EO? BB? the fact is those reagents ARE mass produced in an actual pharmaceutical setting. The likelihood of them containing harsh impurities is slim. Mr. Joe earlier tried to explain it but ill reiterate. The powder IS THE PRODUCT. If you could take steroids by swallowing powder, you'd order the powder and just swallow it. Instead, it must in a liquid form of transmission. (Yes there are oral steroids and prohormones etc, but that's not what were talking about here)

You keep repeating that I don't have proof. You can't prove it's the hormone, u have no evidence, blah blah. I also can't prove that gravity exists but intuition tells me if I jump off my roof its gonna hurt. The fact is, all yr doing when u homebrew is adding powder to liquid reagents. That's it. Oil, BA, bb, eo, etc. All those reagents are industrial (I suppose the oil could be the most geared towards impurities) but COMPARED to the powder, it is highly more likely that the powder would be the source of the impurities.

So again, one more time, no I do not have the proof. I started the thread, to ask for a source, so that I could test. I didn't think i needed to be that explicit. Apparently lesson learned?

 

[Millard]

The hormone is not the finished product. Any chemist would disagree with you. The hormone is typically one of four ingredients in the final formulation. You have no idea what the source of contamination is.

The fact is, all yr doing when u homebrew is adding powder to liquid reagents. That's it. Oil, BA, bb, eo, etc. All those reagents are industrial (I suppose the oil could be the most geared towards impurities) but COMPARED to the powder, it is highly more likely that the powder would be the source of the impurities.

Ideally, all ingredients could be tested. But when it's real and limited money going to testing, I'd test the most likely source of contamination. I think it's the powder too. The quality control on the legal components is more likely to be pure than the illegal component. But I like Banner's questioning of widely held assumptions - it's a question I never asked and I'm in the habit of asking such questions!

 

[regular]

In the example u just posted I can think of 50 ways it could become contaminated. And that's a simple reaction. Tell me, what's harder to get? Pure grapeseed oil or pure deca? How about BA? Is that full of contamination? EO? BB?

Tell me how many UGLs order their solvents and oil from a legitimate supplier like fisher or sigma?

You keep repeating that I don't have proof. You can't prove it's the hormone, u have no evidence, blah blah. I also can't prove that gravity exists but intuition tells me if I jump off my roof its gonna hurt.

You have no evidence. You're basically trying to fear people into giving you their source.

The fact is, all yr doing when u homebrew is adding powder to liquid reagents. That's it.

No, combining chemicals and putting them in a vial is not all that's involved in manufacturing a finished product.

Oil, BA, bb, eo, etc. All those reagents are industrial (I suppose the oil could be the most geared towards impurities) but COMPARED to the powder, it is highly more likely that the powder would be the source of the impurities.

What evidence do you have to support this claim?

So again, one more time, no I do not have the proof. I started the thread, to ask for a source, so that I could test. I didn't think i needed to be that explicit. Apparently lesson learned?

It would be great if testing were available to the community. I hope you test some open source hormone vendors and report your findings.

Bottom line, you're a person who may or may not have access to some nice equipment who is asking for a raw hormone source.

 

[Millard]

Bottom line, you're a person who may or may not have access to some nice equipment who is asking for a raw hormone source.

I'm all for skepticism but I'd take him at face value. It would be quite an elaborate rouse just to get a steroid powder source. If he has access to such equipment, he could provide some valuable information - at least for consumers, maybe not so much for UGLs.

The thing that I fear - based on what happened to Llewellyn - is that if the results that he posts make influential sources look bad, then he might be subjected to smear campaign in an attempt to discredit him.

^^^ This applies to practically anyone who does product testing and posts negative results.

If only positive results are posted, then all is good in the underground world. OTOH just watch the fireworks when results make someone look bad.

 

[regular]

San Rafael Chemical Services (SRCS) used to do this several years ago. It was more or less $100 per sample. They allowed anyone to anonymously submit a steroid sample for testing. They even had a DEA license.

Feds didn't really like that. DEA raided them (back in 2006-2007?). I don't know that they even broke the law. But they stopped AAS testing after that. It sent a message to other labs too.

These guys are able to test recreational drugs legally. They have tested for and confirmed the presence of oxandrolone.

EcstasyData.org: Results : Lab Test Results for Recreational Drugs

I'm not sure if they test liquids.

"For powders: The simplest option is to place the powder in a capsule. Please include at least 20mg of material to make it easier for the lab technicians to handle. It can also be placed in a small plastic bag."
EcstasyData.org: Contact Us

Maybe they can be compelled to expand their testing?

 

[Millard]

These guys are able to test recreational drugs legally. They have tested for and confirmed the presence of oxandrolone.

EcstasyData.org: Results : Lab Test Results for Recreational Drugs

I'm not sure if they test liquids.

"For powders: The simplest option is to place the powder in a capsule. Please include at least 20mg of material to make it easier for the lab technicians to handle. It can also be placed in a small plastic bag."
EcstasyData.org: Contact Us

Maybe they can be compelled to expand their testing?

Cool - they provide the name of the lab that does the testing. It's Drug Detection Laboratories Inc in Sacramento:

Drug Detection - Testing for legal, forensic, and counseling purposes

 

[Millard]

These guys are able to test recreational drugs legally. They have tested for and confirmed the presence of oxandrolone.

EcstasyData.org: Results : Lab Test Results for Recreational Drugs

I'm not sure if they test liquids.

"For powders: The simplest option is to place the powder in a capsule. Please include at least 20mg of material to make it easier for the lab technicians to handle. It can also be placed in a small plastic bag."
EcstasyData.org: Contact Us

Maybe they can be compelled to expand their testing?

Cool - they provide the name of the lab that does the testing. It's Drug Detection Laboratories Inc in Sacramento:

Drug Detection - Testing for legal, forensic, and counseling purposes

EcstasyData.org charges $150 per non-Ecstasy sample

EcstasyData.org: Contact Us

 

[ChemStar]

Tell me how many UGLs order their solvents and oil from a legitimate supplier like fisher or sigma?

I would hope they do more than go to the grocery store and fill their cart.

You have no evidence. You're basically trying to fear people into giving you their source.

Listen bud. I in no way shape or form NEED anyone's help. Idk how many times I gotta say it, I'm not posting on here begging. It was a very SIMPLE proposition. You (plural) help cut my research time looking for a source, I post real scientific data that all can benefit from. Trust me, I can figure shit out and I don't need scare tactics. Truth is dude, I don't know you or give two shits what you inject into yourself. Idk why you have nitpicked everything I've said like I'm out to get you or something. I, and others who use this forum may wanna know this information for our own health. You do whatever the hell you want.

No, combining chemicals and putting them in a vial is not all that's involved in manufacturing a finished product.

Yeah I forgot to put heating and filtering. Super complicated steps.

What evidence do you have to support this claim?

None. Just using intuition. Other people are seeming to get it just fine, can't help ya with that one.

Bottom line, you're a person who may or may not have access to some nice equipment who is asking for a raw hormone source.

Bottom line, I realize fully I'm on the internet. I also realize skepticism runs high, and bias runs even higher. I'm aware that people like to argue for the sake of arguing, too. I'm currently working on my masters in chem and will be pursuing my PhD afterwards. I am not a doctor. I am not a rocket scientist (although am proficient in physics) I do have access to a real lab with real equipment and can post some information that I truly have yet to find anywhere on the internet. I think there are people on here who want to know this info, and whether I get critics or not is irrelevant to me. If you don't wana help, then don't help. Idc.

Peace out, I'm done arguing.

 

[ChemStar]

The thing that I fear - based on what happened to Llewellyn - is that if the results that he posts make influential sources look bad, then he might be subjected to smear campaign in an attempt to discredit him.

Honestly I share your fear. I'm not here to start wars. I know some dealers/suppliers can get a little crazy so I aint tryin to get into none of that. I suppose I could post anonymous data, and if someone wanted to know could pm me? I don't wana smear anyone, but I also don't wana use powder that's bad. And I know or at least hope that safety is a top priority here, as I've seen it encouraged to name bad sources.

It's kind of a toss up. Either the source is pure and that person(s) receives scientific proof to back up his product, or the source is full of crap and he/they lose business and have to find a new source.

 

[regular]

I'm trying to help you not belittle you. You have the freedom to use some equipment I don't on a whim. Arguing for the sake of arguing isn't an efficient usage of my time. I'm interested in seeing the test results you're planning to post. I'm trying to give you some guidance.

You offered to run some samples in exchange for a source. Your selling point was you feel the hormones the community is using are contaminated. Why is it unreasonable to request the evidence you're using to come to the conclusion the products currently being circulated are contaminated? I can't recall ever offending a chemist by asking for a reference until now. Every chemist I know is a reference junkie.

There are factors I feel you're not considering because you seem unfamiliar with the processes being employed in the community. There's more work involved in making a finished product of acceptable quality beyond what you've posted. Some guys use bleach to depyrogenate their vials and stoppers which could introduce heavy metal contaminates to the vial and stopper. The majority of the guys out there are not ordering from a traditional laboratory supply house hence the skepticism of the purity of the solvents and oil. The solvents and oil are typically just as much a wild card as the hormone itself. I'm sure we can both agree there would be a better chance the source of contamination was the hormone itself if people were getting their excipients from a legitimate vendor.

It scares people when someone hops on a forum claiming to be a chemist stating the hormones the community is using are contaminated. I've had lengthly discussions about this topic. There was a 21% failure rate in the tests you're referencing which are several years old. No one knows what the source of the contamination was. A brand that passed then could have tested positive for heavy metals outside of an acceptable range the following week. A brand that didn't pass may have passed a week later. It's a snapshot. There's no track record of testing those brands. Every product in circulation now may or may not be contaminated. We just don't know. You're guessing and that is the crux of my criticism.

Good luck with what you're planning to do.

 

[Millard]

You offered to run some samples in exchange for a source. Your selling point was you feel the hormones the community is using are contaminated. Why is it unreasonable to request the evidence you're using to come to the conclusion the products currently being circulated are contaminated? I can't recall ever offending a chemist by asking for a reference until now. Every chemist I know is a reference junkie..

It does seem like you're going off on him.

He presented a hypothesis and he wants to test it.

I don't see any problem.

 

[regular]

It does seem like you're going off on him.

He presented a hypothesis and he wants to test it.

I don't see any problem.

He represented his hypothesis as a fact but also included he's a chemist which would put him somewhat in a position of authority on this subject. This topic is very alarming to some members of the community. I've had this conversation several times. I'm genuinely curious to know where the conclusion hormones in their raw state contain heavy metals is derived from. I was hoping he had a reference I wasn't aware of and I could learn something from him.

He called my education into question by his second post. When I presented information for consideration he attacked my education again and referred to me as a cook. Anyone who regularly posts on chemistry forums is aware of the offensive connotation associated with being referred to as a cook. It's a term which is typically reserved for amphetamine manufacturers who are a plague on society and have done a lot of harm to home chemistry.

I'm in support of testing raws and finished products. He should be careful not to out a closed source though. If his sample comes back outside of an acceptable range hopefully he will attempt to clean up the product and run it again to see if he can bring the metals down to an acceptable range.

 

[Millard]

He represented his hypothesis as a fact but also included he's a chemist which would put him somewhat in a position of authority on this subject. This topic is very alarming to some members of the community. I've had this conversation several times. I'm genuinely curious to know where the conclusion hormones in their raw state contain heavy metals is derived from. I was hoping he had a reference I wasn't aware of and I could learn something from him.

He called my education into question by his second post. When I presented information for consideration he attacked my education again and referred to me as a cook. Anyone who regularly posts on chemistry forums is aware of the offensive connotation associated with being referred to as a cook. It's a term which is typically reserved for amphetamine manufacturers who are a plague on society and have done a lot of harm to home chemistry.

This is an interesting thread that addresses some interesting questions. I'm just hoping to take out the drama, the personal attacks and the hostility and focus on the questions raised, what we know, what we've learned, and what we don't yet know.

The potential for heavy metal contamination in UGL products was first raised by the testing by Bill Llewellyn. I don't think anyone ever did this before.

So, this question has lurked in the minds of several people since then.

Where does the contamination come from?

Most seem to think powder. But could it be any other ingredients that go into final product?

Testing would be useful in refining this hypothesis.

Honestly, I don't think most people batted an eye when Llewellyn published the heavy metal results. The numero uno concern is whether the products' active ingredients are anabolic steroids.

 

[Millard]

He should be careful not to out a closed source though. If his sample comes back outside of an acceptable range hopefully he will attempt to clean up the product and run it again to see if he can bring the metals down to an acceptable range.

You raise another very good question.

What are the "rules of the game" when it comes to testing UGL products?

If the results of finished or raw steroid products show unacceptably high levels of lead, tin, mercury, and/or arsenic, should this be publicly disclosed and the source "outed" - open or closed source notwithstanding?

How much effort should be made to replicate the results before releasing them?

What are the ethical issues?

What is in the best interests of the community?

And last but definitely not least, what is in the best interest of self-preservation? (After all, this is black market business we're talking about where a different set of business rules apply.)

 

[regular]

Where does the contamination come from?
Most seem to think powder. But could it be any other ingredients that go into final product?

Dirty glassware and equipment washed with tap water?
Industrial grade solvents from a can or a drum?
Cooking oil which is not intended for use as a parenteral injection vehicle?
Contaminated vials and stoppers?
Contaminated hormone?
Which component is bringing the finished product outside of the standards outlined in a pharmacopeia?
Are the components unacceptably contaminated?
Are any of the products in circulation unacceptably contaminated?

Honestly, I don't think most people batted an eye when Llewellyn published the heavy metal results. The numero uno concern is whether the products' active ingredients are anabolic steroids.

I've seen the heavy metals contamination issue brought up numerous times. There are people who are genuinely worried about it.

 

[BigSha]

Wow,u guys do know stuff ! I am starting to ask myself how much ugl r really steril.

 

[biggerben69]

Dirty glassware and equipment washed with tap water?
Industrial grade solvents from a can or a drum?
Cooking oil which is not intended for use as a parenteral injection vehicle?
Contaminated vials and stoppers?
Contaminated hormone?
Which component is bringing the finished product outside of the standards outlined in a pharmacopeia?
Are the components unacceptably contaminated?
Are any of the products in circulation unacceptably contaminated?

I've seen the heavy metals contamination issue brought up numerous times. There are people who are genuinely worried about it.

I may have said this already here, but there is one UGL that has a monthly special where he does the recrystilizing thing on one of his items and offers it at a special price. It's more than his reg price but it seems fair?
If you order enough of whatever he'll do it as well for a decent price. I've never used him but know many that have. He's one of us.

 

[regular]

I may have said this already here, but there is one UGL that has a monthly special where he does the recrystilizing thing on one of his items and offers it at a special price. It's more than his reg price but it seems fair?
If you order enough of whatever he'll do it as well for a decent price. I've never used him but know many that have. He's one of us.

I've heard of this person but I tend to mind my own business. Recrystallization is easy. It sounds like a good idea but it may be unnecessary.

 

[tanuki]

So what's the point of recrystallization? Is the batch then tested for purity? Just curious because so many things can go wrong as any student forced to take first year o-chem lab knows. Are the persons methods published anywhere?

I had a hell of a time getting rid of water from my finished product during the Grignard lab. Screwed up my proton nmr analysis and melting point range.

 

[swoleskunk]

im lost man , u want free powder ? or are u askn to send u a source ?