Help with Simec Results

[vidocq]

First of all, I wanted to thank Millard for the answers in my last thread again, he was extremely helpful in guiding me how to send the sample. So I sent a small bit of testosterone enanthate powder to be tested, and it came back at 103.6% pure. I emailed simec back to ask how that would be possible, and the woman responded that it could be due to the "analytical uncertainty of the method." Now I get that perhaps I sent a more pure sample than they had to test against, but is that what she meant in her response? Or was she in some way saying their testing was flawed?

 

[Roco Bama]

That's bullshit. It's time to find a new lab

 

[weighted chinup]

That's bullshit. It's time to find a new lab

No, it's not bullshit, and it's entirely possible or normal to get a result like this.

 

[weighted chinup]

First of all, I wanted to thank Millard for the answers in my last thread again, he was extremely helpful in guiding me how to send the sample. So I sent a small bit of testosterone enanthate powder to be tested, and it came back at 103.6% pure. I emailed simec back to ask how that would be possible, and the woman responded that it could be due to the "analytical uncertainty of the method." Now I get that perhaps I sent a more pure sample than they had to test against, but is that what she meant in her response? Or was she in some way saying their testing was flawed?

Reference standard could have been a slightly lesser purity than what you submitted and the testing methodology used could have a variance of a few mg +/- in either direction (presumably that's the analytical uncertainty, assuming you / they chose a proper methodology for testing the sample, which they likely did) , hence the 103.6% result.

 

[XKawN]

Fuck, where do i get this 103% pure raws? Lol.

To be honest, if i paid that kind of money and got that kind of bullshit answer I'd be pissed.

 

[Jeremiahflex]

Fuck, where do i get this 103% pure raws? Lol.

To be honest, if i paid that kind of money and got that kind of bullshit answer I'd be pissed.

Did you see what WC said about reference standard? They might go ok this many grams must have x amout of hormone to be 100% but if his sample had more then X amount of hormone for the given amount of grams then it can be over 100%

 

[Wunderpus]

Reference standard could have been a slightly lesser purity than what you submitted and the testing methodology used could have a variance of a few mg +/- in either direction (presumably that's the analytical uncertainty, assuming you / they chose a proper methodology for testing the sample, which they likely did) , hence the 103.6% result.

Another perfect WC post, this is valid and why you are important here. The originally tested sample was likely, call it, 97% pure, so there is a margin of error amongst the results that is to be expected. Obviously literally 103% would be impossible. They're just basing their standards on a less-than-pure model sample.

 

[vidocq]

This is sort of what I remember from SRCS back in the day, where I remember someone had an eq raw tested over 100% and they essentially said it was because their eq raw may not be 100% pure.

I'm certainly hoping that's the case, as it would mean what I have is like 95-99% pure. I was simply stuck wondering if perhaps she was saying there may have been an error in the test. But, reading it over, it sounds as if I may have just stumbled upon good test enth.

Another perfect WC post, this is valid and why you are important here. The originally tested sample was likely, call it, 97% pure, so there is a margin of error amongst the results that is to be expected. Obviously literally 103% would be impossible. They're just basing their standards on a less-than-pure model sample.

 

[XKawN]

Did you see what WC said about reference standard? They might go ok this many grams must have x amout of hormone to be 100% but if his sample had more then X amount of hormone for the given amount of grams then it can be over 100%

I understand what he's saying. What I'm saying is your simec, how is it you don't have a more pure product to compare it to? Because it sounds to me like simec doesn't even know how pure their own sample is or they would know your sample wasn't 103% pure. Maybe simecs sample is only 70% and not 90%.

 

[vidocq]

I know it was a HPLC test that was done. And I would ASSUME that simec, being accredited as it is, would have repeatedly compared samples to get the purest they could find. But you're right, there's absolutely no guarantee that the sample they use to test against is 95+% pure at all :/

I understand what he's saying. What I'm saying is your simec, how is it you don't have a more pure product to compare it to? Because it sounds to me like simec doesn't even know how pure their own sample is or they would know your sample wasn't 103% pure. Maybe simecs sample is only 70% and not 90%.

 

[mercury]

it came back at 103.6% pure. I emailed simec back to ask how that would be possible, and the woman responded that it could be

ask them for the raw data from HPLC I can tell you what is going on. Ask them what kind of equipment they use, most popular is Agilent 1100, or 1200 or Waters HPLC.

 

[ProfessorX]

SIMEC isn't using some "random samples" as a reference standard: (it's a pure sample)

Example: (LINK)

http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/search?term=testosterone&interface=All&N=0&mode=partialmax&lang=en&region=GB&focus=product (testosterone | Sigma-Aldrich)

The results fall within a "range". The results could show 110% purity and still be within the "range"

Example:

This Primo Powder sample shows 103% purity (LC/MS/MS)



Looks like you have some legit Test E powder

 

[ProfessorX]

"analytical uncertainty of the method"

http://infohouse.p2ric.org/ref/18/17628.pdf

https://www.eurachem.org/images/stories/Guides/pdf/QUAM2012_P1.pdf

 

[vidocq]

Thank you @ProfessorX , that makes me feel a lot better

 

[Millard]

SIMEC obtains its analytical standards only from recognized providers of certified drug reference materials such as Steraloids (Newport, RI, USA), LGC Standards (London, UK) and Sigma-Aldrich (St Louis, MO, USA).

Good luck trying to challenge the legitimacy of these AAS standards. I can't help but question the motives of anyone who does.

 

[vidocq]

For those who asked, this is the Simec test for test enth. I'm gonna do another one for tren acetate in a few weeks when I put together the cash

 

[Wunderpus]

For those who asked, this is the Simec test for test enth. I'm gonna do another one for tren acetate in a few weeks when I put together the cash

Cool! Seems like good test. enan. powder is floating around right now.

 

[XKawN]

For those who asked, this is the Simec test for test enth. I'm gonna do another one for tren acetate in a few weeks when I put together the cash

Same pic grademan just posted for atlas labs.

 

[XKawN]

First of all, I wanted to thank Millard for the answers in my last thread again, he was extremely helpful in guiding me how to send the sample. So I sent a small bit of testosterone enanthate powder to be tested, and it came back at 103.6% pure. I emailed simec back to ask how that would be possible, and the woman responded that it could be due to the "analytical uncertainty of the method." Now I get that perhaps I sent a more pure sample than they had to test against, but is that what she meant in her response? Or was she in some way saying their testing was flawed?

So, you say that "you" sent this sample in to have it tested? But grademan of atlas labs says this same pic is of his guys simec test. Any idea how this could be? I post this here as well so folks on this thread are aware this same pic is now on "the real atlas labs" thread 9n the underground forum.

 

[Do3Gs]

So, you say that "you" sent this sample in to have it tested? But grademan of atlas labs says this same pic is of his guys simec test. Any idea how this could be? I post this here as well so folks on this thread are aware this same pic is now on "the real atlas labs" thread 9n the underground forum.

Real Atlas labs