I can't remember the site that shows you how to make test from powder form

[killiob]

I can't remember what that site's web addy is, so if you guys have some names, throw them this way.

thanks

killiob

 

[Musclez]

I can't remember what that site's web addy is, so if you guys have some names, throw them this way.

thanks

killiob

www.musclechemistry.com has a section. Pretty much it's just add10-20%bb, 5% ba, heat it and stir it to get it to dissolve, then add oil to get it up to the desired concentration. Some people filter it, i never have and have never had a problem... Hope this helps.

Musclez

 

[makoman]

I believe conversionboard.com has some useful info as well. Also try this link:

http://www.basskilleronline.com/making_cyp_from_powders.html

that site has pictures and directions.

 

[RooTShell]

www.musclechemistry.com has a section. Pretty much it's just add10-20%bb, 5% ba, heat it and stir it to get it to dissolve, then add oil to get it up to the desired concentration. Some people filter it, i never have and have never had a problem... Hope this helps.

Musclez

Musclez, what the hell are you saying bro? This is not a good advice. First of all ratios of BA and BB (or other solvents) depends of the hormone. For instance, if you're converting Deca 3% of BA will be more than enough and you don't even need to add BB (add 5% if you want, but not strictly necesary).

Be sure to ALWAYS filter your gear. ALWAYS. After converting your powders your final solution will have bacteria in it that came from the powder itself. Filtering is the only way to remove bacteria spores. If for some reason there was some bacteria that made it through the sterile filter (like 0.1%), the ba will kill it in 1-2 days.

If you don't filter your gear you'll be injecting bacteria into your body. Even if the bacteria is killed in the heating process (btw, I don't recomend heating your gear to sterilize. Too much heating may damage the hormone) you'll still be injecting dead spores (you will not want that). You might be lucky as Musclez and nothing happens to you, but most of the time the chances of getting an abcess are really high.

RooTShell

PS: The only way you'll know if your gear is really sterile is if you converted the powders in a sterile enviroment (lab)

 

[killiob]

I believe conversionboard.com has some useful info as well. Also try this link:

http://www.basskilleronline.com/making_cyp_from_powders.html

that site has pictures and directions.

That is the one i was looking for, thanks bro.

killiob

 

[Musclez]

Musclez, what the hell are you saying bro? This is not a good advice. First of all ratios of BA and BB (or other solvents) depends of the hormone. For instance, if you're converting Deca 3% of BA will be more than enough and you don't even need to add BB (add 5% if you want, but not strictly necesary).

Be sure to ALWAYS filter your gear. ALWAYS. After converting your powders your final solution will have bacteria in it that came from the powder itself. Filtering is the only way to remove bacteria spores. If for some reason there was some bacteria that made it through the sterile filter (like 0.1%), the ba will kill it in 1-2 days.

If you don't filter your gear you'll be injecting bacteria into your body. Even if the bacteria is killed in the heating process (btw, I don't recomend heating your gear to sterilize. Too much heating may damage the hormone) you'll still be injecting dead spores (you will not want that). You might be lucky as Musclez and nothing happens to you, but most of the time the chances of getting an abcess are really high.

RooTShell

PS: The only way you'll know if your gear is really sterile is if you converted the powders in a sterile enviroment (lab)

Well he just said test, wasn't specific, this combo of ba and bb will work fine for prop at 100mg/ml and cyp at 250mg/ml, enanthate may need less. But generally i wouldn't trust 3% ba for sterility, i would consider that the minimum and 5% would be smarter.

As for not filtering the gear, well for starters, gear isn't heat sensitive as far as i know, but regardless, this isn't my point, the ba at 5% will kill the bacteria, you said the filter is the only way to get out spores, this is true. But let me ask you, what type of spores will be in powder? All the endospore formers are gram positives which include species from the genera of Bacillus and CLostridium for instance. How are you going to get these spores into powder? Pathogens of the genus Bacillus are generally found in soil and sometimes in food, trust me when i tell you you will not find B. anthracis or C. perfringens or C. botulinum, the latter two of which are anaerobes. Finally, i'd definately have to disagree with the statement that the risk of abcess is high with non-filtered gear. And i'd also have to disagree with you saying you wouldn't want to inject dead spores,,,why not,,,again, they are gram positive, it is the gram negatives which when lysed will release LPS causing septicemia and possible shock.

I guess filtering probably is definately not a bad thing, but from my experience, it is not necessary speaking from a microbiological standpoint.

Musclez

 

[RooTShell]

Well he just said test, wasn't specific, this combo of ba and bb will work fine for prop at 100mg/ml and cyp at 250mg/ml, enanthate may need less. But generally i wouldn't trust 3% ba for sterility, i would consider that the minimum and 5% would be smarter.

As for not filtering the gear, well for starters, gear isn't heat sensitive as far as i know, but regardless, this isn't my point, the ba at 5% will kill the bacteria, you said the filter is the only way to get out spores, this is true. But let me ask you, what type of spores will be in powder? All the endospore formers are gram positives which include species from the genera of Bacillus and CLostridium for instance. How are you going to get these spores into powder? Pathogens of the genus Bacillus are generally found in soil and sometimes in food, trust me when i tell you you will not find B. anthracis or C. perfringens or C. botulinum, the latter two of which are anaerobes. Finally, i'd definately have to disagree with the statement that the risk of abcess is high with non-filtered gear. And i'd also have to disagree with you saying you wouldn't want to inject dead spores,,,why not,,,again, they are gram positive, it is the gram negatives which when lysed will release LPS causing septicemia and possible shock.

I guess filtering probably is definately not a bad thing, but from my experience, it is not necessary speaking from a microbiological standpoint.

Musclez

First of all, 1% of BA is enough to mantain sterility. 3% is more than enough. And I don't say this just because I feel like it, I say this because I've done gear like this and had it tested for sterility. So check your facts first. Get an amp of Sus and check how much BA it has... You'll notice that it says 1%. I normaly say to people to use 3% because 99% of them are not doing their gear in a strilized lab.

Second, Staphylococcus aureus (just as an example) which is a non-spore forming, gram-positive cocci grows everywhere, even in your own kitchen.So tell me, how can you be sure that your powders do not contain bacteria? You can't. Most powders are made in China and Thailand and you will never be able to know under what conditions were they made and packed.

Third, I'm attaching a pic of a 25mm GDX 0.45 PVDF after being used to filter only 100ml of Boldenone Undecylenate. Now tell me... Do you still want to inject that?

I rest my case.

RooTShell

 

[SAMSONN]

also try www.conversionboard.com

 

[Musclez]

First of all, 1% of BA is enough to mantain sterility. 3% is more than enough. And I don't say this just because I feel like it, I say this because I've done gear like this and had it tested for sterility. So check your facts first. Get an amp of Sus and check how much BA it has... You'll notice that it says 1%. I normaly say to people to use 3% because 99% of them are not doing their gear in a strilized lab.

Second, Staphylococcus aureus (just as an example) which is a non-spore forming, gram-positive cocci grows everywhere, even in your own kitchen.So tell me, how can you be sure that your powders do not contain bacteria? You can't. Most powders are made in China and Thailand and you will never be able to know under what conditions were they made and packed.

Third, I'm attaching a pic of a 25mm GDX 0.45 PVDF after being used to filter only 100ml of Boldenone Undecylenate. Now tell me... Do you still want to inject that?

I rest my case.

RooTShell

Wow, okay. I think you're original point was that we were worried about organisms which could survive ba treatment, S. aureus is a lowsy example because the ba would kill it. In fact, S. aureus does not cause illnes through infection or toxicoinfection but rather by intoxication of preformed toxin. This organism has to be present at a concentration of at least 1x10^5 CFU/ml, a concentration which would never be reached in powder, it would have to occur in food.

Yes, S. aureus is ubiquitous in nature, present in dust for example, but not at a concentration which would be able to produce sufficient toxin,,,it wouldn't produce any toxin in powder in fact.

 

[RooTShell]

Wow, okay. I think you're original point was that we were worried about organisms which could survive ba treatment

No, the original point was that filtering for the homebrewers is essential for maintaining sterility. Bacterias are one of the causes, but impurities also play a major role. Also, the antimicrobial efficacy of BA is limited and takes some time to kill most of the bacteria (+-7 days). So, if one is to inject the unfiltered final solution before 7 days, there's risk for an infection.

S. aureus is a lowsy example because the ba would kill it. In fact, S. aureus does not cause illnes through infection or toxicoinfection but rather by intoxication of preformed toxin. This organism has to be present at a concentration of at least 1x10^5 CFU/ml, a concentration which would never be reached in powder, it would have to occur in food.

Yes, S. aureus is ubiquitous in nature, present in dust for example, but not at a concentration which would be able to produce sufficient toxin,,,it wouldn't produce any toxin in powder in fact.

Not at all. Do you have anything to back up your statement? I've seen with my own eyes my training partner got an abcess from unfiltered gear. He went to a doctor to have it drained and after some tests the doctor claimed that the infection was originated by the presence of S. aureus. After that I filtered his gear and he was able to finish the whole vial without any further problems. BTW, he made his own gear and since he wasn't sensible to BA we used it at 6%.

High amounts of impurities will also cause you an infection.

So I ask you. Is it really worth to take any risk with something you are injecting into your body just because you're not willing to spend $5 bucks on a filter and 20-30min of your life to filter your gear? Is it worth to inject dead bacteria (if the BA had time to kill it) and a fair amount of impurities just because one is too lazy or cheap to filter his gear?

Not filtering your gear might work for you but I don't think it's a good advise to tell a newbie not to filter when we all know that there's risks involved if he doesn't.

RooTShell

 

[Musclez]

No, the original point was that filtering for the homebrewers is essential for maintaining sterility. Bacterias are one of the causes, but impurities also play a major role. Also, the antimicrobial efficacy of BA is limited and takes some time to kill most of the bacteria (+-7 days). So, if one is to inject the unfiltered final solution before 7 days, there's risk for an infection.


Not at all. Do you have anything to back up your statement? I've seen with my own eyes my training partner got an abcess from unfiltered gear. He went to a doctor to have it drained and after some tests the doctor claimed that the infection was originated by the presence of S. aureus. After that I filtered his gear and he was able to finish the whole vial without any further problems. BTW, he made his own gear and since he wasn't sensible to BA we used it at 6%.

High amounts of impurities will also cause you an infection.

So I ask you. Is it really worth to take any risk with something you are injecting into your body just because you're not willing to spend $5 bucks on a filter and 20-30min of your life to filter your gear? Is it worth to inject dead bacteria (if the BA had time to kill it) and a fair amount of impurities just because one is too lazy or cheap to filter his gear?

Not filtering your gear might work for you but I don't think it's a good advise to tell a newbie not to filter when we all know that there's risks involved if he doesn't.

RooTShell

I really don't know anything about it taking 7 days to sterilize, so i won't argue with you on that, i do know that other alcohols kill 99% + of bacteria in undera minute, so i'll just ask how you know about the 7 days?

And yes i have plenty to back up my statement regarding that S. auereus will not produce any toxin. If you are in microbiology as it seems you may be ( i am a masters student) you will know about quorum sensing. S. aureus releases a chemical messenger type signal and the concentration of this signal is detected by the bacteria, it's how they communicate. As population size increases so does the concentration of the signal, and once it reaches a critical threshold, obtained at about 100,000 cfu/ml, the transcriptional promoter of the toxR/S pathway (im don't really feel like looking it up right now, but im pretty sure, not that the exact name matters anyhow) is initiated. So yes, there will ZERO toxin production unless the powder is soaked blood or raw chicken juice, lol. From my understanding, the body can handle S. auerus on it's own, and it's the toxins that are the problem (formed beforehand). If he had an abcess of S. aureus, he would have had ridiculously high amounts of the toxin in his body and probably be dead of septecemia or from the toxin well before he even knew he had an abcess.

And what did you mean by high amounts of impurities will cause infection? If you inject sterile dust, nothing will happen,,,the body can handle that. By definition, an "infection" is a living organism activally multiplying usually leading to a state of disease in the body. I've never known sterile dust to do this. The body will handle this,,,particularly if it's in muscle

To be honest, i may start filtering just to see if there's much of a difference, but i have about 5-6 friends who all use the same unfiltered gear with no problems).

Musclez

 

[RooTShell]

I really don't know anything about it taking 7 days to sterilize, so i won't argue with you on that, i do know that other alcohols kill 99% + of bacteria in undera minute, so i'll just ask how you know about the 7 days?

And yes i have plenty to back up my statement regarding that S. auereus will not produce any toxin. If you are in microbiology as it seems you may be ( i am a masters student) you will know about quorum sensing. S. aureus releases a chemical messenger type signal and the concentration of this signal is detected by the bacteria, it's how they communicate. As population size increases so does the concentration of the signal, and once it reaches a critical threshold, obtained at about 100,000 cfu/ml, the transcriptional promoter of the toxR/S pathway (im don't really feel like looking it up right now, but im pretty sure, not that the exact name matters anyhow) is initiated. So yes, there will ZERO toxin production unless the powder is soaked blood or raw chicken juice, lol. From my understanding, the body can handle S. auerus on it's own, and it's the toxins that are the problem (formed beforehand). If he had an abcess of S. aureus, he would have had ridiculously high amounts of the toxin in his body and probably be dead of septecemia or from the toxin well before he even knew he had an abcess.

And what did you mean by high amounts of impurities will cause infection? If you inject sterile dust, nothing will happen,,,the body can handle that. By definition, an "infection" is a living organism activally multiplying usually leading to a state of disease in the body. I've never known sterile dust to do this. The body will handle this,,,particularly if it's in muscle

To be honest, i may start filtering just to see if there's much of a difference, but i have about 5-6 friends who all use the same unfiltered gear with no problems).

Musclez

I'm attaching some graph I had in my notes that indicate that only after 7 days the bacteria and fungi count of a solution containing BA came down to 0. This graph also shows you that 5% of BA is an overkill, although I don't think is bad at all that people like to play it safe

Check other boards, people are complaining also about abcess from auereus. What you say about auereus is true but only in optimal conditions. As I told you, you don't know in which conditions your powder was produced, packed and stored.

The main purpose of filtering is to remove any particals from your gear. Dust, lint, and powder impurities (flow agents, dust, etc...) are all more likely to cause an infection than dead bacteria (once again, only if BA was present in the solution for at least 7 days). But, and I think the majority of people thinks the same, the idea of injecting dead bacteria into our bodies doesn't make me happy at all. The same applies to impurities.

I wasn't talking about steril dust since as I stated before I think heating your gear is a waste of time. Clean conditions, filtering through a .22 micron filter and BA are more than enough to assure sterility. Heating might damage the hormone.

So, in a nutshell..

Pros of not filtering gear:
- You safe $5 for the filter and you don't waste 20min of your life filtering your gear
Cons of not filtering:
- You might be injecting dead bacteria(if ba was present for at least 7 days)
- You will be for sure injecting impurities.
- In order to grant a certain degree of sterility you'll have to submit your gear to variations of temperature several times (heat, cold, heat, cold, etc...) which might damage the hormone (depending of the hormone of course...)
- You will not have a clean solution, although it might look clean to your eye.
- Higher risks of infection involved.

Pros of filtering:
- No need to submit your gear to several variations of temperature to grant sterility, which means no damage will be made to the hormone.
- No need for high concentrations of BA to grant sterility (less pain)
- You will not be injecting impurities (dust, etc...)
- You will be injecting only bacteria smaller the .22 or .45 depending on your filter (only few bacterias fall under this category)
- You will have a full potent final solution (no hormone harmed)
- You will have a clean final solution
- Lower risks of infection involved
Cons of filtering
- You spend an extra $5 for the filter and 20min to filter your gear. Oh, and you will not have a sore hand the next morning

RooTShell

 

[Musclez]

I'm attaching some graph I had in my notes that indicate that only after 7 days the bacteria and fungi count of a solution containing BA came down to 0. This graph also shows you that 5% of BA is an overkill, although I don't think is bad at all that people like to play it safe

Check other boards, people are complaining also about abcess from auereus. What you say about auereus is true but only in optimal conditions. As I told you, you don't know in which conditions your powder was produced, packed and stored.

The main purpose of filtering is to remove any particals from your gear. Dust, lint, and powder impurities (flow agents, dust, etc...) are all more likely to cause an infection than dead bacteria (once again, only if BA was present in the solution for at least 7 days). But, and I think the majority of people thinks the same, the idea of injecting dead bacteria into our bodies doesn't make me happy at all. The same applies to impurities.

I wasn't talking about steril dust since as I stated before I think heating your gear is a waste of time. Clean conditions, filtering through a .22 micron filter and BA are more than enough to assure sterility. Heating might damage the hormone.

So, in a nutshell..

Pros of not filtering gear:
- You safe $5 for the filter and you don't waste 20min of your life filtering your gear
Cons of not filtering:
- You might be injecting dead bacteria, both gram positive and gram negative (if ba was present for at least 7 days)
- You will be for sure injecting impurities.
- In order to grant a certain degree of sterility you'll have to submit your gear to variations of temperature several times (heat, cold, heat, cold, etc...) which might damage the hormone (depending of the hormone of course...)
- You will not have a clean solution, although it might look clean to your eye.
- Higher risks of infection involved.

Pros of filtering:
- No need to submit your gear to several variations of temperature to grant sterility, which means no damage will be made to the hormone.
- No need for high concentrations of BA to grant sterility (less pain)
- You will not be injecting impurities (dust, etc...)
- You will be injecting only dead gram negative bacteria (if they were present in the solution)
- You will have a full potent final solution (no hormone harmed)
- You will have a clean final solution
- Lower risks of infection involved
Cons of filtering
- You spend an extra $5 for the filter and 20min to filter your gear. Oh, and you will not have a sore hand the next morning

RooTShell

Nice, thank you for the graph. Im not sure what you meant by one of your pro's of filtering as "You will be injecting only dead gram negative bacteria (if they were present in the solution)" Wouldn't the filtering remove the Gram _ve's as well? And if it didn't, you wouldn't want to be injecting dead gram negatives because lysis in the body would release LPS leading to septic shock.

I would probably argue there wouldn't be gram negatives present anyways. If they were in the powder (since they don't form spores) many would be dead and lysed since it is not an environment of much nutritional value at all. Since they would be lysed, they would hence have released LPS fragments, which are likely far too small to be filtered out. Thus if there were any gram negatives present in the powder, the LPS, i would argue, would remain even after filtering.

Additionally, i don't think the heating and cooling is neccessary, most bacteria are cold resistant moreso than they are heat resistant. Also, IP told me that hormones are not heat resistant when i questioned him about his "heating the gear to remove ba" theory. I really didn't look into it myself as to whether they are heat sensitive, since i don't heat them myself.

One more thing. You don't like the idea of injecting dead bacteria into you? Ever had a vaccine?

This is interesting (im such a geek), im really not arguing at all that filtering is a bad idea, just perhaps unneccessary. And i like seeing both sides of it.

And for the record i do make my gear inside of a biological safety hood. Fume hood would be fine too though.

Im still really not sure what you meant by "lint, and powder impurities (flow agents, dust, etc...) are all more likely to cause an infection than dead bacteria". How would it cause an infection. Phagocytosis generally can remove these things quite easily and harmlessly.

Musclez.

 

[RooTShell]

Nice, thank you for the graph. Im not sure what you meant by one of your pro's of filtering as "You will be injecting only dead gram negative bacteria (if they were present in the solution)" Wouldn't the filtering remove the Gram _ve's as well?

You're right. My bad. What I meant was that filtering with a .22 filter will only allow a very small amount of bacteria that could get through. The smallest bacteria known are phylogenetic groups - proteobacteria, chlamydia, G+ bacteria - spirochetes, and verrucomicrobia. The spirochetes contain very thin bacteria with some species having cell diameters of about 0.1 to 0.15 um. Apart from this group, there are no other phylogenetic groups produce cells or buds that are less than 0.2 to 0.25um.

I've edited my post with the corrected info.

Additionally, i don't think the heating and cooling is neccessary, most bacteria are cold resistant moreso than they are heat resistant. Also, IP told me that hormones are not heat resistant when i questioned him about his "heating the gear to remove ba" theory. I really didn't look into it myself as to whether they are heat sensitive, since i don't heat them myself.

http://www.ivcc.edu/johnson/powerpoint presentations/biology 1009-ch6_files/1009-ch6ho.PDF
Check under the "Limiting Environmental Factors that Affect Bacterial Growth" and you'll notice that it says temperature fluxuations.

http://www.hometrainingtools.com/articles/medicine-disease-science-explorations-newsletter.html
"it can be killed through sterilization or pasteurization, antiseptics or disinfectants, or it can be killed by hotter or colder temperatures than it is used to."

IMO temperature fluxuations are a much better aproach than just heating your solution.

I know IP for a long time and respect him but I have to strongly disagree with him on this one. High temperatures will degrade the hormone. Because there are no studies that indicate at what temperature differnt hormones start to degradee I wouldn't recomend going much higher that their melting points for long periods of time.

IP also says that you can bake your gear in the microwave to sterilize it. I certanly won't agree with him on this subject either.

One more thing. You don't like the idea of injecting dead bacteria into you? Ever had a vaccine?

I think this has nothing to do with what we are discussing.

Not all vaccines contain bacteria btw, only bacterial vaccines, which by definition are vaccines containing killed, attenuated, or living bacteria, which is used to induce immunity to a specific bacterial disease or to enhance immunity in an infected organism.

I don't think that the dead bacteria I might inject from my gear will enhance my immunity at all.

Im still really not sure what you meant by "lint, and powder impurities (flow agents, dust, etc...) are all more likely to cause an infection than dead bacteria". How would it cause an infection. Phagocytosis generally can remove these things quite easily and harmlessly.

Not that easly. If phagocytic cells are adversely affected by ingestion of insoluble particles, their ability to protect against infectious organisms may be reduced and infection may follow.

Also, from your point of view, if Phagocytosis can remove all dust, impurities then wounds would never infect. Phagocytosis is effective to a certain degree and not with all kind of particles.

RooTShell