Janoshik Accuracy Worries Address

[janoshik]

Did not wish to hijack this thread: MESO-Rx Sponsor - AASraw: GMP-Certified Steroid and Peptide API Manufacturer where the discussion took hold.

IMO it would be nice if @janoshik could step in and comment on the variance on results and whether there may have been a higher than usual amount of mistakes recently. IIRC samples are held for a while, so if there is any reason to dispute some results, it would be great if they could be retested just to settle this concern.

Thank you for tagging me, this discussion eluded me. This will take a couple posts, so I'll just quote the relevant posts and address them below when time permits me.

I feel standing up to public scrutiny is an important part of being a testing business.

Members set a standard here that killed accountability here IMO. Seem to start with QSC.

No matter what is sold and said people still jump all over the supplier for sales because of lower prices

Can't have accountability if no authority is backing it and leaving members hanging.

It's just all business here and big talk until action is required!

QSC still has not owned up to money taken from members and than selling that same product to other members for a higher price because they are not being held accountable, ain't going to change today.

Nobody on this board seems to hold Jano accountable for his report mistakes when they accrue, they just claim it has to be right. I personally have had 5 wrong in the last 12 months with the last one off by 40%.

I will not discuss it any further or answer questions about it, it is what it is!

Not talking about it (jano) will. Never improve things tho

I think growing pains is a part of everything and in time I hope things tighten up for Jano, learning curves are real. If I recall right in this last year he stopped testing and has a large crew doing so, this is when issues showed up.

I want the best for him and the other companies as we can not rely on just 1.

One way or the other as if it's the test or raws I hope you find resolution, this board lacks providing that while claiming accountability and enforcing strict rules on it.

Hopefully in time this also will change to the better for all here with everyone being held accountable no matter what the reputation is, nobody is perfect and we all make mistakes. Some mistakes in this can cost dearly to a parsons health. Like the suppliers here all the nutt hangers stood up for that had the bad reta, no accountability although some ended up in the ER.

I'm not bashing I'm stating facts and would love to see change, change for all like it's said to be but not being.

I been at this a long time brother, I have seen people get fucked up many times from shit like this. My circle don't face these things as true transparency and accountability has been #1 from day 1 going on 15 years.

I never want to see people get hurt from a suppliers fault, testers fault or source's fault. Getting hurt from one's own stupidity is bad enough in this.

I just did talk about it but have been afraid of how much this board is so protective of him that I would not have been taken serious.

The 40% off pissed me off!

All I can say is once with tren e I got from qsc it tested 88% but finished product came out 220.

With deca and a different supplier 1st test 78% 2nd 54% same batch, sent off to AB and it was 94%.

Because of what is said on this board between the 2 I had to wait to see who was correct, made it at 300mg adding 13% and sent it off, tested as 319.73mg. There is no way it was known to be a 300mg product.

All other tests from other people of the finish showed to be at the 94%.

Raws are what the issue seems to be testing this past year from what we are seeing as finished is always spot on. Peptides I can't speak for.

This as far as I will take it but add, a good supplier should stand by paying for a 2nd test like mine did when it's highly disputable.

This is something Ive mentioned before..how representative is the sample sent in for testing? Can we realistically believe that 200mg is sufficient for a 1/2kg bag of raws? We have seen, by visual inspection, that certain parts of raws, look "dirtier" or slightly different "clumpy etc".

When i started testing i was considering to dissolve 5g in pure guaiacol, sending for testing, then working out the purity based off the mg/ml...but i got lazy.

If you request for raw data, you can see that typically, only 40mg is used in the sample!

I'm not trying to justify AASraw

I'm not trying to oust Jano

I'm not trying to promote AB

I just can't afford these kind of mistakes and have to take it upon myself to find resolution behind them. When talking to Jano the communication is great and a resolve happens a lot of times but Kate throws it under the rug too often for my liking.

We need all the companies that test to be the very best they can be and we need many of them IMO.

How do you know your jano tests were that inaccurate?

No I'm saying it was tested 3 times, twice with Jano at 78% and 54% once with AB at 94%

I added 13% to 94% and got it just about spot on at 319.73mg.

No, AB and there is no way they knew it was a 300mg product.

I didn't take it back to Jano because I felt Kate was just standing by the results. I was too upset at this point to continue and moved on.

Ahhhh to bad.. The final test would be Jano testing it exactly 320+ and well going against his own purity report

I went off the 94% based off many other results of finished product done by Jano from others with the same raws.

This supplier was the only one on the face of the earth that had deca at the time. All finished products from all that tested it with Jano was in the 94% range, only 2 of us tested the raws.

You know how that goes with people and testing, skip the raws and go straight to the finished.

So indeed the raws were correct with AB and off with Jano.

That was already being done by others, I was just too upset because the raws were very expensive and I bought a lot.

You are the only one customer in this forum to say not only rely on Janoshik. thumbs up.

Our Trenbolone enanthate raw, three persons got three different results at the same batch products. 88%, 85%, 93%. We don't comment.

I don't think it works like that, years of doing this and 1 sample has had all batches match up.

More finished gets tested than the raw, it never changes like that, 40% is large.

I think you are not listening to me when I said 3 raw samples were done and many more finished tests as well while all finished has shown to be 94% not 54%.

I'm not the only one involved just the only one on Meso to speak up.

I'm done with this, I moved on months ago.

 

[cousinmuscles]

Thanks for taking the initiative. We can find a resolve this way one way or another.

 

[Photon]

Thanks for making time..if possible, could you also share if there are ways to make our results more accurate, specifically with respect to raws.

There's been some recent discussions whereby..raw vendors on this board have started to tell us to heat out raws to draw out residual solvents before testing or using (why are these vendor selling raws with residual solvents?!?)

Sample weight? Any difference between sending in 200mg vs 2g?

 

[janoshik]

Well, first I'd like to address the fact that I'm not held accountable for mistakes if they happen - there's multiple occasions where people did that in just recent month and I don't think I answered in a unacceptable manner to any of them.

In fact, I do always take my time and investigate and I believe that I do not steer to avoid admitting mistakes. They do, unfortunately happen and indeed, with our team more than quadrupling in last year it is unavoidable.

As @Sampei said, not talking about problems and mistakes and avoiding it leads to a road of non-improvement and I prefer to not sniff my own farts in this regard.

I feel like there is a particular sample - the nandrolone decanoate that tested at 78%, later on at 54% and 94% with a different laboratory and then the judgement had been made it must have been an issue at our side of things.

I did a thorough investigation on this particular case - it had not been difficult to assess which samples and orders those were.

 

[Walter Hype]

Thanks for making time..if possible, could you also share if there are ways to make our results more accurate, specifically with respect to raws.

There's been some recent discussions whereby..raw vendors on this board have started to tell us to heat out raws to draw out residual solvents before testing or using (why are these vendor selling raws with residual solvents?!?)

Sample weight? Any difference between sending in 200mg vs 2g?

2nd this! i love more accuracy .

 

[dinfaralt]

@janoshik
for this specific test, is it possible to know which impurities the 15% are? i have a strong suspicion analiza and mz labs just cant differentiate molecules that are close to the parent molecule and they end up co-eluding making the purity seem higher. just out of my own curiosity

aasraws have had many relevant gcms tests to show they have bad synthesis ending with byproducts that have misplaced bonds close to the parent molecule

Post in thread 'AASraw: Independent Lab Test Reports & COA/HPLC'

Dec 31, 2025

Here are our Trenbolone enanthate powder HPLC reports for your reference:
Internal lab: 98% purity
Janoshik: 85.35%
Analize Bialek: 93%, 94%
MZ lab: 95.41%

AASraw as a professional API manufacturer, we only provide high quality raw!
1. AASraw Internal HPLC-Trenbolone Enanthate Powder(CAS 10161-35-8)-20251112

2. AASraw Trenbolone enanthate (CAS10161-35-8) by Janoshik 20251215


3. AASraw Trenbolone enanthate (CAS10161-35-8) Analiza bialek 20251223


4. AASraw Trenbolone enanthate powder (CAS 10161-35-8) By MZ lab 20251223...

• AASraw

• 
• 

 

[Venom Lab]

Well, first I'd like to address the fact that I'm not held accountable for mistakes if they happen - there's multiple occasions where people did that in just recent month and I don't think I answered in a unacceptable manner to any of them.

In fact, I do always take my time and investigate and I believe that I do not steer to avoid admitting mistakes. They do, unfortunately happen and indeed, with our team more than quadrupling in last year it is unavoidable.

As @Sampei said, not talking about problems and mistakes and avoiding it leads to a road of non-improvement and I prefer to not sniff my own farts in this regard.

I feel like there is a particular sample - the nandrolone decanoate that tested at 78%, later on at 54% and 94% with a different laboratory and then the judgement had been made it must have been an issue at our side of things.

I did a thorough investigation on this particular case - it had not been difficult to assess which samples and orders those were.

I'm not here to defend anyone as to be honest there is no need, this isn't a witch hunt but a constructive conversation about something that matters to many of us (not most tho).

I can only speak for myself but I can attest that Jano has always been very open and nice in answering my doubts on some lab test results and he has gone out of his way more than once investigating few particular cases.

This doesn't mean there may not be some issues, I don't know to be honest but surely openly talking about it as civil ppl could be a way to shine some light and understand better on the topic of raws purity test etc.

 

[janoshik]

I apologize for the delays, life has its ways to get at me.

So, the nandrolone decanoate that tested at 78%, later on at 54% and 94% with a different laboratory.

I did not manage to find any 78% nandrolone decanoate raw result in the past three years, no matter how hard I tried. Could I, perhaps, be pointed out to report number of that one, please? Only result of ND in the 70%s range of purity is from a different client. @The-Squat
With our record keeping not only I'm seeing that my team was highly hesitant of the result and retested it twice (so three times in total), I'm also seeing how the sample looked.




Now, the great thing about physics is it is universal. As many of you here do know a pure solid melts at a single temperature because its crystal lattice is uniform and packs/organizes optimally. This is the entire point of melting point testing. Now, if that solid is far from pure, the melting point depresses.

So, if something that was supposed to be solid at room temperature, such as nandrolone decanoate is so liquid it has to be sent in a vial, it is way beyond reasonable doubt that it is far from being pure.

Given the fact there's probably not a person at this planet who had seen more nandrolone decanoate raw powder samples than me, I also dare to say it is nowhere near 90%s or 80%s. I don't wish to appeal to my authority - there's dozens of reports in that range, where ND tested in 80%s and it was still pure enough to remain solid.

89%


83%


It really only starts going full liquid way below that.

So I feel that the fact of how the sample looked is sufficient proof for me, that my employees did not fail here.

I have to say, I have no idea how Analiza Bialek arrived at their number and their mg/ml and I have to admit they are experts at providing their clients with the numbers they like seeing. Maybe used your own raw as a standard? We've seen that with some lab in the USA using raws from their clients as their standards. Bold U. I'm sure someone will remember. Not me, not today, I apologize.

Anyway, I find it a little dishonest to claim "All other tests from other people of the finish showed to be at the 94%." when there is exactly one other test being mentioned by a company such as AB, who was not able to stand up to much scrutiny even here, on Meso.

 

[janoshik]

Now, @Photon had a great point about homogeneity of the samples being a potential issue.

There was an internal note from my analysts, that the sample above was not homogeneous liquid at all. In fact, if you look at the photograph of the sample, you can see yourself actually!

Regarding Kate, one of our mailbox handlers, she doesn't have the authority nor education to provide feedback on the correctness of the results, most (~90%) of the time I am being consulted, because I like to screen our work for any errors and handle them myself to keep up the standard I set in this business. Rest of the time she consults with other analysts. Apologies if she didn't make it clear enough that the results were reviewed multiple times by someone from our field.

We do make mistakes, we do suffer growing pains, but this was not the case

 

[janoshik]

@janoshik
for this specific test, is it possible to know which impurities the 15% are? i have a strong suspicion analiza and mz labs just cant differentiate molecules that are close to the parent molecule and they end up co-eluding making the purity seem higher. just out of my own curiosity

aasraws have had many relevant gcms tests to show they have bad synthesis ending with byproducts that have misplaced bonds close to the parent molecule

Post in thread 'AASraw: Independent Lab Test Reports & COA/HPLC'

Dec 31, 2025

Here are our Trenbolone enanthate powder HPLC reports for your reference:
Internal lab: 98% purity
Janoshik: 85.35%
Analize Bialek: 93%, 94%
MZ lab: 95.41%

AASraw as a professional API manufacturer, we only provide high quality raw!
1. AASraw Internal HPLC-Trenbolone Enanthate Powder(CAS 10161-35-8)-20251112

2. AASraw Trenbolone enanthate (CAS10161-35-8) by Janoshik 20251215


3. AASraw Trenbolone enanthate (CAS10161-35-8) Analiza bialek 20251223


4. AASraw Trenbolone enanthate powder (CAS 10161-35-8) By MZ lab 20251223...

• AASraw

• 
• 

Their internal report is completely useless and ought to be ignored.

I have been explaining it over and over again, with small molecules (such as anabolic steroids) you cannot use the % on the graph as the purity measurement. Only correct way is to weight an amount of sample and measure the actual substance content.

Eg. if you weight 100 mg of the powder, but detect 94.31 mg of the substance there, the purity is 93.41%. Even if the HPLC graph shows 99.91% for example.

Regarding the other two tests - as you correctly point out, if co-elution happens, than the measurement is higher than it should be, artificially improving purity.

Identification of impurities is very tiresome and expensive process and we cannot afford to do that at the point in time where every single of our employees is working 20-30% overtime. I myself am writing these lines down with severe fever.

 

[janoshik]

I hope this helps to clarify the situation.

I understand, how getting different results from different laboratories can lead to frustrated client and I deeply apologize if at points me or my team doesn't communicate clearly enough, but I believe I have to stand behind my team's work here.

I can only ask that any issues are reported, privately or publicly, as early as they are perceived, so I can do my best at rectifying them as early as possible.

I believe standing up to public scrutiny and fixing our mistakes, should they happen, is what separates us from our competition and improves our company.

 

[Walter Hype]

Their internal report is completely useless and ought to be ignored.

I have been explaining it over and over again, with small molecules (such as anabolic steroids) you cannot use the % on the graph as the purity measurement. Only correct way is to weight an amount of sample and measure the actual substance content.

Eg. if you weight 100 mg of the powder, but detect 94.31 mg of the substance there, the purity is 93.41%. Even if the HPLC graph shows 99.91% for example.

Regarding the other two tests - as you correctly point out, if co-elution happens, than the measurement is higher than it should be, artificially improving purity.

Identification of impurities is very tiresome and expensive process and we cannot afford to do that at the point in time where every single of our employees is working 20-30% overtime. I myself am writing these lines down with severe fever.

sorry to off track this but i hope you can remember this odd sample i sent in. If you look the hplc result was HIGHER than the actual content in the gcms result

would this indicate purity was LOWER than 91%? and that some of the compounds look like test api in the hplc?

Janoshik Analytical

am i interrupting what your saying correctly?

hplc says 91%

gcms says only 87.74 Testosterone enanthate was present which is assuming a small fraction of the sample you tested from the vial itself.

i guess for a more accurate test of a sample we should ensure homogenous mixture of the sample as result of the entire raw?

my line of thinking is melt the raws or a larger fraction then turn back into powder via blending so i get a more AVG content of the sample.....maybe im over thinking this

this is something iv been concerned with as im scared some suppliers simply mix in the impure stuff with the good and keep the top of the bag full of the good to "trick" you into thinking what you have is what you ordered...in that case mixing the raws and avg it out to ensure a full picture of what your testing?

 

[janoshik]

sorry to off track this but i hope you can remember this odd sample i sent in. If you look the hplc result was HIGHER than the actual content in the gcms result

would this indicate purity was LOWER than 91%? and that some of the compounds look like test api in the hplc?

Janoshik Analytical

am i interrupting what your saying correctly?

hplc says 91%

gcms says only 87.74 Testosterone enanthate was present which is assuming a small fraction of the sample you tested from the vial itself.

No, those numbers don't generally mean anything specific, they ought to be ignored.

Only correct way is to weight an amount of sample and measure the actual substance content.

A 50:50 mixture of substance A and substance B can have 20% signal for A in HPLC and 99% in GCMS. It's a function of bonds and structures present, volatility, vapor pressures and many other variables.

 

[janoshik]

i guess for a more accurate test of a sample we should ensure homogenous mixture of the sample as result of the entire raw?

my line of thinking is melt the raws or a larger fraction then turn back into powder via blending so i get a more AVG content of the sample.....maybe im over thinking this

We always try to ensure homogeneous mixture of what we actually receive.

Generally with powders it is not a problem, simple mixing the powder works well enough.

However, if the raw is a liquid that is separated into multiple phases (such as this deca, sometimes bold u), then it becomes a serious issue.

 

[Walter Hype]

We always try to ensure homogeneous mixture of what we actually receive.

Generally with powders it is not a problem, simple mixing the powder works well enough.

However, if the raw is a liquid that is separated into multiple phases (such as this deca, sometimes bold u), then it becomes a serious issue.

ok good just making sure. yeah these raws actually had major suppressed melting point idk if you remember who tested it but it would easily turn into a liquid sludge if you let it warmup

 

[Venom Lab]

I apologize for the delays, life has its ways to get at me.

So, the nandrolone decanoate that tested at 78%, later on at 54% and 94% with a different laboratory.

I did not manage to find any 78% nandrolone decanoate raw result in the past three years, no matter how hard I tried. Could I, perhaps, be pointed out to report number of that one, please? Only result of ND in the 70%s range of purity is from a different client. @The-Squat
With our record keeping not only I'm seeing that my team was highly hesitant of the result and retested it twice (so three times in total), I'm also seeing how the sample looked.

View attachment 372609


Now, the great thing about physics is it is universal. As many of you here do know a pure solid melts at a single temperature because its crystal lattice is uniform and packs/organizes optimally. This is the entire point of melting point testing. Now, if that solid is far from pure, the melting point depresses.

So, if something that was supposed to be solid at room temperature, such as nandrolone decanoate is so liquid it has to be sent in a vial, it is way beyond reasonable doubt that it is far from being pure.

Given the fact there's probably not a person at this planet who had seen more nandrolone decanoate raw powder samples than me, I also dare to say it is nowhere near 90%s or 80%s. I don't wish to appeal to my authority - there's dozens of reports in that range, where ND tested in 80%s and it was still pure enough to remain solid.

89%
View attachment 372610

83%
View attachment 372611

It really only starts going full liquid way below that.

So I feel that the fact of how the sample looked is sufficient proof for me, that my employees did not fail here.

I have to say, I have no idea how Analiza Bialek arrived at their number and their mg/ml and I have to admit they are experts at providing their clients with the numbers they like seeing. Maybe used your own raw as a standard? We've seen that with some lab in the USA using raws from their clients as their standards. Bold U. I'm sure someone will remember. Not me, not today, I apologize.

Anyway, I find it a little dishonest to claim "All other tests from other people of the finish showed to be at the 94%." when there is exactly one other test being mentioned by a company such as AB, who was not able to stand up to much scrutiny even here, on Meso.

Holy shit that deca sample... Is it the one that tested 94% at AB? Because if it is... Well I don't know what to say

 

[Walter Hype]

Holy shit that deca sample... Is it the one that tested 94% at AB? Because if it is... Well I don't know what to say

Someone isn't calibrated right or winging it. But we know it's not jano.