Janoshik Analytical laboratory testing services

[FlawlessSet]

A few of my mates tested some gh with Jano and the vials were bunk apparently.
i might test my next batch with him seems like good if investing a lot in UGL Gh

 

[Den84]

A few of my mates tested some gh with Jano and the vials were bunk apparently.
i might test my next batch with him seems like good if investing a lot in UGL Gh

What brand were bunk ?

 

[janoshik]

Remember, how BOP administrator DWBO claimed that I was given the boot because I made errors and I instead insinuated it might have been because paid for by a certain sponsor? Didn't I, @T-Bagger ?

There's nothing like admission of truth.
So, either DWBO or Bullrush are lying here.




Meso Info ... Buyer beware


And another one



I was given the boot on BOP 17 feburary 2019 and the said tests were emailed to Anasci admin on 16. February

Also those tests were done blind in vials marked only by numbers, as anybody here knows that's the only way I receive samples from overseas, so that's another thing.

 

[T-Bagger]

Remember, how BOP administrator DWBO claimed that I was given the boot because I made errors and I instead insinuated it might have been because paid for by a certain sponsor? Didn't I, @T-Bagger ?

There's nothing like admission of truth.
So, either DWBO or Bullrush are lying here.

View attachment 116359


Meso Info ... Buyer beware


And another one

View attachment 116360

I was given the boot on BOP 17 feburary 2019 and the said tests were emailed to Anasci admin on 16. February

Also those tests were done blind in vials marked only by numbers, as anybody here knows that's the only way I receive samples from overseas, so that's another thing.

They hired you for a good show and then when Pomp and someone else came up as crap, they realized their bread and butter was going to disappear. They got good pats on the back and then decided to axe the ol Jano. Easier to screw members because they’ll be back for more anyway. Idiots.

 

[janoshik]

Jano has also admittedly fucked up his results, the most recent I recall was 300mg EQ. WM came back around 300mg. Jano got 400mg for a sample in the same batch. After a bunch of questions Jano admitted he screwed up the results and it was actually 200mg. Still off from the expected 300, but either way Jano screwed up.

It would be appreciated if you got your facts straight.

The result for EQ was fixed and emailed to the customer LONG before it was posted on the forums. Now, I have undertaken steps preventing from such errors from happening again and as seen in the following posts, you act like it's a bad thing.

jano said he’d be running each test twice to verify, but still can you trust a guy that can’t trust himself?

JHe's even to the point that he's stated he'll be testing each sample twice. Who needs to do that?

Yes, because doing duplicates to prevent errors is definitely to be interpreted as the fact that I can't trust myself. I'm sure every facility in the world where they run duplicates or triplicates is interested in your highly valid opinion.

Now, do you just pretend to not know that running duplicates or triplicates is a common practice in order to belittle me or are you just unaware?

If you are trying to belittle me, what is your goal by that, please?
If you did not know, would you consider apologizing?

@mp46

 

[mp46]

Not trying to belittle you, just make sure people have all of the information. I also don’t know of any places that run the same tests 2 and 3 times just to make sure they didn’t fuck it up. They run the test and the results are the results, if something is abnormal they run it again but running the same sample multiple times because you’ve messed up in the past just shows someone wasn’t paying attention.

If you trusted yourself, the techniques, and the equipment why would you need to run the tests 2 and 3 times? If you know everything was done correctly why run anything twice?

 

[janoshik]

I also don’t know of any places that run the same tests 2 and 3 times just to make sure they didn’t fuck it up.

Well, if you don't know any place where they do duplicates or triplicates, I have to assume you lack science background entirely.

They run the test and the results are the results, if something is abnormal

Please, would you mind answering a question - how exactly do you figure out something is "abnormal" in a blind test?

Thank you.


Now, duplicates and triplicates are ran in every single field of science to avoid something, which is specifically called "random error."

I won't bother you or anybody else by linking one out of billions of mentions of how it's a common practice. It's actually a practice so common that an article talks about them as if they were done by everybody automatically:

Do you prepare your samples/standards in duplicate without really thinking about it? If challenged on why, would your answer be something like, "it's good practice, isn't it?" The use of replicates in analytical procedures is commonplace but it is important to understand why you are doing it and also what the results are telling you.

Replicates in Analytical Methods - When and How Many?

If you trusted yourself, the techniques, and the equipment why would you need to run the tests 2 and 3 times? If you know everything was done correctly why run anything twice?

I will avoid answering your questions, because they show lack of understanding of basic scientific principles so deep it's embarrassing.

 

[mp46]

So if you ran double and triple replicates because it’s standard practice, why did you have to start doing it? You should have always been doing it and not had to start when the EQ problem came around.

 

[janoshik]

So if you ran double and triple replicates because it’s standard practice, why did you have to start doing it? You should have always been doing it and not had to start when the EQ problem came around.

So you choose to not answer my direct question and change your narrative now that you see that you are wrong. OK, I guess.

I will use the article that I had linked to explain, as it helps to illustrate it nicely without me having to write too much.

Sample Preparation
When replicates are used in sample preparation it is more likely that the reason is related to variability of the method caused by the inherent errors in the sample preparation steps. When the sample is very simple, such as a pure substance then the replication may be used a weighing check as discussed for standards previously. For samples which are composed of mixtures of compounds it would be expected that the sample preparation will involve more sources of error than for the standard preparation.

AAS oils are in their nature indeed quite simple samples.

When the variability is evaluated in method validation then number of replicates prepared is usually 6. This number is high enough to express the variability of the method using statistics such as standard deviation and thus confidence intervals. (In out of specification testing, where retesting is required to determine the actual value of a suspect sample with a high level of confidence, the number of replicates is usually somewhere between 5 and 8 for the same reason.)

When I validated my methods, I actually ran 5 replicates and the variability was within 2%.

However, in routine analysis, 6 replicates per analysis would be unacceptable in terms of the time taken for a single analysis. A decision has to be made regarding how many replicates will be enough for an acceptable result. Usually the best source of information for this decision is the precision data in the validation report.

The fact that the samples were simple and the replicates were close to each other - along with the fact that running countless replicates is simply uneconomical in terms of both time and expenses I have decided to run zero replicates.

I always claimed that I aim to make my service as available to everybody as possible - and I take pride in that - and being economical is simply a necessary part of it.

I have judged not running replicated to be a right call back when I made and as years passed and conditions changed I failed to adjust.

So, when I figured out an error happened, I made adjustments so it would not happen again. Is that a bad thing?

 

[mp46]

So you ran zero replicates even though you’re saying it’s standard to run multiples, great. So do you even follow any industry standard?

 

[janoshik]

So you ran zero replicates even though you’re saying it’s standard to run multiples, great. So do you even follow any industry standard?

One has to love how you change your narrative and the topic with the speed of light to avoid admitting your lack of awareness of any science basics and the fact you were wrong and try to spin it in such a way that you can yet again attempt to belittle me.

Gotta love the loaded question at the end too.


Anyway, I will explain to you yet again, as you (hopefully) try to act like simpleton, because you lack any better response.

If you actually took the slightest while to read the article I posted to help you educate yourself, you'd notice that the number of the replicates depends entirely on the situation and it is the researcher's call. I even explained it to you how the call was made and how and why it was changed. Is there some specific part that is not clear for you?

If so, I can elaborate.

 

[mp46]

I’m too tired today to come close to caring. You either you’ve always run multiple samples like you claim is the industry normal or you didn’t run multiples like you claim is the normal and you fucked up. Either way at one point you weren’t following your own advice

You’re the one who told me the error was your fault. And therefore running multiples has nothing to do with random error and everything to do with Jano error.

 

[janoshik]

I’m too tired today to come close to caring. You either you’ve always run multiple samples like you claim is the industry normal or you didn’t run multiples like you claim is the normal and you fucked up. Either way at one point you weren’t following your own advice

You’re the one who told me the error was your fault. And therefore running multiples has nothing to do with random error and everything to do with Jano error.

I didn't really expect an answer acknowledging what I had written anyway. Well, I couldn't care less about you being tired, but what I care more about is that you are attempting to push a false information and false narrative to harm my business, so I pointed it out. Anybody can read it now and make up their own mind what they think about this.

And yes, it was my fault, my error, and it is by definition a random error. You'd understand that if you had at least the tiniest clue about how scientific data work. I even put the term into quotes for you so you can look it up. After that I took up measures to avoid random errors, which you (falsely and deceivingly - or out of plain lack of knowledge) acted like is something that nobody does. You refuse to acknowledge your mistake either because you have malicious intent, or simply because you fear that admitting that you have zero clue about actual science will hurt your internet-smart-guy persona you are building here.

https://www.matrix.edu.au/the-beginners-guide-to-physics-practical-skills/physics-practical-skills-part-3-systematic-vs-random-errors/

Have a nice day.

 

[mp46]

I didn't really expect an answer acknowledging what I had written anyway. Well, I couldn't care less about you being tired, but what I care more about is that you are attempting to push a false information and false narrative to harm my business, so I pointed it out. Anybody can read it now and make up their own mind what they think about this.

And yes, it was my fault, my error, and it is by definition a random error. You'd understand that if you had at least the tiniest clue about how scientific data work. I even put the term into quotes for you so you can look it up. After that I took up measures to avoid random errors, which you (falsely and deceivingly - or out of plain lack of knowledge) acted like is something that nobody does. You refuse to acknowledge your mistake either because you have malicious intent, or simply because you fear that admitting that you have zero clue about actual science will hurt your internet-smart-guy persona you are building here.

https://www.matrix.edu.au/the-beginners-guide-to-physics-practical-skills/physics-practical-skills-part-3-systematic-vs-random-errors/

Have a nice day.

I skipped over ever thing else you wrote when you said something about it being a random error.

It’s not a random error when you doubled the concentration of the sample size. You filled the pipette twice/double, that’s not random. Unless you’re changing your story as to how the concentration got messed up.

 

[mp46]

In case you forgot where you said you doubled the concentration on your own, which isn’t a random error, that’s user error and shows you’re not using these industry standards you speak of.

I found where you doubled the dose in the concentration which explains how you got 200 - 400 but I must have missed where you got a result that said 300. Unless your final answer is the actual concentration is 200mg and WM is wrong at 300mg.

My final answer is either that, or the samples that we received were different....

 

[Sdryx]

Random error is common and well known... yet Jano waited for an error to implement a safety precaution??? So he knowingly produced shady results, no surprise there folks!

Yeah, it’s definitely not Jano changing his narrative as the story goes on...

 

[janoshik]

@mp46

If you actually read the beginners guide I had linked for you, or finished high school science, you'd understand that errors are either random or systematic. You did not and you feel the urge to continue spewing your stupidity into public view.

 

[mp46]

Cool story bro. You keep talking about random error or experimental error but the error you had, had nothing to do with variances in the scientific process. It had everything to do with you fucking up and doubling the sample concentration, that’s not random, that’s deliberate. There was no adverse reaction in the chemicals or machines, you didn’t do your job correctly.

And you only implemented extra testing after YOU fucked up. You can tell the world that you fucking up falls under the “random error” category by definition, but don’t try and spin it like it wasn’t 100% your fault and it was something outside of your control.

 

[janoshik]

So was it a screw up or deliberate?

Do you realize that you are contradicting yourself in the very same sentence in your desperate attempt to - to put it bluntly - shit on me?

I apologize, but I can't help and avoid insulting you - the strength of your arguments is on par with your expertise.

Why don't you go play an internet smart guy somewhere in the underground again and stop talking about stuff you don't have a slightest clue about? Howgh.

 

[B Ware]

He was also banned from BOP for “human error” as well. Admin started a testing program over there and wanted to throw a curve ball to see if Jano was legit. Admin sent Jano two samples from the same vial. First test was right on the mark testing at 200mg/ml. The second test was 166mg/ml. Testing was on Mast E.

This is all public info and can be found easily in the “scammer section” titled as ”Janoshik exposed”.