bc1qt9cz55heqn42uckfuadfgzwjtm2kfugafmwkzjHow can we contribute to the fund?
Btc address of the test fund! Appreciate your interest
MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
Btc address of the test fund! Appreciate your interest
dinfar1337
New Member
do you have any better search terms than project 3. im kinda lazy
R
readalot
Guest
Last edited by a moderator:
R
readalot
Guest
Last edited by a moderator:
Driada Britannica
Subscriber
dinfar1337
New Member
i think this is a good example of gcms being unreliable in autoid.
i dont think its really that unreliable at all with the recent gc-ms tests we had with jano. common pattern. especially not at these crazy area %
R
readalot
Guest
Yep go back to the thread and we addressed that part. Good point.
canIgetsomeHgG
New Member
Ok so here's some analysis:
First we have the usual d4,6 testosterone as is common with this source. Honestly, someone needs to isolate or order a significant portion of just this and see if it has any real biological effects, as we never established to what extent a double bond decreases affinity. The good news is that, based on the reports I have seen, only it and similar miniscule changes (think double bonds) can't be differentiated from other molecules.
Next is the methylbenzene steroid.
The weird sounding group is just a tosylate (somewhat common anion in drug manufacturing, kind of like hydrochloride), but covalently bonded instead. As p toluenesolfonic acid is very common in organic chemistry, especially to make leaving groups, this is rather common. In this case, it hasn't exactly left as much as it should have. Overall it by itself isn't very toxic, although it might act as an alkylating agent and therefore be carcinogenic. Interestingly enough, a similar strategy is used to make prodrugs, just with less reactive functional groups.
Lastly is the acrylic compound. This is probably the most concerning compound, as well as the easiest to filter out. I couldn't find any information other than in silico data, even after writing out the smile. However, the acryloyl functional group tends to be quite toxic in small molecules regardless of the remainder. This is why heating plastics is discouraged, as the monomers are often very toxic.
Based on the majority of Jano testing, the gcms appears to be fairly accurate. On the other hand, it seems like the hplc has good differentiation with anything that is more than a single hydrogen apart. Although do note that the chance of Jano being able to test proteins like HGH accurately is quite slim. Minute differences or missfolding would likely not show up.
R
readalot
Guest
What do you mean by this statement? Could you elaborate please?
RandallFlagg
Member
Meh, I'm too far outta my league trying to follow this one.
I'll keep reading more and try to catch up but I fell too far behind on the testing project.
I realize that makes questions (or statements) like mine sound stupid(er?) than intended.
There was kind of a point to my question but think I just haven't followed close enough to understand the results.
R
readalot
Guest
How did you come to this conclusion?
dinfar1337
New Member
also interested, because that isnt true when looking the gcms through.
R
readalot
Guest
I'm probably just missing something obvious. Great to learn on here from folks who have real world experience and knowledge.
dinfar1337
New Member
100% im the least experienced here so great to pick up some info.
for me on this test
They're 32 h apart, but retention times is almost similar. so i dont think the mz difference is the culprit but the retention times. base peak is also 11k vs 15k
canIgetsomeHgG
New Member
Very important typo. I meant to say fairly inaccurate. Thank you @readalot for bringing this to my attention.
Long story short, I decided to do some basic statistics. Note the uncofindence in my statement — these kinds of statements are closer to "more likely than not" rather than "95% confidence". This is mainly due to the small sample size (~10) more than anything. Again, the conclusion is supposed to be that GCMS area is not accurate rather than is.
Longer explanation:
We have two methods that are essentially measuring purity, some more accurate than others. If we make three basic assumptions, we can do some comparative statistics like lims of agreement. We do this by making a table of GCMS vs HPLC data (of the same samples) and then comparing.
Assumptions:
First: All samples are thoroughly mixed and consistent throughout, especially when one individual sends two samples for testing. This is less likely with bodybuilders rather than actual researchers, but still expected.
Second: Jano's hplc is indeed very accurate, other than confusing very similar compounds like d4,6.
Third: There are no significant quantities of involatile substances. This is the least certain, but is still likely due to how organic synthesis works practically.
If so, we can create a spreadsheet with 2 columns. For the HPLC column, we just write the purity. For the gcms, we add any compounds' areas that will almost certainly coelute on hplc (in general this is only testosterone and d4,6 - see below for more info). Then we just compute the residuals, do some altman analysis, etc. While the statistical power is lacking with only n=~10, it can still tell us a lot. Honestly, if anyone here has any time, please make a spreadsheet of any janoshik reports that you have of the same sample, with gcms and hplc. If we can get enough data, we could even do cluster analysis and find patterns with Jano's testing, possibly even with vendors.
This is a bit less scientific, and is mostly a combination of: how likely two molecules are to coelute based on structure (in the case of d4,6, I would say the damning aspect is that the double bond is in very close proximity to the d4 bond, unlike modifications far away from it like boldenone or nandrolone) and published data, how the hplc raw data looks (especially the chromatograms, I actually think that I saw a shoulder peak on one), how it compares to the gcms, etc. Its a bit hard to explain, but at minimum I haven't seen anything nearly as flagrant as the d4,6 and testosterone.
Last edited:
dinfar1337
New Member
i actually wrote to readalot in dms and did mention making a database for it in google spreadsheet or whatever, but i gave up fairly quickly because we have less than 5 tests total with hplc & gcms in raws on the forum. sadly no one does it.
very good idea and i would probably have done it if we had the data for it already
NPP by QSC two samples November 2024
I have paid for the purity test do you feel like it would help the cause if we use the meso fund to get GCMS on both?
I have paid for the purity test do you feel like it would help the cause if we use the meso fund to get GCMS on both?
AlexDavis43
Member
They are the same one
Similar threads
