One Pharma: Bulk Cyp

[MythotiK]

Don't give a shit Jim, you are God, you've made that obvious...You are now the official tester of MESO, I'm off to my night run...

-Myth-

 

[Dr JIM]

I'm sorry to hear that Myth. If that's your choice so be it BUT I honestly don't believe your hand is directly involved here BUT the fact you have allowed this to pass for so long is tainting your fine reputation on Meso.

I implore you to investigate that which I'm asking for Myth bc someone KNOWS this type of a report is NOT evidence based and is misleading at the very least!

Regs
Jim

 

[heady muscle]

Don't give a shit Jim, you are God, you've made that obvious...You are now the official tester of MESO, I'm off to my night run...

-Myth-

Not God, it's called Narcissistic personality disorder.

 

[MythotiK]

I'm not worried one bit, Jim...

 

[Colt44]

FLENSER, I don't get involved in the explanation of the results anymore because I am not a chemist nor an expert. Even the most basic answers I am hesitant to answer because of the way that it gets twisted around. I am happy with helping someone out from time to time. That being said, I DID ask the dr at the University your question and his reply follows but I fear it is not as black and white as I had hoped it to be.

For that particular sample, the purity was low (29%), because many ions present (245, 397, 548, 700, 873, doubly charged and all related to each other) in abundant quantities that reduced ionization of 345 (Test Propionate), thus affect its purity estimation. These ions were not normally seen in the similar samples where we used them for reference, it must be something added other than the vegetable oils normally seen.
The concentration estimation was based on vegetable oil background for ionization from most other samples, so it was off, due to, the ionization competition in the electrospray, so that 76 mg/ml could be underestimate. Very likely, the manufacture did have 1 gram pure material dissolved in 10 mL solvent to make a 100mg/ml solution, but when it was analyzed by ESI, because of other ions in the solvent that are so much ionized, they reduced amount of Testosterone Propionate detected.
In short, our estimation can be affected by many variables, only when the variables are controlled (with reference compound, known amount in the same environment), then the estimation can be accurate.

Here's an explanation of one of these tests. Don't believe it adds to the credibility of the analysis but paints a decent picture of how he is "guesstimating" purity data.

 

[mercury]

We don't know "the purity is 72%" and THAT is why NOBODY is happy. I asked you earlier to post the calculations that you used to arrive at the 75% purity you claimed to have found and you ignored me.

I did not ignore you, I wrote that the rough estimate is about 75% but the reported 72% is correct

by rough I meant just by taking quick look at this.

the report is good but it is simply missing more data.

 

[Colt44]

I did not ignore you, I wrote that the rough estimate is about 75% but the reported 72% is correct

by rough I meant just by taking quick look at this.

the report is good but it is simply missing more data.

How can a report be "good" if ALL data is not present?

 

[mercury]

How can a report be "good" if ALL data is not present?

I am just talking about the 72% the most interesting information, we know that some data is missing.

so I called the 72% a good report but we can argue calling it "good"

 

[Dr JIM]

I did not ignore you, I wrote that the rough estimate is about 75% but the reported 72% is correct

by rough I meant just by taking quick look at this.

the report is good but it is simply missing more data.

Are you joking seriously? Why don't you try the same methodology with one of the bonafied HPLCS I just posted.

That's analogous to suggesting you can judge how fast a car will go wo knowing what's under the hood, NUTS!

And rest assured that's NOT an acceptable means of deriving purity or concentration data in ANY certified lab!

 

[Kinikuman]

Here's an explanation of one of these tests. Don't believe it adds to the credibility of the analysis but paints a decent picture of how he is "guesstimating" purity data.

I remember this. My thought at the time was that if the other unidentified compounds were responsible for an inaccurate test, does that mean they are pretty much all inaccurate using this process/equipment? The reason I say this is that we are already fairly certain that nobody is getting raws in the 95%+ purity range. Either way, I am not convinced by any "guesstimation". If you were up on a capital murder case and your attorney used forensic evidence that was "guesstimated" by the lab to defend you, would you be good with that? I wouldn't. Without accurate, reliable results can we even really call these test results anything more than evidence to the compounds purity?

I sincerely appreciate the efforts that members are going to in order to get good data on products but it does seem that we still have a ways to go.

 

[Dr JIM]

Colts doc friend was on spot for sure when he closed by saying, a REFERENCE STANDARD is the ONLY EFFECTIVE MEANS OF CONTROLLING and accounting for the multitude of variables which may alter ANY analysis which involves the acquisition of purity or concentration data!

Every analytical system in use today mandates the use of a ANALYTICAL REFERENCE STANDARD to obtain accurate CONCENTRATION DATA, no exceptions that I'm aware of and that includes the varied forms of LC/MS or TIS

 

[Getbig92]

All this talk back and forth about everything, I mean it was only ONE test shouldn't there be two or three to make sure everything is right and variables all match up one test says nothing especially just a "good" one, I think another MS should be done and to the standard it should be and all this convo will be done

 

[curgen]

@Dr JIM

One thing that I haven't read in this thread or others regarding these tests and the lack of standards is the magnitude of the inaccuracies caused by the missing calibration data. Is there a way to know this?

If the accuracy of these reports is, let's say +-5% without this data, and +-.05% with it, then this is a largely moot point for a lot of members. It's always better to have more accurate information, but a ballpark number like 68-78% is not without value. If we know that a given sample tests in the 70s and another tests in the upper 80s/low 90s, that's a big leap from knowing nothing at all, even if that's as accurate as it gets for the time being. Is this knowable?

FWIW, and IMO, I doubt there is any intentional misleading or funny business going on with the tests, but rather the proper reference standards are so difficult to come by for comparison that the tests are simply being run without them. If there is deception, it's in the non-disclosure that this is the case, and in what degree that bears upon the results.

 

[mercury]

@Dr JIM

One thing that I haven't read in this thread or others regarding these tests and the lack of standards is the magnitude of the inaccuracies caused by the missing calibration data. Is there a way to know this?

we should not bitch too much.

it is simply impossible to find reputable lab, they need licence to perform that king of analysis. they will not accept samples from public, you cannot walk in like it is open crack house.

if you know somebody with the right equipment then you can have something done but do not expect too much.

 

[MANWHORE]

I am having mine run by another lab,
and my Chinaman knows this..
He doesn't know every batch I am running, but he
knows I have the funds to run every batch.. I most likely will too..

He wants more of our business, and I told
him, if he gives me what I want, then I will discuss this with my partner..

Between Labmax, HPLC, Mass Spec, Bloodwork, and
the old school "I am getting great results from this gear"
I don't see how we can go wrong..

M

 

[One Pharma]

Hey guys here's the update for the week: I have had several orders and sold a ton of cyp in the last 3 days. I am placing the next order this weekend for more, If your wanting some order now, there may be lag time between when this supply runs out and the new one comes in. I will let everyone know when that happens so your not waiting for weeks.

I want to thank everyone for supporting this and being patient through this whole process. You member are amazing and am looking forward to doing business with all who chose to!

 

[OdieM]

Wow you've only been open for a week and your running out? Then when you get your next Raws we will have to wait on MS. Which is probably gonna be hard for you to get done now.

 

[One Pharma]

As soon as the raw comes, it will be sent directly for MS. Hopefully this whole process will take no longer than 3 weeks, but you never know. I still have a decent bit left but you never know when large orders will come in.

 

[Dr JIM]

@Dr JIM

One thing that I haven't read in this thread or others regarding these tests and the lack of standards is the magnitude of the inaccuracies caused by the missing calibration data. Is there a way to know this?

If the accuracy of these reports is, let's say +-5% without this data, and +-.05% with it, then this is a largely moot point for a lot of members. It's always better to have more accurate information, but a ballpark number like 68-78% is not without value. If we know that a given sample tests in the 70s and another tests in the upper 80s/low 90s, that's a big leap from knowing nothing at all, even if that's as accurate as it gets for the time being. Is this knowable?

Very insightful question mate, seriously!

But unfortunately the answer is an unequivocal unknown! Why? Bc it's NEVER been studied as a lab standard.

But seriously how can any new found analytical technique be corroborated if those using it refuse to provide the data required so others may evaluate it's usefulness, accuracy or application.

So the reality is, absent further analysis by others in the field of analytical chemistry the accuracy could vary between 0 to 100%! Can I provide a closer estimate? Nope and neither can anyone else bc the data has NOT been made available to do so.

NOW I ASK WHY IS THAT ?????

 

[Kinikuman]

As soon as the raw comes, it will be sent directly for MS. Hopefully this whole process will take no longer than 3 weeks, but you never know. I still have a decent bit left but you never know when large orders will come in.

So does this mean that you underestimated market potential or had very limited supplies on hand?