Readalots Enhanced Testing

[BigNoOne]

You are not making a lot of sense now.
You don't believe that sources' products may be of a different quality, to begin with? In terms of both what they use and the procedures used?
You cannot seriously think this.
This is what some of the testing would expose

The testing so far hasn’t shown anything.

What would you expect it to show?

I keep repeating that there needs to be a concern. Something that may be “off”. So far nobody has shown that. So this talk is all of mythicals.

 

[readalot]

You could test for other stuff. You could test for everything under the sun.

No concern for fent?

The testing proposed is taken straight from USP standards for pharma products. See my other thread for the gory details. I didn't make up these tests or their basis out of thin air.

 

[iris]

Yes, the expanded readalot testing

Qsc is engaged in testing to a certain extent, let’s call it basic testing, what is now come to be expected.
They are more consistent than many other sources.
But your question is fair.
With such a massive customer base who, by the look of things, is showing no interest in more comprehensive testing, there is no incentive for them engaging with it.
But other sources are getting involved.
People are seeing that the quality of what they are getting from qsc is inferior to others and they are changing who they buy from.

 

[readalot]

mythicals

Not at all. It's the standard suite of tests used to determine whether a product is in spec for pharma.

 

[readalot]

Do you think QSC will do this?

This testing will start with the US domestic vendors and some international vendors have also shown interest. QSC has shown no interest. Customers can decide who they want to patronize.

 

[BigNoOne]

Not at all. It's the standard suite of tests used to determine whether a product is in spec for pharma.

As soon as you find something that fails these tests, you’ll get a ton of support.

 

[readalot]

As soon as you find something that fails these tests, you’ll get a ton of support.

The raw I already tested would fail pharma spec. Of course UGL customers may choose to dismiss this if the brewer corrects for the poor purity on the batch. Just more other stuff for free in your oil.

Endotoxin assay is a work in progress. TBD. Metals look fine so far. Sterility only as good as last batch.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts and the engagement.

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

“Oil quality” is pretty general.

What specifically? Are you saying that Pharmacom or Pharmaqo or QSC (large international) use “better” quality oils than small domestics? Or vice versa?

Small domestic may use better stuff.

For example. C8/c10 MCT vs c8/c10/c12.

Or cold pressed GSO hexane free vs general GSO.


Castor oil, etc

 

[BigNoOne]

Small domestic may use better stuff.

For example. C8/c10 MCT vs c8/c10/c12.

Or cold pressed GSO hexane free vs general GSO.


Castor oil, etc

The testing would get Hexane but none of the analyses would differentiate between the MCT oil types.

 

[BigNoOne]

The raw I already tested would fail pharma spec. Of course UGL customers may choose to dismiss this if the brewer corrects for the poor purity on the batch. Just more other stuff for free in your oil.

Endotoxin assay is a work in progress. TBD. Metals look fine so far. Sterility only as good as last batch.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts and the engagement.

Did you post the HPLC purity results?

 

[readalot]

Did you post the HPLC purity results?

Still waiting. There seems to be a backup right now...

 

[janoshik]

The testing would get Hexane but none of the analyses would differentiate between the MCT oil types.

GCMS screening or LCMS screening would.

Cheers

 

[iris]

GCMS screening or LCMS screening would.

Cheers

Thank you

 

[readalot]

care to elaborate on the "Threat"?

No thanks. It was a disturbing threat IMO, not a "threat". You could ask the member his intention but he is banned now.

do we have any idea what these other peaks are in the chromatogram? those compounds metabolites, poisonous compounds, etc?

I'll comment as I can. Wanted to get the data out there and I'll do a discussion post for each project. Sound fair?

 

[iris]

No thanks. It was a disturbing threat IMO, not a "threat". You could ask the member his intention but he is banned now.

Banned again, second time.
With so many sources and info here he will be back, though.
I wish it weren't the case.

I had to block him from my dms, too, before he got banned.
I am sorry you had to go through that.
But for someone to threaten you, for no reason whatsoever, is just beyond.
Clearly, someone with issues.
I would never have thought.

 

[B Ware]

The testing proposed is taken straight from USP standards for pharma products. See my other thread for the gory details. I didn't make up these tests or their basis out of thin air.

If your findings show a concern in a particular area with a UGL’s product I would be willing to send in a few different brands of my pharma script testosterone to compare.

Basically I’ve always been curious if big pharma is getting their raws from the same place UGLs are as I know some do indeed get their raws from China.

I know you say you are basically using pharma as your standard but I’m also the guy who tested my Empower compound pharma Deca as I don’t trust most things. Anywho, it would be interesting to compare.

 

[readalot]

If your findings show a concern in a particular area with a UGL’s product I would be willing to send in a few different brands of my pharma script testosterone to compare.

Basically I’ve always been curious if big pharma is getting their raws from the same place UGLs are as I know some do indeed get their raws from China.

I know you say you are basically using pharma as your standard but I’m also the guy who tested my Empower compound pharma Deca as I don’t trust most things. Anywho, it would be interesting to compare.

I now have a COA from the 503B that shall not be named haha. I'll sanitize it and post it up. I agree with you. That's why I am going to this trouble so I and others can see the difference between ugl and pharma. And of course I have no pharma option for some things I may want to try. I put a big pharma COA in my other thread if you want to take a look (Source QC thread). Thanks for reminding me on the 503B COA.

I really like the testing you did on the Empower ND. They claim to run HPLC, endotoxins, and sterility on their sterile products.

Thanks for the offer. I appreciate it.

 

[readalot]

COA from the 503B

You can compare against the big pharma COA in the Source QC thread. The big pharma one much more exhaustive. To your point @B Ware the compounding pharmacies may share raws suppliers with some UGL vendors. It's a great question.

B Ware's HPLC test on same product (different batch).

 

[readalot]

Ok, Project 3 update.

Partial test results below. I'll write this up when it is all back. Still waiting on some results.

As I mentioned the GCMS screen is non targeted so the tibolone hit was a false positive. Thanks to Janoshik for reviewing the m/z ratios on the GC peaks. His feedback was that the GC peak in question was one of these Test Cyp derivatives missing a hydrogen.

View attachment 301574

As I stated before, we'd need usp standards to do a definitive targeted analysis with gcms. Jano offered to purchase a Test Cyp standard for the GCMS testing if I pay the 200 usd for it.

The same raws have been sent for HPLC. We will see what that comes back with before any more gcms characterization.

In conclusion, these raws are still garbage but no tibolone variant there based on spectra. If you use non-targeted analysis with library be careful with false positives. Using this test accurately requires close collaboration with the lab.

See raw data files...

Test C Raw- GCMS

Janoshik Analytical

Test C Raw- metals

Janoshik Analytical

Test E raw - GCMS

Janoshik Analytical

Test E raw - metals

Janoshik Analytical

And I realize some folks will get annoyed with the sporadic presentation so far. Oh well. It's free to you. Enjoy. I'll prepare more formal posts for each project as I can.

And yes, I am an idiot for trying to do a complex R&D project on a forum with collaborators across the world. Hope it is educational and motivational for some members to get involved and help clean up this space.

Jano approved me sharing this nice lecture on GCMS interpretation. I had a bunch of questions on the result so he made me an audio reply. Really reinforces the message around targeted vs non targeted analysis and caution on the standard output from the GCMS output with library automatic hits.

https://vocaroo.com/1bWVYclimeam

 

[bigMoJo]

Based on your current projects, what is the “harm” that your additional testing is going to reduce? So far, the testing hasn’t detected anything harmful. What’s the justification in a source analyzing more? Other than appeasement?

I havn't gone through all the posts yet, so this may have already been addressed...

Someone correct me if I'm wrong. I believe vendors do HPLC testing per batch, whereas Readalot's "additional testing" is for vendor raws. These "additional tests" will capture endotoxins, etc. on vendor raws, thereby tests/results will be much less frequent.