Btw let's make a discord for anyone interested? Would be easier to coordinate for future testings etc
To keep results all organized and ideas as well
To keep results all organized and ideas as well
MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
Readalots Enhanced Testing
- Thread starter Dirthand
- Start date
Just doing the test helps keep everyone honest. If there is an incentive to cut a corner here and there or not be thorough..
Vanargandar
Well-known Member
Second this; creating a Discord for anyone interested in these enhanced testing discussions along with donating would help immensely. @readalot
MyNameIsJeff
Well-known Member
Endotoxin tests can also be performed on AAS oils. In fact, I just send off a vial to be tested for endotoxins, based on the advice of Sir readalot.
BigNoOne
Member
You guys don’t look at the endpoint though.
Right now, we hold UGLs accountable with HPLC testing.
UGL tests their raws for purity so they can accurately dose their products.
UGL makes and tests their product to confirm it’s the correct dose.
The customer can always send a blind sample of their own to be tested (hopefully reimbursed by the UGL with a testing incentive).
The results of the customers blind sample should match pretty closely to the UGL’s initial testing results.
How is @readalot ’s expanded testing going to be verifiable? Periodic spot testing costing $1,000s?
readalot
Member
1+2+3+4+sterility (or some subset thereof)
A user interested in spot check would do it same way is demonstrated here in this thread. Although I am concerned about analytical testing capacity in the marketplace. And always good to have two labs give you same result. But I digress.
Reimbursements? The market will have to work that out.
Last edited:
Maybe individuals just repeat a single test, and with some coordination from multiple people you can replicate all of them. Maybe vendors expand their testing credit to cover more tests, which they can afford due to the small premium per vial.
We'll cross that bridge when we come to it. In the meantime, settle down. You're starting to come across like one of those cliche types that tries to stand in the way of progress.
BigNoOne
Member
Yea I gotta pipe down. I’m disturbing the echo chamber and this isn’t a discussion. I realize the questions I’m asking are less important because I’m not blindly running down this same path. I’d like to consider the destination first so I don’t fuck up the route we use to get there.
I’m not standing in the way of progress. If the community is going to support this, these are the things that should be considered.
I’d like to see additional testing where it makes sense. I don’t want this to be remembered as Readalot’s Folly.
readalot
Member
Appreciate any and all feedback/criticism to improve this thing.
bigMoJo
Member
Hey Bro,
Right now, things are just being discussed, researched, and examined. No one has made or placed anything in concrete. We don't know what all the results are yet... we're all waiting. Some of what you're saying... we're all also saying... "see additional testing where it makes sense." The message is out there, and it's all just being looked at. If everything comes back clean, great. If it doesn't, then we'll know and decide what we need to do.
iris
Well-known Member
Sorry to interrupt.
I missed a couple of days and trying to catch up a bit.
I am changing topic here. Don't know where else to write this.
I don't think there is a specific thread for this, yet.
There are lots of posts in a lot of different threads.
Everyone keeps asking questions about where to get spikes/filters, which ones to use/get for oils/peptides, etc.
It's always the same questions.
@Ghoul could we make a thread to gather ALL the info about this, about types/what they do/where to buy in the States and Europe.
I can help you, if you want/need.
I think it is brilliant so many people have been receptive to this (probably qsc and their vintage oils played a part in the succcess).
So, it makes sense to create a directory just for this, which is something people are embracing as an essential thing to do.
What do you think, Ghoul?
I missed a couple of days and trying to catch up a bit.
I am changing topic here. Don't know where else to write this.
I don't think there is a specific thread for this, yet.
There are lots of posts in a lot of different threads.
Everyone keeps asking questions about where to get spikes/filters, which ones to use/get for oils/peptides, etc.
It's always the same questions.
@Ghoul could we make a thread to gather ALL the info about this, about types/what they do/where to buy in the States and Europe.
I can help you, if you want/need.
I think it is brilliant so many people have been receptive to this (probably qsc and their vintage oils played a part in the succcess).
So, it makes sense to create a directory just for this, which is something people are embracing as an essential thing to do.
What do you think, Ghoul?
iris
Well-known Member
Don't ever feel that way, please.
You are standing in nobody's way.
You are raising valid points, which others have also highlighted or are also thinking about.
This project was created to open a discussion about it, even thought people will consider it from different point of views.
The process Readalot has started is in progress.
I figure that when everything that he is looking into is finalised and published here, a more coherent idea will take shape and be put forward.
Everyone will be able to judge whether it is feasible or something that is worth supporting.
As you say, without sources and members' involvement and interest, it just remains an echo chamber, so it should be challenged, followed and enquired about.
Never feel like you shouldn't but let's be a little patient and then we can take it from there.
readalot
Member
So @janoshik, a question is how the customer will use the result from your GCMS screening on AAS samples since this is non targeted analysis, and the tentative IDs are sent to the customer without any additional interpretation or analysis of the m/z ratios of the individuals GC peaks. Is it up to the customer to examine the m/z data (not likely) or is there any extra charge for interpretation of the raw data? I don't see how the layperson customer is not going to potentially get false positives on the test in its current offering.
Thanks for your thoughts.
janoshik
Subscriber
Gcms screening I do usually provide some sort of a comment usually not as extensive but I do.
readalot
Member
So for example with the tibolone variant tentative hit, you would typically provide the customer a comment that this tentative hit is in error?
That would be nice for folks who aren't going to run questions up the flagpole as much as I do.
For a representative AAS raw, how closely will the HPLC purity align with estimated purity from GCMS area count? A few percent difference? Response factors for all these usual suspects should be pretty close?
Appreciate your time as I work through the details of this primo testing package for the members. Haha.
Last edited:
janoshik
Subscriber
Correct
And while the gcms area counts need to be taken with a grain of salt, HPLC might not be able to separate a single bond difference without very specialized methods.
readalot
Member
Yes great point we talked about. HPLC may be lumping the AAS ester and it's -ene variant. Thanks for daylighting that!
I sent the same raw in for HPLC so members can see the purity estimated by HPLC vs GCMS area count.
Would be great if you could continue to disclose actual computed purity (A/B = C) on the raws instead of xx%+ nomenclature. See for example the data you released on Project 1 with the BU raw here in this thread.
Let the customers understand the results as measured/calculated value +/- margin of error instead of lumping it all into a lower confidence limit value (xx%+) as usually shown on HPLC reports.
Excellent example....
For example the confidence interval for report below is 90.52% +/- ~1% or so based on the repeatability you've shared on here IIRC. I know your stated margin of error is 5% on your website but I known it's much better than that!
90.52% HPLC
92.32% GCMS area count approximation
Nice work!
Last edited:
janoshik
Subscriber
Beware!
You cannot count on GCMS to have all constituents of the sample to have same behaviour when turned volatile - eg. if you volatilize fatty acid methyl ester (1st peak) a lot of it is going to get 'through' to the detector, because that sort of thing wants to turn volatile very much.
However, high boiling point stuff, such as boldenone u. itself is not so keen on turning into gas, so a lower % of it gets through.
Then you have the issue of how much does something want to ionize.
Then you have the issue of how many ions are under cutoff mass.
There's simply too many factors at play with GCMS and area counts are not possible to use to determine purity unless *all* the major contaminants behave very similarly.
The numbers coming back similar is much more likely to be a random chance than the methods being comparable.
brutaltarik
New Member
I thought it was both. Got busted, got his shit taken. Then did an "exit sale" to get some extra cash after
readalot
Member
Thank you for the additional comments on relative volatilities and their impact on estimated/apparent purity via GCMS. As MS is the detector I appreciate your points on ionization and cutoff mass as well. Truly the GCMS service you offer, in its current format, is a great screening tool if results are interpreted correctly.
Will be insightful to compare purity estimated by GCMS against the HPLC for a few more of the raw AAS samples (API in the typical matrix of leftover raw material, side products, impurities). Project 3 has two samples that will give two more comparisons (Test C and Test E). Both of these AAS raws were very low purity "estimated" by GCMS.
I truly appreciate the time you are spending helping to educate the community here and elsewhere. Thank you.
Last edited:
