Readalots Enhanced Testing

[readalot]

It’s asked in every source thread that I’ve seen.

1.HPLC purity (done)

2.GCMS organic/structural impurities (seldomly done, customer driven so far)

3.Metals (TBD)

4. Sterility (a must)

5. Endotoxins (no reason not to have this data)

6. GCMS residual solvents (TBD)

So we should stick to only #1 otherwise the vendors will weaponize #4 on each other and no point in any vendor collected data? Am I following?

Is that your conclusion?

Why don't the vendors weaponize the HPLC testing? 120 usd price point too much for the shills? Simple to do but customer samples wouldn't back up the result.

 

[BigNoOne]

Why don't the vendors weaponize the HPLC testing? Simple to do but customer samples wouldn't back up the result.

You answered your own question regarding the HPLC. That was figured out a long time ago on this forum.

For sterility, you can have anywhere across the batch contaminated. How would this be verified? Oh, that’s right, “blind” samples. I can’t imagine that being used nefariously.

You need to think this thru better. You ran into a burning building convinced that you would be received as a hero.

 

[readalot]

You ran into a burning building convinced that you would be received as a hero.

Definitely right on the first part. Nah, I didn't think I would make any friends really. Hero? Lol.

Give me your suggested list or let's iterate if you are interested. Your hypothesis this is all impossible with the criminal enterprise in play may be very accurate. Thanks for your thoughts.

Interesting as the next improvement Millard has suggested for testing is sterility.

 

[readalot]

Earlier version here:

Every Source should provide with each shipment ...

1. 3rd party C of A on finished product batch specific to that shipment
- endotoxin screen
- metals with ICP
- purity(ies) / concentration(s) using hplc plus ms (or gcms)

2. C of A for bulk api for each batch (hplc plus ms or gcms) upon request.

Of course Sources would do themselves a big favor if they screened for impurities as well as purity on the APIs (aka raws) upfront so no surprises on the finished batches. First things first

I added the sterility to the list after it was offered by trusted lab and based on harm reduction message here at Meso. @BigNoOne your recommendation is to remove sterility? The others would be harder to exploit.

What's your list?

 

[B Ware]

or we can do it by DM?

Your DMs aren’t accessible. Tried to send a dick pic

 

[BigNoOne]

Earlier version here:



I added the sterility to the list after it was offered by trusted lab and based on harm reduction message here at Meso. @BigNoOne your recommendation is to remove sterility? The others would be harder to exploit.

What's your list?

I hope you’re not asking me just to argue. I’ve been clear: find something that is shown to be an actual concern and you’ll get support for the testing of it.

Right now, HPLC is the only test that has any value.

 

[readalot]

Right now, HPLC is the only test that has any value.

Thanks for your comments. No I am not trying to argue for the sake of argument.

To clarify:

1. So you support mandatory HPLC on raws and finished products?

2. You support improving the standard to push for HPLC testing all raws before they go into finished products?

3. GCMS on all raws?

4. To address subvisible / visible (floaters) particles you recommend customers use at the least a spike vial adapter with 5 um filter?

5. Sterility: 0.2 um filtration of all finished oils by the customer? Move the sterility onus onto the customer?

6. You think asking the vendors to do endotoxin testing is useless? Hence, up to customers to blind test for surveillance if they are to find something?

7. Metals a non-issue for finished oils? A simple buyer beware on ugl oral AAS products that aren't filtered? [I would tend to agree]

8. Residual solvents: forget about it at this point? Uphill battle on suitable lab.

 

[readalot]

0.2 um filtration

And I'll clarify this before a potential misunderstanding.

I should say...

0.2 um re-filtration

 

[BigNoOne]

Thanks for your comments. No I am not trying to argue for the sake of argument.

To clarify:

1. So you support mandatory HPLC on raws and finished products?

2. You support improving the standard to push for HPLC testing all raws before they go into finished products?

3. GCMS on all raws?

4. To address subvisible / visible (floaters) particles you recommend customers use at the least a spike vial adapter with 5 um filter?

5. Sterility: 0.2 um filtration of all finished oils by the customer? Move the sterility onus onto the customer?

6. You think asking the vendors to do endotoxin testing is useless? Hence, up to customers to blind test for surveillance if they are to find something?

7. Metals a non-issue for finished oils? A simple buyer beware on ugl oral AAS products that aren't filtered? [I would tend to agree]

8. Residual solvents: forget about it at this point? Uphill battle on suitable lab.

I didn’t say any of that.

We are ALL big boys that can do our own things.

I support free market

I support clean, well made, accurately dosed products at a fair price.

I don’t support any interference in the way this is done.

FIND SOMETHING I SHOULD BE CONCERNED WITH and I will support the testing of that. Anything else is a waste of time, effort, and resources.

 

[readalot]

clean

??

You are sounding like QSC now. How does one measure clean?

Please provide your comments on each point above.

You don't support vendors testing raws?

Thank you.

 

[readalot]

Your DMs aren’t accessible.

...to you.

Whew. Thank goodness for proper settings.

 

[BigNoOne]

??

You are sounding like QSC now. How does one measure clean?

Please provide your comments on each point above.

You don't support vendors testing raws?

Thank you.

Look. I’m getting increasingly tired of this. You keep raising this concern with NO PLAN.

1,000 vials made

What is “representative” sample size to demonstrate the shit is clean enough to put your mind at ease.

I’m not arguing this with you. Absent third party inspection and sampling, there is no way a source will be able to demonstrate the entire product line is clean.

Think it through more next time.

Any customer that wants to cough up $250+ for a sterility test can. Of course that doesn’t mean the next vial is sterile.

 

[BigNoOne]

You don't support vendors testing raws?

Thank you.

Wtf. what’s with the misquotes on MESO.

I didn’t say that.

I’ve told vendors to test their raws. Just not for all the bullshit that you want them to test for.

@Sampei you can give this post your gay little “dislike”. Little child.

 

[BigNoOne]

??

You are sounding like QSC now. How does one measure clean?

Please provide your comments on each point above.

You don't support vendors testing raws?

Thank you.

Purposely argumentative. You like to make your word salad.

 

[Sampei]

Wtf. what’s with the misquotes on MESO.

I didn’t say that.

I’ve told vendors to test their raws. Just not for all the bullshit that you want them to test for.

@Sampei you can give this post your gay little “dislike”. Little child.

I gave you just a few more because today I woke up and my chocolate milk wasn't ready and when it arrived it wasn't warm enough and I got pissed!

 

[Zebedee]

Any customer that wants to cough up $250+ for a sterility test can. Of course that doesn’t mean the next vial is sterile.

This is a very important point.

Brewing a batch of oil (regardless of size) is essentially a single event, in that every vial from that batch will have the same mg/ml concentration.

Filling just 1L of finished oil into 100x 10ml vials involves 100 events where sterility can be compromised in multiple ways & at any point. It would even be possible for the vials to move from sterile - non-sterile - sterile during the filling process.

 

[readalot]

I didn’t say any of that.

I support clean, well made, accurately dosed products at a fair price.

Wtf. what’s with the misquotes on MESO.

I didn’t say that.

Purposely argumentative. You like to make your word salad.

Ok, well that didn't go as I had hoped when I typed post 607. My intent was for you to provide your comments on each of the 8 points in post #607?

In the interest of finding common ground, could you do that please?

You are taking the initiative to engage with me on this topic (no point in me being argumentative here), and I'll ignore the juvenile treatment you intermittently give me here and elsewhere. I still want to believe your intentions are good.

So please provide your analysis on points 1 through 8 above (yes, no, maybe... with your thoughtful comments).

Just reply to that post and break up your comments point by point. Thank you.

 

[readalot]

Just reply to that post and break up your comments point by point.

Open invitation to the forum.

And thanks for your thoughtful comments on the sampling @BigNoOne @Zebedee. Very nice.

If there is real interest in the theory behind valid sampling numbers we can go there; can we address points 1 through 8 first? Hopeful to find common ground we can build on.

 

[Nunya]

@readalot
Maybe I am missing the point, but why not start up some group testing a la that discord server that does testing on peptides and such? Let people chip in a few $$ if they want to see some results from some of the tests, and let proposed tests with no interest die?

They’re doing some interesting tests on vial sterility (ks-tek vials from amazon), pen cartridge sterility, peptide counterion testing, etc., in addition to the standard quantity/mass/purity tests.

Basically, let the ‘market’ decide what tests are important or not, pay the additional $ for testing that there’s interest in, and then let that reflect on different vendors. There’s a lot of push to get the vendors to do all this extra testing, but if there’s a handful of customers interested and willing to chip in 10-15$ a test, wouldn’t that be the better way to go?

Again, just spitballing here, but there’s so much talk about why VENDORS should test, and there’s resistance from forum members who think you’re tilting at windmills, but then there are members like myself (I’m sure!) who would be willing to chip in a few dollars here and there if only out of curiosity to actually DO some of these tests. The reward is knowledge of the results, maybe 30 days before test results are released ‘publicly’, and a better understanding of vendor products than those who AREN’T in the know.

And people who are fine with the status quo don’t need to be convinced of anything.

 

[BigNoOne]

Thanks for your comments. No I am not trying to argue for the sake of argument.

To clarify:

1. So you support mandatory HPLC on raws and finished products?

Mandatory? No. We are not regulators. I think you need to quit using that strong language . It’s all VOLUNTARY. The UGL needs to see the value or they will side-step this at any opportunity.

I am very clear and consistent on this. Testing raws allows the UGL to hold the supplier accountable. If all UGLs did this, the results would weed out the shitty suppliers that are selling crap products.

2. You support improving the standard to push for HPLC testing all raws before they go into finished products?

See 1 above. This is a repetitive question.

3. GCMS on all raws?

No. Absolutely not. This is a terrible selection. GCMS is better for volatile compounds. Testosterone and other hormones don’t suspend in gas as easily. HPLC is better for the products we use.

4. To address subvisible / visible (floaters) particles you recommend customers use at the least a spike vial adapter with 5 um filter?

No. I’m not telling anyone else what to do. Only a retard would filter gear that has shit floating in it. To be clear, if there are floaters, that is NOT useable. Toss it. Burn the UGL down. Floaters should be handled seriously by the UGL. Full refunds for everyone that had floaters. UGL needs to explain why that happened and what they are doing moving forward.

Many members use needle filters just as part of their injection ritual. That’s cool. Whatever they want to do.

5. Sterility: 0.2 um filtration of all finished oils by the customer? Move the sterility onus onto the customer?

No. That’s stupid. If you’re pushing for this then I’ll end my discussion now. Who is suggesting this? Panda use to sell “semi-finished” product that you needed to filter and vial. It was less than half the price. Nobody paying $30+ a vial should have to filter. So dumb.

6. You think asking the vendors to do endotoxin testing is useless? Hence, up to customers to blind test for surveillance if they are to find something?

If endotoxins are a legitimate concern then yes, vendors should be responsible for analyzing. But the results show endotoxins aren’t even close to being an issue.

7. Metals a non-issue for finished oils? A simple buyer beware on ugl oral AAS products that aren't filtered? [I would tend to agree]

It’s “buyer beware” for EVERYTHING we buy.

If metals are identified as a significant concern, the UGL should analyze their raws for metals. So far, the data does not support this.

8. Residual solvents: forget about it at this point? Uphill battle on suitable lab.

If there’s no lab that can test, what else are you going to do?


The free market system determines what is done. You have DingDong selling $10 vials of testosterone. DingDong will lower their prices further before doing any of this testing. You’d have better luck talking a domestic into rolling out a “premium” line. Personally I don’t see that being profitable. Not enough customers in support of it. And before the fucking twats angerly mash the reply button and say “fuck yea, I’d support that” there’s like 20-30 people supporting that. Again, it’s not profitable.