MESO-Rx

Anabolic Steroids

Readalots Enhanced Testing

DECLAN said:
Quick question, is that what the filter is made for? To filter impurities including metals? Can you correct me if I’m wrong here. @readalot @Ghoul
Click to expand...

Sampei said:
You can't really filter heavy metal with a filter for what I have understood.

But I could be wrong I'm not really an expert at all on these matters
Click to expand...


Metals can be in dissolved or particulate form. Filters can remove particulate metal, which of course your .22um sterilizing filter handles in home brewing. .10um would remove even more metal contamination, if you homebrewers can figure out how to make it work. Maybe multi stage, .8um to .45um to .10um. There are multi layered filters to do this.

The dissolved heavy metals will be, for all practical UGL or homebrew purposes, impossible to remove. Pharma can do it with ion exchange systems.

Luckily heavy metals continuously accumulate and aren't flushed out with "Liv52", so they'll be safely sequestered away in our brain and other organs. Please reconsider cremation, you wouldn't want to contribute to toxic air.

The only way I see to assess the amount of dissolved heavy metals is to brew, filter, and retest to see what remains, but perhaps the chemists have another method.

The carrier oil itself, if not true pharma grade, could very likely contain heavy metals as well (and low grade MCT is known for significant pesticide and herbicide contamination as well). I certainly expect some labs are opting for food grade oils, or worse(much worse) After all, the sterilizing filter at the end prevents serious bacterial infection and masks plenty of production "sins". That's why the "I've been injecting and nothing bad happened..." safety standard is bullshit. Maybe some built up lead poisoning is compromising logic.

IMG_9402.webp

This report directly implicates substandard raws, made using unconventional ingredients (compared to pharma) as a source of contamination.

 
Last edited:
iris said:
Sod this.
I hope you are not being serious.
You have done at least a bit of what you had in mind.
Just put it where it should be, right here.
The ones that don't want to see it, will not look at it.
For everyone else, it will be available.

What you did is worthy of a platform.
And this is yours to have.
I am sure that if the owner of Meso sees this, he will disagree with the results of your efforts not being divulged.

However, I understand the sentiment.
In this place, as in real life, if you want to be close to someone, you will go to them.
If not, viceversa. Even if you don't say it, you have ways of making it obvious.

One can only be rejected so many times, until things take a different turn.
But not everyone has rejected you.
People outside of Meso will also be able to see this.
We are proud of you and want your work to be shown.
Click to expand...
Good recommendations. Thank you for taking the time. I appreciate you. Gonna take a break then I'll write up the 3 projects when the data is all back.

Btw, Project 1 data is back. Thank-you @janoshik for the time last weekend. I appreciate it.

Long story short on the metals...if there are any metals in the BU raw they are at the limit of detection for the EDX machine. So great news that we can confidently check metals off the list for that sample. It's also great that Jano helped us analyze all metals, not just heavy metals. For those interested you can request raw data file that he has now streamlined. It is a deal for 5 USD extra.

Endotoxins are another story. The BU raw came back much higher than peptide samples but without positive and negative controls it is hard to compare against pharma results on COAs. More calibration to be done there. We will get some more data on raws, a finished oil and GH vial with Project 2.

You are right @iris, I should keep my dumb ass in here. Too GD depressing in other parts of the forum. Thank you sincerely.
 
@readalot whoops may have posted this in wrong thread but just posting here and leaving there anyways.

I'm gonna throw my opinion in here, not that anyone asked or cared.

First off, what you're attempting to do is admirable. Sincerely. Going against the grain is difficult, time consuming, frustrating, and in this case, pretty much thankless.

A couple folks mentioned / alluded to being knuckledraggers and having higher risk tolerance, etc. I fall into that camp. I'll inject whatever comes from these vendors, pretty much (there are obvious exceptions).

However, I am also fully supportive of more stringent testing. More testing, more better, right?

I also recognize a man on a mission. Your crusade has been honestly very interesting and even motivating to watch.

In an ideal world, I would love to have all the gear I inject tested to your standard that you laid out. However, I'm not sure that reality is here just yet. Having said that, I'll never stand in the way of someone who is this passionate about going against the grain for the purpose of harm reduction; especially, when it can only positively impact me.

The other point to mention is subconscious purchasing decision changes by consumers. Even though I admit to being a high risk tolerance knuckledragging degen, should you unearth results that demonstrate X vendor has Y endotoxin and Z metals, whereas A vendor does not have B,C,D, Y endotoxins nor E + Z metals I would be a fool to ignore that information.

You're fighting a long hard battle, but, whether you know it or not, and even whether degen consumers know it, you have their support even if it is only subconsciously.

It's going to take time for the tide to turn, but the tide only turns with folks like you who are willing to "trailblaze" and advocate for a new standard while continuously applying pressure to the various constituents.

With each vendor that adopts your testing standards, it will be easier to further adoption by others. When the in depth testing is the rule and not the exception? It will happen almost without any pressure applied due to the free market forces at work.

However, there will always be consumers that optimize for cost over EVERYTHING else. That is not me, but that is some.

Okay. I digress. Just had to let you know that your efforts are valiant and appreciated.
 
Last edited:
Trenbolonetax said:
@readalot whoops may have posted this in wrong thread but just posting here and leaving there anyways.

I'm gonna throw my opinion in here, not that anyone asked or cared.

First off, what you're attempting to do is admirable. Sincerely. Going against the grain is difficult, time consuming, frustrating, and in this case, pretty much thankless.

A couple folks mentioned / alluded to being knuckledraggers and having higher risk tolerance, etc. I fall into that camp. I'll inject whatever comes from these vendors, pretty much (there are obvious exceptions).

However, I am also fully supportive of more stringent testing. More testing, more better, right?

I also recognize a man on a mission. Your crusade has been honestly very interesting and even motivating to watch.

In an ideal world, I would love to have all the gear I inject tested to your standard that you laid out. However, I'm not sure that reality is here just yet. Having said that, I'll never stand in the way of someone who is this passionate about going against the grain for the purpose of harm reduction; especially, when it can only positively impact me.

The other point to mention is subconscious purchasing decision changes by consumers. Even though I admit to being a high risk tolerance knuckledragging degen, should you unearth results that demonstrate X vendor has Y endotoxin and Z metals, whereas A vendor does not have B,C,D, Y endotoxins nor E + Z metals I would be a fool to ignore that information.

You're fighting a long hard battle, but, whether you know it or not, and even whether degen consumers know it, you have their support even if it is only subconsciously.

It's going to take time for the tide to turn, but the tide only turns with folks like you who are willing to "trailblaze" and advocate for a new standard while continuously applying pressure to the various constituents.

With each vendor that adopts your testing standards, it will be easier to further adoption by others. When the in depth testing is the rule and not the exception? It will happen almost without any pressure applied due to the free market forces at work.

However, there will always be consumers that optimize for cost over EVERYTHING else. That is not me, but that is some.

Okay. I digress. Just had to let you know that your efforts are valiant and appreciated.
Click to expand...

readalot said:
Thank you Brother. I truly appreciate the time you spent writing that and your perspective. It's a marathon for sure. At least I am feeling a lot better 1 week after dropping the nandrolone. Whew! Have a great evening.
Click to expand...
 
readalot said:
I haven't spoken with Jano about these specific results yet (he is busy with all the other stuff and this is a later project way back on the runway).

The standard GCMS test is a non targeted analysis meaning hits are identified against a spectral database. You'd want to to a targeted screen against a reference standard to confirm particular hits. But if the compound ID is correct I can't give you any insight into whether it is purposeful or inadvertent contamination. The percents are area count based but should be not too far off from mass percentage even without response factors. Thanks for taking a look.
Click to expand...
Ah neat! Thanks for explaining.
Spooky, though.
It kind of makes a guy wonder what might be in his juice, doesn't it?
Not a great feeling to have.
 
Ghoul said:
Metals can be in dissolved or particulate form. Filters can remove particulate metal, which of course your .22um sterilizing filter handles in home brewing. .10um would remove even more metal contamination, if you homebrewers can figure out how to make it work. Maybe multi stage, .8um to .45um to .10um. There are multi layered filters to do this.

The dissolved heavy metals will be, for all practical UGL or homebrew purposes, impossible to remove. Pharma can do it with ion exchange systems.

Luckily heavy metals continuously accumulate and aren't flushed out with "Liv52", so they'll be safely sequestered away in our brain and other organs. Please reconsider cremation, you wouldn't want to contribute to toxic air.

The only way I see to assess the amount of dissolved heavy metals is to brew, filter, and retest to see what remains, but perhaps the chemists have another method.

The carrier oil itself, if not true pharma grade, could very likely contain heavy metals as well (and low grade MCT is known for significant pesticide and herbicide contamination as well). I certainly expect some labs are opting for food grade oils, or worse(much worse) After all, the sterilizing filter at the end prevents serious bacterial infection and masks plenty of production "sins". That's why the "I've been injecting and nothing bad happened..." safety standard is bullshit. Maybe some built up lead poisoning is compromising logic.

View attachment 301481

This report directly implicates substandard raws, made using unconventional ingredients (compared to pharma) as a source of contamination.

Click to expand...
I guess I must accept my fate that I am going to face death by “heavy metal” lol. My death will still be cooler than most.
 
readalot said:
Good recommendations. Thank you for taking the time. I appreciate you. Gonna take a break then I'll write up the 3 projects when the data is all back.

Btw, Project 1 data is back. Thank-you @janoshik for the time last weekend. I appreciate it.

Long story short on the metals...if there are any metals in the BU raw they are at the limit of detection for the EDX machine. So great news that we can confidently check metals off the list for that sample. It's also great that Jano helped us analyze all metals, not just heavy metals. For those interested you can request raw data file that he has now streamlined. It is a deal for 5 USD extra.

Endotoxins are another story. The BU raw came back much higher than peptide samples but without positive and negative controls it is hard to compare against pharma results on COAs. More calibration to be done there. We will get some more data on raws, a finished oil and GH vial with Project 2.

You are right @iris, I should keep my dumb ass in here. Too GD depressing in other parts of the forum. Thank you sincerely.
Click to expand...
So no heavy metals detected? And no metals detected?

Metals do not appear to be a concern. Why continue to require testing for those?
 
BigNoOne said:
So no heavy metals detected? And no metals detected?

Metals do not appear to be a concern. Why continue to require testing for those?
Click to expand...
You want me to cut to the chase. Got it.

Based on project 1 (one raw) and project 2 partial results (6 raws and 1 oil), I'd agree.

Perhaps some regular surveillance (my projects are by no means exhaustive), but those metals are being deprioritized on my list for finished oils. Seems like whatever metal particulates come for the ride on raws, the filtration should get those on finished oils. Still should be careful of using raws for orals, oral suspensions.

Will be sending in the magnetic particles for testing.

I've got more pics coming. Everything ain't alright in raw land. Intermittent finds.
 
Love the data and the information overall. Obviously still breaks everyone down into two camps:

- 1.) I'll pay more for UGL with enhanced testing (fuck,.I've paid $250 for a 10 ml bottle of Test cyp...not that I want to, lol)

- 2.) "but gimme my rock bottom prices...dgaf what you find."

It would be nice if the two sides could co-exist across threads but that has obviously proved mostly improbable (if not impossible).

Harm reduction is the name of the game. People who ignore this info, that's your choice. People who actively try to suppress the enhanced testing requests - honestly, fuck off (but as always, I say that "fuck off" as nicely and respectfully as possible).

There is so much info to be gleaned from this expanded surveillance. Of course, figuring out a way to spread out the costs among users so it can be done more common place should be the goal once your preliminary projects are complete.

Id pay 2-3x or more for oils with expanded testing. I would be lying if I said I would foot the bill for my own enhanced testing. For now, Stan has to be trusted as my chemist/chef of choice...lol.

@readalot - kudos for the patience and work put in. I hope you will persevere (as the goal really should be expanded surveillance of these compounds...not just 'test once and be done."). It's impossible to know what we're missing with the paucity of data available to this point.

I'll keep sitting back and learning in the meantime.
 
readalot said:
Yeah I will post the full results. That was a teaser. I agree with you about most of the rows, but the tibolone variant threw me for a loop, which is why I made the comments about a non targeted analysis. I should discuss this with Jano before too much fuss is made. Thanks for the feedback.
Click to expand...

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.

image (12).webp

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

Test C Raw- metals

Test E raw - GCMS

Test E raw - metals

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.
 
Last edited:
I'm still man crushing over @MyNameIsJeff 's GH spreadsheet. I need to make one of those.

In the meantime if GA would get over himself he's almost there for initial testing to get into the "club" at Meso:

readalot

MESO-Rx Sponsor Post in thread 'GenericAsia - International & US Domestic'

GA in the lead.

*Hint for the day*
Man, it's like herding cats.

Are you a man of your word?

For your AAS products:

1.HPLC purity/conc.? [Done]

2.GCMS organic/structural impurities? [What's hiding in those raws?]

3.Metals? [At least GA gives somewhat of a F. Get the raw data next time.]

4. Sterility? [TBD]

5. Endotoxins? [Production facility sterility fingerprint]

6. GCMS residual solvents? [Need a lab set up for this, extra credit]
  • Like

At SST it appears there's a vendor "crazy" enough to try a premium line of injectable oils:


We will see.

Props to SHA over there for sounding open to this as well. There are a number of vendors at various stages of the initial testing. Someone want to start a spreadsheet? I'm beat.
 
readalot said:
I'm still man crushing over @MyNameIsJeff 's GH spreadsheet. I need to make one of those.

In the meantime if GA would get over himself he's almost there for initial testing to get into the "club" at Meso:

readalot

MESO-Rx Sponsor Post in thread 'GenericAsia - International & US Domestic'

GA in the lead.

*Hint for the day*
Man, it's like herding cats.

Are you a man of your word?

For your AAS products:

1.HPLC purity/conc.? [Done]

2.GCMS organic/structural impurities? [What's hiding in those raws?]

3.Metals? [At least GA gives somewhat of a F. Get the raw data next time.]

4. Sterility? [TBD]

5. Endotoxins? [Production facility sterility fingerprint]

6. GCMS residual solvents? [Need a lab set up for this, extra credit]
  • Like

At SST it appears there's a vendor "crazy" enough to try a premium line of injectable oils:


We will see.

Props to SHA over there for sounding open to this as well. There are a number of vendors at various stages of the initial testing. Someone want to start a spreadsheet? I'm beat.
Click to expand...
i stay far away from that website. people can't DM eachother and half of the sources exit scam and come back later, all sorts of shady shit. it is not a transparent website
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

ashenlmao
2024 Olympia Results
Replies
16
Views
311
rebornmuscles
rebornmuscles
J
First Deca cycle help please
2
Replies
25
Views
476
rexy
rexy
Haiden0
Hgh and headache and head pressure after stopping
2
Replies
34
Views
282
Ghoul
Ghoul
B
Test P First Cycle, opinions and advice welcome.
Replies
7
Views
148
RaddishPork
R
F
Seeking Raw Material Supplier - Assistance Needed
Replies
15
Views
566
iris
I

Sponsors

Latest posts

Back
Top