Readalots Enhanced Testing

[bigMoJo]

Quite ironic that, don’t you think?

Yes. Although, I would argue about "independent evidence." However, that's for another forum.

Personally, it makes me "merry" and proud that those living in diverse countries can unite and celebrate holidays together. We work together, we live together, we "serve" together... why not celebrate together.

Happy Holidays brother!

 

[Zebedee]

Personally, it makes me "merry" and proud that those living in diverse countries can unite and celebrate holidays together. We work together, we live together, we "serve" together... why not celebrate together.

Happy Holidays brother!

Yes mate, there’s often more that unites us than separates us as communities & it’s in this community’s interest to recognise that & put aside that which divides us as we work towards our goal of harm reduction.

Merry Xmas mate, hope you ‘n yours have a good ‘un, as we say on this side of the pond.

 

[Zebedee]

The -ene functionality is applicable to the gonane core so my understanding is these impurities could be potentially present with any testosterone ester as the testosterone is synthesized prior to esterification. I would not think any one ester would be more prone to these impurities as the basic esterification step is same for all. Any organic chemists / interested parties please correct me if / where wrong.

My take would be a sample high in -ene impurities would be a poorly synthesized testosterone base material (poor testosterone selectivity).

My hypothesis: these impurities in their esterified form are slipping through HPLC and being picked up as Test ester API.

Cheers for that - my chemistry knowledge is pretty abysmal TBH.

Out of curiosity, do you know whether it’s theoretically possible that there’s something that would cause similarly false readings in an HLPC test for 17aa compounds? Just that many old skool guys are adamant that pharma oral AAS were much stronger back in the day & these claims are almost always dismissed as rosey tinted glasses etc because “tested 25mg dbol is 25mg dbol”.

 

[readalot]

Cheers for that - my chemistry knowledge is pretty abysmal TBH.

Out of curiosity, do you know whether it’s theoretically possible that there’s something that would cause similarly false readings in an HLPC test for 17aa compounds? Just that many old skool guys are adamant that pharma oral AAS were much stronger back in the day & these claims are almost always dismissed as rosey tinted glasses etc because “tested 25mg dbol is 25mg dbol”.

Great question. I'll get back to you with more color. Short answer is yes there are similar structural impurities for 17aa compounds but they are easier to resolve on HPLC as they don't have the carboxylic acid hanging off like the esterified Test.

 

[Exhortae]

Ver nice thread. Thanks readalot

I am concerned about endotoxin in ugl. Will probably test an oil of a big ugl in the next couple of weeks

 

[readalot]

Ver nice thread. Thanks readalot

I am concerned about endotoxin in ugl. Will probably test an oil of a big ugl in the next couple of weeks

Thank you.

 

[readalot]

Thank you very much for setting up the thread. Yes I can just as soon as I have the proper time. Got a lot going on this week but we should have a proper description of these tests before you get the results. Fantastic work Dirthand. I appreciate you.

Edit: I'll put the list here so everyone can see scope. I'll avoid an essay (haha) for now.

Special thanks to @janoshik for expanding the metals test for no additional charge! Very nice of him.

1. Hplc Purity - 120 usd
2. GCMS - 170 usd
3. Expanded metals list for standard list price (personally approved by Jano via xxxxxxxxx) - 60 usd
4. endotoxins - 120 usd
5. Residual solvent poor man's test (KF+loss on drying) - 60 usd
6. Shipping 45 usd
7. total - 575 usd

The residual solvents testing is mostly symbolic at this point as Jano and I agreed this won't tell us much. At some point a proper GCMS test with proper equipment would allow accurate characterization of residual solvents. The business case for the equipment just isn't there yet. But anyway this list is a start to get us all closer to USP standards.

Well I thought it was obvious and I was wrong. So let's add one more item to the list since BBBG wants to keep misrepresenting the list.

**Visible particulates.
No source should have these "floaters" in their finished oil. Make sure you ask them their SOP to ensure these particulates don't make it into the vial (vial, not vile). Unacceptable. Maybe they need the education.

** HPLC testing of AAS raws.
Vendors should tests their raws prior to using them to make finished products.

1. Hplc Purity - 120 usd
Identity and strength of API.

2. GCMS - 170 usd
Structural impurities along for the ride. Gives some insight into the purity of the raws used in a finished oil. Open question on purity of Test E and Test C raws.

3. Expanded metals list for standard list price - 60 usd
De-emphasized given the absence of any positive results to date. Intermittent surveillance still wise.

4. endotoxins - 120 usd
Cell wall debris from gram negative bacteria. Audit on sterility of UGL manufacturing process. Endotoxins pass through a 0.2 um filter.

5. Residual solvents
An appropriate vendor for GCMS characterization of class 1 and 2 residual solvents has not been identified for UGL products to date.

 

[Ateam2023]

Well I thought it was obvious and I was wrong. So let's add one more item to the list since BBBG wants to keep misrepresenting the list.

**Visible particulates.
No source should have these "floaters" in their finished oil. Make sure you ask them their SOP to ensure these particulates don't make it into the vial (vial, not vile). Unacceptable.

** HPLC testing of AAS raws.
Vendors should tests their raws prior to using them to make finished products.

1. Hplc Purity - 120 usd
Identity and strength of API.

2. GCMS - 170 usd
Structural impurities along for the ride. Gives some insight into the purity of the raws used in a finished oil. Open question on purity of Test E and Test C raws.

3. Expanded metals list for standard list price - 60 usd
De-emphasized given the absence of any positive results to date. Intermittent surveillance still wise.

4. endotoxins - 120 usd
Cell wall debris from gram negative bacteria. Audit on sterility of UGL manufacturing process. Endotoxins pass through a 0.2 um filter.

5. Residual solvents
An appropriate vendor for GCMS characterization of class 1 and 2 residual solvents has not been identified for UGL products to date.

SOP ? Excuse my lack of understanding

 

[Ateam2023]

SOP ? Excuse my lack of understanding

Sterile operations procedures

 

[readalot]

Sterile operations procedures

Standard operating procedures. Sorry.

 

[RekTest]

@readalot ,
Can a sterility test confirm the sterilization of the whole batch?
I dont get why it wouldn’t, if the oil is sterile, it should be the same between each vial, and if each vial is sterile itself, why would the test on one vial not be viable for the batch?
Me and @iris have been going back and forth on this and I think she has been misguided and swayed, from the views and ideas of a home brewer that has no picture or idea the level a good UGL lab is on, because all they know is brewing in their “unsterile house” , not a purpose built building solely for brewing, or even the extent of equipment difference between them and an actual lab.

I am under the thought that the labs getting all these problems are not sterilizing somewhere, where they should be.
or what these “floaters” even actually are, are they from the brewing process (which means their brewing is shit) or from the vial itself (maybe from buying the absolute cheapest vial?) if its from the vial, wouldnt sterilizing them, by the brewer, solve ever having floaters or unsterile process at any point?


maybe @Stanfordpharma1 can chime in, with his UGL experience, on his process between each vial, if at any point one can become unsterile vs the next one?
If you can guarantee sterility for the whole batch, within your working environment, or whether the possibility of contamination still exists

 

[iris]

@readalot ,
Can a sterility test confirm the sterilization of the whole batch?
I dont get why it wouldn’t, if the oil is sterile, it should be the same between each vial, and if each vial is sterile itself, why would the test on one vial not be viable for the batch?
Me and @iris have been going back and forth on this and I think she has been misguided and swayed, from the views and ideas of a home brewer that has no picture or idea the level a good UGL lab is on, because all they know is brewing in their “unsterile house” , not a purpose built building solely for brewing, or even the extent of equipment difference between them and an actual lab.

I am under the thought that the labs getting all these problems are not sterilizing somewhere, where they should be.
or what these “floaters” even actually are, are they from the brewing process (which means their brewing is shit) or from the vial itself (maybe from buying the absolute cheapest vial?) if its from the vial, wouldnt sterilizing them, by the brewer, solve ever having floaters or unsterile process at any point?


maybe @Stanfordpharma1 can chime in, with his UGL experience, on his process between each vial, if at any point one can become unsterile vs the next one?
If you can guarantee sterility for the whole batch, within your working environment, or whether the possibility of contamination still exists

Ooh now, I am being "swayed" by the usual suspects.
OK.
I have been open to listen to opposing views and, if it seemed to me that a valid point was brought, I have been willing to embrace a different opinion.
Things are not always necessarily univocal.
Someone's knowledge of a particular thing may be limited or not entirely accurate when put in practice.

And so I think one should listen to and gather both ends of the discussion.

I cherish your thoughts, which you have shared with me, and thank you for getting Stan involved.
I hope he will have a little time to answer and look forward to what he has to say about testing, sterility and how all this applies to his very own working environment.

Thank you

 

[iris]

Why did you delete that post @Liter O' Test ?

I did read it, hope @RekTest read it, too

In light of it, where exactly does your interest in testing lie?

 

[iris]

@RekTest did you read that reply he wrote you?

I think he only came to this thread to chase Narta a bit.
To have a go at him because he does not like him.
But not because he thinks this testing stuff has any validity or application irl.

So, in that respect, he fully agrees with Narta.
And that is why he deleted it.

 

[RekTest]

@RekTest did you read that reply he wrote you?

yes, i did have a reply unfortunately

 

[iris]

yes, i did have a reply unfortunately

I edited my message to you, just above, added to it.

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

I dont get why it wouldn’t, if the oil is sterile, it should be the same between each vial, and if each vial is sterile itself, why would the test on one vial not be viable for the batch?

how many vials do you think is produced in the chinese "Batches" vs the ones produced from domestic brewers?

or what these “floaters” even actually are, are they from the brewing process (which means their brewing is shit) or from the vial itself (maybe from buying the absolute cheapest vial?) if its from the vial, wouldnt sterilizing them, by the brewer, solve ever having floaters or unsterile process at any point?

if sterile gauze is left inside of a patient it can still cause a shit load of issues until they re-open them and remove it.

an open sterile vial can still have particles fall inside of them, sterile or not and become floaters.

Me and @iris have been going back and forth on this and I think she has been misguided and swayed, from the views and ideas of a home brewer that has no picture or idea the level a good UGL lab is on, because all they know is brewing in their “unsterile house” , not a purpose built building solely for brewing, or even the extent of equipment difference between them and an actual lab.

you can still create a closed sterile system where the internal components PAST THE STERILIZATION 0.22micron filter are purchased sterilized by medical supply companies.

So yes, You can literally brew in a dirty kitchen and still maintain a sterile vial.

You know how many old people with IV equipment roll around in their own shit next to a plastic line that is going straight into their blood stream?

 

[iris]

how many vials do you think is produced in the chinese "Batches" vs the ones produced from domestic brewers?

But this is where his interest lies.
Rek has always bought from domestic sources and never from China, nor would he consider it.
He likes to support someone producing what he uses in the States, with the view that they may be more willing and capable to look after the quality of their output.

 

[RekTest]

But this is where his interest lies.
Rek has always bought from domestic sources and never from China, nor would he consider it.
He likes to support someone producing what he uses in the States, with the view that they may be more willing and capable to look after the quality of their output.

Dead spot on. You know me too well.

My post above wasn’t made with any thought of any Chinese source.

how many vials do you think is produced in the chinese "Batches" vs the ones produced from domestic brewers?

Why would 5k batches vs 10k batches change the sterility of either the oil or vials?
If 1k ml is sterile, the 10K ML will be as well, no?
I am under the impression that these Chinese sources aren’t doing as much as we think… vs some domestic sources. That is just my opinion though.

I think the difference of opinion lays in, your a home brewer and do everything by hand.. I am under the opinion that some ugl labs have automatic vial filling and capping machines where it fills and caps in one swoop, thus if one vial is sterile, they all should be..
maybe if Stan comes around he can expand on actual equipment he has and uses.

if sterile gauze is left inside of a patient it can still cause a shit load of issues until they re-open them and remove it.

an open sterile vial can still have particles fall inside of them, sterile or not and become floaters.

Is the inside of the human body sterile, in itself?

Again, this is under the assumption you are buying from a dirty kitchen brewer, and not one with a dedicated lab, which in my opinion i believe some have.
I like that you mention particles falling down, which would indicate every ugl that is having floater problems is brewing in shit
I remember one source answering what the floaters could be and they pawned it off on cheap shit equipment (stopper material or filter material, both from the brewer cost cutting, funny enough this was a Chinese source also…..)
“Hey guys we use shit material and equipment “ but everyone still crawls through shit to buy from them.

 

[Liter O' Test]

Why did you delete that post @Liter O' Test ?

I did read it, hope @RekTest read it, too

In light of it, where exactly does your interest in testing lie?@RekTest did you read that reply he wrote you?

I think he only came to this thread to chase Narta a bit.
To have a go at him because he does not like him.
But not because he thinks this testing stuff has any validity or application irl.

So, in that respect, he fully agrees with Narta.
And that is why he deleted it.

stop forming weird relationships on this forum, you lack the ability to unbiased and frankly you're not smart enough to participate as much as you do.

are you guys in some sort of QSC discord? this is weird as fuck