readalot
Member
Deal.
MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
The harm reduction question...
- Thread starter readalot
- Start date
You know you don't actually have to read the posts right? Or has fact escaped you? Also does your wife complain as much as you do?
lonewolf54321
Member
Readalot ruffles feathers because he is too focused on his end goal to realize how he comes across to others.
You......you're just a fucking cunt. You're a mix between Nancy Grace and Rachel Maddow on the CUNT scale. Complete fucktard with nothing to offer anyone.
lonewolf54321
Member
Of course we have. But impurities don't automatically mean harmful.
I understand that, care to share what they are.
lonewolf54321
Member
I dont care enough about it to pay for testing. Pretty sure that's the reality, however unfortunate, for most people here.
readalot
Member
Besides the heavy metal ICP work by Jano a few years back, the only other info I stumbled on was some testing Liska had done with some raws. I posted a little about it in another thread and Jano did confirm Liska had ordered a few GCMS tests. I haven't seen the raw data or conclusions.
If regular testing showed that most labs were free from metal impurities (ICP) and GCMS came back clean (just standard side products similar in structure to API) that would be reassuring. The wild card is the residual solvents IMO. Will need some work to chase this down properly. The workaround proposed is a decent start.
And yes I agree with you, I'd be concerned about cancer before worrying about parkinsons/alzheimers but both should be considered as we determine what the impurity universe looks like with ugl products. In the meantime obviously sticking with higher purity raws (greater than 98%) is best course of action. USP Pharma raws will be 99.5%+ and these impurities will definitely be side AAS products or closely related.
For example:
https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/US/en/product/usp/1482036
https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/US/en/product/usp/1482025
usp31nf26s1_m59110, USP Monographs: Oxandrolone
www.uspbpep.com
Alzheimer's risk gene and heavy metal exposure may impair cognition
New research in mice suggests that exposure to cadmium can lead to cognitive decline in those with the Alzheimer's risk gene APOE4.
www.medicalnewstoday.com
Last edited:
These impurities are widely known in the pharmaceutical industry to be residual solvents from the synthesis of the drugs in question. Most notably would be dimethylacetamide (DMA) This chemical is used in lots of things, and is approved for drug delivery. literally tens of thousands of medicines (testosterone for example) use it during the synthesis process. This is very common knowledge within the industry. You guys are really trying to invent the wheel here, or discover something that’s extremely well-known within the pharmaceutical industry. Residual solvents do exist In finished drugs. There’s really no way without an expensive process to remove every bit of them. However, they are harmless to the human body. Even if the DMA had negative effects, which granted it can in extremely high doses, you get way more chemicals in the food you eat. This whole thread is basically a red herring, but feel free to chase down the rabbit hole, if you have nothing better to do.
—32 year biochemical engineer.
Kangaroos can’t jump backwards.
readalot
Member
Yes they do exist and there are limits placed on the amount of class 1 and class 2 solvents in pharma products. Option 1 and option 2 in USP <467> would not be needed if they were harmless in any and all amounts.
Source QC and C of A (do you have one?)
I like ur ideas they do go hand and hand with harm reduction. ur a smart dude, I'm starting to think u have some type of stake in a heavy metal testing operation lol. This is 2023 we are surrounded by heavy metals, in our food air water u name it. it's in our water and kids baby food? Untill...
thinksteroids.com
See the other thread for the generous info I posted on pharma impurities. The question is how do ugl products compare?
readalot
Member
Care to expand?
Red herring - Wikipedia
How so?
For your reference:
Source QC and C of A (do you have one?)
Easy to ask for things to be done when it isn't out of your own pocket. This. To my knowledge, he still hasn't sent anything for the proposed testing. Like, not even 1 vial.
thinksteroids.com
What does this pharma C of A clearly list?
Source QC and C of A (do you have one?)
https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/65419 https://www.agilent.com/cs/library/primers/Public/5991-1876EN.pdf https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1091581820946746
thinksteroids.com
Residual solvents not a problem?
I am curious what you think the irrelevant diversion is? You already know that all/most/some/×××× ugl products are equivalent to pharma products from a harmful impurity standpoint?
How long can we depend on china?
Now is not the time to stock up on raws for long time storage, wait until late spring roughly Why is that?
thinksteroids.com
Hmmm.
Last edited:
I am not reinventing the wheel mr. Chemical engineer Sir, master, kung fu, ninja scientist.
It is an honest question pertinent to the topic. We are aware there are acceptable fillers needed in the production of these compounds, I am just curious on what @lonewolf54321 discovered on their tests.
Since he said he didn’t care to test then thats the answer, no need to expand some more.
Jesus, there is no straight answer in Meso anymore.
readalot
Member
Well you did get one:
It was shocking and false. But it was a straight answer.
Extremely irresponsible given the context of this thread. Appeal to authority and a dangerous claim.
Class 1:
Class 2:
Last edited:
Well, no matter, it’s not like we are going to throw away all the gear we have especially if there is no ailments we can directly connect with these impurities yet.
Part of the game I guess lol.
No. You think I'm a cunt because you've got the emotional bandwidth of a teenage girl on her period. Also, who the fuck are Nancy Grave and Rachel Maddow? Women who rejected you?
Jano tested our fav vendor’s testC at 98+% purity. So given DMAs overall role in the synthesis, it’s concentration would likely be no greater than 1%. If someone was injecting 350mg a week (50mg/day) this would represent about 1/23 of the daily PDA limit. A limit is exactly that, a limit. It would be like if the speed limit was 70mph you want to drive at 3mph (~1/23 that) to be extra safe.
My definition of harmless (risk would be really a better term with chemical exposure) is not absolute zero, after all, getting out of bed is not absolutely harmless, everything has an element of risk. People every day die taking a crap. But I think 1/23 of the daily PDA certainly is very, very low risk.
I‘m here for intelligent debate and await your rebuttal.
My definition of harmless (risk would be really a better term with chemical exposure) is not absolute zero, after all, getting out of bed is not absolutely harmless, everything has an element of risk. People every day die taking a crap. But I think 1/23 of the daily PDA certainly is very, very low risk.
I‘m here for intelligent debate and await your rebuttal.
Last edited:
lonewolf54321
Member
Last bit of attention I will give you. You will have to entertain yourself elsewhere. They say don't argue with a stupid cunt because they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. You definitely have experience. You win the stupid cunt prize. And ignore button now....
readalot
Member
Thanks. I too am here for intelligent debate. I find nothing problematic with the analysis you did. It is one example scenario. You'd like a rebuttal but never did clarify where the red herring was. Ok.
Here's a more complete sensitivity analysis including
(1) various solvents that could be present from either synthesis or purification (as a ChE you'll appreciate an UGL may not be using the most innocuous solvent choice)
(2) PDE for the respective solvents
(3) residual solvent content of 1, 2, and 3%
(4) weekly AAS dosage
N,N-DMA would have the highest PDE of the representative solvents included in this analysis.
If you know that only N,N-DMA is present then we are likely done.
But neither of us do:
IMO, the analysis provided indicates making sure ugl manufacturers aren't cutting corners on residual solvents leftover from chemical synthesis and/or purification is a worthwhile endeavor.
If no heavy metals are present in tested raws, then the residual solvent question is the one to focus testing efforts on.
If you get a moment please do tell me where the red herring is. I sincerely would like to know.
Last edited:
Spaceman Spiff
Well-known Member
Let's see some testing instead of wasting time throwing hypotheticals
