The harm reduction question...

How about you minimize the amount of testing related posts constantly put on every domestic source thread and keep the majority in your own thread that is entirely dedicated to your goal. Reading page after page after page feels the same as when I have to hear my wife complaining...all I want is to see Stan's 500ml media bottle but no, gotta read 299 testing related posts to get there 1st.
Deal.
 
Quick question. So, nobody has come across any testing group or individuals/source who actually even tried or have tested the impurities of raws/products?

I am curious if we have all been injecting impurities for decades now.
 
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?
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.
 
So, nobody has come across any testing group or individuals/source who actually even tried or have tested the impurities of raws/products?
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



 
Last edited:
I understand that, care to share what they are.
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.
 
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
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.


See the other thread for the generous info I posted on pharma impurities. The question is how do ugl products compare?
 
This whole thread is basically a red herring
Care to expand?


How so?

For your reference:


What does this pharma C of A clearly list?



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?


Hmmm.
 
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.
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.
 
Jesus, there is no straight answer in Meso anymore.

Well you did get one:

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.

32 year biochemical engineer.

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-1-solvents.jpg

Class 2:
table-2-class-2-residual-solvents-l.jpg
 
Last edited:
Well you did get one:





It is shocking and false. But it was a straight answer.
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.
 
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.
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.
 
Last edited:
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?
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....
 
I‘m here for intelligent debate and await your rebuttal.

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.

RS1.JPGRS2.JPG


RS3.JPG

If you know that only N,N-DMA is present then we are likely done.

But neither of us do:

I’m going to guess that it’s the nature of the residual solvents,catalysts and or reactants that are left over from the raw chemical manufacturing process. I’m not an organic chemist but based on my research, I suspect that’s the only way this could happen. Perhaps higher grade solvents used in the manufacturing process are currently unavailable. Perhaps, who really knows


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:
Back
Top