ashop's picture
ashop
  • 888
  • SRC
1389

+ 2 COA RAW TEST ENA

ad

( just for info ) COA for raw

Ordered from: 
ashop's picture

I talked at UNIVERSITY OF MEDICINE and asked to make a study on rabbits/rats for high doses like bodybuilder use. I wait for a answer if they want, costs, time and sure if is possible.

I think would be some interesting results

ashop's picture

Absolutely is sold in pharmacies my friend, everywhere in the country plus exported (not hormones). Is sold in hospitals. Oncological hospital from Moldova buy from them most of the products each year. This company produce over 350 products sold mostly in hospitals and for cancer treatments and they are effective for so many years since hospitals buy them year after year ( all information can be found on www.amed.md thats moldova fda site ). If they would fail once this company would be closed.

Lets check : LICITATION ( tenders ) on www.amed.md

Home Licitaţii Rezultatele licitaţiilor

http://amed.md/tc_userfiles/file/Licitatii/Rezultate%20licitatiilor/Cast...

Here you can find companies that are producing for real drugs and selling their drugs to the hospitals in the country. Look for LICITATION results , this is very important to see if company is real

Rezultatul licitaţiei nr.1608/13 din 20.11.2013

( for 2014 the big LICITATION is in september 2013 . Other small licitation are just for small needs . )

Download the lists in XLS and check the lists for drugs name and company name and see which drugs they sold to the government ( more complicated drugs better the company. So for example if they sold only tablets company is small if they sold aqueous injectable in sizes bigger than 10 ml the company is the best )

ReadyToKillIt's picture

Your theories are 100% implausible. A pharmaceutical company produces their own raws, and actually with the quantity they produce it would be possible for vials a year later to contain these raws. 100 kilos produces 40,000 vials, and they produce much more than that per year. There is absolutely no way bayer, with all of there testing protocols and multimillion dolar equipment, would allow a subpar product out. They would lose billions worldwide if that happened. Don't forget that gear hasn't been hplc tested to prove it's underdosed. I also feel irons levels were low, but you're jumping to conclusions.

KAM1314's picture

And your theory is 100% correct. Big (legit) pharmaceutical company's produce fucking boatloads of product in a single batch. They are WORLDWIDE suppliers with a lot of demand. One single batch of contaminated or fucked up medication that did not contain what the label states would have severe repercussions, lawsuits, government fines and would cost them millions. People have to realize Bayer produces a lot more then steroids...every hear of Bayer asprin? It's recommended by doctors for heart health and probably on the shelves of every pharmacy and convenience store in the world. It's a whole different animal then some bunk raws from china

ashop's picture

I think that batch was imported on July 2013 and went into production in 2014 January. Total weight was 98 KG. I can ask their distributor if they have another batch but I doubt that was consumed more than 100 KG since January . Maybe I am wrong I type from memory but I will check.

There is no possibility that a BP product to be underdosed. We want to see what influenced the plasmatic concentration. Since there are no studies on human on huge doses I asked them to order such a study on rabbits or rats to see how it works. Lets see their answer if is possible then for sure we will go that step

ashop's picture

Bayer is using for their drugs and selling raws from China also. Raw manufacturing is a dirty business for environment as you see they produce all hormones in Mexico not in Germany. Also for other products than hormones they sold to BP raws produced in China by another company and the paper were supra-verified by Bayer and everywhere was warranted that production is Bayer supervised. So you can find very good stuff in China also, but for hormones Bayer or China illegal factory excuse me price is the same ( 2000 USD per kg Test E or C ) . Keep in mind that factories from China that sell hormones to UG does not produce legal so they care very little about keeping constant quality. But lets not blame China because if they produce something with papers then the quality could be equal with any other European company.

I did not wanted to say that Bayer is good and China is good. They had China raws with same specs like Bayer but chinese are not very constant in delivering quality so you spend lots of effort in checking. When the price difference worth yes go for chinese and check very careful. But many times big company sell raws same prices like chinese.

ashop's picture

I am not a expert but I can easily assume following.

MANUFACTURED DATE FOR RAW ( date when raw was produced )
PRINTED DATE: ( date when COA was printed )
RETEST DATE ( date when raw must be retested )

Probably they manufacture in stock.

Just for information price for this raw is 2000 USD ( probably is easy to check ) manufactured by Bayer in Mexico. What legit company would want to underdose this raw at this price....
Anyway I do not want to prove anything you can look at it to see how they test a raw for impurities.

Also maybe someone explain me where is the PURITY test that everyone is talking about when mass-specs where done. I do not see anywhere a purity value.

ReadyToKillIt's picture

Last page, the assay says 99.6%. I believe that is the purity. You will notice that the range is from 97.0-102.0 for that. That is due to there being a recognized margin for error of +/- a certain percentage. Which theoretically means you could have a sample with an assay of <100%. I am not well versed in reading these, but that is my basic umderstanding of this.

ashop's picture

So if raw is 97% and impurities levels are within range accepted then in production it will be added a extra 3% of raw and the final product comes to correct concentration.

But is not correct to talk about purity in the final product. They always talk about assay concentration and impurities levels ( each impurity one by one listed, some are accepted in some limits some not at all ) in raw testing.

In the final product is the same. You talk about concentration ( if on label is 200 mg ) and inside 200 mg then is 100 ( even raw was 97% it was added 3%) . Also they check impurities in final product so concentration is not the most and the only important value. Impurities are the problem.

Also why laws require testing raw then also final product for impurity ? Because some impurities can not be any longer detected in final product.

HailRazor's picture

I simple HPLC for a known "powder" for purity. Testing a finished product is different. I don't know bout this stuff either. But, I've got percentage, and actual active compound present (mg). He's pointing out testing for quality control, etc., for pharmaceutical products. I liked our purity tests though. There is room for error in testing in general. But not much with the testing he's commenting about.

ashop's picture

yes purity only for raws. not for finished product

HailRazor's picture

Here in the states, non-human samples (illegal) are sometimes reported in percentage (GC/MS). It just depends on the lab and what you request.

ashop's picture

yes correct. here also. that is identification and they identify substances. the percentage area is not stable is never exact. They do not care about percentage too much is just informative. That is FBI labs or similar, YES I always said that MS are used mainly in research and on such organization.

But drugs that you buy from pharmacy are tested according to US PHARMACOPEIA. There 99% is used HPLC because they do not need to identify a unknown substance but they need to test the quality of a known substance.

You can check this, is all correct I have learned this some time ago because I had too. I try not to speak things that I can not prove because I prefer to loose a argument than using fallacious arguments then someone point my mistake that and make me look like a idiot.

HailRazor's picture

Yes, lots of protocols (chain of custody,etc) when testing pharmaceuticals.

fusebox's picture

This is dated 2012?

Fred G.Sanford's picture

It says date manufactured as 2012 then date this was printed 6/2013?? Good question I'm confused lol

Fred G.Sanford's picture

.