I really thank you everyone for trust. I got LOTS of emails of support on private. I am happy people really try to read carefully all arguments and they see the truth.

Here I have a answer to those tests from Angus. Seems he claim after analyses I posted here TA purity is 8%. or anyway something like that. Only he understand his logic until now.
Seems we have discovered the source of the problem. Is not that Angus is a liar or he is faking tests or he want to promote some sources. He is doing the tests but the problems are his skills. He had no skills to use a MS

Here is the email from Angus at those tests I posted here:
I removed his email address for security :

-----Original Message-----
From: angusisok [mailto:
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2014 4:33 PM

I know you want to believe in the tests that you have run, and I would too but you don't seem like a dumb person and a little common sense goes a long ways here. Glancing over your test report and coming to the first pass, we see that the Benzyl Benzoate appears in more concentration than the tren. It certainly takes up more mass. On the second one it is still more prevalent but on the third it is missing so I'm assuming that is the control.

The peak at 8 minutes represents the BB, the TA at 6, the TH at 17 and the TE at 17.8. Keeping that in mind we scroll through your test and look at some of the number.

Page 8, Signal 1
Peak 11 was at 6 minutes (TA): 8% area
Peak 13 was at 8 minutes (BB): 91.5% area

Page 8, Signal 2
Peak 1 was at 6 minutes (TA): 34.8% area Peak 2 was at 8 minutes (BB): 65% area

Page 8, Signal 3
Peak 10 was at 6 minutes (TA): 98.8%
Peak 12 was at 8 minutes (BB): .08%

And then it just repeats from there.

================================================

I sent his answer to the professor and here is his reply. I think everyone should read and learn

Your answers prove that you don’t have any analytic or data operating skills. All you do is just inject the samples into the mass spectrometer, without any understanding of the process. You start debating over some incorrect information, based on your erroneous results.
Let’s begin with some elementary concepts that are taught in freshman’s year.
1. We are guided by international standards, when taking our tests. Our main guides are different Pharmacopeias. A Pharmacopeia is a collection of official documents establishing the quality standards of medicinal raw materials and drugs. It is constantly being updated and is based on the achievements of pharmaceutical chemistry and pharmaceutical analysis. Our company pays a lot of money for the subscription to these Pharmacopeias. Let it be so… we will send you some pharmacopoeia articles. The anabolics analysis is based on HPLC.
2. All of our tests are authorized, being aimed at preventing the false-positive and the false-negative results. You’ve mentioned a different percent ratio in the chromatographs on page 8. This shows your absolute incompetence. You’ve noticed that all three tests were taken at different wavelengths. This explains the different surface of the peaks. This was done in order to exclude the benzyl peak from the list of impurities. We identified it on the standard sample and exclude it out of the chromatograms sample. We conducted a separate test for trenbolone impurities (as the chromatogram shows at wavelength of 340 nm), but also using other wavelengths, where peaks, not connected to trenbolone, may appear (unpainted parts of other components of the injectable solution).
3. Please stop this ongoing nonsense, write a rebuttal for your so called analysis, and start learning chemistry in a licensed university. You will be ashamed for your analysis, 5 years later.

================================================================

Another question I have asked Angus was this :

• It’s unclear how the dosage appreciation result of Trenbolone was 50 mg/ml (twice lower then normally), and the purity result was 11 %. Don’t you think that these results are interdependent? If they lack a logical dependency, it may mean that your tests are not plausible.

50 mg is 50% not 11%

Here is Angus answer:

50mg is quantity, 11% is quality.

Because I felt stupid that I dont understand this then I sent this to the professor.
Professor answer is here:

NONSENSE. If your analysis says that the concentration of active substance is 50 mg per ml, then this is the number of the substance purity, because it should be compared to the pharmacopeic standard with concentration (purity) of 100 %. The concentration of impurities should be calculated separately, compared to pharmacopeic standards for each impurity. Thus, if you insist on a concentration of 50 mg per ml, this means that the purity is also 50 mg per ml.

I think all sources that had bad /good tests until now should tests their products for real in a real place.

=============================================================

Here I uploaded the pages that were sent to me by professor

http://imageshack.com/a/img829/8063/addv.jpg
http://imageshack.com/a/img855/3277/nzk1r.jpg
http://imageshack.com/a/img840/2917/9z0m.jpg
http://imageshack.com/a/img841/9180/3vo9o.jpg

SUMMARY :

A fool may throw a stone into a well, which a hundred wise men cannot pull out

================================================

I expect a lot of bashing and attacks to me but I could not keep my mouth shut knowing I am right. This is the true and I expect Angus to come with some really good analyses or comments otherwise he should stop doing this for members.
Like a idea: A good analyst in Moldova is paid with lots of money ( over 2.000 EUROS monthly thats a lot for Moldova) I think a good analyst or at least a analyst in states can make real money not doing tests on internet for 60 USD.

I am in 1st year of lawschool. Would you let me to conduct your lawsuit ? Exactly the same apply here

I PAY 20.000 USD FOR THE CUSTOMER WHO CAN PROVE FOR REAL THAT I SOLD HIM A UNDER-DOSED /OVERDOSED WITH MORE THAN 10% . TESTS SHOULD BE AT A CERTIFIED LABORATORY WITH A CORRECT METHOD.

What I posted here is a correct method from a laboratory that exist and can be verified. This is a real analyses. I will believe a contrary analyses when I see something from a real laboratory with a correct method.

As for the people who post tests done who know where and nobody know how by mr.xxx is their problem. Is not hard to make two pages with some graphics. from what messages I got there is a file like a xls where you input your data and get some graphics. such methods without validation worth nothing.