posted Fri, 07/04/2014 - 06:57
35600
+ 16 Steriod Purity Assesment by Electrospray Ionization mass spectrometry
ad
Another write up by the Dr about how the machine that he uses is used for purity assessment.
MODERATOR LOCKDOWN UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE!
Ordered from:
- Bookmark
- 16
- 0
I am not the professor to know what he will ask your guy. Lets see next week
Anon.
This is awesome.
I hope angus takes the offer.
I think you need both Mass spec and HPLC to determine what it is and dosage/purity I could be wrong tho. I don't think just one or the other can do both
With HPLC they make also the purity . If you have some extra peaks that can not be identified on HPLC ( MS should say what are those sure so just ID those peaks ) then raw is rebutted ( considered bunk ).
MS tests are a brainwash made by this guy Angus here.
You can not test quality of a drug or of a raw with MS ( sure you can make MS work like a HPLC because is the same principle but then results are similar like on HPLC.
Correctly you test quality with HPLC and if has extra peaks then is bunk. If you want to see what those peaks are you put on MS and you get the result. But normal if you get extra peaks then raw is bunk and finish. Does not help if you put on MS and you show that extra peaks are amino-acids or something harmless, they do not care. That raw is rebutted.
You will see raw tested by laboratory I know and raw tested by Angus on MS. You will look to results and will understand the truth very easy.
RagedSoulsHow about those Bengals?
I'm going to step into this now... I've used Angus many times and relied upon his reports.
I can also confirm that Ashop knows what he is talking about when it comes to pharmacology. My associates in the EU speak very highly of him at the least.
I've read most (not all) of this thread, but I think I've read more than enough to see what needs to be done. Here's what's gonna happen:
I'm going to send three raw samples to Angus and three raw samples to Ashop. I'm not going to tell either of them what the raw samples are. Only I will know what the samples are.
They can both then post the results here on eroids for everyone to see.
If both Angus and Ashop is up for this then I will have the samples sent out first thing Monday morning.
I am prepare address and you will have for monday
U miss here a point, to recognize a material is one thing, to quantify it, and calculate its concentration while identifying the impurities is other thing which this whole argument is about
You are very correct..In the pharmaceutical business we id raws with FTIR, then quantify with gcms or hplc.. there are many methods to quantify but there are USP methods that must be followed.. Methods programmed into the gcms or hplc are validated methods. Standards used are certified..they MUST be . You cannot quantify without having a standard of known purity to compare it to.. Its that simple..period. The issue is you dont get the same responses from every compound(concentration to m/z ratio).. For example you could feasibly have an impurity at. 5%, but the peak area/response may be much larger..maybe 20, 30% or more in relation to the sample majority compound which in reality is 95% Different compounds give different responses based on their size and shape..and how they fragment. Compounds of similar size and structure give similar responses. So, for example, if a quantified standard of compound A isnt available , but compound B is, and A and B are very similar in molecular weight and structure. then compound B can be used to quantify with.. How would you think a lab would quantify a sample of unknown compounds?
We use calibrated test mixes after identifying the unknowns..and we mix the quantified knowns with the unknown sample, run it through , and then the software can compare and give an accurate quantity. We do this everyday.. and there are labs that specialize in copying products and basically providing a formula based on gcms or hplc results so that a copy can be accurately formulated. In fact there are very highly paid chemists whose job it is to hide certain compounds within other peaks so that a companies formula cannot be copied..and converesly chemists jobs it is to figure out what and how much is in something so that it can be copied.
Bottom line is..standards of known purity must be used..OR have samples mostly pure and know what the impurities are..If all of the impurities are known..AND their abundances can be detected.by whatever instrument.
.then quantitation is possible without a standard..
Also..it is far better to id and quantify the raws than it is to do so in the finished product.
If you know the purity of your raws..the rest is academic and is only as accurate as the scales being used to make the finished product.
My boy's wicked smart! Well put!
I am a dummy and that made total sense.
Don't you think it's a good starting point? I'd be very interested to see what differences in the results there will be and more basically, if the actual correct compound is being identified.
There's no reason for either of them to say no to this and I'm willing to bare the full cost of the tests.
I can see Alin has already agreed, so just waiting for Angus to agree now...
angusYeah, I'm good with that.
Thats super. Lets see what angus is going to produce here
Him not agreeing to a debate or a parallel test speaks volumes. It should tell the community all it needs to know. He should jump on a chance to defend/substantiate himself. Should be a easy decision.
Maybe they are scrambling to find a way to test materials for real.
It's a real shame.
Probably they now are scrambling to find a way to analyze MuscleDevelop raws correctly. This is why we need those tests made fast.
angusYou are not helping homie. I have limited internet while I travel. I get on only one time per day. I am game for testing. Believe me, if there is a way to improve then I WANT to. But damn, all I see are accusations and mud-slinging and statements. Give me something I can go to dr with and ask. And I don't mean a cut/past of tons of statements and finger-pointing. Just looking for a jumping off point. Trying to get a structured conversation going here.
Just a point. You seem to not be 100% confident in your testing. You talk about accusations and mudslinging.
Think about all the shit sources have been thorough as a result of your tests. The guys on here can be brutal. Also the money it's costs sources.
Honestly I think your a good dude. But you have put a lot of ppl through some shit, hopefully not unjustly. You took on a big responsibility by doing the testing. You shouldn't have done it unless you were 100% sure in the accuracy.
angusMuch like all other eroids members I question everything. I put a lot of trust and faith in the dr and his education and experience. But at the end of the day I am not the one running them nor interpreting them. How can I have 100% confidence in something that someone else does? That would be more along the lines of arrogance than confidence. I love science, I love learning, so being receptive to questions that others might have expands on that. So if all my life I knew the sky was blue but someone came along and said are you sure it's not blue/green......I would still look up.
Good to hear man. Just want to get it all on the table.
>
reply
Trenabolic 23 hours ago
My bad. Didn't see this.
You produced the money to have a holiday with the members here. You have the obligation to stop the holiday and answer all questions here and all concerns. If wasn't this board wasn't your exotic holiday ( I assume is exotic because only in a exotic place you have limited access to INTERNET in the rest of the world you have already 3G and 4G )
You have lots to ask your doctor. For example why he provided you articles for posting that are full of mistakes ? Why he doesnt know how to make MS tests. Do you want to paste here all questions again ? Funny how you play dumb and blind.
Angus's genius can identify peak, so am I, I just don't from y guys money on this. The peak "weight" indicates the material. Angus don't have the right methid to calculate the purity and to quantify the impurities, and may make up some info which he misses, as I've shown, just to make it look popular
alin will easily test yours, I'm surprised Angus hasn't replied ......
I also PMed him with no response
angusNo you did not PM me.
Angus is not even able to recognize the impurities. He say 85% purity but he never ID what is the other 15% .
I agree with MuscleDevelop offer. Ill take raws if members consider this is a good prove
i just watched a video which was kind of disturbing. Even when raws come back at 90% purity then what is the other 10% A guy did studies and bought gear from well known sources sent in and got extensive labs done on the vials and some came back with heavy metals in them, bacteria, and other weird chemicals. So its not always about the purity but also the impurities. Because lets say that test e 250 you made from 90% pure raws and added in an extra 10% raw to make the final product exactly 250mg of test e you also added in extra of the impurities which again we have no clue what they are and potentially harmful if not life threatening because we are injecting these oils which bypasses ALOT of the bodies natural defenses
You don't use a 90% raw.
Then we you do HPLC analyses if extra unknown peaks appears means you have impurities.
U were fed with some propagarnda -
There are some left overseas from the sythesis of the raw materials, mainly solvents ana catalyzators, these are present also in any pharma grade - USP/parallel standards dictates the max
Heavy metals shouldn't be much concerned here (but I'll confirm it with an expert), as their present in food is much much higher. The liver should clean heavy metals quite similiar from the blood or from the intestine, but I will check this.
some impurities are simply a slight mutation of the molecule, which though won't have same biological effect are not dengeroud
If there are heavy metals then you would have a low concentration of the raw and extra peaks on HPLC that are unknown.
the reflection of such impurities in the graph is higher then their concentration as Angus calculate them, ask your chemist Alin, I'm not a chemist, nor near mine. He'll know
My chemist said when he say Angus MS then Angus articles and Angus comments exactly this: "You have a *** ( lets say uneducated scholar ) doing injection into MS" ( excuse me please Angus I told you in private exactly what professor said this a week ago ) . This is his level. Professor signature is on student diplomas I can make pictures of some diplomas to prove this, this professor know how to evaluate a scholar.
So Karl please believe Angus is not able to even ID the compounds. He is making one injection in MS; thats not enough ! He should make several injections, one is only for calibration of the machine. ( I explain with my words what I understood from experts, if anything wrong I can come with a post written by a expert )
If you say if Angus can ID compounds why he is not able to say what other compounds are inside the product when he get a result like 85% ?
A joke if you allow me: We can hire for similar results. a professional gypsy lady with her crystal globe. I am sure her error rate will be similar with Angus error rate
angusI'm not offended at all, and I think it is this kind of courtesy that will get the conversation flowing in the right direction. To answer you though, I have never touched the machine. I don't do the analysis, I am the liaison between eroids and the dr He doesn't even know this place exists.
I am readily willing to admit I was wrong in looking at the test you had run. I am not familiar with it. Can you please send me the link for the international standard for testing again?
I personally feel that u should let members ask question.
The ppl here made a god for themselves to trust (Angus). We should know if this god is fake or not.
I don't think he (trenabolic) wants anyone getting into pissing matches over it. Or ganging up on one guy. But I agree , my man has some splainin to do.
After reading through all of this information, I am annoyed, angry and feel like I don't know who to trust or who to believe. Perhaps I am naive, but shouldn't the process by simple? Submit Test E 250 for testing and tell me if it has Test 250 in it. Am I missing something? Do I need more information than that? Of course I would like to know if it also has any harmful chemicals but that goes without saying.
Simple right? But it hasn't been. Why? Makes me wonder. I don't need to see 16 pages of test results I don't understand. It just confuses the issue. Makes me crazy when I see someone publish test results and 50 members chime in either praising the results or bashing them when 49 of them have no idea what they are looking at. But maybe that's the whole point. Keep us confused and let us fight amongst ourselves.
We need to work together to develop a process and make the results easy to understand and transparent. We also need to publish ALL test results, good or bad. Stop hiding the bad ones hoping the lab will turn it around meanwhile members waste their money buying crap.
There has to be a better way then what we are doing now. I have ideas. I am sure many of you do to.
Somebody on the second page said...
I don't see how angus is being bashed here. He is being questioned about his logic (which seems illogical) when conducting these tests and if he isn't conducting them, then have the person conducting them explain things like this...
Whoever isn't understanding what's happening here for whatever reason ,let me explain so that a 5 year old can understand. Angus is making a very handsome profit from this little racket. Ohh samples are only $75 a pop but how many samples are we talking here? I know angus isn't the greatest mathematician but I can figure a rough estimate. If we have 50 sources who want tests done a month and they each submit 10 samples that's 500 samples. At $75 a pop I'll guess and say Angus gets a third. Do the math. That's a very substantial amount of money to be making over night. Now this is a guess. I didn't even factor in all the members who are getting tests done. Why am I saying this? Why does it matter what the next man does to make money? Money corrupts ppl. Because he is single handedly dictating the rankings with this analysis. If his profit margin increases by making a promise to a source here or there (not saying he is, but I don't know) then you don't need to be told what happens next. Now I'm not accusing anyone of anything. I'm repeating what is being whispered about. If it isn't the case and it is all honest then clearly someone doesn't understand the system they use to conduct the tests. It may very well be innocent ignorance on his part. Even still, that is just as bad as if it were malicious. You can't possibly take on this kind of responsibility if you don't understand what the process is or if you have atrocious math skills. My job as a moderator is to keep the members safe within my control on this board. If someone is up to something shady or is going to conduct make or break tests that the entire community piggy backs the minute they get posted, then he needs to be responsible for explaining exactly what's going on with the tests. What's the process? How exactly does it work? Every single explanation I have seen from angus gets more and more complex. Einstein said,.."if you can't explain something simply, then you don't understand it yourself". I agree with this wholeheartedly. Look at the replies above from Ashop professor? Understand them? I do! Understand angus logic behind the conclusions he's reached? I don't. I'm not only trying to keep the community safe and honest , but sources as well. I know damn well any one or these sources also has a lot to gain here. But these major intl sources like those who comment here, they sent these samples and paid for them to be conducted. All I saw initially was a source saying "hey angus, I had that same sample looked at by a 3rd party and he said this is bullshit. Care to elaborate. Here is his explaination yada yada. What say you?" Now what is wrong with that? It turned into a big ,very confusing cluster fuck of nothing. I haven't learned a damn thing from any of his explanations. I'm at least able to interpret Ashops and Karl's replies from their Dr. So I'm partially trying to do my job here but also as a member who uses gear, I wana know exactly wtf is going on here. Who is lying? Are they just misinformed? Either way they have no business conducting these tests. And single handedly dictating the rankings via these tests? That is a major problem for me! So I'll shut up and let them continue. But any member who says "stop picking on angus" needs to check himself. Nobody is picking on anybody. 10's of thousands of members/customers stand to lose $100's of thousands of dollars here and sources even more so. This isn't a game guys so staai azit if you have nothing helpful or intelligent to bring to this discussion. Let them work it out.
angus.
Lab fees are 50 dollars to run the test. That is the university pricing. Anyone can tell you that the university charges students to run mass spec tests. While I am not a student I still get the student pricing. Sources do not pay 75 dollars for tests and any one of them can and will tell you that.
Well lets simplify it. Where would you like me to start?
AnonI really feel the same as you nitti! I was alway confuse when I came to mass specs. But ashop's expert puts everything in a very simply way to understand and in a more scientific way also.
Like you said nitti, [Einstein said,.."if you can't explain something simply, then you don't understand it yourself". I agree with this wholeheartedly.]
Jesus you fking awesome mod for stating this!!!! I've put alot of money into doing what I've done since I've joined a few months back. I wanna help myself/gym fuck heads/and the eroid community in general with the basic knowledge of, is what "we" are using of good quality or not!!
Posting results only seem to be the easiest way to the truth...assuming the impurities are only amino acids and such##
I have here an anacdote - I may be wrong - I think not. I apologize if I accused Angus in something which is not right.
I had reports on bad batches of GH sourced in China. The products go directly to the USA. So just like members here I assumed Angus is the guy to go. I sent him 200usd for tests (the GH). Later I told him that I will test it on my lab as well when get it, but I need a reference and based opinion to guide and explain to the Chinese supplier ASAP.
Well ...... Angus somehow didn't test it, he said the chmist didn't want to take responsibility or somehting, I may dig for the PM.
I think that he knew that if he tests my GH, and then I test it, in a real lab I will find out clearly that his "team" has no clue.
Anyhow 200usd are still in hands, GH is not tested, and u all praise him.
again if I will be proved wrong I apologize, I would never dare to accuse anyone without a sheer prove. but this is exactly how it went.
I'm not sure you understood my post
Well you're not his follower obviously Sir. I referred to the members here. Like said - "the bigger the lie, the more they believe in it"
Ahh, roger that. I'm not sure they praise him or worse,...just take the info given to them as gospel. It's about time we know what the hell is up with all this
Ok this is getting out of hand. From here on I don't want any reg members chiming in, let's keep it strictly angus and sources.
That mean I can post, I hope I don't get hit by ban hammer.
I just want to remind Angus :
1 To read and answer to my post in this thread on the 2nd page there is a LONG post with some of problems we found in "articles and tutorials". ( Trenabolic should i repost here again ? )
2
To ask his expert to answer my professor email and start a debate on those analyses articles and all. Until Angus finish his holiday ( faster but lets say ...) we will have a very clear information about everything.
Info: He (my guy) is professor-doctor his name and signature is on most students diplomas. I can scan few diplomas and post for everyone to see when will be the moment. He will make a evaluations of Angus skills and method of analyzes and he will write a paper with a evaluation.
I will go to sleep now,
Thank you,
Ajax
RustyhookerYessir.
Another repeated scenario here, which no one should accept, is that one make a claim, a scientific claim pretendly, and when he's asked to back it up he gives cheap excuses why he's suddenly concerned to get in contact, as we all know it all can be solved through secured mail or chats, ridiculous.
BACK UP YOUR CLAIMS
If I wanted to prove somehting I paid 1200usd for a real professor with a real name and a real lab to give an authorize scientific undisputable analysis
angusKarl, I'm all for looking at the science and trying to determine how best to take corrective action if something is not right. I just need a very methodical approach, a conversation that is not biased or aggressive. And can be followed step by step. I'm ok with people attacking the method being employed, if it's wrong then that's no good. And I definitely want it fixed but if it just needs fine tuning then that is different. I just want to have a civil conversation about it. One that makes sense and doesn't throw everything against the wall hoping something will stick.