posted Fri, 07/04/2014 - 06:57
37632
+ 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
In order to provide this community with based and valid info u have to rely on proper method and analysis, this Angus was proved not to have in his hands, furthermore - Let me show you Angus response to this Proviron test (any mod of admin may see it on my PMs) -
"Oh I didn't know that was your proviron. He didn't tell me what source it was. Proviron was present in the sample. That is the only thing that matters. The purity is not important because it was a finished tablet."
Angus method clearly doesn't give him the ability to quantify properly the materials in the sample, he can't reflect from this to the real concentration, so no real conclusion can be drawn
Post such as - "this shit is fire, gained 20 lbs, great sex drive" may reflect one individual feedback, I agree that it doesn't give much service to the members, but what is clearly more dangerous is relying on what pretend to be sienctific testing which is complately misleading and invalid.
No matter the cost this community should adhere to valid sciense, not nonsense
angusKarl, due to the density of the tablet the purity values are skewed. We have the ability to isolate all of the fillers and give an accurate depiction of the tablet but that requires more time and money. This pertains to only tablets and that is why purity values are negligible. To use that as an example to prove your point is inaccurate. The whole concept behind the testing was affordability. We have the ability to run the tests according to the international pharmacopeia but it's going to be expensive.
density of the tablet .......my friend if you make mistakes then you are not a analyst. Analyses are done either perfectly either not.
No - the method of eluting the different material is invalid - I proved it, don't talk on what you're clue less on
angusOh I'm far from clueless. You have proved nothing. I'm not gonna argue with you, it's not worth it.
When I got the opportunity to offer parallel lab test to yours I did,
Explain this now -
http://www.eroids.com/pics/trenadex-enanthate-by-sciroxx-official-indepe...
Check page 2 with clear explanation on inproper handling of the impurities as well as wrong calculations on purity. You don't need to identify each purity but u need to define an impurity which your method doesn't and u need to make proper calcualtions based on your standard, no one even know which standard u used ?!
I think you have proven my point. You are so righteously concerned about the scientific validity of the test methods yet you put fake lot numbers and expiration dates on your vial labels.
You admitted this in two different test threads when challenged to test the lots yourself, saying the labels are put on later and lot numbers can't be used to track products back to your manufacturing process.
If unavoidable for security reasons then leave off lot numbers and expiry dates entirely instead of intentionally misleading your customers into thinking you operate like a real pharma company.
Most SRCs are not interested in anything but making money. It is us against them. Without independent testing we are fighting blind.
Everyone benefits from accurate testing. Of course we all want it. But if we allow ourselves to let the SRCs dictate that, we will never get there because for them the only good test is no test.
Bro there is a huge point that you are missing here. I agree that we should continue the testing. But you don't want to question angus. He has a huge conflict of interest.
He is partners with beaker. Beaker is in business with a source. It's all out there for everyone to see just do a search. This is the biggest conflict of interest there is. Just for that reason you cannot trust what comes out of that camp. That's even if their science made sense.
I showed u clearly that their method of eluting the different materials is invalid,
The weight their calculation gives to each material or impurity is baseless either
angusWe can do gc/ms. I was going to have the MD samples run and then run gc/ms by an independent lab as well. I have used them a few times and they don't identify impurities, just acknowledge they're there. Same as the university.
Angus we need to chat
On GC/MS you have a method for testosterone cypionate in USP but requires standard. In the rest you do not have methods.
If you test other products w then you need to present the method in such a format ( 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 ) to understand what you are doing. Otherwise you just try to scam people again, I sure do not trust you because your analyzes until now where all erroneous that mean you have a bad analyst. There is no machine in the world you can put a substance and get results. Each machine need a very good operator and a very good method.
But since you have done bad analyzes until now who will believe you ? You should correct you methods before shit hit the fan. From now on IMO you will do just better graph.
I UNDERSTAND THAT SELLING PAPERS BUSINESS WAS GOOD AND IS HARD FOR YOU TO STOP FOR TAKING MONEY ON PAPERS BUT IS NOT A CORRECT BUSINESS. IS A SCAM
This discusion may never come to an end. Nobody says that one can’t do quantification using one machine or another…The only thing we disagree with is the way you do the analysis, its reliability and the interpretation of the obtained results.
The stages of analysis are clearly stated:
SURE AFTER YOU PRESENT THE METHOD OF ANALYSES - you have some examples on those links )
a) Obtaining the standard .
b) Comparing the samples with the standards obtained
c) The complex processing of the obtained data.
.
Gas chromatography may be used for the dosage of certain hormones (see US Pharmacopeia for Testosterone Cypionate but present the methods first for each compound ).
We speak about both traditional and new literature methods of analysis but they never speak about where and how these methods are used by Angus. You can’t do an analysis by making two injections in mass, GC, FTIR… and comparing them with nothing or hell knows what.
Let’s be scientifically correct and stop protecting some internet con artists, which aren’t even analysts.
Yes generally when making chemical assay you don't identify each impurity, but your doc's method for calculation purity, as well as the relevant weight it gives to impurity in his formula is simply invalid - refer to my post of tren E
http://www.eroids.com/pics/trenadex-enanthate-by-sciroxx-official-indepe...
Check page 2 with clear explanation on inproper handling of the impurities as well as wrong calculations on purity. You don't need to identify each purity but u need to define an impurity which your method doesn't and u need to make proper calcualtions based on your standard
angusLooking over the gc/ms that I have from the independent lab I don't see where there was a standard used either. I'm not arguing with you, just asking questions. I don't want to seem defensive, I truly want to understand. The university has the gc/ms as well. If that is a better machine to use then, by all means lets do it. I can post the results of the gc/ms if you want to see them. I think it was a Muta sample.
Send me pls to mail both tests, I'll ask a professor about his very valid opinion. I can't run tests as proepr testing requires USP standards, I'll provide this service for GH proucts this week, but I can't offer it meanwhile for AAS
Be careful, when I asked Angus some information he sent emails without attachments saying that he sent attachments.
angusSure, no problem. Thanks.
As a example: look on the page 2 for Oxandrolone lab test posted by me. There is the calibration with the standard.
Look for text : "Sample Info : Oxandrolon standard assay"
Well said Nitti, also to me the impurities are just as important to know and these test are not producing that information. I am anticipating what the test show from the 3 different sources who sent in the raws. It would of been nice if they also sent in the finished product to see how they are conducted also.
Pharmacopeia approved tests ( usually HPLC tests ) will identify each impurity. Sure if MS would be used correctly would identify impurities. But the way Angus used MS, was erroneous and produced erroneous results. Maybe I am paranoid but I think that they knew that they are doing bad analyzes. I do not think they were able to identify even correct compounds. Raw tests doesn't say everything IMO because impurities can appear also on the processing. Final products analyzes taken randomly from source stock are better IMO. Sure also analyzes posted by sources should be all informational and not taken as granted. I started to post analyzes since this Angus BS tests ( really taken from final products from re-mailers stock ) and I offered 20.000 USD for anyone that can prove I sell products that are not within posted lab-tests specifications. If I would do a mistake I will pay. But do not forget this forum here is done based on users experiences so when you choose a product IMO users feedback is the way to go. A paper is just a paper finally.
AnonI sent in 4 unlabeled samples. All were ID'd properly and the results matched my experience with the gear, what I knew was bunk tested as bunk and good products tested decent. Error in the results? I'm sure there is, possibly a lot at that, but I don't really care at least it gives end-users an idea of what is complete crap and what is good for a very low test cost. It's either NO testing at all or SOME testing for end-users we don't have options to have HPLC or GC/MS. Many other users have sent in countless unlabeled samples also….. always ID'd correctly far as I know. Purity % I understand the issue there, but to say he can't even ID the hormone in a sample is completely false and you know it. He's been making it all up at random this whole time huh? More slander. I'm going to quote the user who sent in your bad batch of tren ace for testing that gave an 11% result. It seems to have been lost in your sea of hate filled rants. Oooo a 20k reward for a test we can't have legally performed by a verified lab in the USA how nice of you to offer…. Feel free to write a 3 page essay response I won't dignify it with an answer.
Sorry to MODs I know you want reg members out of here but this guy is something else...
Thant's some real sciense - so what you "felt" as bunk Nitti actually tested as bunk ...... you guys should be nominated for Nobel price for chemistry.
Now seriously, I have no disrespect to an experience of a vet in this feild, but the identification of impurities is invalid as Nitti explained very clealry, and anyhow the quantification of the results are simply wrong, the calculation of the "purity" as Angus represent it simply doesn't exist in analytic chemistry
AnonI agree with you about impurities. I've read up on this. There IS a problem with the tests. Your comments make sense, ashop's on the other hand are mixed with truth and complete crap. I'm just saying that having a test that at least tells us some information, like ID, is better than nothing. Us end-users have no access to legitimate 3rd party labs like you do.
Angus give people not real results but results they want to hear. I hope you guys will think before do another analyzes. You should choose brands and sources based on customers feedback here because a paper is a paper. Also when a paper come from a sly shaddy guy you can not trust it at all.
AnonBullshit. I didn't say what lab it was from or if I thought it was good or not. Didn't label the samples. Test results might be inaccurate to some extent but it's not "made-up" at random.
Very nice explained, much better than other analysts here that were making money from this. Best way to be sure about our results is to use methods approved by any of the pharmacopeias ( European, Japanese or US ). Pharmacopeias are updating their methods few times a year and if a new method would be validated then they would list it.
Guys this weekend I hope ( professor is working on MS thursday and friday )we will have steroid analyses done on MS studying the reliability of quantification. He will try to write a study and soon to publish it on this subject. We will see more informations, I am sure.
Ok guys this is what I'm going to do here,...this thread is going nowhere right now. The sources all have agreed with angus on the next step. Let's let them go ahead and follow through and when the smoke clears, the issues will surface. I went against my partner trenabolic's wishes and reopened this for comment. Now I'm going to enforce his original stance and lock this down until further notice. It will reopen for debate when both parties are ready to talk. I think the community is split and our input isn't helping.
I'm sorry, but I don't see how this answers any of the questions... All I see here, is 3 different methods for testing.... Still going in circles here.
angus.Here is a response from the Dr. I have always always always told people that I am not the analyst. I listen to what the dr has to say and I try best to interpret. Am I perfect? nope. But I can always go and ask questions. Have I tried to swindle anyone? nope. I always try to be as honest and upfront as I can. I have found that it is best not to try to answer the technical questions if I do not have the answers, thus the reason I am not going to get into an analytical debate with anyone. For the most part I just have the test run and send the report. Some think I should be the one with the PhD or I shouldn't be a part of it. That defies logic considering the topic of conversation. There might be a person with a PhD in the room here on eroids, but the chance of them putting themselves out there and jeopardizing their career to help their fellow gearheads is incredibly tiny. We have to realize that these tests are cheap and relatively quick so that everyone has access to them. When we give the power to the community then the community benefits and allows them to stand as a unified front.
So anyway, I am sure that alin will have all kinds of accusations about what the dr wrote but I don't care. I was sent this directly from the dr. From his university email address. The only things I changed have brackets around them like this [censored].
[Angus],
It is quite normal for those have questions when our assay was designed for "quick and dirty and in a high throughput format" when viewed from the analytical stand point of view considering our available resources. To do it more accurately, I suggest we add the following to the assay to include:
(A) A validation study in quantitative analysis of steroid by LC/MS method, where we establish:
? Calibration curve,
? Dynamic range,
? Detection Limit,
? Quantitation limit,
? Mean and standard deviation, statistics,
? Precision (error analysis, reproducibility),
? Effect of matrix (ionization competition),
? Effect of autoxidation (loss of hydroxyl or addition of hydroxyl group at the ion source that affected purity of the analyte).
The calibration curve has to be done individually, side by side with each analyte from authentic compound with known quantity of a trusted source, provided from the user, or purchased from a third party. User also has provide the matrix (oil that solubilize the steroid), since the ESI (electrospray ionization) is competitive and the ionization efficiency is depend on the ionic environment. Dynamic range will reveal how linear the detection range is, it usually spans four orders of magnitude. Detection limit and Quantitation limit will be done use both loop injection and C18 column chromatography. We need to do validation assay in triplicate sample preparation and data acquisition to obtain the statistics for precision analysis that include error and reproducibility.
All QC validation work will be performed in the form of GLP certified lab, as much as we can, that include strict data preservation practice, from a few selected molecules. Pretty much we will investigate the method using approach from our published paper in the Analytical Method, June, 2014 (Attached). We may be able to publish this work, but it will take about 3 months with at least $2,000 ~ $3,000.
(B) Once we validated our method, we can run our unknown samples with one of the three assays:
(1) Validated Assay: Each sample will be analyzed with a calibration curve (6 data points in triplicate = 18 data point with $180 at $10/acquisition), from the same molecule in the same matrix provided by the user and a report ($50/hr for 3 hours) with mean value on the identity, purity and concentration, standard deviation from results from both loop injection and C18 column chromatography with UV/VIS and Mass detectors. The total for the report is $360/sample. We can do 1 or 2 samples in a week.
(2) Group Assay: samples are process in a batch that shares one calibration curve with a related compound, assuming they ionize similarly, assuming the matrix effect is negligible. Since users may provide very diverse samples in both structure and purity, those assumption could be off quite big. User should also provide, if the sample is solid, in a tablet, the extraction method to get the active ingredient into solution of selected solvent. We charge $100/report with information of identity, purity, concentration of the analyte, and a calibration curve where the values are derived from. Our lab can do 5 ~ 10 samples a week.
(3) Regular Assay: where we report the identity, purity and concentration from a single point calibration using user compound without matrix correction with a loop injection method. The cost is $50/sample, and we can do 20 samples/week. This method was the existing one previously used that pays $30/sample to [Censored] University that was no longer available because the unsustainable discount rate.
Please consider those three methods and throughput for your samples, the cost and turnaround needed. Any commercial lab will change plus $200 with a few weeks' turnaround time easily.
Thanks,
[censored], Ph.D.
Mass Spec Center, Director
Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry
[Censored] University
[Remaining address censored]
[Phone number Censored]
There is nothing new for us in professor's suggestion, he propose a corect way to do the analyses.
But, What is that argument that " dispel" the affirmationabout the margin for error in the performed analysis is 50-90% ????
Some of professor's statements seem true, but notice that the ?professor? himself tells Angus that ?/With all the supporting information (calibration curve,
effect of matrix...) the result about purity and concentration will not be that different/?... thus all the conditions should be respected in order for the results to be reliable.
Where is supporting information ?
The rest of Angus's statements are unreliable and tricky. I believe his ?genius cheap method? is a new scientific know-how, probably patented by him, and he seeks to start a revolution in biochemestry and pharmaceuticals. NOT!
Is it possible to quantify without standards? Yes! It may be done after validation, when taking into consideration every little aspect of sample preparation, any possible impurity, residual solvents, the influence of chromatograph parameters etc. Yet, such a validation is very expensive and extremely complex (and usually the results of validation say that you should use standards). That?s why it?s easier and more reliable to use standards.
Angus would have known for sure that before taking tests for purity and quantity, he should have done the system suitability for analysis tests, if he would have had a degree in Chemistry and the experience of working in an authorized laboratory. There are many factors that influence the result. And for the reliability of the result, one should take tests that exclude the influence of those factors.
angushere is the email I responded to him with
Dr [Censored],
Thank you for that explanation, I think it will go far in educating not only myself, but others as well. One quick question that comes to mind though is how accurate do you feel the Regular Assay method is? Do you feel it is within 5-10%? More? less? I understand you cannot give anything definitive, but I need to dispel an argument that the margin for error in the performed analysis is 50-90%.
Respectfully,
[Angus]
angusthe response:
With all the supporting information (calibration curve, effect of matrix...) the result about purity and concentration will not be that different from what we have been doing, only difference is the cost.
[Censored]
edit:
follow up email
[Angus],
The variation from ESI is typically around 5% ~ 15% in our instrumentation, so one can expect majority of the assays will fall within that range. There are going to be some outlier because the diversity of the samples; if a sample is very impure, and active ingredient is a minor component, because of the ionization competition, the error on that sample can be very large, to 50%, for example. For a quick screening of the samples, one want to the standard assay that will give most of the information needed. For submitting a report to FDA, one wants to use the validated assay to support the application for NID (new investigational drug), for instance.
[Censored]
There is nothing new for us in professor's suggestion, he propose a corect way to do the analyses.
But, What is that argument that " dispel" the affirmationabout the margin for error in the performed analysis is 50-90% ????
Some of professor's statements seem true, but notice that the ?professor? himself tells Angus that ?/With all the supporting information (calibration curve,
effect of matrix...) the result about purity and concentration will not be that different/?... thus all the conditions should be respected in order for the results to be reliable.
Where is supporting information ?
The rest of Angus's statements are unreliable and tricky. I believe his ?genius cheap method? is a new scientific know-how, probably patented by him, and he seeks to start a revolution in biochemestry and pharmaceuticals. NOT!
Is it possible to quantify without standards? Yes! It may be done after validation, when taking into consideration every little aspect of sample preparation, any possible impurity, residual solvents, the influence of chromatograph parameters etc. Yet, such a validation is very expensive and extremely complex (and usually the results of validation say that you should use standards). That?s why it?s easier and more reliable to use standards.
Angus would have known for sure that before taking tests for purity and quantity, he should have done the system suitability for analysis tests, if he would have had a degree in Chemistry and the experience of working in an authorized laboratory. There are many factors that influence the result. And for the reliability of the result, one should take tests that exclude the influence of those factors.
This is a comment from me as a normal member.
Regarding : Mass Spec Center, Director
So are you serious ? In his signature he has abbreviation instead of Mass Spectrometry Center they have in signature Mass Spec Center ? WOW he is such a director but he has abbreviations in the signature ?
LOL
[censored], Ph.D.
Mass Spec Center, Director
Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry
[Censored] University
[Remaining address censored]
[Phone number Censored]
Angus he need to sustain his answers with proves and explanations. For example my professor sent you scanned pages from pharmacopoeia where method for testing steroids is described. He have done testing on my products based exactly on those methods. Lets see something similar from him. Lets see some explanation why you use a MS and you have impurities that you can not detect being known that MS has all fingerprints of all substances. Is that a error ? Maybe you have dirty vessels ? Nobody know . Why purity is not related with the concentration on all your mass conclusions ? Is something totally wrong. I am sure that those conclusions were not written by a good analyst.
Why you have articles posted here full of mistakes ? I spotted mistakes and you never answered.
http://www.eroids.com/pics/estimation-of-steroids-concentration-by-mass-...
and
http://www.eroids.com/forum/general/general-talk/mass-spec-explainedslei...
Also here after I posted results your doctor had made a comment to my professor analyzes criticizing him. But then come out that your doctor made such a mistake that is a shame for a analyst ( read in comments you find )
http://www.eroids.com/pics/stealth-trenbolone-acetate-hplc-tests-everyon...
We wait answers on all those problems and errors. Some clear answers and not sci-fi articles that nobody understand
I will be sending your text to my professor and you will have a reply. But from what I see here is another complicated answer that does not answer problems we have found in your previous conclusions to analyses and mistakes that we found in your articles posted on eroids. Another complicated thing noone understand but maybe I am not understanding. I will wait a answer from my professor to your text here
My professor received your email and he told me funny thing you sent him a email mentioning some attachments that were never attached
You are one of a kind my friend 
Regarding your determination of purity at the end of the week he will give me a resume WHY IS THAT METHOD NOT RELIABLE explained in such way so everyone will understand. He told me shortly that those areas are not stable ( and this is why your results are so variable ) but lets wait his review. He understood that we need a explanation for normal people and he will try to explain exactly like for students. Have patience this guy is professor doctor and I can not beg to him to hurry up more than I do now. I can get my ass kicked if I insist too much
angusAt least you are predictable. I anticipated your response and replied to myself just before you did.
Earlier on you were accusing me of filling up his inbox with frivolous attachments and wasting his time and how the publications were not valid. Now you figure out it was one simple email without the publications and now that is somehow dishonest? I can't dispel your accusations quick enough. I didn't even respond to that one cause I knew you'd look silly come Monday. Whatever.
So you sent to my professor attachments and we are idiots right ?
angushuh? what are you talking about?
Are you joking ?
angusNo. You?
Go play outside my friend
Situation is not complicated at all.You guys have already all the proves in front of your eyes that Angus is fucking around. He is not able to explain all the mistakes he make and his explanations are complicated and shady. He is conducting here a profitable business and sure he will fight to keep it going in his shady way. I must be careful not to go in his trap ( for example with the testing of MD) since Angus is a sly guy
This top here is based on customers feedbacks or on Angus analyzes ? Eroids did not existed before Angus ? Lets be serious, one guy fed you with bullshit here and convinced you guys need analyzes by posting few negative analyzes. Probably sources that doesn't send him products to be analyzed are in a danger to be analyzed negative,but this will not be admitted by any source or Angus
Why Angus is not able to explain any of the mistakes he made all through his analyzes and all through articles he posted here ? Why he is answering only the part of my posts that he can give a answer like : "is not like that ! Or no you wrong". Why time to time he post some very complicated answers as articles that nobody understand and when I give to my professor he find lots of mistakes. I post and ask Angus about those mistakes and he does not answer and ignore those posts ?
Even few of the mods here posted that they are looking very sceptically on Angus testing. I receive lots of emails or PM where members support me and they all tell me that they know Angus is incompetent. But they are not posting openly I do not know why. I get PM or emails that Angus Beaker Hulk work together ( not ideea who is Beaker or Beaver and Hulk honestly) ( even MuscleDevelop confirmed this ) but when I tell people to post openly they do not. So guys I am loosing my time here and do efforts indeed to help you understand analytic is mathematic and if tests has no logic then something is broken. But if you guys here need to trust Angus like people in the country side in a strange religion without proves you are free to do it
Woah let's slow it down just a notch there mate. Why are you accusing me of trapping you?
I don't care who has sent you a paranoid PM or what the reasons are, why would I want to 'trap' you? I'm a source from the UK that everyone knows and trusts here on eroids. If my name means anything around here then you wouldn't be slinging wild and paranoid remarks about me.
I will say it again, all I want to know is are Angus's lab tests accurate or not, as I rely upon these tests and then sell products to my customers.
If you have a problem with me, then I simply won't send anything... Please use another source. It doesn't make a difference to me.
Do not take me wrong my friend. People are sending me messaging but almost all doesnt want to be involved. Lets say you are honest, this testing will not solve anything much more will raise more questions. We need Angus with his chemist to clear up all mistakes and all logical statements he made.
Finally we are not here to invent wheel. Those things are already wrote in manuals ( how to test a drug ) and no manual has method Angus is using. If he is a genius lets see him in a manual first.
This thread has gotten a little crazy! So if an agreed upon mass test has been organized , everyone is In Agreement? I still have the same original question and more testing doesn't answer it. What happened in the previous tests to the impurities? Why are they not listed and why were the numbers so insanely inaccurate? Am I mistaken in thinking that a list of impurities is included in standard mass specs? Not just a percentage of the purity? I feel like this is all getting lost in translation. My original questions aren't being answered and I don't see how new tests will help. If the process is wrong and the person posting/performing tests doesn't understand the process, then new tests are irrelevant. I have made up my mind on one thing, I don't think angus is up to anything malicious. I just think he is mis/uninformed and can't completely explain because he doesn't completely understand.
angusI have your answers. I will post them in a few after I edit the names out.
Not only the names. This will take Search and Replace like 3 minutes. They need to reformulate totally phrases otherwise we can put a whole sentence on google and find where they stolen those documents. Like the address where they tried to hide so much where they stolen from that abbreviated "Mass spectrometry Center to Mass Spec Center" bwahahah
Just run a search and replace with xxx and you can send the documents. Also I can not believe that you sent your doctor you work with for so long time some questions from this board and he sent you a answers where you can find his name everywhere in the signature and the text. He sent you official answers for everything right ? So the director of a MASS SPEC ( how Angus say ) is conducting ILLEGAL TESTS in his facility for 60 USD each ( how much a director of such a center make as salary per year ? can you guys look on linked-in ? He risk hundreds of thousands for those 60 USD ? )
angusYou have very childish behavior.