The quantification behind Angus method is invalid. And it leads to basic mistakes later on in the tests.

There is no such method in analytic chemistry.

I'll try to make it as simple as possible. You're not calculating the area under the curve as a percentage in purity. Angus though may be honest doesn't understand in this feild.

I haven't invested in lab testing much since my team busted a couple of years ago.

I have now a new facility for GH. They have there a testing unit. Quite sophisticated one. I'll get standards of AAS (samples from an authorized FDA source which are used for comparison to the tested samples.

What ppl here "feel" is that the quantification is Angus method is not valid. Any ppl with simple logic understand that a purity of 52% (example) is impossible .... then what is the rest ? angel dust ?

This shit is getting ridiculous with all these excuses... When is your "expert" going to get together with Ashops expert to compare numbers. How hard is this really? If there is nothing to hide, then lets get this sorted out so we can all get a better understanding.

ashop 11 minutes ago @99transam 
I already gave contact to a source to the professor thats doing for me. He will test his products. Sure is a viable option as long as the 3rd party is a independent one.

Well then this should be the best method to compare results as of right now imo!!! I'm sure the mods are wanting answers as well. Maybe nitti or another mod could/can contact a source and work something out..
It's a better option than whats going on here....which seems to be a whole lot of nothing.

Angus say that he doesnt not want to answer questions because I ask them. OK guys please ask him questions. I will paste here all the problems so you can take questions here and post to him

..

THIS IS A PASTE OF A OLDER POST. BUT HERE YOU FIND ALL QUESTIONS THAT ANGUS NEED TO ANSWER. PLEASE SOMEONE PASS TO HIM THOSE QUESTIONS

I don't ask anyone to trust me, lets say how some said because I sell products.I think also you should not trust Angus because he also sells his services. He doesn't do a free service to community.Plus in all Angus analyses and post he made until this moment there are many wrong things I have pointed ( I will make a summary to everything later ) but anyway he avoid to answer to those parts in my posts, he just picks up irrelevant parts of my comments and answer to those ones. JUST READ AND THINK WITH YOUR OWN BRAIN. TRUST LOGIC AND MATHEMATIC.
Because I see some posted here that I have something with him let me point only some things where he make some huge mistakes for a analyst. I don't say he is not a student in a first year in chemistry. He might me. A STUDENT * ( the order is from what I remember and are not all mistakes he made )

1.
FOR ALL HIS MS, CONCLUSIONS ARE A ERROR OF ANALYTIC AND LOGIC. Anyone can figure out this. As a example lets take following conclusions " 100 MG/ML testosterone propionate ( claim to be on the label) result are: 100 mg testosterone propionate with 84% purity." THIS IS A ERROR and maybe not the lie that bother me that the insult to intelligence.
Let me explain why:
if you say there are 100 mg inside ( and on label was 100 mg ) then is 100 % purity
If you say is 84% purity then are 84 mg inside.
If you say the raw was 84% ( before processing ) and the UGL put 16% more to get 100 mg per ml then you the tester is WRONG. If you put extra raw to cover the low concentration of the raw then he can not detect the real concentration of the raw. He can only detect the specific impurities for this raw. For doing this he need a totally different method and he should show exactly which specific impurities has the final product. So in such a situation conclusions should be : { 100 mg per ml as per label so 100% purity plus following impurities ..(testosterone acetate, testosterone isobutyrate etc ...each one how many mg ) But such analyses can not be done in the way Angus is doing analyses

2.
He posted a thread here to show he is a expert. He claim those documents wrote there were wrote by his doctor for his class. But are full of errors and probably were wrote by a bad student in his spare time.

http://www.eroids.com/pics/estimation-of-steroids-concentration-by-mass-...

Read the documents there then read comments down that were made by a professor on the side of his documents. He never replied and if he reply he prepare a answer for days but the answer will be a trick and I will show that. More he answer more we can see how he is doing mistakes

**Here is a comment from a chemist about your documents posted here. Please remember you posted that those documents were written by your analyst to be presented in the class***

The analysis was done incorrectly. The linearity test must have been taken by the standard solution, of different concentrations. The line cannot be taken into consideration if the value of approximation is lower than 0,99. This value is not present in your Figure 2B. The sample must be injected and the concentration mathematically calculated, using the formula stated in the Figure 2B. It’s incorrect to build the linearity out of a mix of the sample and the standard, from the very beginning. The “purity” of standard is 96,8, when calculating the values from your Table 1 (an enormous error for a standard).We have nothing against the use of mass spectrophotometria method for identification and dosage of substance, but this method should be used properly, and the values calculated correctly.

Conclusion, he might be good willing but he is totally confused. Or he is doing in purpose to confuse people

3.

I posted here analyses made according to pharmacopeea in a universitary laboratory using a HPLC the correct way to test drugs

http://www.eroids.com/pics/stealth-trenbolone-acetate-hplc-tests-everyon...

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

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

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

4.
Another document posted by Angus is in this thread. Documents also wrong and with errors and twists. I wait comments from professor and I will post. Just the professor is telling me we are arguing with some guy who say white is black. But he is writing for me comments for this documents

5.
I gathered all MS analyse Angus made and sent to professor and is analysing the and will make a layman explanation so everyone will understand that even in those graphs are many mistakes. I will post that also.

6
Another erroneous post of Angus is here

http://www.eroids.com/forum/general/general-talk/mass-spec-explainedslei...

This answer down is a reply to this post here named "Mass Spec Explained~Sleight of hand exposed":

If you look closely through your post "Mass Spec Explained~Sleight of hand exposed" , you will find the description of mass spectrophotometria method. This method may be used for the identification of an unknown substance (or substances) in a mix of substances, only if being guided by the standard which in most of the cases is a part of the equipment’s database.Mass spectrophotometria may be also used for the process of appreciation of one’s substance concentration, only if being guided by standards bought especially for this product. We have nothing against mass spectrophotometry as a method of analysis but if you intend to prove that you've done a correct analysis using this method, please provide us with following documents that are missing: a blank of reactive, the probe of positive control (standards or mix of standards used), the sample that has been tested. Regarding the “blondes and brunets” example
The Mass spectrophotometer will identify correctly 8 brunets and 2 blondes.. this is the primary identification. It is correct, but in order for one to obtain it, he should be guided by the standard which in most of the cases is a part of the equipment’s database. If there is no standard in the database, it will only show a result of 8+2, without details about whether they are blonde or brunet. Later on, when trying to appreciate the mass of these people (blondes + brunets) we should be using a standard for each hair color in particular. ( you dont use any standard !!! all standard can be bought from USP online )
THE MASS SAYS THAT PEOPLE HAVE DIFFERENT HAIR COLOR.
The HPLC method identifies the substances being guided by a reference standard. We can separate the blondes/brunets/redhaired etc. using HPLC, not only one from another but also from each other by the lightness of the blondes or by the darkness of the brunets hair.

Both of the methods can be used for identification and dosage of substances. The problem is not the method, but the way it is interpreted

Let us go through your statement you made in a post

"The mass spec testing is able to isolate the compound, and verify the purity. If the sample has a purity >of 50%, and a concentration of 200 mg/ ml the final product would be dosed correctly at 100mg/ml"

You are wrong ! If a substance's “purity” is 50% and we use 200 mg of such a substance, the product's concentration will be of 100 mg/ml active substance + 100 mg/ml of IMPURITIES !!!

In your analysis of Trenbolone Acetate you say that the concentration is of 50 mg/ml out of the “claimed-to-be” 100 mg/ml, and the “purity” is of 11 %. The product’s concentration in this case would be 11 mg/ml. Where the heck did you get 50 mg/ml ??? You should be having a result of 11 mg/ml

7.
without using a reference standard ( the way he is doing analyses ) the quantitative result for concentration and for impurities is so relative that a real analyst will avoid to write on any official paper a quantitative result done on MS without standards ( both for API and impurities ) ?Without reference standard the margin of error can be 50% or more ? Any number.

I think I got lazy to write more but if there are new doubts I can continue to compile all his mistakes.

SUMMARY:

** I dont say not to use Angus. There is a free world ( or we have the sensation) each one should do what he wants. I do not say to believe me. I just present some facts not because I a smart but because I had a consultat a professor doctor and I have done this because I know I sell X and Angus said is Y. You guys read and think.**

I do not have here employers on the forum with different handles to help me or to post YES etc. But I continued to document what he is doing because I receive lots of messages where people wants this to be debated till the end

Another questions someone raised if my analyses were good I would comment to him. Let me tell you something. When I subscribed here on this board someone contacted me to make MS and he sent links with MS posted on forum. He told me to make MS to my products and if come out good I post if not stay private. I do not remember if was Angus or not maybe is someone else also here doing this. I checked with a specialist at that time and the guy laughed in my face. At that moment I remember I sent a email to a moderator that someone make analyses here that are not conforms and refused the guy. If administrator of the forum can look into my PMs he can check my affirmations. Maybe was another guy not Angus but the principle is the same. I remember that those analyses had also bacteria tests on them and the guy conclusions were no bacteria detected at MS and thats really retarded because for bacteria is another test is not physico-chemical but is microbiology need another specialist and another machine. In the rest MS was the same BS like this one