+ 2 Trenadex enanthate by Sciroxx official indepenedent lab test
Below you may see official independent lab test of Trenadex enanthate 200mg/ml by Sciroxx. The test was done by a FDA approved lab which is an authority in this field - official info is included as well as the name of the inspector.
First 2 pages include HPLC test by the appropriate method -
On page 1 you may clearly see a very sharp and distinct peak on the left side which represent the Tren Enathate on the sample Sciroxx submitted, on the right side you may see the peak of the standard which matches as it should the peak of the sample while done by the proper method.
On page 2 you may see the appropriate calculation of the concentration of the Trenbolone - 203mg/ml
On pages 3 and 4 there is a specified explanation for the profound mistakes which were done in a parallel "lab test" which was done by Beaker and posted here.
Pages 5 and 6 includes Beaker's original diagrams - the explanation on pages 3 and 4 clearly refutes the conclusions as well as the calculations done based on these diagrams
You're welcome to contact the lab. Never mention brands, names etc', and make sure any apply is done for research purposes only.
- Bookmark
- 6
- 4
Karl, the US FDA does not approve laboratories. Labs can be registered with the FDA but their accreditation standards and qualifications are under the auspice of CLIA or other govt and private regulatory agencies. FDA approval is given for drugs, biologics, analytic testing platforms, methods, kits, etc but not the labs themselves.
http://www.webmd.com/fda/is-it-really-fda-approved
If Beaker is the laboratory professional he claims to be, Im curious as to why he didnt point that out. If Karl is providing testing with data in discrepancy with Beaker's work, Beaker should have questioned the credentials of the 2nd lab. Im personally not an expert in pharmaceutical testing whatsoever but Beakers 26% purity conclusions look erroneus as Karl has described.
I think Karl's products speak for themselves. Myself and others here that have posted and that I have PM'd are overall very satisfied with Sciroxx. Bad batches can happen here and there and some products are better than others with any brand all the way to Bayer, Pfizer, Roche you name it. These companies are constantly tinkering adding and removing products from their line. Ok so the Aromadex didnt work for somebody? There are personal factors in play for any given product. So all you meatheads trying to make conclusions on the quality of a drug from looking at complex spectometry plots which none of you understand need to take a step back and get a grip.
And of course there was the Primo that had no Primo in it. Aromadex used by a known member who runs 6000 test levels before and never had a problem before with other src's AI's. Right they are meatheads but if it were you wearing their shoes you would be looking at this from a different point of view my man.
If you log in you mislead the members, then your point of view is quite clear
I've tried to contact the provider of this "primo" with no success - check it on my posts
I'm inquiring the complaint of the Aromadex as I should - I posted my comments, and would be careful from drawing any conclusions, but as promised I'll get to the root of it
I've responded on the other thread why I haven't accepted FR request. I'm sorry, but at the moment I don't have the time nor the energy to assist you with the Primo issue. BUT, here's a pic with LOT#s..EXP dates. I would assume that you could do your own testing with this info, no?
http://www.eroids.com/sites/default/files/gearpic/21800/sciroxx3.JPG
I would appreciate your cooperation, it won't be more then send me a sample. Your pic can't indicate anything, because as you udnerstand you got there an empty oil, and by any means there may be no stanozolol traces there - we simply make the water based products in different facility then the primo, and anyhow no stanozlol may be dissolved even at minor levels in our oils, this all story looks fiction to me in first place, and I would love to get to the root of it.
I could release a lab test of the primo, but it can't prove much in this case
Karlx, I receive oils from my TRT/HRTclinic Compound Pharmacy with LOT#s etc. I'm under the assumption that if there was ever an "issue" this information could pinpoint (where, who, what) about the oils. Since you promote your company as a GMP certified lab, wouldn't this info in the pic I posted be suffice for you to do your own testing to get to the 'root' of the issue at hand.
Trust me Karlx, I was more than shocked and disappointed to see the MS testing results as I was going to use Sciroxx and Bayer/Schering as a comparison to my UGL Primo testing results.
Considering that nature of this business, and the logistics behind it, some of the distributors use remailers who stick the labels themselves as the products arrive to them disguised as other products.
I wish I could have full control over the whole net of distribution like Buyer-Schering - unfortunately I don't get the cooperation from the authorities as u may imagine.
We do responsible to the quality we release from our lab, and we proved to have the ability to keep the highest QA standards, this is why I asked for your cooperation.
I find it quite disturbing that you've been testing products in dozens of thousands of dollars as a hobby, but refuses to get my FR request, or came first to the one who supplied you with the products themselves ?!
More ever - as you mentioned you tested the Primo by Schering (the biggest pharmaceutical (German origin) company for hormones in the world with market value of billions) by this team of clowns and it came out 44 percent purity ... while the Primo of the underground supplier who is behind u tested was somehow tested for highest purity ....... this is quite disturbing news for Buyer-Schering ......
or should I say quite disturbing news to anyone here on this community who have to read this pile of BULLSHIT ....
The Bayer Primobolan Depot ampules are from Turkey. Primobolan is forbidden to be sold in the US. The MS test result that I posted showed 80% purity. I would assume that the US FDA regulations wouldnt apply in another country.
My "Backer" is my own wallet. I've posted numerous sources MS Testing results including yours. I have no "Backer" and have been dooped by other sources. (Including You)
If you are having remailers blindly sticking your labels then your LOT#s and EXP. Dates mean NOTHING. Which is why you CANNOT pinpoint where my bottles came from and do YOUR OWN independent MS testing.
http://www.eroids.com/sites/default/files/gearpic/21800/sciroxx3.JPG
You shouldn't be promoting yourself as a GMP Certified Lab.
I am a paying customer out of over $1000 from your products. I never tried to PM you to 'extort" free gear. Don't want what your selling.
I would suggest you get a handle on whatever internal problems you are having before another paying customer gets burned or worse, gets hurt using your products.
Regarding the Schering Primo - it was tested for 44% - and there was a present of ions which are unexplainable, like much of these tests by Beaker - refer to my lab analysis including specific remarks on wrong methods, and analysis by Beaker.
If you intention where to take care of my customers in specific and this community in general you would cooperate with me in first place, accept my FR and let me put my hands of this "sample", or possibly you have a clear interest that I won't bro ? I may find there some things that can't be explained I suspect as I do have a real lab to test it.
You've never ordered with me - my labels and LOT number has a significant importance and validity, but when the products are resold, and considering the logistics behind it the LOT number may not give the indication I was looking for, this quite clear to everyone here considering the nature of the domestic service.
I wouldn't question your motives if would help me to get to the root of this, but it's frankly quite clear that if you buy products in many dozen of thousands of dollars (out of your own pocket?) there is an interest here, and it's not this community in front of you obviously, and anyone here clearly see this.
Now I wanna see one customer of mine who got hurt - one who ordered with sciroxx-shop and got hurt pls
RustyhookerSo Bayer was 44%, & yours was only 26%. Bayer is FDA/gmp. So, yes you should be hugely upset with your raws suppkiers for delivering such a low grade. That's horrible!
I'm also curious about the tren light in the primo vials. Maybe your reshippers are stealing the good oil and recrimping?
If you would actually read the official lab test above you would see that he 26 percent purity in a science fiction, and the purity of this batch is as dictated by USP standards
RustyhookerI read the above. Sorry sir.....undecided. The point i keep trying to make is testing by independents will continue. So you had a bad batch as all UGL's do from time to time. So how bout simple business.
A-raise in house standards to avoid future mishaps
B-raise the standards. Sciroxx is as old as Moses and should be setting the standards.
C-customers will be happy.
Beaker tested your dbol at 98% using the exact same flawed testing procedures. If your dbol can beat WHO standards tgen so can your oils. Simple business. Errors will happen.
My interest IS for the community. I happen to like ERoids. Never had a board such as this when I was pinning a ton of UGL gear from 2000-2007 with no way of knowing what I was actually pinning. I'm not trying to fight with you Karlsx. I assume you have way more knowledge in AAS than I do. This is why I am on this board. Ill get back with you and see what I can do to help.
In the meantime I suggest you send some Primo/Tren E/Arimidex/DBol Tablets for your own MS Independent Testing for comparison. We are all here to learn. The more info the better, no?
I take some of my words back - I'm sorry if questioned your motives, it's not the right thing to do from my stand point.
You have above a test of the batch of the tren200, it's very clearly explained by an authority why and how Beaker fail in his test.
I'll be happy to test your primo.
We make lab tests on regular basis to confirm quality on our facility - I'll be happy to post it but it doesn't carry an official signature like the lab test above. In this case I had to apply to an authorized lab to prove the nonsense which is running here as a science fiction.
The first and most important evidence to me of Sciroxx's quality is the constant satisfaction of thousands of our customers along 6 years, and I encourage you to buy from me (even anonymously) and make a honest test in an authorized lab
Why is that Karl because I don't agree with you. I was commenting to a post that was made above and this was brought up by that poster. So explain to me how I am misleading after all isn't that what your doing.
First you have here a clear orientation which is to trash my name, it stems clearly from the MISLEADING CLAIMS on the HPLC test,
As I'm responsible to the quality my commitment is to try to monitor and understand any complaint, if one complaint. If you draw conclusions from a report from a specific customer on the general quality, especially on such a complex issue as the estrogen serum levels under taking several anabolic agents then I have to state that it's misleading. This customer's complaint is investigated, and my opinion on this report was given on his thread
Karl as far as trashing your name....you are doing a good job of that on your own.
This lab is not approved by the US FDA, it's working in coordination with health minister on other western country as u may learn, and is authorized by local FDA to make relevant tests
The test above checks and defines the whole spectrum of ions of course 5- any other material would be detected and defined of course !, You may clearly see from the high peak on page 1 that there are no impurities whatsoever !
The method which is used in this test is the method which is instructed by the manufacturer, while the method Beaker used is different indeed (without getting into details), but on any of them the results should be the same, and there are clearly non impurities.
What is clearly explained on the analysis to Beaker's, on pages 3 and 4, is that the present of the higher molecular weight can't be present there while using his method, and clearly indicates for invalid test.
LOOK AT PAGE 5 - THE PEAK OF THE STANDARD (UP) IS 1.6E4 (160000 - RIGHT SIDE NUMBERS), WHILE THE PEAK OF THE SAMPLE (DOWN) IS 6.09E4 (609000) - SO THE TOTAL MESS OF THE MESS IS ALMOST 4 TIMES HIGHER SO THERE IS CLEARLY NO ROOM TO ANY EXCIPIENTS !!!! THIS IS THE ABSURD THAT IS CLEARLY EXPLAINED BY THE LAB.
The sample contains 203 mg/ml of trenE
Beaker's test is not only non valid but actually doesn't make sense
I have a question for the people in the know... Chemistry smart people. So if his tren e is 26% pure...
How much tren e would he of had to add to make it get to 203mg? So he added 810mg to his "batch" in order for it to come out to be roughly 200mg... Right??
At that point wouldn't of the impurities of cooked off? If not he would of had a much higher mg per ml?
This just doesn't seem to make sense and I think the purity reading are inaccurate or flawed or impossible to get.
Your missing it. These test are not saying that the the Tren E is 26% pure as far as the compound. It is saying that the total sample has 26% tren E. There are other ions are compounds in the sample that make up the other 74%. It's not just oil or BA. They're trying to see what these other compounds or ions were. What is this other 74% made up of that you are injecting into your body. The Israeli Test is just looking for one compound that is what an HPLC method does. He said he eluted one compound. Elution is the process of extracting one material from another by washing with a solvent. He didn't look for anything else.
The beaker lab used a different method that the Israeli is not familiar with he used a loop injection method which looks at all the compounds or ions in the sample. That would be the unidentified spikes at 355,488,516,544,723. The question you should be asking is what else am I injecting besides the tren e,oil,ba etc.
http://www.eroids.com/pics/trenadex-enanthate-by-sciroxx-official-indepe...
The test above checks and defines the whole spectrum of ions of course - any other material would be detected and defined of course !, You may clearly see from the high peak on page 1 that there are no impurities whatsoever !
The method which is used in this test is the method which is instructed by the manufacturer, while the method Beaker used is different indeed (without getting into details), but on any of them the results should be the same, and there are clearly non impurities.
What is clearly explained on the analysis to Beaker's, on pages 3 and 4, is that the present of the higher molecular weight can't be present there while using his method, and clearly indicates for invalid test.
Dooduu's question is actually the intuitive question - if we have 210mg per ml of trenbolone then how come the purity is 26 percent ?!
LOOK AT PAGE 5 - THE PEAK OF THE STANDARD (UP) IS 1.6E4 (160000 - RIGHT SIDE NUMBERS), WHILE THE PEAK OF THE SAMPLE (DOWN) IS 6.09E4 (609000) - SO THE TOTAL MESS OF THE MESS IS ALMOST 4 TIMES HIGHER SO THERE IS CLEARLY NO ROOM TO ANY EXCIPIENTS !!!! THIS IS THE ABSURD THAT IS CLEARLY EXPLAINED BY THE LAB.
The sample contains 203 mg/ml of trenE
Beaker's test is not only non valid but actually doesn't make sense
Don't want to get into a pissing match with you Karl. Your test checked for 1 compound his tested for everything in the sample. Really quite simple. Two different methods. So no it is not invalid. Second test was looking for everything in the sample and did just that. You just don't like the results but they are quite valid and makes perfect sense. Again missing what he tested he is not saying as explained before your post that the Tren E compound is 26% pure he is saying that the sample has 26% of Tren E and the 74% is other compounds all of which are not just oil,BA,Etc. Some are unknown hench the spikes at 355,488,516,544,723. Here's the thing Karl quite a few Tren E's have been tested and yours is the only one with all these spikes so why? What other compounds are those who use your product injecting into their bodies???? That is what is meant by impurities these unknown compounds. You can spin any way you want but that is what was tested and has always been tested since day one.
For those in the community who may not know Beaker has been doing these test for quite a while. He started doing this for himself only to make sure what he was putting in his body was in fact what he bought. The testing is being done at a major university not by Beaker but a man who holds several Doctorate degrees (Phd's) and heads that lab. Beaker is present when they are done but he does not do the actual tests. Beaker stated this over 9 months ago in one of his posts. It's on eroids if you look back. I'm just throwing that out there because of some thing that were said earlier by Karl.
http://www.eroids.com/pics/trenadex-enanthate-by-sciroxx-official-indepe...
I'm sorry - I'll try to PM u and explain -
Each of the methods check the whole spectrum of ions, if the method is used technically right like in this test here then there are no other unexplained ions present, again to emphasize - if you put there any impurity with the trenbolone it would be seen, but it simply doesn't.
Check my explanation for the numbers on Beaker's test - like it's pointed clearly - they found much higher peak on the sample which indicates for present of high mess of un explainable ions which their total mess is impossible from 2 parallel reasons
As some pointed this emans that in 1ml (~1000mg) there are both excipients for about total of 800mg and impurities of ~600mg and tren of ~200mg ...
The mess of this ions can't be present under the diluting conditions
These 2 issues are clearly stated and explained by the lab report.
Beaker may tell that he's also a friend of E.T. - I don't know where Beaker tested it (and I may show you correspondences with Beaker on which he explains that he tests it - maybe I misunderstood) - but I clearly know and proved that his test is basically invalid
Again Karl HPLC method was not used for a reason. All the points you keep harping on were explained in the rebuttal. I'm done. You have proven nothing as the rebuttal states that a different method was used. The reason HPLC was not used as it can hide other impurities as your only looking for 1 compound. The injection loop method was used to show those impurities in the sample. Have your lab run a loop injection and I'm quite sure the results will be the same as the Beaker Test. End of story
Since Karl keeps harping on the ET and fake Dr. If anyone wants to back check they can review Beakers post on his labs pics. Just click on his name and look at the pictures and posts he made on Aug 3 2012, Aug 9th 2012, And Nov 2nd 2012
I'm sorry but you cannot be more far away from the truth
HPLC is the accurate method for this, and it would detect any material in the spectrum, I'm sorry, not to say ashamed for the members here, whom are not educated (at least most of them) in this field, have to read such misleading things.
HPL won't recognize the impurities ? are you sure that you stand behind this fact ? say it clearly pls
Etiher way, these were two seperate samples from differnt vials so what was in one might not be in the other...
This is true,
Pls note the followings -
We tried to submit vial from the same batch based on the info we got, we could possibly be wrong of course
Pls refer to Angus/Beaker rebuttal - They got different results from the same vial
The first 2 pages on the analysis above refutes on any case the results of Beaker/Angus tests
We all have skin in this game. So to bash one another is petty, because no conclusion can be certain when bias is involved.Karl and Beaker are both proud of their work so it's right that both should be defensive.
Both of these tests do illustrate a higher level of certainty regarding the product involved, but I hate to break it to everyone here it still shouldn't be your deciding factor. Everyone makes inaccurate measurements sometimes, dilution error, margin of error, miscalculation, contaminating the sample, or seeks confirmation bias when regarding their work.
I've had a few chemistry labs in college, and I'll tell you even our tenured professors with 20 years experience make simple mathematical errors, testing errors, or even employing the scientific method when reviewing the result with very expensive government funded equipment.
FDA approved drug manufactures also seek out mathematical outliers when getting a drug approved re-running a test, or sample, or experiment until it shows the desired result. Especially when money is involved.
Bottom line trust is only as good as the character of the individuals performing the experiments or manufacturing the product. All these labs are good for eroids. Testing shows a desire for a better product, and that is admirable with results both good and bad. Be civil guys.
Much Respect,
Broc
hey, karlsx
I want to know your e-mail address.
Please...
I'm big sciroxx's customer.
good job!
Angus, you asked some important questions below.
First I think you've got more then respect from me and you surely got my full cooperation from day one to get to bottom of this.
I know that all you seek is the truth
Whatsoever I find it quite bothering for the members here that a honest guy like you have established his career and service to this community on such complex and important subject, yet have a 5 years old kid understanding in this subject (so you said).
Now like you asked me below -
You got 210mg/ml on your sample.
I made an inquiry with you and submitted the matched batch to the REAL lab - the lab found 203mg/ml based on a proper calculation.
The whole presentation of the info on your work is invalid and doesn't make sense, and I'll try to explain -
Look at the upper right side of each of the graphs on page 4 - this is the measure of the peak - on the upper graph which supposed to be the standard it's 1.6e4 (160000), and on the lower graph it's 6.09e4 (6090000) - the peak of the non pure sample can't be 4 times higher with lower purity.
More ever, if there is any calculation for purity based on the area under the curve it should be done the opposite based on the findings so we get like 400 percents purity - EVERYONE ARE WELCOME TO CALCULATE. anyhow this calculation is done only for the general concentration of the inspected material like the REAL lab did
The higher mess that were found COULDN'T be present there if the the test is done properly. This simple chemistry as you learn from the REAL lab report.
THERE IS NO SUCH FINDING AS 26 PERCENTS PURITY BASED ON BEAKER'S CALCULATION !
IN THE REAL LAB THE PEAK OF THE SAMPLE MATCHES THE PEAK OF THE STANDARD WHICH SHOWS THAT THE INSPECTED MATERIAL IS PURE TRENBOLONE ENANTHATE AS THE TEST WAS DONE PROPERLY.
PRODUCT WAS TESTED FOR 203MG/ML OF TRENBOLONE ENATHATE PERIOD.
anguswhy u deleted this one bro ?
angusI didn't, I just wrote it in white lettering. It doesn't show up very well. :-)
angusIt's an expression Karl. It means explain it to me in the most simplest terms possible. I know you keep referring to your "real" report and like to throw in a jab or two like the one above but I learned my lesson on the first go with you that you won't listen so there's no sense debating anything with you. Your entire demeanor is to attack anyone that questions you. Lately there has been blood work and lab tests on your gear that has proven poor, yet you continue to tell everyone how wrong they are and insult them. Frankly, I'm a little tired of it and won't be engaging you anymore. People can draw their own conclusions about your gear and I'm sure a lot of it is very good, but we'll continue to test it as it's sent in and you'll continue to tell us how wrong we are if it tests poorly. But what you won't get is any more of my time. Good day sir.
I suggest you to address the clear claims here.
I'll personally address an confront any claim which has to do with claim raised here (whether it's bogus....or not).
It's quite easy to make a claim, accuse or distort, harder to prove it by the right means.
my commitment for this community is to supply honest approach and the best quality I may offer by all means.
I appreciate your honesty and seek for the truth
Anonwell I hope everything pans out nicely and answers brought to light.
Karl, as you know I have been more than a tad concerned recently with all that has gone on and just like i thanked Beaker+Angus for their time and effort , i thank you also. this in some ways helpes to begin to even things out. I won't get into all the negativity that is floating around, what I will say is IMO all things considered it shows just how fundamental doing your OWN bloods and makng your Own dam mind up based on those facts truly is. (I hope to have mine up soon)
oh and before certain FB's jump in again, GUYS! It's not against the rules to like/use more than one source....I happen to love me some Muta! I enjoy all his forum posts, recently orderd his product and happen to find those little brown shorts he wears highly attractive (if infact slightly revealing at times) but I ain't on my hands and knees in his thread hoping he slips it in once and a while.
If I were in Beaker's shoes I would address the fundamental mistakes found on his analysis and confront the official lab test analysis,
interesting .....
AnonI fixs it!!!!
angusSo I'm confused Karl. Could you explain it to me like I'm a 5 year old please......
We got 210mg/ml
Other lab got 203mg/ml
We got 26%purity
Other lab got.....well.....I don't see what they got
I'm just wondering where the fundamental analytical mistake is? Seriously. Am I missing something? I don't get it, what are you trying to say here? I'll agree with you, it was 203mg/ml. Where do we go from here? What is it you want people to know?
You're passionate about what you do but there is so much out of your control. It's possible something went wrong. Lets just move on. Shit happens. Lets not be be so divisive. Big fucking man hug for you bro! Just a little homo, wink wink.
I was at least hoping to hear where 26% purity came from since everyone seems to be confused on that.
Ya know..... it is weird..... I have run over 500+ labs.. mostly good.. some bad.. some really bad. Not once in my time here has anyone thrown a hissy fit on the magnitude as this. it seems odd really.. why would one raise so much fuss? I think my body of work speaks for itself. I will speak on this matter once, and this will be the only reply I give. If you do not trust my labs.. then do not use them. If you refute the data.. go somewhere else. I have no dog in this fight. I only run the labs on the samples I am supplied. I have been doing this for over a year. If you look at the data I have done it speaks for itself. This one "lab" means ... what? Seriously.... The person that submitted the lab was pissed from the 1st test, and submitted what? Think about what I am saying...
As far the claims here... I am sure if you pay someone enough, they will say what you want to hear. When my "give a flying fuck" meter registers ANYTHING.. you will know... until then.. this is all I am going to say on the matter.
scorpion2bravoLIKE A FUCKING BOSS .........
i think mods need to step in and truly put a stop to all these src fan boys attacking other sources . i have ran sciroxx for years and done many cycles and always had good input. im sure somewhere down the line a lot of sources screw up from time to time, but i haven't had 1 issue with sciroxx yet.
Well I have 6 bottles of this and I'm not scared I will be running it!!!
Ex, I love you bro. I know you are a good guy... but I don't see the point on piling on this source in the lab tests section.
I really wish this section was free of any drama not related to lab results.
(i didn't reply to your posts, in case you wanted to edit them)
Ok:)
.