AnaSCI - Fitness Evolved

Buy Needles and Syringes with NO PRESCRIPTION   Synthetek Muscle Building And Fat Loss Products   Cheap Pure Supplements

©ALL CONTENT OF THIS WEBSITE IS COPYRIGHTED AND CANNOT BE REPRODUCED WITHOUT THE ADMINISTRATORS CONSENT 2003-2017

  Synthetek Syntherol  
   
   


User CP FAQ Members List Calendar New Posts Quick Links Log Out

AnaSCI Fitness Evolved  AnaSCI Fitness Evolved  AnaSCI Fitness Evolved  AnaSCI Fitness Evolved  AnaSCI Fitness Evolved


        
        
        
Automatic Translations (Powered by Yandex):
Albanian Belarusian Catalan Czech Danish Dutch English Estonian Finnish French German Greek Hungarian Italian Latvian Lithuanian Macedonian Norwegian Portuguese Russian Slovak Slovenian Spanish Swedish Turkish Ukrainian

Go Back   Anabolic Steroids Discussion and Bodybuilding Forum > Peptides & Growth Forum > Lab & Serum Tests

Like Tree10Likes

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
A Few Things I would like
Old
  (#1)
Super Moderator
 
Online
Posts: 323
Join Date: Jan 2013
A Few Things I would like - 04-22-2017, 09:09 PM

1) I would like someone to donate to us a vial of US Pharmaceutical Test Cyp.

I'm sick and tired of hearing that US Pharma products are so much better than the best UG Lab products. Let's put them to the test!

2) I would like Jano to begin testing these products for microbiological impurities and heavy metals.

Personally, I would feel a lot better about the testing if I knew the UG Labs sponsoring on the boards are taking the necessary sterile procedures to ensure our safety. I know this would increase costs substantially, but we need to be sure.

3) I would like to see more Primobolan, Anavar, Tren, Halo, etc.

We still need Test, Deca, and EQ, but I would like to see more of the "known Fake" compounds tested. Please donate

4) I would like to see more monetary donations

You all have been more than generous, but to do what I have listed above, it will cost more money. Please donate!
Joenoarms likes this.




LIKE - AnaSCI Facebook
SUBSCRIBE - AnaSCI YouTube

SYNTHETEK - Best hardcore bodybuilding products
STERILESYRINGES.COM - Get your Needles and Syringes from here
PRO WRIST STRAPS - Simply the best straps in the world
DISCUSSWORLDISSUES.COM - Socio-economic and political free speech
HOW TO DO INJECTIONS - Full Pictorial Injection Guide
PURE SUPPLEMENT POWDERS - All lab certified
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#2)
AnaSCI Approved Tester
 
janoshik's Avatar
 
Online
Posts: 68
Join Date: Mar 2016
04-23-2017, 08:27 AM

I will get into calculating the costs of TAMC and TYMC, or rather microbiological contamination testing.

An issue I will have to deal with is the fact that for microbiological contamination I'd have to receive whole untouched vials - according to the current agreement with customs I can't receive more than 1ml of oil in not-sterile container.


Regarding the heavy metal testing I mailed the national institute accredited for such analyses for a quote per sample. I'll keep you updated.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#3)
Super Moderator
 
Online
Posts: 142
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Chicago
04-23-2017, 10:23 AM

Mr. Jano,
To b specific. TAMC ? stands for ‘total aerobial microbiological count'
TYMC ? = total yeast and mold count
Why would these things b in Gear and wat effect would we see if they were????
So the testin you are lookin into would test specificlly for these things and heavy metal contamination (e.g. lead, mercury, arsenic)?
Is there such a test or tests that would show us everything in that vial????
We Know and xpect certain thing to be in there. A Carrier Oil, BB, BA, EO.




LIKE - AnaSCI Facebook
SUBSCRIBE - AnaSCI YouTube

SYNTHETEK - Best hardcore bodybuilding products
STERILESYRINGES.COM - Get your Needles and Syringes from here
PRO WRIST STRAPS - Simply the best straps in the world
DISCUSSWORLDISSUES.COM - Socio-economic and political free speech
HOW TO DO INJECTIONS - Full Pictorial Injection Guide
PURE SUPPLEMENT POWDERS - All lab certified
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#4)
AnaSCI Approved Tester
 
janoshik's Avatar
 
Online
Posts: 68
Join Date: Mar 2016
04-23-2017, 03:20 PM

Yes Sir, exactly.

Yeast and aerobic bacteria are omnipresent, so if the gear was exposed to unfiltered air or badly sterilized, some spores/bacteria could find their way to gear.

Now, it's not like there is a big chance of any trouble for a healthy person, but give enough factors and you could end up with either an abscess (basically a 5mm to 15cm inflamed ball of pus and bacteria) in your muscle or something much much worse (flegmona, necrotising fasciitis; don't google it).

So 99.99% nothing happens even if it's positive, but 0.01%... It's a good marker about how well can manufacturer work in sterile conditions.

Also, the testing must be in sterile conditions as well, which can be quite demanding as well.

For heavy metals there are some methods that can be used I've researched.
Basically the sensitivity of methods goes like this

ICP-MS (Inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry) > ICP-AES (Inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectroscopy) > AAS (atomic absorbtion spectrometry) > looooog way > reagent tests


ICP would obviously be ideal, but it's out of question of me obtaining such a machine so it can be outsourced only.
AAS is quite tedious, as the method has to be changed to each heavy metal tested.
Reagent tests might or might not be sensitive enough and are tedious. You basically have to react every sample with chemicals which chelate (bind) the heavy metal and are colorful (color = absorbtion of light). This can then be detected with HPLC.



There is NO signle test which can show everything in the vial. Even LC/HRMS or LC-TOF-TOF and other fancy multimillion machines have limitations on what they can detect and if there is something completely random in there, bad news.

However, if only carrier Oil, BB, BA and EO are to be expected with the active compound, then it's just a matter of buying standards of those for simple HPLC.

On the other hand, LC/MS/MS might be suitable for 99.99% of stuff that could be expected.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#5)
AnaSCI Approved Tester
 
janoshik's Avatar
 
Online
Posts: 68
Join Date: Mar 2016
04-25-2017, 03:02 PM

Got a reply from national institute testing stuff with ICP-MS and they said they are not willing to go through the trouble of testing samples in the matrix of the vegetable oils.


Got into researching EDXRF (energy Dispersive X-ray Fluorescence)...
I have no experience with X-RAY techniques, but it seems to work on the following basis:
1. you hit sample with xrays
2. each atom in the sample gives off a fluorescence due to being hit with xray
3. machine does yadda yadda and you get elemental composition of the sample for elements heavier than sodium


https://www.thermofisher.com/blog/me...-does-it-work/

Some data about it.

So far it seems like it might work to detect heavy metals down to 1ug per 1 gram of raw powder / oil / pills - therefore detecting well under maximal tolerable weekly intake limit for heavy metals.


I asked a well known company around here (Bruker) for a quote and I'll keep you updated - however I fear a bit that the said machine might cost over 60k $ or more.


However, it would not be a problem to get accredited for such heavy metal testing and provide results in accordance to strictest requirements of European legislation.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#6)
Donating Member
 
Online
Posts: 27
Join Date: Jan 2013
04-27-2017, 09:24 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Racepicks View Post
1) I would like someone to donate to us a vial of US Pharmaceutical Test Cyp.

I'm sick and tired of hearing that US Pharma products are so much better than the best UG Lab products. Let's put them to the test!

2) I would like Jano to begin testing these products for microbiological impurities and heavy metals.

Personally, I would feel a lot better about the testing if I knew the UG Labs sponsoring on the boards are taking the necessary sterile procedures to ensure our safety. I know this would increase costs substantially, but we need to be sure.

3) I would like to see more Primobolan, Anavar, Tren, Halo, etc.

We still need Test, Deca, and EQ, but I would like to see more of the "known Fake" compounds tested. Please donate

4) I would like to see more monetary donations

You all have been more than generous, but to do what I have listed above, it will cost more money. Please donate!


I have some Primo, Halo and NPP from pharmacom I'm willing to donate. I know we were playing PM tag but I haven't heard back how to go about getting this to Jano to be tested.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#7)
Super Moderator
 
Online
Posts: 323
Join Date: Jan 2013
04-30-2017, 04:37 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by scmtnboy View Post
I have some Primo, Halo and NPP from pharmacom I'm willing to donate. I know we were playing PM tag but I haven't heard back how to go about getting this to Jano to be tested.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
My apologies to everybody who have tried to contact me for the last 10 days. I've been in Dominican Republic for a vacation. Just got back last night. scmtnboy. I'll PM you my info.

Race




LIKE - AnaSCI Facebook
SUBSCRIBE - AnaSCI YouTube

SYNTHETEK - Best hardcore bodybuilding products
STERILESYRINGES.COM - Get your Needles and Syringes from here
PRO WRIST STRAPS - Simply the best straps in the world
DISCUSSWORLDISSUES.COM - Socio-economic and political free speech
HOW TO DO INJECTIONS - Full Pictorial Injection Guide
PURE SUPPLEMENT POWDERS - All lab certified
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#8)
AnaSCI MEMBER
 
Offline
Posts: 8
Join Date: Jan 2013
04-30-2017, 10:58 PM

I am VERY glad to see all of this done.

I have seen two tests done in the last decade looking at heavy metals. Both showed significant elevation beyond what was to be considered acceptable levels. It makes sense based on the production and columns being extended past what they were made for.

I dont have any suggestions as to how to look for microbes on large scale. Ive only done it via agar and antibiotics and separating out strains that way..old school and time consuming.

I suppose the average consumer could potentially buy some agar and smear and see what grows if anything for fun.

Thank you again.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#9)
AnaSCI Approved Tester
 
janoshik's Avatar
 
Online
Posts: 68
Join Date: Mar 2016
05-01-2017, 05:51 AM

The agar smearing would have to be done in sterile conditions and smearing oil would probably inhibit bacteria. Can't see this being done by a regular user.

Membrane filtering and cultivating the membrane is the way that's generally used with liquid samples.

ID of microbes is done generally in a few ways:
1. gram stain and microscopy (gram +/-, 'shell' +-, morphology (coccus/bacillus/...), spores +-, colony morphology...) [1-5$ per test expenses, without microscope and work price, time consuming]
2. biochemistry tests (after we know it's for example gram positive coccus we can differentiate between them because different bacteria contain different enzymes) [5-10$, time consuming]
3. selective pre-made agars (for example only enterococci grow on it, so if anything grows, we know what it is) [good only for 1 strain, expensive, not time consuming]
4. immuno tests (from imunochromatography through testing for exact bacteria strain with flagellum antibody) [good only for 1 thing again, expensive, fast]
5. MALDI-TOF [identifies bacteria in seconds, almost no work, but the machine costs a bit ]

Generally, I don't think ID is necessary for our purposes.
A sterile workplace with a bunsen burner and a laminar flow cabinet would be needed... petri dishes with agar and a thermostatted cultivator machine. If something grows, then we got an issue.

A few stains and a microscope and that's enough to get a VERY good idea of what we got growing down there. Not need for exact ID imo... If there were a serious suspicion I can get any sample to MALDI-TOF...


Regarding the heavy metals - could you please get me a source of this info? I asked you about it in the thread over at PM.com, but the thread got deleted.

I've tested quite a few samples for heavy metals back when I had access to ICP machine (about 2012) and none of them were even close to dangerous. Only thing that was ever problematic was DNP.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#10)
AnaSCI VIP
 
Online
Posts: 1,160
Join Date: Sep 2010
05-01-2017, 01:28 PM

A few years back, a couple of MOD friends I know over at AFboard in NJ/PA had access to a Russian chemist friend who was testing their powders for them. The most common contaminate they ran into was Gypsum in stuff like Anavar and a few other compounds which I can't remember.

lol, I think gypsum in in drywall.

Maybe their thinking was that drywall will make you dry -- LOL!
BigBob likes this.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#11)
Super Moderator
 
Online
Posts: 323
Join Date: Jan 2013
05-01-2017, 06:39 PM

I am thinking that Heavy Metal and Contaminant testing would not be required every time we tested, if the first round yielded no negative results. We would test, at that point intermittently. Most believe that the levels of these metals and contaminants would be very miniscule, but I for one need to see it, at least once.
Sub7percent likes this.




LIKE - AnaSCI Facebook
SUBSCRIBE - AnaSCI YouTube

SYNTHETEK - Best hardcore bodybuilding products
STERILESYRINGES.COM - Get your Needles and Syringes from here
PRO WRIST STRAPS - Simply the best straps in the world
DISCUSSWORLDISSUES.COM - Socio-economic and political free speech
HOW TO DO INJECTIONS - Full Pictorial Injection Guide
PURE SUPPLEMENT POWDERS - All lab certified
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#12)
AnaSCI Approved Tester
 
janoshik's Avatar
 
Online
Posts: 68
Join Date: Mar 2016
05-02-2017, 03:28 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by MR. BMJ View Post
A few years back, a couple of MOD friends I know over at AFboard in NJ/PA had access to a Russian chemist friend who was testing their powders for them. The most common contaminate they ran into was Gypsum in stuff like Anavar and a few other compounds which I can't remember.

lol, I think gypsum in in drywall.

Maybe their thinking was that drywall will make you dry -- LOL!
Strange. Gypsum wouldn't even dissolve in organic solvents, so if it was in a compound that makes it way to the oil (or my solvent for HPLC) it would be immediately noticed.

Still the heavy metal thing doesn't agree with my findings.
MR. BMJ likes this.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#13)
AnaSCI Approved Tester
 
janoshik's Avatar
 
Online
Posts: 68
Join Date: Mar 2016
05-02-2017, 03:32 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Racepicks View Post
I am thinking that Heavy Metal and Contaminant testing would not be required every time we tested, if the first round yielded no negative results. We would test, at that point intermittently. Most believe that the levels of these metals and contaminants would be very miniscule, but I for one need to see it, at least once.
Sure. Bruker didn't get back to me, but I'll keep trying.

I'm pretty sure at some point some lab will agree to get through with the samples for heavy metals.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#14)
AnaSCI Approved Tester
 
janoshik's Avatar
 
Online
Posts: 68
Join Date: Mar 2016
05-02-2017, 11:55 AM

Bruker got to me and let's just say it's outta the question, really.

What metal ions would you like to have monitored?

Tin, Nickel, Lead, Cadmium and Mercury?

There's an HPLC method I found capable of detecting those in nanogram levels, but it would require me to buy some more equipment and the method is quite... lengthy. ( Simultaneous Determination of Tin, Nickel, Lead, Cadmium and Mercury in Cigarette Material by Solid Phase Extraction and HPLC )
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#15)
Registered User
 
Online
Posts: 58
Join Date: Jun 2013
05-02-2017, 12:19 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by janoshik View Post
The agar smearing would have to be done in sterile conditions and smearing oil would probably inhibit bacteria. Can't see this being done by a regular user.

Membrane filtering and cultivating the membrane is the way that's generally used with liquid samples.

ID of microbes is done generally in a few ways:
1. gram stain and microscopy (gram +/-, 'shell' +-, morphology (coccus/bacillus/...), spores +-, colony morphology...) [1-5$ per test expenses, without microscope and work price, time consuming]
2. biochemistry tests (after we know it's for example gram positive coccus we can differentiate between them because different bacteria contain different enzymes) [5-10$, time consuming]
3. selective pre-made agars (for example only enterococci grow on it, so if anything grows, we know what it is) [good only for 1 strain, expensive, not time consuming]
4. immuno tests (from imunochromatography through testing for exact bacteria strain with flagellum antibody) [good only for 1 thing again, expensive, fast]
5. MALDI-TOF [identifies bacteria in seconds, almost no work, but the machine costs a bit ]

Generally, I don't think ID is necessary for our purposes.
A sterile workplace with a bunsen burner and a laminar flow cabinet would be needed... petri dishes with agar and a thermostatted cultivator machine. If something grows, then we got an issue.

A few stains and a microscope and that's enough to get a VERY good idea of what we got growing down there. Not need for exact ID imo... If there were a serious suspicion I can get any sample to MALDI-TOF...


Regarding the heavy metals - could you please get me a source of this info? I asked you about it in the thread over at PM.com, but the thread got deleted.

I've tested quite a few samples for heavy metals back when I had access to ICP machine (about 2012) and none of them were even close to dangerous. Only thing that was ever problematic was DNP.
Sterility testing is not the same thing as TAC or TYM, the latter don't require highly controlled environments. Sterility testing is a pass/fail method that requires at minimum a laminar flow hood and preferably a controlled room and even this has a high probability of external contamination of the test sample.

The gold standard is an isolator that uses volatilized hydrogen peroxide to decontaminate the interior of the isolator box and the exterior of the sample.

For a liquid oil sample, the oil would be filtered through a membrane and the membrane transfered into liquid Tryptic soy Broth and another into FTM broth for anaerobic organisms.

Sterility testing is a bitch because it's very easy to get a false positive and hard as shit to prove it wasn't from the original sample.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk
MR. BMJ likes this.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#16)
Registered User
 
Online
Posts: 58
Join Date: Jun 2013
05-02-2017, 12:20 PM

And identification is irrelevant. If it's contaminated it's unusable.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#17)
AnaSCI Approved Tester
 
janoshik's Avatar
 
Online
Posts: 68
Join Date: Mar 2016
05-02-2017, 12:39 PM

Correct!

I meant sterile in a... well, wider sense of a word. Like I mentioned in my first related post, TAMC and TYMC is what we are talking about.

ID might be only useful if somebody already got some issues... Unlikely.

Thank you for your input!
MR. BMJ and micro2000 like this.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#18)
AnaSCI VET / Donating Member
 
Sully's Avatar
 
Online
Posts: 2,346
Join Date: Dec 2012
05-02-2017, 04:36 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by MR. BMJ View Post
A few years back, a couple of MOD friends I know over at AFboard in NJ/PA had access to a Russian chemist friend who was testing their powders for them. The most common contaminate they ran into was Gypsum in stuff like Anavar and a few other compounds which I can't remember.

lol, I think gypsum in in drywall.

Maybe their thinking was that drywall will make you dry -- LOL!
Gypsum in tablets is extremely common. Gypsum is basically just a form of calcium, and it's use as a filler in various products, including as a binder in pressed tablets, is completely safe. Gypsum is also a common ingredient in toothpaste, as a preservative in wine (as calcium sulfate) and other foods and as a color additive in pharmaceuticals. Its consumption by humans is generally regarded as safe by the FDA, and the scientific community generally considers it to be inert in the human body.

If you're finding it in raw powders, there are 2 logical conclusions. It's being used as a cutting agent in order to scam you and to increase the suppliers profit margin. Or, the raws are held or processed in the same facility where the source is manufacturing the raw powders into finished tablets, and the gypsum in the raw is incidental due to the proximity of the manufacturing process. Hard to say which u less you can actually test the amount of gypsum in the raw powder.
MR. BMJ likes this.


GearPro Rep
[email protected]


It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it- Aristotle
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#19)
AnaSCI MEMBER
 
Offline
Posts: 8
Join Date: Jan 2013
05-02-2017, 11:47 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by janoshik View Post
The agar smearing would have to be done in sterile conditions and smearing oil would probably inhibit bacteria. Can't see this being done by a regular user.

Membrane filtering and cultivating the membrane is the way that's generally used with liquid samples.

ID of microbes is done generally in a few ways:
1. gram stain and microscopy (gram +/-, 'shell' +-, morphology (coccus/bacillus/...), spores +-, colony morphology...) [1-5$ per test expenses, without microscope and work price, time consuming]
2. biochemistry tests (after we know it's for example gram positive coccus we can differentiate between them because different bacteria contain different enzymes) [5-10$, time consuming]
3. selective pre-made agars (for example only enterococci grow on it, so if anything grows, we know what it is) [good only for 1 strain, expensive, not time consuming]
4. immuno tests (from imunochromatography through testing for exact bacteria strain with flagellum antibody) [good only for 1 thing again, expensive, fast]
5. MALDI-TOF [identifies bacteria in seconds, almost no work, but the machine costs a bit ]

Generally, I don't think ID is necessary for our purposes.
A sterile workplace with a bunsen burner and a laminar flow cabinet would be needed... petri dishes with agar and a thermostatted cultivator machine. If something grows, then we got an issue.

A few stains and a microscope and that's enough to get a VERY good idea of what we got growing down there. Not need for exact ID imo... If there were a serious suspicion I can get any sample to MALDI-TOF...


Regarding the heavy metals - could you please get me a source of this info? I asked you about it in the thread over at PM.com, but the thread got deleted.

I've tested quite a few samples for heavy metals back when I had access to ICP machine (about 2012) and none of them were even close to dangerous. Only thing that was ever problematic was DNP.

Around 2006 i had access to all different types of agar. I made some extra one day and smears some AAS oil on it. Nothing grew which was to be expected as I had filtered everything through a 0.22 and baked it.

Then my buddy kept having some issues characterized by redness and a lot of pain after injects. He never filtered his gear anything else. While it was already a punctured vial i did grab some of that oil and smeared it on a few different types of agar. I had cultures on all of them. I never cared enough to try to identify but obviously he tossed the vial.

My point being is im not sure it matters all that much to test for bacteria. I would just assume every time that UG gear is NOT perfectly sterile and all users should take the necessary precautions. for "fun" one could smear it on some agar and see and do the best you can not to contaminate it. Its kind of easy to tell if its truely a airborne contaminate though based on the pattern of growth on the agar so a full hood isnt needed. Heck in medical school we never used a hood when isolating and it worked out fine "most" of the time.

With respect to heavy metals. I believe the list you have is a good start. I have no useful info as to how to test for them these days. The tests i saw were on raw powders not oils and were likely posted on AFboard back in the day as that was the website i was most on around that era.
MR. BMJ likes this.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#20)
AnaSCI MEMBER
 
Offline
Posts: 8
Join Date: Jan 2013
05-03-2017, 12:16 AM

Ive tried to get more info from the results i saw and cant find them. I do see multiple postings online about tests being done in 2009 but those are only postings. The results i saw were from the lab.

While of absolutely NO help to what you are trying to do and might not even be related here is an article with a bber with arsenic poisoning.

https://academic.oup.com/jcem/articl...0/jc.2013-2310

sure if could have been from other things( tabs on him tested positive) but I am certain i saw lab results years ago showing metals and arsenic in raw powders and then guys more recently getting blood work done showing elevated levels. While i do think that some of that could be from environment or protein powder ( good report on that from maybe 2010) i think we need to at least look into it more so i thank you for doing that.

I would certainly feel better for the community if multiple raws come back ok in 2017
   
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



AnaSCI Fitness Evolved  AnaSCI Fitness Evolved     AnaSCI Fitness Evolved  AnaSCI Fitness Evolved

Buy Needles and Syringes with NO PRESCRIPTION  Synthetek Muscle Building And Fat Loss Products  Cheap Pure Supplements

  Ed Coan-Strength Inc. 

  Join AnaSCI 

Full Pictorial Guide   

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:30 PM.



Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright © 2003-2017 AnaSCI.org. All rights reserved.