Epistane testing results

Status
Not open for further replies.

stxnas

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
Subscribed
 
m4gnum

m4gnum

Member
Awards
0
Before this thread reaches 20 pages, could someone explain what this paragraph means:

The major peak found
has a retention time of 20.48 min and has a major ion of 270. The peak did not match any know
standard we have in-house, and did not match any compound in NIST or Wiley mass spectral
libraries; therefore we cannot identify the compound. A reference standard of the labeled
compound could not be obtained from our typical supplier. Using a similar compound, we
quantified the amount relative to a reference standard of certified 99 % pure analytical standard
of Testosterone to provide an estimated amount per capsule.
Thanks
 
m4gnum

m4gnum

Member
Awards
0
So in theory, each molecule of epistane weighs 288 units. But the most abundant substance in the sample tested weighed 270 units, which means that it is not the same thing as it was claimed to be. Correct?

Then they quantify the amount of that stuff, that apparently weighs 270, by comparing it with test, which weighs 288. I don't understand that part.
 

1Fast400

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
That's the amount we found. The label says it should be 10 mg. But remember, it is referenced against a standard of testosterone and is probably close, within 20% of that value. We would need a pure standard of the substance to be closer.
Alston.
This was the labs response to me when I asked if the pills only contained 3.8mg of active
 
Jayhawkk

Jayhawkk

Legend
Awards
2
  • Legend!
  • Established
Thanks for posting the results Mike even though I'll have to wait to see what the hell it all means other than the basic stuff that's already been mentioned.

To everyone in this thread remember to keep it clean and discuss results etc without it getting dirty.
 

1Fast400

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
Come on Dr. D, you're looking at the thread, no response?
 

Zero Tolerance

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
I haven't opened my bottle of Epistane yet... I wonder if I should take twice the dose as others. Or since everybody got their results on probably the same amount - maybe I shouldn't? Any thoughts on that? Thats my only question...

If everybody has had around 8mg per serving (2 caps) - with great results.. Maybe I should just stick to that...
 
Nabeshin

Nabeshin

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
It all depends on how comfortable you are eating mystery meat, Zero.
 
ShakesAllDay

ShakesAllDay

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
I don't like mystery meat... or mystery supplements.
 

1Fast400

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
IBE sent that letter out to distributors claiming Havoc was 60% pure and their's was 95%. I'm curious what lab they used. This lab didn't have the standard for it. It has been over 2 weeks now and we're still waiting on a "coc" letter. If you notice in this report, the COC is clearly addressed so I me thinks IBE never had a third party test.
 
DR.D

DR.D

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
Well i'm officially still needing to buy a clue.
No you don't! I already broke it down days ago how the 270 ion is generated in the thread that got closed. I explained A LOT of things in that thread if you have been following and reading between the lines, like why nobody is getting results with the Ox, but that's another issue.

This is a solid report on Epi and there's nothing to argue really. Also, remember that the low mg/cap is an "estimated amount" in the words of the lab that made this report, because it is not a real number but rather an extrapolated value based off a different standard. That means error is to be expected necessarily without a true reference standard to calculate from. More importantly, an internal standard is required in order to really quantitate anything. Without the % recovery from an internal, surrogate standard doped in both the blank injection and the sample injection, you have no idea what the system efficiency is anyway, so take that with a serious grain of salt and Alston would tell you the same thing if you contacted him. That number means squat and Mike is only trying to make it seem important so he doesn't look like a total ass (too late for that though) at this point after all this drama and no proof of anything now.

Nice try Mike, but you still didn't prove a damn thing was wrong with Epi. Now if you're smart, you'll move on and pray to God that IBE doesn't decide to blow the whistles on all your little buddies with their crappy results that don't even come close to the ones you posted for Epi. If you keep on after this though, you will get what you deserve, believe that.
 

1Fast400

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
PA tested your product and came out with a MW of 270. He tested the other two products, which are to contain the exact same ingredient and came up with 288. I test your product and come up with 270. Now, if PA tested the three products all the same way and came up with 2 different results (288 being the explainable number), why is yours coming up 270 (which has no logical explanation)?
 

juggernaut333

Member
Awards
1
  • Established
didnt it say within 20%?

how does a lab even get a standard of pure legit stuff to test to?thats an honest question as im wondering?threats,anger,condemnation..how very VERY 'christian' of you.i am sickened by hypocritical 'christian' or other religious bull****ters such as yourself.
so its turn the other cheek,or an eye for an eye,depending on the situation eh?PLEASE REFRAIN FROM PERSONAL ATTACKS.

in regards to the majority of your post as a whole.

No you don't! I already broke it down days ago how the 270 ion is generated in the thread that got closed. I explained A LOT of things in that thread if you have been following and reading between the lines, like why nobody is getting results with the Ox, but that's another issue.

This is a solid report on Epi and there's nothing to argue really. Also, remember that the low mg/cap is an "estimated amount" in the words of the lab that made this report, because it is not a real number but rather an extrapolated value based off a different standard. That means error is to be expected necessarily without a true reference standard to calculate from. More importantly, an internal standard is required in order to really quantitate anything. Without the % recovery from an internal, surrogate standard doped in both the blank injection and the sample injection, you have no idea what the system efficiency is anyway, so take that with a serious grain of salt and Alston would tell you the same thing if you contacted him. That number means squat and Mike is only trying to make it seem important so he doesn't look like a total ass (too late for that though) at this point after all this drama and no proof of anything now.

Nice try Mike, but you still didn't prove a damn thing was wrong with Epi. Now if you're smart, you'll move on and pray to God that IBE doesn't decide to blow the whistles on all your little buddies with their crappy results that don't even come close to the ones you posted for Epi. If you keep on after this though, you will get what you deserve, believe that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

1Fast400

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
If he can give a logical reason for why his product comes out with a 270MW when the other two compounds come out with a 288MW, then everything should be fine. Nobody I've spoken with, outside of an IBE employee, can explain how a compound with a 270MW CAN be epistane. If he can explain that, then the results will support their claim
 
Nabeshin

Nabeshin

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
This test makes a strong case for Epistane being greatly impure. If that is not actually the situation, IBE and co. would be well advised to make a contrary argument that is at least as strong. Hand-waving about reading between the lines of 10 page locked threads is not such an argument.
 
ShakesAllDay

ShakesAllDay

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
Seems like a little
going on 'round here.

I hope good prevails.
 
DR.D

DR.D

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
PA tested your product and came out with a MW of 270. He tested the other two products, which are to contain the exact same ingredient and came up with 288. I test your product and come up with 270. Now, if PA tested the three products all the same way and came up with 2 different results (288 being the explainable number), why is yours coming up 270 (which has no logical explanation)?
OK Mike, I can see you want to keep pushing, but don't say you weren't warned! I do not appreciate you trying to keep wasting my time like this.

288 is the molecular weight of testosterone BTW, a controlled substance that does not belong in a dietary supp. That ion is NOT in the IBE product and not my concern, that's somebody else's nightmare!

RTP already said they could not id 270 so who cares what PA says? He admitted to having no standard also.
 

1Fast400

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
D, here is a simple question:

Can you give a logical explanation for why your product has a MW of 270? Given that a MW of 288 can be explained and justified as the correct compound. Both threads will end as soon as you can explain this. There will be no fighting after that.
 
ShakesAllDay

ShakesAllDay

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
OK Mike, I can see you want to keep pushing, but don't say you weren't warned! I do not appreciate you trying to keep wasting my time like this.

288 is the molecular weight of testosterone BTW, a controlled substance that does not belong in a dietary supp. That ion is NOT in the IBE product and not my concern, that's somebody else's nightmare!

RTP already said they could not id 270 so who cares what PA says? He admitted to having no standard also.
So, are you saying there could be testosterone in the other products which have a MW of 288?

:dance:
 
DR.D

DR.D

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
This test makes a strong case for Epistane being greatly impure. If that is not actually the situation, IBE and co. would be well advised to make a contrary argument that is at least as strong. Hand-waving about reading between the lines of 10 page locked threads is not such an argument.
I have a better idea, you are well advised just don't use Epi. Or don't be so lazy. The data is posted. Do you think I made it up? I put the number there days before this report even came out so how could I! It hasn't been edited either. It's the same result as this one. READ.
 
ShakesAllDay

ShakesAllDay

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
D, here is a simple question:

Can you give a logical explanation for why your product has a MW of 270? Given that a MW of 288 can be explained and justified as the correct compound.
How do we know that 288 is the *correct* compound. All I've heard so far is that NOBODY has a standard to compare to. Maybe I'm misguided. :think:
 
DR.D

DR.D

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
No you don't! I already broke it down days ago how the 270 ion is generated in the thread that got closed. ...
Don't act like you can't read Mike. I explained it already, days ago.
 
RenegadeRows

RenegadeRows

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
I think its time for IBE to make a rebuttal consisting of their test results/info/official statement
 
Nabeshin

Nabeshin

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
OK Mike, I can see you want to keep pushing, but don't say you weren't warned! I do not appreciate you trying to keep wasting my time like this.
We want to keep pushing. We do not appreciate you trying to keep wasting our time, money, and health, not to mention putting a giant political bullseye on the back of the industry in general. We do not trust you anymore, so don't expect us to accept an explanation that requires trusting you. And if you alienate us by shadowboxing around a straight answer to the legitimate concerns we have, then our lack of patronage alone will be enough to bury you.

Don't say you weren't warned.
 

1Fast400

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
For those that wonder about the 288 reference, as PA stated:

yes the results for havoc show that the stuff contains a compuond that has a MW of 288. 288 is the correct MW for the methylepistanol (it desulfurizes in the injection port to give 288)

So the compound starts out with a higher MW, but when it desulfurizes in the injection port, it goes to 288.
 
ShakesAllDay

ShakesAllDay

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
We want to keep pushing. We do not appreciate you trying to keep wasting our time, money, and health, not to mention putting a giant political bullseye on the back of the industry in general. We do not trust you anymore, so don't expect us to accept an explanation that requires trusting you. And if you alienate us by shadowboxing around a straight answer to the legitimate concerns we have, then our lack of patronage alone will be enough to bury you.

Don't say you weren't warned.
:clap2:

The community has spoken!
 

1Fast400

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
I have two meetings to go to, won't be back till after 5pm. I'm sure I'll have 50 pages to read by then :)
 

juggernaut333

Member
Awards
1
  • Established
ok interesting.so how does 288 correlate necessarily to the true product in question if its for test.i realize they have similarities as anabolic compounds but im just tryin to understand how that works is all...

and similar q on the 277 mw.how is it correlated to the proper product?

how is a pure standard nto available anywhere for a legit pure product?again,admitadly clueless,just geniunely curious

OK Mike, I can see you want to keep pushing, but don't say you weren't warned! I do not appreciate you trying to keep wasting my time like this.

288 is the molecular weight of testosterone BTW, a controlled substance that does not belong in a dietary supp. That ion is NOT in the IBE product and not my concern, that's somebody else's nightmare!

RTP already said they could not id 270 so who cares what PA says? He admitted to having no standard also.
 

bigblank69

Board Supporter
Awards
0
I have a better idea, you are well advised just don't use Epi. Or don't be so lazy. The data is posted. Do you think I made it up? I put the number there days before this report even came out so how could I! It hasn't been edited either. It's the same result as this one. READ.

Man you can't even admit it when your wrong. WEAK! Glad I bought Havoc and didn't buy your bottle of mystery powder.

Maybe later today we can play guess the active ingredient.

We have for players: Mass Tabs, Ripped Tabs, Methoxy-Trn, Methoxy TST, and now Epistane!

Winner gets a half eaten protein bar. :duel:
 
yeahright

yeahright

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
Remember to keep the personal attacks out of the thread. Discuss and debate the results as much as you want.

As an observation: The user reports of reduced or eliminated gyno after using Epistane really cannot be ignored. There are so many of them spread across different boards from experienced users who have credibility in their various online communities. I don't understand the science of these test results enough to contribute anything meaningful about what they say about Epistane....but SOMETHING unusually positive comes from this product. Precisely as predicted by the structure of the compound.

I'll leave it for others more knowledgeable to debate the test results.
 
sean taylor

sean taylor

West Coast Highland Athlete
Awards
1
  • Established
This whole situation has really soured me on using anthing like epi, havoc, superdrol, or anything except what goes in a syringe from my trusted guy. Who knows what is in these pills? You just have to trust.
I understand D's frustration, and as a Christian myself, Christianity does not remove frustration or anger.
Why do we care? We eat crap all the time and beta test things all the time and have no idea what is in them. No one has said anything bad about the results from either supp. There are risks taking this stuff...deal with it. I have seen many in both these threads who have jumped on beta testing without wanting to know the purity or MW of the prod they test..why bother with it now. If it is impure, do you think it just became that way? Do you think all supps are "pure"? Hell, the stuff is made in garages in some cases. None of this is pure cause we aren't rich enough to have it that good. And if you were, you would be too busy to be adding fuel to this fire.

I am not subscribin to this thread and am done talking about or reading about this slap fight. Both parties are being asses, and one in particular seems to have an agenda and I will not further it by reading this crud. It should be locked, this forum is not a qualified place to have this discussion. What it will do is cause forum-hysteria.

Good luck to both of you. you probably won't stop the pickin at each other thing, but I hope one of you just man's up and walks away..no net war has ever been won in the real world.
 
DR.D

DR.D

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
didnt it say within 20%?

how does a lab even get a standard of pure legit stuff to test to?thats an honest question as im wondering?threats,anger,condemnation..how very VERY 'christian' of you.i am sickened by hypocritical 'christian' or other religious bull****ters such as yourself.
so its turn the other cheek,or an eye for an eye,depending on the situation eh?jesus would ***** slap u

in regards to the majority of your post as a whole.
That's it. I'm out.
 
RenegadeRows

RenegadeRows

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
As an observation: The user reports of reduced or eliminated gyno after using Epistane really cannot be ignored. There are so many of them spread across different boards from experienced users who have credibility in their various online communities. I don't understand the science of these test results enough to contribute anything meaningful about what they say about Epistane....but SOMETHING unusually positive comes from this product. Precisely as predicted by the structure of the compound.

I'll leave it for others mor eknowledgeable to debate the test results.
I agree. I myself wonder what these tests mean, but I can't help but acknowledge what Epistane has done for me in terms of gyno reduction.
 
Jayhawkk

Jayhawkk

Legend
Awards
2
  • Legend!
  • Established
Attack the information, not the person. This will not keep getting repeated. I'm here looking for information just like the rest of you and I also want clear cut answers but attacking someone's religion or anything else for that matter besides their statements gets us nowhere.
 
yeahright

yeahright

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
Bobo has equipped all mods with the ban stick. Keep this discussion civil ladies and gentlemen.
 

Guest

Guest
Attack the information, not the person. This will not keep getting repeated. I'm here looking for information just like the rest of you and I also want clear cut answers but attacking someone's religion or anything else for that matter besides their statements gets us nowhere.
I was attacked at another board. Jacob you suck, I hate you, but your products work so I was like okay.
 
ShakesAllDay

ShakesAllDay

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
So, results are posted. And, now, with 44 members viewing the thread, both the OP (1Fast) and the defendant (Dr. D) skip town.

Great.
 
Minus83

Minus83

Member
Awards
0
So, results are posted. And, now, with 44 members viewing the thread, both the OP (1Fast) and the defendant (Dr. D) skip town.

Great.
D had a reason though, this isnt the first thread he has been personally attacked in, even only counting the last week hes had a rough time, and i would really hate to see what his PM box looks like.

anyway, regarding all of this stuff, why would IBE say things about Havoc being impure, when their stuff was?

it doesnt make sense, there is no way they would be dumb enough to think noone would test it.

the arguing back and forth over the last couple weeks has resulted in alot of "prove it is!" and "no, you prove it isnt!" which doesnt get anybody anywhere.

and these tests dont really prove anything do they?

i mean, if the product is somehow less potent or less effective than the company says, and people are still making great gains from it, and even getting some other benefits (gyno reduction) there must be some good things about it.

i dont know, the controversy kind of makes me want to buy Epistane (my cart at a site has 2 bottles of Havoc in it im waiting to order, but that may change) ;) i dont know which is "better" "more pure" or "contains magical unicorns" but the logs dont lie (logs...on here, not toilet logs) and people are enjoying using both Havoc and Epistane, so something must be good about both.
 

1Fast400

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
I haven't gone anywhere. I love my PDA :). I'm listening to a boring meeting anyway :). So Dr D just left instead of explaining how a MW of 270 makes that active epistane. All because someone made a god reference.
 
CryingEmo

CryingEmo

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
Wow, I just realized how retarded I am. :icon_lol:
 

1Fast400

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
and these tests dont really prove anything do they?
Seeing posts like this make me want to bash my head against a wall.
 
jomi822

jomi822

Banned
Awards
1
  • Established
Yes, obviously both havoc and epistane work.

that being said, i want to know what substance i am ingesting, and i trust the label on a product to tell me what that is.


This is my understanding of the situation.

1. no one has a standard to go by (major problem)
2. 1fast claims the substances orginal MW is over 288 and becomes 288 due to the testing process
3. Dr D claims that the substance degrades to 270 in this testing process (if i recall correctly, feel free to correct me dr. d.)

is it possible the same substance can degrade to both 288 and 270 respectively? or that different testing pocesses can degrade the product to either one of these values?

D. if you are reading this, humor us and explain the situation one more time.

the fact of the matter is that we now have a test saying epistane has under half the dose it says it does per capsule.

if this is incorrect, wouldnt it be beneficial for IBE to post results of its own?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads


Top