Epistane testing results

Page 1 of 13 123 ... Last
  1. Epistane testing results


    Here you go
    Attached Images Attached Images


  2. Subscribed
    RcB Since 09-06-2011 20:55 EST, Post 49
    •   
       


  3. Quote Originally Posted by stxnas View Post
    Subscribed
    x2.

  4. 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

  5. A quote from PA on bb.com:

    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)

    otoh this mass spectrum that mike posted here has a MW of 270.


    all of this i knew for a long time as we tested it and saw the same thing
    Bodybuilding.com Forums - View Single Post - Epistane Testing Results
    •   
       


  6. I'm retarded. What does this mean?

  7. 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.

  8. Well i'm officially still needing to buy a clue.

  9. 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

  10. 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.

  11. Come on Dr. D, you're looking at the thread, no response?

  12. Subscribe. Duck. Cover.

  13. Quote Originally Posted by Jayhawkk View Post
    Well i'm officially still needing to buy a clue.
    DITTO!

    maybe we can get a 2-for-1 deal!

  14. 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...

  15. It all depends on how comfortable you are eating mystery meat, Zero.

  16. I don't like mystery meat... or mystery supplements.

  17. 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.

  18. Quote Originally Posted by Jayhawkk View Post
    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.

  19. 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)?

  20. 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,condem nation..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.

    Quote Originally Posted by DR.D View Post
    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 yeahright; 04-12-2007 at 02:46 PM.

  21. 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

  22. 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.

  23. Seems like a little going on 'round here.

    I hope good prevails.

  24. Quote Originally Posted by 1Fast400 View Post
    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.

  25. 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.

  26. Quote Originally Posted by DR.D View Post
    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?


  27. Quote Originally Posted by Nabeshin View Post
    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.

  28. Quote Originally Posted by 1Fast400 View Post
    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.

  29. Quote Originally Posted by DR.D View Post
    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.

  30. I think its time for IBE to make a rebuttal consisting of their test results/info/official statement
  •   

      
     

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Epistane testing results
    By 1Fast400 in forum Supplements
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 04-11-2007, 02:04 PM
  2. blood test result and why is my test so low?
    By WATERLOGGED in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 01-30-2004, 12:28 AM
  3. r-ALA testing results
    By ex_banana-eater in forum Supplements
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 10-19-2003, 08:22 AM
  4. Methyl-1-test results
    By TheTom in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 09-16-2003, 03:31 PM
  5. Injectable 1-Test results?
    By GangstaJDog in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-24-2003, 06:26 PM
Log in
Log in