270 versus 288

Status
Not open for further replies.
Patrick Arnold

Patrick Arnold

Featured Author
Awards
1
  • Established
i am referring to the epithio steroid debate, and which molecular ion peak value is most consistent with the compound

I have tested hundreds of steroids on GC/MS. I know how they behave. So I am very confident in my opinion.

The molecular weight of the epithio steroid is 320. This steroid is known to easily lose a sulfur atom if heated. A double bond is left behind.

---
Lightner, Djerassi, Chem&Ind, 1237(1962)

IN this article they demonstrate the pryolytic breakdown of the very similar 2alpha,3alpha-epithio-5alpha-cholestan to delta2-5alpha-cholestan at 130 C.
----------

That gives you a molecular weight of 288. And that is the molecular ion peak we see with havoc and hemaguno. In fact this mass spectrum matches that of DMT (which if you lose the sulfur in this manner, you should get this)

It has been argued that the teritary alcohol at C17 can dehydrate. If this occured then you would have a molecular ion peak of 270

However dehydration of the C17 tertiary alcohol does not occur. I believe I can be considered a solid authority on this. I never shot in a 17alpha-methyl steroid that did this

If indeed this did happen, then if I were to shoot DMT into the GC/MS i would get a mass spectrum with M+ of 270. But i do not, i get 288, and it matches what is seen with hemaguno and havoc. I have tested DMT before, trust me.

Its 100% inarguable in my mind. The only possiblity is that hemaguno and havoc have DMT in them and not epithio. but other tests can confirm or deny this
 

hardknock

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
So in all possibility, the havoc and hemo have DMT, but epithio does not have DMT...what % would u place on this? >70% chance or is it a far fetched occurrence....

If this is the case then the 270 vs 280 is solved....the only question is that if epithio does not contain DMT, then ????????
 
jomi822

jomi822

Banned
Awards
1
  • Established
PA, how does this translate into product purity.

in the tests i have seen all 3 brands have have under 4mgs out of 10mgs of the substance they were tested for.

does this mean epistane contains the wrong substance in an underdosed quanitity?

does this mean huma and havoc were tested under the wrong standard and really contain more than the amount they were tested for having per capsule?

are all products underdosed?

someone really needs to break this down to a non chemistry perspective
 
Patrick Arnold

Patrick Arnold

Featured Author
Awards
1
  • Established
So in all possibility, the havoc and hemo have DMT, but epithio does not have DMT...what % would u place on this? >70% chance or is it a far fetched occurrence....

If this is the case then the 270 vs 280 is solved....the only question is that if epithio does not contain DMT, then ????????

If you open havoc it smells clearly like sulfur. So either it contains the right stuff or someone put dmt in there and sprinkled sulfur in there to fool people

i would put my bets on it being the right compound
 
Patrick Arnold

Patrick Arnold

Featured Author
Awards
1
  • Established
PA, how does this translate into product purity.

in the tests i have seen all 3 brands have have under 4mgs out of 10mgs of the substance they were tested for.

does this mean epistane contains the wrong substance in an underdosed quanitity?

does this mean huma and havoc were tested under the wrong standard and really contain more than the amount they were tested for having per capsule?

are all products underdosed?

someone really needs to break this down to a non chemistry perspective


we did not do anything to look for amount per capsule. We merely wanted to see if the major ingredient matched up with what was on the label

doing a quantitative test is a pain in the ass compared to just shooting it in and looking at the qualitative results. not worth wasting our time
 
DAdams91982

DAdams91982

Board Sponsor
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
I will do Anything for love... but I wont do that...

...Ooops... wrong thread. :ntome:

Let the drama begin again.

Good to see a figure head like PA around here.

Welcome *back* PA.

Adams
 
jomi822

jomi822

Banned
Awards
1
  • Established
So PA youre official position is that, under the same conditions in the same exact test, Huma and Havoc appear to have a different compound (that you conside to be the correct compound) than Epistane does.
 
Patrick Arnold

Patrick Arnold

Featured Author
Awards
1
  • Established
So PA youre official position is that, under the same conditions in the same exact test, Huma and Havoc appear to have a different compound (that you conside to be the correct compound) than Epistane does.

I feel strongly that this is the case
 
gogo

gogo

Active member
Awards
1
  • Established
This is all so strange.
But isnt epistane acting as the compound should with the serm effects that people are showing in the logs.
 
LakeMountD

LakeMountD

Doctor Science
Awards
1
  • Established
aspire210

aspire210

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
what about the gyno reduction that epistane users have reported, doesn't dmt aromatize to some extent making this impossible?
 
gogo

gogo

Active member
Awards
1
  • Established
what about the gyno reduction that epistane users have reported, doesn't dmt aromatize to some extent making this impossible?
Well i beleive epistane acts more of a serm than an ai, so i don't think it would be impossible.
 
V00D00

V00D00

Member
Awards
0
If you open havoc it smells clearly like sulfur. So either it contains the right stuff or someone put dmt in there and sprinkled sulfur in there to fool people

i would put my bets on it being the right compound
Like OMG! I cant believe all this **** talking was for nothing!

thank you for clearing this up, now can we please just USE the products instead of criticizing them?
 
Patrick Arnold

Patrick Arnold

Featured Author
Awards
1
  • Established
This is all so strange.
But isnt epistane acting as the compound should with the serm effects that people are showing in the logs.
epithio is a non aromatizing dht derivative. should give dry gains and help with gyno and strength.

but there are dozens of other such steroids, both pharmaceutical and designer, and all will pretty much give the same results
 
Patrick Arnold

Patrick Arnold

Featured Author
Awards
1
  • Established
Well i beleive epistane acts more of a serm than an ai, so i don't think it would be impossible.
i know of no evidence that it acts as either. yes, the epithio drugs were sold for breast cancer treatment but DHT was used for breast cancer treatment before as was masteron.

Androgens antagonize the actions of estrogens without having to affect the binding of estrogens to the receptor.
 
Nabeshin

Nabeshin

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
PA, if you follow that link that LMD posted, the doctors writeup lists Epistane and Havoc as having two different names for their actives.

Epistane: 2a,3a-epithio-17a-methylethioallo cholan-17b-ol

Havoc: 2a,3a epithio-methyl-5a-androstan-17b-ol

The doc also says that Havoc has a double bond, whereas Epistane has a single bond, so that's why Havoc doesn't dehydrate in the injection port of the GC chamber but Epistane does. To my mind, that means two different compounds. But, I can't decode IUPAC nomenclature for beans. Are these names both synonyms for the same compound?
 
aspire210

aspire210

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
PA, if you follow that link that LMD posted, the doctors writeup lists Epistane and Havoc as having two different names for their actives.

Epistane: 2a,3a-epithio-17a-methylethioallo cholan-17b-ol

Havoc: 2a,3a epithio-methyl-5a-androstan-17b-ol

The doc also says that Havoc has a double bond, whereas Epistane has a single bond, so that's why Havoc doesn't dehydrate in the injection port of the GC chamber but Epistane does. To my mind, that means two different compounds. But, I can't decode IUPAC nomenclature for beans. Are these names both synonyms for the same compound?
ethioallocholan = 5a-androstan from my understanding, just one is more dated than the other.
 

jaydesiel4651

Member
Awards
0
my only question is.....reguardless of which is what its supposed to be which one works better.....so far ive read more positivemreviewsmfrom epi
 
Nabeshin

Nabeshin

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
ethioallocholan = 5a-androstan from my understanding, just one is more dated than the other.
Ethioallocholan should be etioallocholan, but after that correction (which the doc needs to make in his original paper [the dude apparently is not a linguist]) I agree. They should be the same thing.

Yet he talks about Havoc having a double bond, and Epistane having a single bond. Not sure how much that matters, but it certainly sounds like two different compounds.

I'm also confused about this demthylation thing, I thought it was dehydration which brought the M+ down to 270.
 
Patrick Arnold

Patrick Arnold

Featured Author
Awards
1
  • Established
PA, if you follow that link that LMD posted, the doctors writeup lists Epistane and Havoc as having two different names for their actives.

Epistane: 2a,3a-epithio-17a-methylethioallo cholan-17b-ol

Havoc: 2a,3a epithio-methyl-5a-androstan-17b-ol

The doc also says that Havoc has a double bond, whereas Epistane has a single bond, so that's why Havoc doesn't dehydrate in the injection port of the GC chamber but Epistane does. To my mind, that means two different compounds. But, I can't decode IUPAC nomenclature for beans. Are these names both synonyms for the same compound?


the nomenclature he used there for havoc does not designate there being any double bond. So the mention of a double bond is inconsistent and nonsensical

the doctor also said demethylation (twice) when he should have said dehydration. Dehydration is a common occurence in gas chromatography, so no analytical chemist would mistake the word demethylation for dehydration

lastly, there is no commercially avaialbable standard for either the alpha or beta isomers of this stuff. So i cannot fathom how this doctor was able to come to such a confident conclusion

its very suspicious
 
Patrick Arnold

Patrick Arnold

Featured Author
Awards
1
  • Established
Ethioallocholan should be etioallocholan, but after that correction (which the doc needs to make in his original paper [the dude apparently is not a linguist]) I agree. They should be the same thing.

Yet he talks about Havoc having a double bond, and Epistane having a single bond. Not sure how much that matters, but it certainly sounds like two different compounds.

I'm also confused about this demthylation thing, I thought it was dehydration which brought the M+ down to 270.
yes, another "scratch your head" aspect of this letter
 
Nabeshin

Nabeshin

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
This is going to make me start pooping blood.
 
aspire210

aspire210

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
lastly, there is no commercially avaialbable standard for either the alpha or beta isomers of this stuff. So i cannot fathom how this doctor was able to come to such a confident conclusion

its very suspicious
He apparently sourced a pure version. Don't know about the beta though.
 
Nabeshin

Nabeshin

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
Very suspicious, are you really trying to argue with a forensic toxicologist with a PHD. If you have questions, why don't you call the doctor himself and clarify his findings instead of giving your opinion as to why you feel he is incorrect? He does charge a consultation fee, but if you are that interested in exploring further I am sure you won't mind adding to the series of data that has already been supplied by IBE.
Just because he has a PhD doesn't mean he gets a pass. In fact, part of getting a PhD is defending your thesis against rigorous attacks. This report is riddled with errors, but the guy who wrote it should be able to explain them.
 
LakeMountD

LakeMountD

Doctor Science
Awards
1
  • Established
Very suspicious, are you really trying to argue with a forensic toxicologist with a PHD. If you have questions, why don't you call the doctor himself and clarify his findings instead of giving your opinion as to why you feel he is incorrect? He does charge a consultation fee, but if you are that interested in exploring further I am sure you won't mind adding to the series of data that has already been supplied by IBE.
Exactly what I was going to post!! Good post.


Not to mention the fact it is LC not GC.
 
aspire210

aspire210

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
Just because he has a PhD doesn't mean he gets a pass. In fact, part of getting a PhD is defending your thesis against rigorous attacks. This report is riddled with errors, but the guy who wrote it should be able to explain them.
so call him and argue with him....? I bet IBE will give you the number if you are so inclined.
 
B5150

B5150

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
Keep it on topic!

Chad (aka:crazyotter), please don't push your luck.

Thanks
 
Nabeshin

Nabeshin

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
I'm now waiting on a call back from Dr. Lykissa, so don't everybody go phone spamming the poor guy. As soon as I know something, ya'll will know something.
 
LakeMountD

LakeMountD

Doctor Science
Awards
1
  • Established
I'm now waiting on a call back from Dr. Lykissa, so don't everybody go phone spamming the poor guy. As soon as I know something, ya'll will know something.
FINALLY. I am glad you are calling him. Although he might charge you a consultation fee.
 
mmowry

mmowry

Board Sponsor
Awards
1
  • Established
Just because he has a PhD doesn't mean he gets a pass. In fact, part of getting a PhD is defending your thesis against rigorous attacks. This report is riddled with errors, but the guy who wrote it should be able to explain them.
But it is on the acuser to bear the burden of proof 1st and doesnt a PhD carry more "real world" weight than an accusing supp designer?
 
Nabeshin

Nabeshin

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
But it is on the acuser to bear the burden of proof 1st and doesnt a PhD carry more "real world" weight than an accusing supp designer?
Me? A supp designer? I wish.

As for the burden of proof, that's debatable, but I'm taking it anyway. I'll hit the Doc with discrepancies, and he'll clear them up.
 
mmowry

mmowry

Board Sponsor
Awards
1
  • Established
The post wasnt directed at you but you will do :D best of luck with your phone sleuthing.
 
Patrick Arnold

Patrick Arnold

Featured Author
Awards
1
  • Established
As a matter of fact PA, IBE will pay your consultation fee if you like, call and set up a time and ask anything you like to satisfy your questions about the doctor's report. It has never been about the money and we don't have anything to hide. But, I would like to ask since you claim unbias here, is where is your data and conclusive statements/further testing to support an argument against this data, other than your opinion of course?

do i need to provide data to prove that demethylation and dehydration are spelled differently?

I need to provide data to prove that there is no double bond in this chemical?

i am arguing obvious inaccuracies and inconsitencies in your letter. Things that do not require graphs and math equations etc
 
Nabeshin

Nabeshin

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
I still haven't heard back from the doctor, and I've got to go bouncing until 2AM. If he does call, he's gonna get my voicemail. If anybody else has any ideas in the mean time, have at 'em.
 
LakeMountD

LakeMountD

Doctor Science
Awards
1
  • Established
do i need to provide data to prove that demethylation and dehydration are spelled differently?

I need to provide data to prove that there is no double bond in this chemical?

i am arguing obvious inaccuracies and inconsitencies in your letter. Things that do not require graphs and math equations etc
So is that a yes or a no to speaking with the doctor? Do you really feel that this guy, who tests compounds for his job day in a day out, would stake his PhD on the line and put his signature on something that he wasn't sure of? Doubt it.

But by all means speak with him. We will gladly conference you in, pay your way, and have a conference with him and allow you to express your concerns. You aren't providing much data against really. Not quite sure why you are continuously attacking us.

If you are so concerned with "quality" why not check out the fact that a certain product (not Havoc) tested so much lower than others as far as concentration is concerned. Seems a little one-sided and biased doesn't it?

Oh and I noticed you edited your thread on bb.com where you said that the letter was fake because there was "no letterhead" on it. :blink:
 
Patrick Arnold

Patrick Arnold

Featured Author
Awards
1
  • Established
So is that a yes or a no to speaking with the doctor? Do you really feel that this guy, who tests compounds for his job day in a day out, would stake his PhD on the line and put his signature on something that he wasn't sure of? Doubt it.

But by all means speak with him. We will gladly conference you in, pay your way, and have a conference with him and allow you to express your concerns. You aren't providing much data against really. Not quite sure why you are continuously attacking us.

If you are so concerned with "quality" why not check out the fact that a certain product (not Havoc) tested so much lower than others as far as concentration is concerned. Seems a little one-sided and biased doesn't it?

Oh and I noticed you edited your thread on bb.com where you said that the letter was fake because there was "no letterhead" on it. :blink:

i may have matt talk with him. i edited my letter because i thought it was too mean spirited and i am trying MY BEST to be civil in this matter. i don't want this to be an attack on anyone. if you choose to take it that way thats your problem

If havoc tested lower than others than they are at fault. they get no pass from me. And knowing Matt from RPN he would be man enough to admit he made a mistake.

there are so many inconsistencies in that letter just as there have been so many inconsistencies in this whole debate from IBE. The sad fact though is that this matter is so technical that 99.9% of people reading it cannot make a judgment on who is right or who is wrong based on anything but who "appears" to be right

I have been accused of attacking companies products and lying because of alterior motives before. just like you are accusing me here. examples are legal gear and their hype about product X transdermal, designer supplements and the faulty "rebound XT" batch, and the first methyl-D batch that had crap in it.

History proved me correct on all these. And it will prove me correct here too
 
LakeMountD

LakeMountD

Doctor Science
Awards
1
  • Established
i may have matt talk with him. i edited my letter because i thought it was too mean spirited and i am trying MY BEST to be civil in this matter. i don't want this to be an attack on anyone. if you choose to take it that way thats your problem

If havoc tested lower than others than they are at fault. they get no pass from me. And knowing Matt from RPN he would be man enough to admit he made a mistake.

there are so many inconsistencies in that letter just as there have been so many inconsistencies in this whole debate from IBE. The sad fact though is that this matter is so technical that 99.9% of people reading it cannot make a judgment on who is right or who is wrong based on anything but who "appears" to be right

I have been accused of attacking companies products and lying because of alterior motives before. just like you are accusing me here. examples are legal gear and their hype about product X transdermal, designer supplements and the faulty "rebound XT" batch, and the first methyl-D batch that had crap in it.

History proved me correct on all these. And it will prove me correct here too
Yeah, well once again you make yourself sound like the "Consumer Saint", out fighting for the good of the consumer and tackling down the big bad supplement companies with your unbiased sword. But it's just that, it is not unbiased. If you look at ALL of the data that has come out there would be one product that would stand out in my opinion. One thing that is, for sure, something you could look into. I had to edit this part because I am affiliated and don't care to have my company look as though they are saying this, however, lets just so you have done NOTHING to look into anyone else. PM me if you want me to tell you what I am talking about.

And considering the fact you claim to be the Supplement God, why don't you talk to the doctor instead of Matt? You claim to know everything there is to know about analytical chemistry so go for it. I'll admit I used to look up to you in that respect. I am an aspiring pharmacist/chemist myself. But you have just yet to prove that you are unbiased. Heck two weeks ago you were claiming all sorts of problems, such as injection port problems. Now all of a sudden its a fake letter and IBE is forging documents.

Take a step back and look at the other data Pat, there is plenty to sift through. You act reallllllly wise here, yet, you heat up the battle over at bb.com talking all sorts of smack because you know all of the little 18 yo morons are going to back you up and listen to every bit of chemistry you spit out.

THIS IS DUSTIN SPEAKING TO PAT, I AM IN NO WAY SPEAKING FOR IBE RIGHT NOW.
 
Last edited:
TheMyth

TheMyth

RADIATE LOVER
Awards
2
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
I love The Saint! Great Series, and the original movies from the 30's were great as well!
 
neoborn

neoborn

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
1. Pat don't fck around just talk to the chemist as you know ( apparently ) what you are talking about and can sort this sh!t out.

2. Lakemount brings some very good points about the sh!t disturbing over at BB.com.

THIS thread is what bb.com's thread "should" be like
 
Nabeshin

Nabeshin

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
Dustin: Those injection port "problems" haven't gone away. In fact, that's the topic of this entire thread --- that methyl-epitiostanol should desulfurize in the injection port of GC, and that's it. Which means that its M+ should be 288, and not 270. Hence the title.

PA isn't shifting the debate. This letter supposedly resolves the 270 vs. 288 thing, but in reality, its too incongruous to be of any value. It proves nothing. PA still has solid theoretical and empirical reasons to expect an M+ of 288, and this letter does nothing to refute that.

BTW, no word back from the doctor. I'm guessing he's not interested in talking to a random puke like me. Anyone else got a plan to put this letter to the test? Maybe email it to the guy with a note saying "have you seen me?"
 
Patrick Arnold

Patrick Arnold

Featured Author
Awards
1
  • Established
Yeah, well once again you make yourself sound like the "Consumer Saint", out fighting for the good of the consumer and tackling down the big bad supplement companies with your unbiased sword. But it's just that, it is not unbiased. If you look at ALL of the data that has come out there would be one product that would stand out in my opinion. One thing that is, for sure, something you could look into. I had to edit this part because I am affiliated and don't care to have my company look as though they are saying this, however, lets just so you have done NOTHING to look into anyone else. PM me if you want me to tell you what I am talking about.

And considering the fact you claim to be the Supplement God, why don't you talk to the doctor instead of Matt? You claim to know everything there is to know about analytical chemistry so go for it. I'll admit I used to look up to you in that respect. I am an aspiring pharmacist/chemist myself. But you have just yet to prove that you are unbiased. Heck two weeks ago you were claiming all sorts of problems, such as injection port problems. Now all of a sudden its a fake letter and IBE is forging documents.

Take a step back and look at the other data Pat, there is plenty to sift through. You act reallllllly wise here, yet, you heat up the battle over at bb.com talking all sorts of smack because you know all of the little 18 yo morons are going to back you up and listen to every bit of chemistry you spit out.

THIS IS DUSTIN SPEAKING TO PAT, I AM IN NO WAY SPEAKING FOR IBE RIGHT NOW.


i will have matt speak to the doc because he has better hands on analytical chemistry knowledge than i have. i am more specialized in synthesis

you may say that i am biased because i am a competing company. but RPN is competing company too.
 
Patrick Arnold

Patrick Arnold

Featured Author
Awards
1
  • Established
1. Pat don't fck around just talk to the chemist as you know ( apparently ) what you are talking about and can sort this sh!t out.

2. Lakemount brings some very good points about the sh!t disturbing over at BB.com.

THIS thread is what bb.com's thread "should" be like
for now, lets see if nabeshin can get through to the doctor since he has already started going after him. if matt or i think we should follow up then we will

i am quite curious about this doc that can't get his basic chem right
 

carcinogen

New member
Awards
0
As a matter of fact PA, IBE will pay your consultation fee if you like, call and set up a time and ask anything you like to satisfy your questions about the doctor's report. It has never been about the money and we don't have anything to hide. But, I would like to ask since you claim unbias here, is where is your data and conclusive statements/further testing to support an argument against this data, other than your opinion of course?
You have our data.
 
LakeMountD

LakeMountD

Doctor Science
Awards
1
  • Established
i will have matt speak to the doc because he has better hands on analytical chemistry knowledge than i have. i am more specialized in synthesis

you may say that i am biased because i am a competing company. but RPN is competing company too.
So you are here arguing as though you are an analytical chemist, yet admit you aren't? Interesting. Glad someone who admits this is arguing with a doctor.

Nabeshin is wasting his time. This doctor is no slouch, he will eat him alive. I am not joking haha. Plus he charges a fee for consultation, and won't talk to him about it. Again the offer only goes to you. Up to you whether you take it up or not.

Seems you are pretty unwilling to do this though? Cold feet?

:sick:
 

carcinogen

New member
Awards
0
So you are here arguing as though you are an analytical chemist, yet admit you aren't? Interesting. Glad someone who admits this is arguing with a doctor.

Nabeshin is wasting his time. This doctor is no slouch, he will eat him alive. I am not joking haha. Plus he charges a fee for consultation, and won't talk to him about it. Again the offer only goes to you. Up to you whether you take it up or not.

Seems you are pretty unwilling to do this though? Cold feet?

:sick:
You used Accutrace out of Arlington, TX, correct?
 
LakeMountD

LakeMountD

Doctor Science
Awards
1
  • Established
Dustin: Those injection port "problems" haven't gone away. In fact, that's the topic of this entire thread --- that methyl-epitiostanol should desulfurize in the injection port of GC, and that's it. Which means that its M+ should be 288, and not 270. Hence the title.
Honestly, you should stop now. The fact that someone as under-qualified as you is even bothering the doctor is ridiculous. Pat should be the one talking to him if anyone, you are wasting your time, he is going to shoot you down.

With that being said you are attempting to say that the M+ is the largest peak. This isn't always the case. The M+ in any sample could be very small, especially in these larger organic molecules. He never states in his report that 270 is the M+ from what I see. He just says a major molecular fragment.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads


Top