Guest viewing limit reached
  • You have reached the maximum number of guest views allowed
  • Please register below to remove this limitation

Epistane Results Chapter 3: The CONCLUSION

Status
Not open for further replies.
LakeMountD

LakeMountD

Doctor Science
This will end it all. Leave it alone after this. We have done more than our share of testing and analysis.



Invalid Link Removed
 
jomi822 said:
which one of those two havoc isomers is the one that is considered to be biologically active.
Click to expand...

They both are, but the alpha-alpha is something like 1100% more anabolic than methyl test, whereas the beta-beta is only 76% as anabolic.

But those look like two (subtly) different compounds between Epi and Havoc.

IBE, thanks for the info. You don't have to keep participating, but I for one want to keep discussing.
 
Nabeshin said:
They both are, but the alpha-alpha is something like 1100% more anabolic than methyl test, whereas the beta-beta is only 76% as anabolic.

But those look like two (subtly) different compounds between Epi and Havoc.

IBE, thanks for the info. You don't have to keep participating, but I for one want to keep discussing.
Click to expand...

Just be a man and admit you were wrong. There are stacks and stacks of data in favor of IBE versus a "theory" from another expect. It even refutes the single bond vs double bond idea. What else is there to discuss?
 
So it is established that havoc and epi both contain the same substance...only the havoc contains a 12%ish amount of the weaker isomer..making the product impure

anyone care to explain? PA? KWYK?
 
aspire210 said:
Just be a man and admit you were wrong. There are stacks and stacks of data in favor of IBE versus a "theory" from another expect. It even refutes the single bond vs double bond idea. What else is there to discuss?
Click to expand...

I think you need to read the good doctors release again. Epistane has a double bond, whereas Havoc doesn't. Process that.
 
jomi822 said:
So it is established that havoc and epi both contain the same substance...only the havoc contains a 12%ish amount of the weaker isomer..making the product impure

anyone care to explain? PA? KWYK?
Click to expand...

I would put the blame for that one solely on the place that was paid to manufacture the compound, not the makers of havoc. The other ingredient is probably produced in the reaction for the right one and was not taken out. Chances are they didn't filter it right or something.
 
Nabeshin said:
I think you need to read the good doctors release again. Epistane has a double bond, whereas Havoc doesn't. Process that.
Click to expand...

I mean Epistane has a single bond, whereas Havoc has a double bond. So no, they don't appear to be identical compounds.
 
IIRC, the difference between Phera-Plex & Ergo was that Phera was all of one isomer & Ergo contained some % of a less anabolic isomer. Of course most people ended up enjoying both products (some even liked Ergo more than Phera).... At least in that case(and other cases), the silly anabolic profile on paper doesn't transfer well to real life gains.

And it's funny how when Phera & Ergo came out, there wasn't a huge sh*t fight between Designer, ALRI, AX, etc.
 
Moyer said:
IIRC, the difference between Phera-Plex & Ergo was that Phera was all of one isomer & Ergo contained some % of a less anabolic isomer. Of course most people ended up enjoying both products (some even liked Ergo more than Phera).... At least in that case(and other cases), the silly anabolic profile on paper doesn't transfer well to real life gains.

And it's funny how when Phera & Ergo came out, there wasn't a huge sh*t fight between Designer, ALRI, AX, etc.
Click to expand...

I think it was kind of coordinated release though. Designer said phera wouldn't be coming out, then ALRI did their "last run" (which was apperently a HUGE run, but i digress) then phera came out shortly afterwards despite it being cancelled. That and AX/ALRI seem to release a lot of the same stuff around the same time, just something think about.
 
Alpha vs. Beta

Can someone point me toward scientific proof of the existence of alpha & beta isomers and that alpha is better than beta?

Don't recall seeing that established in any of these threads.

Thanks in advance-
 
ddouble said:
Can someone point me toward scientific proof of the existence of alpha & beta isomers and that alpha is better than beta?

Don't recall seeing that established in any of these threads.

Thanks in advance-
Click to expand...

LMD posted a picture in the Chapter 2 thread, IIRC. As for proving it, I dunno, I guess you'll need a vida book or something.
 
I am more tired of the non value added comments...not only yours. There is actually some value in these threads when most the crap is deleted :)
 
B you gotta admit that guy is a bit of an arrogant, condescending prick. Maybe if you beat him over the head with the banning stick :) ...
 
B5150 said:
I am more tired of the non value added comments...not only yours. There is actually some value in these threads when most the crap is deleted :)
Click to expand...

I stayed out most of the other threads, since its nothing but a pissing match. Just the whole situation I think needs to go away.

Adams
 
aspire210 said:
rounding, its probably rounded up and there is always a slight error.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be too concerned about a difference of 0.2% label claim. Heck, if you can get a relative standard deviation less than 2.0% for replicate injections of a standard your in good shape. There are a number of factors (intergration, dilutions, content uniformity, rounding etc.) that are part of determining the final %LC of a sample. The focus should remain on what is in each of these products.
 
Moyer said:
IIRC, the difference between Phera-Plex & Ergo was that Phera was all of one isomer & Ergo contained some % of a less anabolic isomer. Of course most people ended up enjoying both products (some even liked Ergo more than Phera).... At least in that case(and other cases), the silly anabolic profile on paper doesn't transfer well to real life gains.

And it's funny how when Phera & Ergo came out, there wasn't a huge sh*t fight between Designer, ALRI, AX, etc.
Click to expand...

This has been my point all along, mudslinging from people who are affiliated or aligned with one company or another, or for some reason like one product over the other isnt really helping anything.

thankfully they have subsided for now, and we can get back to more normal discussions and everyone can put away their calculators and chemistry sets, lol.

people will enjoy using Epistane, and people will enjoy using Havoc, and im assuming most of those people will be very happy with their purchase, and always would have been even if none of this was trudged up.

i appreciate all the time everyone took to go through this, and as a consumer i thank IBE for responding to things on such a level that most companies would not.

in the end, lets all grow, and hopefully while we do, some of us will mature along the way :ntome:
 
LakeMountD said:
This will end it all. Leave it alone after this. We have done more than our share of testing and analysis.



Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...

the more i look at this letter the stranger it looks. first of all, it looks like it was written by a two year old grammatically speaking. second of all he says demethylation (twice!) when he means dehydration and that is something any analytical chemist would not mistake. And then he says some gobbledygook about a double bond when there is no double bond in the havoc product. and he says "under very hot injection conditions" which is an extremely unscientific and awkward statement for an analytical chemist. Chemists say exact temperature (i.e. injection port at 280C), they do not say subjective terms like "very hot".

And the fact that this guy is confident that he identified both the beta and alpha isomer of a compound in which there is no commercially available standard, using ONLY GC/MS is frankly ridiculous.
 
aspire210 said:
Just be a man and admit you were wrong. There are stacks and stacks of data in favor of IBE versus a "theory" from another expect. It even refutes the single bond vs double bond idea. What else is there to discuss?
Click to expand...

There are stacks and stacks of data, that is true. i have stacks and stacks of data and much of it matches what IBE has presented exactly!!

So its not the data per se that is the issue here. It is the proper interpretation of the data that is key.

Unfortunately most here are not chemists and cannot recognize a correct interpretation from a line of BS interpretation
 
ddouble said:
Can someone point me toward scientific proof of the existence of alpha & beta isomers and that alpha is better than beta?

Don't recall seeing that established in any of these threads.

Thanks in advance-
Click to expand...

the paper on the synthesis and biological activity of these compounds describes an alpha and a beta isomer

and alpha is much better than beta. its an old paper so there is no link i can provide
 
The problem I see is that the two compounds, at least as they are named, are the same in regards to saturation (double bonds).

Forget the alpha and beta orientation of the sulfur for a moment.

Both of these appear to be have only single bonds. In fact etioallocholane (shown in the Epistane result) is a synonym for androstane (shown in the Havoc result). Shouldn't that in fact make them the same?

Granted the report says etHioallocholane, as opposed to etioallocholane, without the 'h'. But I've never heard of etHioallocholane. The thio in etHiocholane cannot indicate sulfur, as that is taken care of at the beginning of the compound's name, using epithio.

Perhaps the lab did detect a double bond and just misnamed one of the materials? If so, where is the double bond claimed to be?
 
sock said:
I wouldn't be too concerned about a difference of 0.2% label claim. Heck, if you can get a relative standard deviation less than 2.0% for replicate injections of a standard your in good shape. There are a number of factors (intergration, dilutions, content uniformity, rounding etc.) that are part of determining the final %LC of a sample. The focus should remain on what is in each of these products.
Click to expand...

when you get GC integration results the numbers always add up to 100%

so either thats a **** up or there was 0.2% of something else in the sample
 
bigSMokey said:
The problem I see is that the two compounds, at least as they are named, are the same in regards to saturation (double bonds).

Forget the alpha and beta orientation of the sulfur for a moment.

Both of these appear to be have only single bonds. In fact etioallocholane (shown in the Epistane result) is a synonym for androstane (shown in the Havoc result). Shouldn't that in fact make them the same?

Granted the report says etHioallocholane, as opposed to etioallocholane, without the 'h'. But I've never heard of etHioallocholane. The thio in etHiocholane cannot indicate sulfur, as that is taken care of at the beginning of the compound's name, using epithio.

Perhaps the lab did detect a double bond and just misnamed one of the materials? If so, where is the double bond claimed to be?
Click to expand...


it flew off in the "very hot" injection port along with the schizophrenic water molecule that thinks its a methyl

this **** is ridiculous, honestly. i am going to bed
 
Oh good, PA's here. Don't you see that error as well, Pat?

Check out the Merck, etioallocholane cross-refs directly to the androstane entry.

There's no double bond in that report! These two molecules should be the same except for geometric isomerism of the epithio.
 
I guess PA answered me a minute before I posted. Yes, if this guy's legit, and he detected a double bond, he would have put an "-ene" SOMEWHERE!
 
Okay.

Methyl group coming off in the injection porn? WTF!? The only two things that could have left in the injection port, due to harsh acidic or alkalyne conditions would have been the alcohol or the sulfur. No way would a methyl group leave in the injection port. Whoever wrote this didn't even do the arithmetic because their interpretation doesn't even match the MS data.

If it did (if a methyl (-CH3) left), that would be MW -15, or 305 for the M+! If you then removed the alcohol the M+ would have been at 287 (not 288 or 286), and when the sulfur was removed it would have been at 255, or at the very min, there should be a pretty good sized peak there because it would be a very common fragment.

Double Bond? WHERE!?

The 2a,3a-epithio-17a-methyl-5a-androstan-17b-ol and 2b,3b-epithio-17a-methyl-5a-androstan-17b-ol are what are called enantiomers. They are non-super-imposable mirror images. Edit: I drew out the molecule, and the alpha/beta isomers aren't actually enantiomers. But, they're still alpha/beta isomers, and including a double bond makes two things no longer isomers, so the point still stands.

Like a right hand and a left hand.

What does this mean? Simple: one CANNOT have a double bond while the other does. They would no longer be enantiomers. Hell, they wouldn't even be isomers anymore!

Not to mention, the double bond was not noted ANYWHERE in the nomenclature for the supposed HAVOC product.

If there was as double bond at the 1 position, for example, it would have looked like this:

2a,3a-epithio-17a-methyl-5a-androst-1-en-17b-ol

This isn't the only other "issue" with the nomenclature. There were spaces, lacks of '-'s, added "h", etc.

This isn't making much sense to me.
 
Last edited:
TheMyth said:
And just when you thought it was all over, the shiit re-hits the fan and the plot thickens!!!!!
Click to expand...

ummm sure... not in my books, all i see here is the close of a very tiresom subject, as IBE said they aint bothering with it any more and have bigger and better things to focus on, so go ahead an listen to the continuation of ramblings and nit-pickings of the doubters as theyll never be satisfied or realize that youll be ok taking any of them, but givin all the work shown forth by only ONE company to do anything to show light on this i know wich one ill continue taking.
 
bigSMokey said:
Oh good, PA's here. Don't you see that error as well, Pat?

Check out the Merck, etioallocholane cross-refs directly to the androstane entry.

There's no double bond in that report! These two molecules should be the same except for geometric isomerism of the epithio.
Click to expand...

we use the etioallocholane nomenclature on our 6-OXO label. not because we think we are fooling the FDA or something (which i am sure we are not), but so that the uninformed consumer won't read the label and think it contains androstenedione
 
Patrick Arnold said:
when you get GC integration results the numbers always add up to 100%

so either thats a **** up or there was 0.2% of something else in the sample
Click to expand...

Of course the total area in a chromatogram adds up to 100%, impossible to go over 100%. But comparing one chromatogram (sample) against a second chromatogram (2nd sample) may not have the same total area, and most likely won't. I was assuming that there was a n=10 (10 capsules tested in ch 3 results), and that was an average. Assaying againt a reference standard you can have an assay value over 100% Label Claim. What if capsules were over-filled or the blend wasn't uniform (content uniformity)? There is always some deviation in analysis, particularly if your n is greater than one. If that result is in Area Percent, than it is incorrect, as you said. I just think that is trivial compared to the other issues.
 
Patrick Arnold said:
we use the etioallocholane nomenclature on our 6-OXO label. not because we think we are fooling the FDA or something (which i am sure we are not), but so that the uninformed consumer won't read the label and think it contains androstenedione
Click to expand...

Don't assume the FDA would know that either, much less an uninformed consumer. They don't need to either to shut you down. Didn't you learn that with 1AD?
 
Guys seriously, all this **** aside

one of you is lying. Someone here knows they are wrong.

someone be a ****ing man and either admit that
a. you were wrong
or
b. you simply lied (fat chance)

hell, even if you lied at least have some damn integrity and tell us if your product contains what is on the ****ing label.

someone here is a rat and a liar, and i hope to god we find out who it is one day.

jomi822 out
 
Patrick Arnold said:
the more i look at this letter the stranger it looks. first of all, it looks like it was written by a two year old grammatically speaking. second of all he says demethylation (twice!) when he means dehydration and that is something any analytical chemist would not mistake. And then he says some gobbledygook about a double bond when there is no double bond in the havoc product. and he says "under very hot injection conditions" which is an extremely unscientific and awkward statement for an analytical chemist. Chemists say exact temperature (i.e. injection port at 280C), they do not say subjective terms like "very hot".

And the fact that this guy is confident that he identified both the beta and alpha isomer of a compound in which there is no commercially available standard, using ONLY GC/MS is frankly ridiculous.
Click to expand...
well im not the sharpest tool in the shed but thats an aweful signiture, it looks like it was done with a sharpie lol
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top