Epistane Results Chapter 3: The CONCLUSION

Status
Not open for further replies.
sock said:
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.
Click to expand...

yes, if it was a report of purity versus a standard then you can get a purity over 100%

all of this is moot now though, cuz (at least in my mind) this report is counterfeit
 
Patrick Arnold said:
yes, if it was a report of purity versus a standard then you can get a purity over 100%

all of this is moot now though, cuz (at least in my mind) this report is counterfeit
Click to expand...

Is that an accusation Pat? I'll be sure to let Dr. L know that before you speak with him.
 
Patrick Arnold said:
what is his phone number and where does he work. send it to me, i will call him now
Click to expand...

Oh no no no trust me we will be on the phone for this one. As if we are going to take your word for anything after all of this. Come on now Pat, I like you, but not that much ;). You can stand to have one of us on the phone can't you? lol :duel:
 
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...

You're right, there's nothing wrong with the cholane nomenclature as an alternative.

However in this case, when a report is produced and both alternatives are used, one right after the other, that calls in to question the credibility of the report, or at least requires an explaination.

Still, that's just nomenclature. I suppose even the brightest chemist could be bad with nomenclature. But grammatical errors as well? And then the questionable claim about demethylation being prevented due to a double bond sounds strange, although not out of the realm of possibility. But where's the bond located? Mentioning a double bond, but nowhere giving a clue as to it's location is not excusable in organic chemistry.

I'm neutral on this whole issue. And I know these tests are not cheap, but I believe the test would need to be redone elsewhere to bring back any sort of clarity here. Any explaination that Dr. Lykissa could present would be difficult to swallow.
 
Patrick Arnold said:
all of this is moot now though, cuz (at least in my mind) this report is counterfeit
Click to expand...



LakeMountD said:
Is that an accusation Pat? I'll be sure to let Dr. L know that before you speak with him.
Click to expand...

Counterfeit may be a bit harsh. Right now I think we can say that the report is not salvagable.

It looks like there will be a CHAPTER 4. Maybe one of the mods can rename this chapter 'OChem bungling...the saga drags on.' :duel:
 
bigSMokey said:
Counterfeit may be a bit harsh. Right now I think we can say that the report is not salvagable.

It looks like there will be a CHAPTER 4. Maybe one of the mods can rename this chapter 'OChem bungling...the saga drags on.' :duel:
Click to expand...


OK, i will take back the counterfeit comment (though will not discount the possibility)

I will just say that i have received lots of reports from professional testing labs and have never seen one as funky looking as this one

maybe the doc was drunk when he wrote it. i dunno.

this keeps getting more and more bizarre
 
IBE said:
Lakemount, I know you mean well here, but it is time to stop posting man. It is not getting us anywhere except off topic and another day behind schedule on the focus of our company. We put the data out there, we knew they would argue, question, but the arguing with IBE is over. Let them argue this amongst themselves and if they care to prove otherwise, let them put up the money to have another forensic toxicologist test these compounds. IBE has made one final offer to PA if he thinks this is BS and/or counterfeit....we will give permission to the doctor to speak to PA about these results with an IBE corporate officer on 3-way to satisfy any questions and/or grammatical errors he feels shouldn't be there on the doctor's report and we will pay the consultation fee. No risk, nothing to hide. This offer is for PA only, not Nabeshin, not carcinegin/Matt but Patrick Arnold since this is his argument. PA, if you think you are not qualified to discuss this issue with the doctor yourself, then you are saying you are not qualified to make assumptions or give your opinions on his report, in my opinion. You can call the doctor all day long, but without our permission he will not discuss these results with you period.
It cost us $2000.00 to get these tests done and an additional $550.00 just to consult with him and have him write up this report. You are right his report may look a little vague or cheap in your eyes, but this doctor does not have to explain or justify his findings with anyone including some random analytical and synthetic chemist. Do you realize you are arguing against a doctor that not only works in a clinical environment for various pharma companies but also is under contract with the government and gets called into testify quite frequently on his areas of expertise. You go ahead and try to question this doctor on his reasoning, he will put you back in your place real quick, and I am assuming that is why PA keeps wanting to pass the buck off to someone else. PA, if you want to take IBE up on the offer, you know our email address and we will set up the appointment. Other than that this issue needs to die.
Click to expand...



I would rather correspond with him via email. with you guys and carcinogen all included. i don't want to waste my time playing phone tag bull sh*t

and why do you have a problem with carcinogen being in on the call? He has more technical expertise in analytical than i do. Somehow you think its bad for a person to have people that work for him that are experts in specific areas. I don't work with these instruments hands on every day like he does, i have a company to run. There should not be a problem with me referring to his knowledge as he is an employee of mine and therefore an extension of me

or does matt intimidate you? you act like he does
 
Patrick Arnold said:
I would rather correspond with him via email. with you guys and carcinogen all included. i don't want to waste my time playing phone tag bull sh*t

and why do you have a problem with carcinogen being in on the call? He has more technical expertise in analytical than i do. Somehow you think its bad for a person to have people that work for him that are experts in specific areas. I don't work with these instruments hands on every day like he does, i have a company to run. There should not be a problem with me referring to his knowledge as he is an employee of mine and therefore an extension of me

or does matt intimidate you? you act like he does
Click to expand...

PA its obvious why he wants you and you alone and that is if its done through a third party you coulld always feign ignorance or say your opinion is diff and the argument continues, if your really gonna make this argument then you should be well enough to support yourself in it and not need someone to hold your hand. none of this extension of yourself jazz....
 
Patrick Arnold said:
I would rather correspond with him via email. with you guys and carcinogen all included. i don't want to waste my time playing phone tag bull sh*t

and why do you have a problem with carcinogen being in on the call? He has more technical expertise in analytical than i do. Somehow you think its bad for a person to have people that work for him that are experts in specific areas. I don't work with these instruments hands on every day like he does, i have a company to run. There should not be a problem with me referring to his knowledge as he is an employee of mine and therefore an extension of me

or does matt intimidate you? you act like he does
Click to expand...

Look Pat, they have a company to run too. You got your ass handed to you on this one. Now if you can't just admit it because you are so much more qualified to make this judgment that the PhD they hired, pursue it yourself. As far as expertise, I've been a lab analyst since probably almost as long as you dropped out of school, so I probably know more that you (and have been told so on numerous occasions by people who know us both) and I will not be on the phone for this, nor will IBE. Pursue it solo if you still have a personal interest. IBE is moving on and you better do so too. If not, you'll be way behind once you see the stuff we have coming out, and once again, I'm trying to warn you. Listen this time.
 
DR.D said:
Look Pat, they have a company to run too. You got your ass handed to you on this one.
Click to expand...

He got his what now?

That paper makes no sense. Buhjeebus. I don't care what kind of a degree that guy has, if he says 2+2=5, he's wrong. Ditto if he types up a borderline inane commentary on his analysis.

It's the logical fallacy of appeal to authority. I think PA is right because his arguments make sense --- you guys think you're right because you had a guy with a PhD back you up. Weak.
 
I love these threads, i also love going through peoples old posts in every thread before this and seeing nothing but negativity and bias.

i think eventually threads like these should: 1. not be made, and 2. be locked immediately after they are.

you get 1-2 pages of discussion per thread like this, nothing gets answered, and even when things are answered, people still dont accept it.
 
Minus83 said:
I love these threads, i also love going through peoples old posts in every thread before this and seeing nothing but negativity and bias.

i think eventually threads like these should: 1. not be made, and 2. be locked immediately after they are.

you get 1-2 pages of discussion per thread like this, nothing gets answered, and even when things are answered, people still dont accept it.
Click to expand...

Actually, I think there's been a lot of good info presented and interesting issues discussed in the thread, and the nonsense mudslinging has been kept to a minimum. This is a good thread. (Sorry to clog up the thread! I'll shutup now.)
 
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...

Some of us that do highly technical work quote rap lyrics in emails.... ;)

Hell - I've used "sh*t happens" to explain issues in the chem. plant. (Sh*t never happens - there's cause and effect for everything.)

(Not to managers or anything - but still.)
 
poopypants said:
PA its obvious why he wants you and you alone and that is if its done through a third party you coulld always feign ignorance or say your opinion is diff and the argument continues, if your really gonna make this argument then you should be well enough to support yourself in it and not need someone to hold your hand. none of this extension of yourself jazz....
Click to expand...

i am not talking about being done through a third party. I will be on the call along with matt.

hold my hand? you act like this is a test of my skills instead of a quest to find out the truth. I could do the call myself fine, but along with matt we can better decipher what is going on. Lets say the guy says something about the wavelength he used for the HPLC detector. I am not as highly experienced at HPLC like matt is. Matt would come in handy here, no? Certainly if you believe in the validity of this doctor's results you would want there to be as much understanding of the facts as possible. Hell, you should insist that matt be in on the call!!
 
poopypants said:
PA its obvious why he wants you and you alone and that is if its done through a third party you coulld always feign ignorance or say your opinion is diff and the argument continues, if your really gonna make this argument then you should be well enough to support yourself in it and not need someone to hold your hand. none of this extension of yourself jazz....
Click to expand...

this irrational insistence that Matt not be in on the call appears to me as very suspicious.
 
I believe this feeling is due to the fact that you are well capable to discount any finding quite well by yourself.you were also the one that started this whole episode.So if you can start it and keep refuting any and all claims by YOURSELF why arent you capable of making this phone call by yourself also?
 
DR.D said:
Look Pat, they have a company to run too. You got your ass handed to you on this one. Now if you can't just admit it because you are so much more qualified to make this judgment that the PhD they hired, pursue it yourself. As far as expertise, I've been a lab analyst since probably almost as long as you dropped out of school, so I probably know more that you (and have been told so on numerous occasions by people who know us both) and I will not be on the phone for this, nor will IBE. Pursue it solo if you still have a personal interest. IBE is moving on and you better do so too. If not, you'll be way behind once you see the stuff we have coming out, and once again, I'm trying to warn you. Listen this time.
Click to expand...



Big surprise

When confronted with the reality that indeed i intended to follow through with contacting the doctor, IBE does an about face and chickens out - using some lame excuse that it is unfair for my chemist matt to be in on the call (email)

Claiming victory with the statement "You got your ass handed to you on this one" they go on to make a personal threat to me at the end.

What are you gonna do? break my knee caps?
 
jmh80 said:
Some of us that do highly technical work quote rap lyrics in emails.... ;)

Hell - I've used "sh*t happens" to explain issues in the chem. plant. (Sh*t never happens - there's cause and effect for everything.)

(Not to managers or anything - but still.)
Click to expand...

hell, i am informal too when it comes to corresponding with others within my company

but when it comes to a official report to a customer, such as this letter from the lab to IBE, i choose my words very carefully and strive to appear professional.

And i don't even have a PhD!! :-)
 
mmowry said:
I believe this feeling is due to the fact that you are well capable to discount any finding quite well by yourself.you were also the one that started this whole episode.So if you can start it and keep refuting any and all claims by YOURSELF why arent you capable of making this phone call by yourself also?
Click to expand...


Wrong pal. Matt was in this with me right from the start. He did the actual testing himself and sent the reports to IBE. he also posted on bb.com just like i did

Knowing this, you can only agree with me that he SHOULD be in on the call

time to drop this "no matt" crap
 
Patrick Arnold said:
time to drop this "epis the only bad one" crap
Click to expand...

fixed it for ya, i truely would like for you mm or anyone to stop side stepping the questions put forth as to why are not hemo and havoc being brought into question?

i understand why not at first, since according to your tests they share the same peak, but since weve seen 3rd party tests documented from RTP labs stating that hemo and havoc dont have the same amount of active and a lesser amount of acitve all together then epi. let alone the other 2 graphs dont line up at all on the GC/MS and hemo the claimed most of all actives(12.5mg) is actually almost half the total mg per cap of epi.

so yes given matts intrical part in this maybe he should be there as well in order to verify the legitamacy of this document and the Dr.'s obvious mistakes, at the same time with both your combined knowlege and your obvious collective curiosity with the mislabling of the chemical compounds found in Epi/Hemo/Havoc i would think you would want to go ahead and spearhead a research campaign as to what is REALLY in the others as well?

they are all still up in the air at this point, none are consistant with one another so even with your speculation and exp with what might happen when a compound is placed in the injection port, dehydrating or not, 288 or 277 it leaves all 3 in question with the unmatching GC/MS charts from all 3 and diff amount of active contained in each.

so i ask again what is this insatiable curiousity and intrigue you have with Epi and Epi alone given the info we have?
 
Last edited:
Patrick Arnold said:
Wrong pal. Matt was in this with me right from the start. He did the actual testing himself and sent the reports to IBE. he also posted on bb.com just like i did

Knowing this, you can only agree with me that he SHOULD be in on the call

time to drop this "no matt" crap
Click to expand...

Well Pat this will be my last post as this is pointless.You do 99% of the posting,you bring 99% of the drama so you should be responsible for the call.you commented that your 15yrs of experience gives you cred so prove it or drop it.

It takes a man to stand up (by himself) for what he shoots his mouth off about so man up or move on.

Best of luck to you.
 
I can parallel to what Pat is saying to what happens at work for me.
I make arguments (and blame people) about reactions that I'm sure are going on - but if I talk with one of our guru PhD chemists at the technical headquarters I'll make damn sure to have my chemist at the plant sitting in the room with the conference call.

I'm not totally familiar with the mechanisms of all the side reactions we get (that make unwanted polymer) - nor do I know variations that may be happening.

If Carcinogen is the guy that runs the instruments - and the Doc. starts talking specifics of the testing techniques, it's reasonable IMO to have him in on the conference call.
 
jmh80 said:
I can parallel to what Pat is saying to what happens at work for me.
I make arguments (and blame people) about reactions that I'm sure are going on - but if I talk with one of our guru PhD chemists at the technical headquarters I'll make damn sure to have my chemist at the plant sitting in the room with the conference call.

I'm not totally familiar with the mechanisms of all the side reactions we get (that make unwanted polymer) - nor do I know variations that may be happening.

If Carcinogen is the guy that runs the instruments - and the Doc. starts talking specifics of the testing techniques, it's reasonable IMO to have him in on the conference call.
Click to expand...


I agree. Seems totally reasonable.

Let's get this over with shall we?
 
I personally ( If I was IBE and wanted to move on and help my customers move on, have the truth out there ), let matt in on the conf call.

Personally I'm not sure why you need the back up when it appears to be a very basic "demeth vs dehyd" conversation that even the most basic chem students / lurnererez understand here, but I'm sure you have your reasons ;)
 
Nabeshin said:
That's one interpretation. The other is that you removed any incentive to read your post.

Stop with the intentional misquotes people. It's infantile.
Click to expand...

who are you to speak of immaturity, or should i ask you to "eat me"? .

go ahead and ignore my post as it wasnt directed at you.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
poopypants said:
fixed it for ya, i truely would like for you mm or anyone to stop side stepping the questions put forth as to why are not hemo and havoc being brought into question?

i understand why not at first, since according to your tests they share the same peak, but since weve seen 3rd party tests documented from RTP labs stating that hemo and havoc dont have the same amount of active and a lesser amount of acitve all together then epi. let alone the other 2 graphs dont line up at all on the GC/MS and hemo the claimed most of all actives(12.5mg) is actually almost half the total mg per cap of epi.

so yes given matts intrical part in this maybe he should be there as well in order to verify the legitamacy of this document and the Dr.'s obvious mistakes, at the same time with both your combined knowlege and your obvious collective curiosity with the mislabling of the chemical compounds found in Epi/Hemo/Havoc i would think you would want to go ahead and spearhead a research campaign as to what is REALLY in the others as well?

they are all still up in the air at this point, none are consistant with one another so even with your speculation and exp with what might happen when a compound is placed in the injection port, dehydrating or not, 288 or 277 it leaves all 3 in question with the unmatching GC/MS charts from all 3 and diff amount of active contained in each.

so i ask again what is this insatiable curiousity and intrigue you have with Epi and Epi alone given the info we have?
Click to expand...

the tests i did on havoc and hemaguno showed peaks of 288. Epistane showed 270. I did not do quantitative analysis, just qualitative. In other words i only verified the active material, not how much was in the bottle

I don't recall seeing any tests from RTP showing havoc and hemaguno not having the correct amount of material in them. If they don't then they are most definitely in fault. However since there is no standard for the compound, it is impossible to do a reliable quantitative analysis anyway so that point is MOOT

But this debate for me had to do with the interpretation of the mass spectral data. It never even extended to how much stuff per bottle and it was never meant to say that epistane was worth it either
 
mmowry said:
Well Pat this will be my last post as this is pointless.You do 99% of the posting,you bring 99% of the drama so you should be responsible for the call.you commented that your 15yrs of experience gives you cred so prove it or drop it.

It takes a man to stand up (by himself) for what he shoots his mouth off about so man up or move on.

Best of luck to you.
Click to expand...



matt did 99% of the testing. that by far is the most important fact here

but you aren't concerned about finding the facts.

you are only concerned with personal attacks and diversion

its a good thing you are stepping away
 
Patrick Arnold said:
the tests i did on havoc and hemaguno showed peaks of 288. Epistane showed 270. I did not do quantitative analysis, just qualitative. In other words i only verified the active material, not how much was in the bottle

I don't recall seeing any tests from RTP showing havoc and hemaguno not having the correct amount of material in them. If they don't then they are most definitely in fault. However since there is no standard for the compound, it is impossible to do a reliable quantitative analysis anyway so that point is MOOT

But this debate for me had to do with the interpretation of the mass spectral data. It never even extended to how much stuff per bottle and it was never meant to say that epistane was worth it either
Click to expand...


ummm whats this then?

Invalid Link Removed

dont feign ignorance on me man, i dont know if you just got into this on chapter 3 since thats when your posts start but i woulda been sure youd wanna check chpt 2 if all your facts were to be straight, ill get the GC/MS graphs up here next post and the want you to tell me their the exact same... sorry but they dont line up for jack.
 
here now tell me why only one of these are in question when these all done by an unbiased 3rd party dont even come close to the same???? and what will you do about the others now that you obviously DO know? i would expect the same curiousity to be shown with the other 2....
Invalid Link Removed
 
and heres the original docs so you know i aint ****tin you, ive saved them all to my comp as theyve been released for stuff like this, please tell me you didnt know bout any of this again?
 

Attachments

Patrick Arnold said:
However since there is no standard for the compound, it is impossible to do a reliable quantitative analysis anyway so that point is MOOT
Click to expand...
in regards to finding whats in them for real yes the point is MOOT BUT

the law of ratios applies any where and so does here.... if epi @ 3.8 is really 10 then that makes hemo

[3.8mg x 8.6315789473684210522631(then becomes a repeating decimal) =10mg]

SO

Hemo
2.0mg x 8.6315789473684210522631= 5.263157894736842105 (repeat)mg

and Havoc
3.2 x 8.6315789473684210522631= 8.421052631578947368(repeat)mg

even if you used Havoc as the constant and ignored Epi all together that still leaves

[3.2mg x 3.125= 10mg]

so Hemo
2.0 x 3.125= 6.25mg

EXCACTLY HALF THE CLAIMED ACTIVE

numbers dont lie and i expect that your gonna do something with this new info right?

not likely since even you said their old sales reps of Ergo and your prob just gonna brush it off..... AT LEAST stop this smear campaign against epi as its pointless to claim anything against them without going after all 3 of these to see whisch is the real one and wich the other 2 are to be compared to.
 
im going to see my baby in a 4-D ultra sound and i expect by the time i get back that youll have made up some excuse but please tell me you wont with this info right in yours and everyone elses face, people arent nearly as dumb and ignorant as you may like them to be.... im done ranting. later.
 
Poopy, this isn't like taking a... poop. Pushing harder won't make you any righter.

The quantitative results from RTP that you posted were determined without the aid of a reference standard. Not only did PA say that he wasn't doing a quantitative analysis, but he didn't consider any such analysis to be reliable without a reference. He says this in the very post that you quote. He's not making an argument one way or another about dosage. Neither am I. In fact, I really don't know who you're arguing against. As far as I can tell, all the members of the Vast Anti-IBE Conspiracy (TM) are focused on what's in the products in question, and not how much.

As for the graphs, here's the thread where PA explains why 288 is the expected M+ for methyl-epitiostanol: Invalid Link Removed

As you can see, Hema and Havoc both have an M+ of 288, whereas Epistane has an M+ of 270. Hema and Havoc also have the first 6 major fragmentation ions in common, which indicates that they are the same compound. If 288 is indeed the correct M+, then it follows that Hema and Havoc at least have a shot at having the right stuff in them, whereas Epistane doesn't.
 
poopypants said:
in regards to finding whats in them for real yes the point is MOOT BUT

the law of ratios applies any where and so does here.... if epi @ 3.8 is really 10 then that makes hemo

[3.8mg x 8.6315789473684210522631(then becomes a repeating decimal) =10mg]

SO

Hemo
2.0mg x 8.6315789473684210522631= 5.263157894736842105 (repeat)mg

and Havoc
3.2 x 8.6315789473684210522631= 8.421052631578947368(repeat)mg

even if you used Havoc as the constant and ignored Epi all together that still leaves

[3.2mg x 3.125= 10mg]

so Hemo
2.0 x 3.125= 6.25mg

EXCACTLY HALF THE CLAIMED ACTIVE

numbers dont lie and i expect that your gonna do something with this new info right?

not likely since even you said their old sales reps of Ergo and your prob just gonna brush it off..... AT LEAST stop this smear campaign against epi as its pointless to claim anything against them without going after all 3 of these to see whisch is the real one and wich the other 2 are to be compared to.
Click to expand...

If all are the same compound, then yes, you could speak in relative terms but as we all know, nobody is sure as to what is what. If epi is a different compound (right or wrong), than you can throw relative potencies out the window. Those potencies should never have been reported. Bad science.
 
Last edited:
poopypants said:
ummm whats this then?

Invalid Link Removed

dont feign ignorance on me man, i dont know if you just got into this on chapter 3 since thats when your posts start but i woulda been sure youd wanna check chpt 2 if all your facts were to be straight, ill get the GC/MS graphs up here next post and the want you to tell me their the exact same... sorry but they dont line up for jack.
Click to expand...

I am not feigning ignorance so just please calm down. This is the first time i saw this. Obviously at face value these numbers are a concern. However since they were not derived by comparison to a reference standard their accuracy is in question.
 
poopypants said:
here now tell me why only one of these are in question when these all done by an unbiased 3rd party dont even come close to the same???? and what will you do about the others now that you obviously DO know? i would expect the same curiousity to be shown with the other 2....
Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...

These results differ from what i recall seeing from our tests in that the havoc and hemaguno fragmentation patterns are significantly more dissimilar. However even in this test they both match much more closely to the expected mass spectra of the claimed compound than epistane

Certainly I am curious. Why would i not be?
 
poopypants said:
and heres the original docs so you know i aint ****tin you, ive saved them all to my comp as theyve been released for stuff like this, please tell me you didnt know bout any of this again?
Click to expand...

i definitely remember the second file, which is the epistane test that McCandless ordered

The first file which is the test on hemaguno and havoc ordered by IBE though was unfamiliar to me until now

It is important to note that the epistane test here is on a bottle from the 270 batch that IBE recalled. So any comparisons on label claim one might make between the three products here should be avoided
 
Patrick Arnold said:
I am not feigning ignorance so just please calm down. This is the first time i saw this. Obviously at face value these numbers are a concern. However since they were not derived by comparison to a reference standard their accuracy is in question.
Click to expand...

yes the neccesity of a standard cannot be argued, that is something i agree on. i was merely making the point first that Hemo and Havoc are not even the same compound, let alone epi, and second if they were then the relative amounts contained in each def dont line up and that calls them into question just as much as epi.

you cant tell me that havoc and hemo are even the same, look at the GC/MS graphs i put up, completely different.

and that is the most convincing that all three of these compounds need to be brought into question if even one is to be scrutinized.

am i wrong?

and nabashin a ratio is a ratio regardless, they all claim to have the same starting molecular weight of 320 and therefore should all be compared to test in the same RATIO, still bringing the other 2 compounds into question. and once again its obvious who im talking to so why do you ask? def not you.

bottom line is none of these are the same as the other, its not a fight of 2 the same one diff as it was according to you in the begining PA, so ALL 3 or none should be the argument until a standard is introduced and a like GC/MS is ran to compare it too, until then singling out Epi is pointless and down right wrong, let alone brings everyone focusing on only it into question as to their true motives.
 
PA: The Epi results above are not the recalled ones. The recalled ones had similar fragmentation pattern to havoc and humo and 288 M+.

Poopypants: The MS data for havoc and hemo isn't that different up there. They share common major peaks and are reasonably different. the only big difference for them was the GC data because under the same conditions hemo had 1 peak and havoc had 2, which could be an isomer issue.
 
Patrick Arnold said:
i definitely remember the second file, which is the epistane test that McCandless ordered

The first file which is the test on hemaguno and havoc ordered by IBE though was unfamiliar to me until now

It is important to note that the epistane test here is on a bottle from the 270 batch that IBE recalled. So any comparisons on label claim one might make between the three products here should be avoided
Click to expand...
um no, no it was not here ill get the test from the similar Epi thats from the 200 bottles ran, also in the chapter 2 thread, it shows more similar to that of Havoc, therefore the reason as to why they stopped it, they wanted the one you see above with an obvious peak @ 270. maybe you should read the other thread, ill post a link to it as well.
 
kwyckemynd00 said:
PA: The Epi results above are not the recalled ones. The recalled ones had similar fragmentation pattern to havoc and humo and 288 M+.

Poopypants: The MS data for havoc and hemo isn't that different up there. They share common major peaks and are reasonably different. the only big difference for them was the GC data because under the same conditions hemo had 1 peak and havoc had 2, which could be an isomer issue.
Click to expand...

I believe that is correct. I believe the short version is that when IBE's original supplier couldn't handle the volume they needed, they did an order from the same supplier used by the other two products. When they tested it and it came out different from their original, they cancelled the order and recalled the limited run that had been distributed from it.

They assert that the product from the other two isn't a pure version of epi and that the limited run of their product which tested the same as the other two needed to be recalled because it wasn't the pure isomer.
 
poopypants said:
in regards to finding whats in them for real yes the point is MOOT BUT

the law of ratios applies any where and so does here.... if epi @ 3.8 is really 10 then that makes hemo

[3.8mg x 8.6315789473684210522631(then becomes a repeating decimal) =10mg]

SO

Hemo
2.0mg x 8.6315789473684210522631= 5.263157894736842105 (repeat)mg

and Havoc
3.2 x 8.6315789473684210522631= 8.421052631578947368(repeat)mg

even if you used Havoc as the constant and ignored Epi all together that still leaves

[3.2mg x 3.125= 10mg]

so Hemo
2.0 x 3.125= 6.25mg

EXCACTLY HALF THE CLAIMED ACTIVE

numbers dont lie and i expect that your gonna do something with this new info right?

not likely since even you said their old sales reps of Ergo and your prob just gonna brush it off..... AT LEAST stop this smear campaign against epi as its pointless to claim anything against them without going after all 3 of these to see whisch is the real one and wich the other 2 are to be compared to.
Click to expand...


Man you are annoying

what does this data tells us. it seems to tell us that hemaguno has about 2/3 the amount of active that havoc does

does it tell us that havoc has 10mg per serving? now, that was something you made up. Havoc may have 15mg per serving. Or it may have 5mg. We do not know since this test was not done against a standard of the exact compound.

So there is not enough data here to say that hemaguno does not meet label claim. Or that havoc exceeds label claim. Or that both exceed or fail to meet.

It just shows that havoc has about 1/3 more per serving then hemaguno.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
heres the 2 correctly labeled and from wich batch, i also included both docs at the bottom for you although i got this second one from bb.com.

Invalid Link Removed
 

Attachments

Last edited by a moderator:
Nabeshin said:
Poopy, this isn't like taking a... poop. Pushing harder won't make you any righter.

The quantitative results from RTP that you posted were determined without the aid of a reference standard. Not only did PA say that he wasn't doing a quantitative analysis, but he didn't consider any such analysis to be reliable without a reference. He says this in the very post that you quote. He's not making an argument one way or another about dosage. Neither am I. In fact, I really don't know who you're arguing against.
Click to expand...

Its an old trick. If you are not getting anywhere in the current debate than make up a new debate and make it appear that your opponent is in the wrong. Unsuspecting readers that cannot recognize the subterfuge will believe the perpertrator has scored points
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top