Epistane Results Chapter 3: The CONCLUSION

Status
Not open for further replies.
im only annoying cause i can disprove you and dont go away or turn tail cause of your claimed knowledge, im not blind and can see when 1=1 and these 2 are not the same, so once again why do you ONLY question Epi? its obvious and im done since yuoll look proof in the face and say "it doesnt mean anything" sorry it does and i know others see it and through you too.
 
Last edited:
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...

well would that be enough to bring them into question as well? i think the presence of another isomer in an unknown amount means half the product could be bunk and still show the same amount of active givin they share the same MW?

or am i just talkin out my arse?
Invalid Link Removed
 
poopypants said:
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.
Click to expand...


two of these have an M+ of 288, which is the expected M+. So these two have at least a fighting chance of being the right compond. Epistane however has an M+ of 270 so it is not even in the running

So the contest here is betwen havoc and hemaguno. And the easiest way to decide who is the winner is to run DMT on the GC/MS. The one which most closely resembles the mass spectra of the DMT is the champion.
 
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...

Why would IBE recall product that came out as 288 and sell product that came out as 270? That is totally ass backwards

YOu make a good point about isomers. Its entirely possible that the hema and havoc mass spectra here are of two isomers of the same compound. which leads me to question which of the two peaks from the havoc test are we looking at here?
 
Patrick Arnold said:
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
Click to expand...

once again your mistaken this would be true if we were fighting the same debate, your making the argument that epis is 270 not 288 the claimed correct MW

IM trying to find out WHY only epi is in question when there is so much quanitative data showing NONE are the same and possibly ALL are incorrect.

sorry you didnt realize that but im not debating the 270 thing i have no history in ochem and wont pretend to know what happens with most molecules when run through these tests, although i will argue the obvious results and incongruencies among them
 
Last edited:
poopypants said:
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.
Click to expand...

well if thats the case then IBE f'ed up in a big way. They threw away the real stuff and replaced it with the wrong stuff
 
Patrick Arnold said:
Why would IBE recall product that came out as 288 and sell product that came out as 270? That is totally ass backwards
Click to expand...

Because they believe that the 270 product is the pure version of the compound. You don't have to agree with their conclusion but they are acting consistent with this belief.
 
poopypants said:
im only annoying cause i can disprove you and dont go away or turn tail cause of your claimed knowledge, im not blind and can see when 1=1 and these 2 are not the same, so once again why do you ONLY question Epi? its obvious and im done since yuoll look proof in the face and say "it doesnt mean anything" sorry it does and i know others see it and through you too, my job is done here and im tired of this so late.
Click to expand...


I am questioning everything poopypants. Your anger is clouding your vision
 
This link has some GC/MS data for DMT. Not sure if it would be good enough to use as a reference but it's all I could dig up.

Invalid Link Removed
 
Patrick Arnold said:
Why would IBE recall product that came out as 288 and sell product that came out as 270? That is totally ass backwards
Click to expand...

only cause YOU make a good argument for 288 does not make it fact, not until a standard is derived and not a moment sooner.

IBE has stated they have said standard and its 270 thus their reasoning behind pulling 288 (with 2 possible isomers) and want only one pure compound with a MW of 270. pretty simple when you belive 270 is correct and have been given proof.
 
Patrick Arnold said:
YOu make a good point about isomers. Its entirely possible that the hema and havoc mass spectra here are of two isomers of the same compound. which leads me to question which of the two peaks from the havoc test are we looking at here?
Click to expand...
I believe Carcinogen told me he already checked it and both peaks from the HAVOC GC had similar fragmentation patterns. You can probably confirm with him.
 
poopypants said:
well would that be enough to bring them into question as well? i think the presence of another isomer in an unknown amount means half the product could be bunk and still show the same amount of active givin they share the same MW?

or am i just talkin out my arse?
Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...

good point. seems entirely possible then that if havoc contains, lets say, 30% or so less active isomer than both havoc and hemaguno really contain the same amount of actual active isomer per serving (according to the tests you provided)

So maybe havoc and hemaguno are consistent with one another after all.
 
Patrick Arnold said:
I am questioning everything poopypants. Your anger is clouding your vision
Click to expand...

anger is not an issue my freind, talk to nabashin on that subject, i have yet to call a name or make a threat, so your implied anger is only how you interpret my posts.... or is it cause you get angry as i bring more facts to the table?
 
yeahright said:
Because they believe that the 270 product is the pure version of the compound. You don't have to agree with their conclusion but they are acting consistent with this belief.
Click to expand...

Well you gotta commend them for sticking to their beliefs i guess, even though their beliefs are wrong
 
yeahright said:
This link has some GC/MS data for DMT. Not sure if it would be good enough to use as a reference but it's all I could dig up.

Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...


The anti-doping testing labs derivatize their steroids before testing them so their results are not useful here
 
Patrick Arnold said:
good point. seems entirely possible then that if havoc contains, lets say, 30% or so less active isomer than both havoc and hemaguno really contain the same amount of actual active isomer per serving (according to the tests you provided)

So maybe havoc and hemaguno are consistent with one another after all.
Click to expand...

yes this does make sense, but ill now play your card of without the standard this is undeterminal, as well as it doesnt go to say they are the same at 5mg or 15mg.... and if 288 is wrong all together then they both contain very little of any of the correct active isomer.

why would epi with all one isomer be working period, as through the logs and even stated by you this can not be disputed(bloods been ran and this is no placebo effect) and be the same MW as one of the isomers in havoc leaving one of them to be the bunk of the 2 isomers. in other words 288 is the bad one...... maybe were all wrong and so is vida maybe the second isomer is more active then expected?
 
poopypants said:
only cause YOU make a good argument for 288 does not make it fact, not until a standard is derived and not a moment sooner.

IBE has stated they have said standard and its 270 thus their reasoning behind pulling 288 (with 2 possible isomers) and want only one pure compound with a MW of 270. pretty simple when you belive 270 is correct and have been given proof.
Click to expand...

Who made their standard?
 
im just gonna say im done now, until a standard is presented this ENTIRE argument is pointless, its constant what if's and possibilities, i agree your argument has merit but you must agree that Hemo and Havoc should be brought into question as well. wonder if well ever find out. :think:
 
kwyckemynd00 said:
I believe Carcinogen told me he already checked it and both peaks from the HAVOC GC had similar fragmentation patterns. You can probably confirm with him.
Click to expand...

I think you are right. I also know that he heated the havoc extract in acetic acid which is known to break the episulfide bonds and leave a double bond (which would give DMT). After he did this there was only one peak with M+ 288 (which from experience i know is the M+ of DMT) and this is consistent with what you would see if you started with two episulfide isomers
 
poopypants said:
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.
Click to expand...

Just because they have the same molecular weight doesn't mean they will have the same spectroscopic absorbance. It's also a function of the structure, which appears to be different based on the ms. Note that I am curious as to what is in each and how much. I have some havoc right now that I am waiting to see what to do with. If it is not the right amount or the wrong compound I will send it back. I wonder if we will ever know either.
 
poopypants said:
anger is not an issue my freind, talk to nabashin on that subject, i have yet to call a name or make a threat, so your implied anger is only how you interpret my posts.... or is it cause you get angry as i bring more facts to the table?
Click to expand...

nothing you say is demonstrating any inconsistencies in my stance on this matter. so no
 
poopypants said:
im just gonna say im done now, until a standard is presented this ENTIRE argument is pointless, its constant what if's and possibilities, i agree your argument has merit but you must agree that Hemo and Havoc should be brought into question as well. wonder if well ever find out. :think:
Click to expand...

Let us all know how that 4-dimensional ultrasound comes out.
 
it was great, its awesome to see, n i dont know that you can truley call it 4-dimensional, 4-D is just the name of the type of ultra sound i belive, you seen one yet? super good detail, although my boy is so big already we could only get half his face, the other half was burried in moms placenta. beautiful thing though, cant wait till i get to hold him.
 
Patrick Arnold said:
I think you are right. I also know that he heated the havoc extract in acetic acid which is known to break the episulfide bonds and leave a double bond (which would give DMT). After he did this there was only one peak with M+ 288 (which from experience i know is the M+ of DMT) and this is consistent with what you would see if you started with two episulfide isomers
Click to expand...

The only thing I'm confused about in this case is if the sulfur is eliminated and we get DMT (2-ene) at the injection port of the GC, then again, why do we have two peaks?

Where is the sulfur being eliminated at? It'd have to be eliminated in the heated transfer line from the GC to the MS for this to work, and not at the injection port of the GC.
 
Patrick Arnold said:
ooh that report was creepy.

anyway, they test it as the tetramethylsilyl ether derivative not as the parent compound.
Click to expand...

I checked it out yestarday and noticed that it did share quite a few common m/z peaks with the havoc MS which makes me more curious to find an actual MS of DMT.
 
poopypants said:
it was great, its awesome to see, n i dont know that you can truley call it 4-dimensional, 4-D is just the name of the type of ultra sound i belive, you seen one yet? super good detail, although my boy is so big already we could only get half his face, the other half was burried in moms placenta. beautiful thing though, cant wait till i get to hold him.
Click to expand...
The fourth dimension is probably time.

X,Y,Z, Time = 4 dimensions

These weren't stills were they?
 
i got a running dvd(so yes time is prob correct) and a bunch of photos, this is a half shot of his face <----- like i said he was all snuggled up in the bottom of mom so we saw him yawn and smile and suck his thumb but not much else, hes all outta room!

heres the page for the place, you can see if he was smaller and not squished against the placenta that it would have been great but alas we waited too long....

Invalid Link Removed
 
kwyckemynd00 said:
The only thing I'm confused about in this case is if the sulfur is eliminated and we get DMT (2-ene) at the injection port of the GC, then again, why do we have two peaks?

Where is the sulfur being eliminated at? It'd have to be eliminated in the heated transfer line from the GC to the MS for this to work, and not at the injection port of the GC.
Click to expand...

you are right. what i said before did not make sense then about the acetic acid test.

This stuff would give one peak if it were to lose sulfur in the injection port. Unless that is if one isomer loses sulfur while the other losers hydrogen sulfide, which would mean the second peak has a M+ of 286. I believe they are both 288 though

Or maybe one isomer is more stable than the other and they desulfurize at different points in the GC.
 
I think its possible that the stability issue may play a role. The 2b,3b version would have a big fat thioepoxide group oriented axially which may cause some steric strain and some instability as a result.

This is all, of course, theoretical and does nothing for getting answers :) I don't mind discussing it though, lol.
 
Last edited:
poopypants said:
the same doc with the tests you didnt like (and honestly didnt look all that great to me) but until anyone else claims to have a standard and proves it with an IR we wont know for sure.
Click to expand...

I don't think an IR would help that much with anything other than identifying the alcohol. The sulfur identification would be a bit rough since the C-S peak is in a pretty messy region.

If we ran NMR and got a peak when we did 31S NMR we would know for sure that there was sulfur ON the molecule. We need to identify the sulfur more than anything, IMO.
 
yeahright said:
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.
Click to expand...

Why would IBE order from the same supplier that the other two used? If they thought Havoc and Hemo had the wrong compound, why would they order from the same supplier? This leads me to believe that IBE originally thought they were wrong and tried to correct it and then they've changed their mind and now believe that their original compound was right.
 
No, according to IBE they ordered from there because their supplier wasn't able to keep up with demand and they wanted to fill their orders.

They found out that the compound was different afterward, and then recalled it because they have faith that the 270M+ is correct.
 
kwyckemynd00 said:
No, according to IBE they ordered from there because their supplier wasn't able to keep up with demand and they wanted to fill their orders.

They found out that the compound was different afterward, and then recalled it because they have faith that the 270M+ is correct.
Click to expand...

But why would they order from the same supplier as Havoc, if they thought Havoc was wrong?
 
Pretty sure that wasn't known at the time (at least from what I've heard on the boards - I know little of what goes on behind the scenes), drunk.
 
drunk said:
But why would they order from the same supplier as Havoc, if they thought Havoc was wrong?
Click to expand...
they said another supplier man not the same as havoc and hemo. just turned out the same way and they shot down the big order cause of it. read the threads man, read the threads.
 
I was starting to feel a little less ill and was feeling guilty so I decided to read this thread again.


Nice job on the ultrasound poopypants. A friend of mine got one of those and he was proud as hell while running around the station telling everyone:)
 
Jayhawkk said:
I was starting to feel a little less ill and was feeling guilty so I decided to read this thread again.


Nice job on the ultrasound poopypants. A friend of mine got one of those and he was proud as hell while running around the station telling everyone:)
Click to expand...

LOL thats funny, ya i brought in the first ultra sound to my work where my boy spread eagle and showed his manhood off proud, needless to say dad was proud too! :icon_lol:
 
Here's the summary on available data that I posted previously:

Invalid Link Removed

I want to summarize the salient details of all of these tests. First of all, let me get my nomenclature straight, since this seems to be a stumbling point we're all dealing with. Pardon my pedantry, but on net, it's for great justice.

Epi1: The first batch of epistane, which is pure by IBE's account.

Epi2: The limited 200 bottle run of epistane, which is being recalled by IBE.

Havoc: RPN's epithio product.

Hema: SFR's epitihio product.

Looking at the GC/MS data available for these four compounds, we have the following M+ for each:

Epi1: 270 @ 20.48

Epi2: 288 @ 17.28 and 286 @ 20.96

Havoc: 288 @ 17.28 and 286 @ 20.95

Hema: 288 @ 17.28

Epi1 is clearly the odd man out. It is radically different from all the other compounds. If it is pure, everything else isn't.

Epi2, Havoc, and Hema all have the same M+ at 17.28 min, and the first four fragmentation ions are the same. This suggests that they all might have the same active. However, because Hema doesn't have a secondary peak at 20.9* min, it is the odd man out of this subgroup.

Havoc and Epi2 both have a secondary peak, with the former occurring at 20.96 min and the latter occurring at 20.95 min. The M+ at both these peaks is identical, and the fragmentation ions are similar, although the data on Havoc is incomplete (the fourth page of the report from RTP is blank). Still, this suggests that the secondary peaks for these products represent the same compound.

Given all this, I think the following three conclusions are reasonable:

1) Epi1 is completely different from all the other products.

2) Epi2, Havoc, and Hema all contain the same active.

3) Epi2 and Havoc contain isomers of the active.

This is well and good, but we still have a lot of questions unanswered. The most pressing ones are as follows:

a) What is the correct peak and M+ combination that should be observed for the expected active?

b) What is the actual dosage of all of the tested products?

c) How do the isomers of Epi2 and Havoc affect product efficacy?

We're making progress toward a resolution here, but let's not go giving each other handjobs just yet.
Click to expand...
 
Could be some stability issues. The methyl could be adding in some steric effects on the sulfur in its beta form. Here are some pictures from a program I have.

ALPHA
Invalid Link Removed


BETA
Invalid Link Removed
 
Last edited:
While I'm quoting myself, here's my Pre-chapter 3 prediction on what the real tip actually is:

Invalid Link Removed

Hema is the most expensive, and by the logic of getting what you pay for, it ought to be the most pure. Sure enough, it has one GC peak with a corresponding M+ that squares away with my intuition. Since the compound has two isomers, I'd expect Hema to contain only the more effective alpha-alpha isomer, as opposed to the beta-beta form. But guaranteeing isomer purity is costly --- a company could drop this guarantee, resulting in a cheaper product that, while being less effective, wouldn't be any more harmful.

As it happens, Havoc looks like it contains the same active as Hema, in addition to what may well be an isomer of the active --- and it's retailing for 25% less from NP.net (not to be confused with NP.com). And NP.net is (to my knowledge) the retailer of the supposedly bad Epi2, which is supposed to come from the same source as Havoc. It turns out that the GC/MS of Havoc and Epi2 is very similar, and the asking price on NP.net is identical.

That leaves us with Epi1 which, quite frankly, looks asinine. But if you're trying really hard to get something to market really fast, that might just be the price of admission.

It's all just too coincidental for me.

I wager that when all is said and done, the dark horse that is Hema will turn out to be the real winner, with Havoc and Epi2 being nearly identical to each other (but diluted compared to Hema due to the presence of the beta-beta isomer), and Epi1 being something else entirely.
Click to expand...
 
kwyckemynd00 said:
LMD, I believe you mixed up the alpha and beta. Alpha is equitorial and Beta is axial.
Click to expand...

The alpha version I downloaded. It is epitiostanol. I didn't add the methyl. The beta version I just switched the bond to the other side. Forgot where I got the spartan file from but that is what it gave me for epitiostanol (alpha isomer)
 
Did they say whether the epitiostanol you downloaded was alpha or beta?

Usually on steroid ring structures alpha is equitorial, beta is axial. Like, here is testosterone (it has a 17b alcohol and its positioned axially...maybe? Need a better pic.). Invalid Link Removed
edit: No, maybe it does look equitorially oriented. Hmm... Need to find a better pic. I hate that alpha and beta are used for so many different descriptions.
 
Okay, figured it out. It isn't about axial or equitorial. Its about above or below molecular plain in this case.

So, alpha = below molecular plane, beta = above molecular plane. So your pic was okay. Kind of funky though considering you have to define the molecular plane one way or another...very odd.

explained on slide 35: Invalid Link Removed
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top