MESO "Specialized" Testing Group Fund

Is there a way of knowing why is appears in one vial but not the other when they are presumably from the same raw?
The fact that AUTO-ID didn't ID the peak at 19.59 minutes the same, does not necessarily mean it is not the same.

Check the spectra, they are similar enough for me to assume the differences stem from random events. I'd say the same thing is in both.

1758520763172.webp

1758520780628.webp
 
and there's only one molecule in the oil where it may plausbily originate from - the tren.
i also assumed the plastic leeches caused the tren to conjguate through the dione and the byproduct is from tren like im reading from your testing 7-12 peak is tren byproducts! this is not unique to degradation from plastics but just so happen to be tren that is volatile to degradation.

i think everyone can atleast conclude tren project now or we can go further for prevention of this
 
No u can't filter out what's been dissolved. Same as how you came filter out your raws from the oil using a syringe filter.

You can filter out things that are dissolved

You can't filter out raws because they're waay too small, they pass right through the filter

0.22 um filter vs 0.00295 um testosterone
 
i also assumed the plastic leeches caused the tren to conjguate through the dione and the byproduct is from tren like im reading from your testing 7-12 peak is tren byproducts! this is not unique to degradation from plastics but just so happen to be tren that is volatile to degradation.

i think everyone can atleast conclude tren project now or we can go further for prevention of this

Are raws passed through a filter prior to GCMS?
 
You can filter out things that are dissolved

You can't filter out raws because they're waay too small, they pass right through the filter

0.22 um filter vs 0.00295 um testosterone
hello, if something like the plastic leeches come into your solution and reacts with the tren you can see it creates byproducts from the tren which is even smaller than 0.000295 um. so yeah you can filter out the cause but the damage has been done in a even smaller scale.

and idk about the raws, they're not controlled in this instance, have to ask whoever photon bought it from.
 
speak for yourself homie

-knuckle dragger (me)
i will defiently need a gcms on my tren in the future but lets see if i can keep my underwear on the day i have some more tren in my closet.

all of this is just speculation and theories until we get more testing on it if we will. it could very well be only plastic related degradation tren byproducts but i highly doubt it, since jano said previously it isnt uncommon for him to see tren like this.


refering to
I appreciate Jano sharing his comments that these samples were different than other samples he has tested.
 
Beware, do not take AUTO-ID too seriously with random rare degradation products of low abundance.

Also, 1,4 napthoquinone does not equal 1,4-Naphthoquinone, 6-acetyl-2,5,8-trihydroxy.

The take away from it would be that there's something looking *something like this* (1,4-Naphthoquinone, 6-acetyl-2,5,8-trihydroxy):

View attachment 349700

and there's only one molecule in the oil where it may plausbily originate from - the tren.

Rings like that don't form randomly and GC is pretty good at finding out about structures like that. But are we confident it's that same exact molecule? Not really.


Hope this helps

How is the raw treated before GCMS?

I mean, does the raw just go in dry? Is it mixed with any oil or solvents? Filtered?
 
@Photon I’m having a hard time following all the different discussions. Is this something that Jano would have detected in a GCMS prior to you sending in your polystyrene sample? Is this a unique result or just the first time it’s been looked at?
 
both jano and photon dont know anything about the raw handling.

its ugl i think its primal pharma us domestic or something like that. it wasnt intended for tren project

it will be nice if someone can recognize those vials and go ask primal how they were handled
 
@Photon I’m having a hard time following all the different discussions. Is this something that Jano would have detected in a GCMS prior to you sending in your polystyrene sample? Is this a unique result or just the first time it’s been looked at?

First of, my project has nothing to do with the tren project. I do not want to comment about anything related to the tren project as I'm not entirely sure.

For the polystyrene test, it would have turned up, in fact it is the first time it is turning up in all 14+ GCMS, but we would not know if it is from the melted polystyrene because stuff in GCMS doesn't just turn up nicely as "Polystyrene" or "MCT Oil".
 
but we would not know if it is from the melted polystyrene because stuff in GCMS doesn't just turn up nicely as "Polystyrene" or "MCT Oil".
easiest way to control this is send a vial of testosterone which is less prone to degradation and control.

although i think the findings wont be as interesting as in something like tren, we could see if it has adverse effects on testosterone, or something with a more common mid ground like eq/deca.
 
First of, my project has nothing to do with the tren project. I do not want to comment about anything related to the tren project as I'm not entirely sure.

For the polystyrene test, it would have turned up, in fact it is the first time it is turning up in all 14+ GCMS, but we would not know if it is from the melted polystyrene because stuff in GCMS doesn't just turn up nicely as "Polystyrene" or "MCT Oil".
Why did you need to send in the polystyrene sample? Was it just to confirm? We can look at previous GCMS reports and see that this peak wasn’t there? Just want to make sure I’m not confused since it’s a bit of a sensational finding.
 
Why did you need to send in the polystyrene sample? Was it just to confirm? We can look at previous GCMS reports and see that this peak wasn’t there? Just want to make sure I’m not confused since it’s a bit of a sensational finding.

MCT oil does not turn up as MCT oil in GCMS.
Alot of products in GCMS are not so straight forward to interpret.

Jano requested i send in a plastic (polystyrene) sample (he mentioned in his thread when i asked about it) and i so just did as he requested.

Yes the spectra is not present in all the other vendor testing we previously did.
Only vials suspected thus far are from a single vendor.

I have emailed Jano to see how we can move from suspected->confirmed, but if it's too much work I'll just move on and call it a day. At this point i've already invested a little too much more time than i would have liked, for gear from a vendor i've decided not to use going forward.
 
Last edited:
I have emailed Jano to see how we can move from suspected->confirmed, but if it's too much work I'll just move on and call it a day. Hopefully my tren raws do not get seized.
im also quite interested in this and will chime in with my dollar

jano said we cannot trust gcms autoid on this.

maybe we could potentially run lcms or nmr on it?
 
Back
Top