Energy Control Analytical Services

[TrenHard]

I agree this is fun but I feel like you aren’t really catching anyone out because they’re busy at work and can’t Google proof they shouldn’t have to Google realistically. If you’re the one who doesn’t believe it, shouldn’t you be proving it’s not possible or at least clearing the air with what they’re claiming?

 

[Janoshik]

TrenHard" pid='12396' dateline='1525875002:

I agree this is fun but I feel like you aren’t really catching anyone out because they’re busy at work and can’t Google proof they shouldn’t have to Google realistically. If you’re the one who doesn’t believe it, shouldn’t you be proving it’s not possible or at least clearing the air with what they’re claiming?

Sir, they had plenty time to write assays.

They have time to write assays and they don’t have the time to do “a quick Google search?”

Also, it’s is a complete and utter nonsense to want a proof something is NOT possible. That is a logical fallacy.

It’s them claiming it IS possible and it is them claiming it is EASILY verifiable.

They have not provided any evidence of that yet, while it’s in their best interest - which I’m sure can be explained only by the fact that it’s another one of their lies.

 

[EnergyControl]

We work a real job alongside this service, our ability to reply briefly and our ability to provide the burden of proof (when that is usually on the accuser) aren’t proportional.

Regardless, Jano, do you have access to the Merck Index? It’s a common and well known pharmaceutical index. Oxandrolone’s properties are all detailed inside and it verifies what we’re saying. I’m not sure if it’s something you have access to overseas but I know most analytical chemists here know of it.

---

Also curious — if we post in your thread will you answer the question about your unopened package you tested? Or will it be ignored there as well?

 

[Janoshik]

EnergyControl" pid='12401' dateline='1525876180:

We work a real job alongside this service, our ability to reply briefly and our ability to provide the burden of proof (when that is usually on the accuser) aren’t proportional.

Regardless, Jano, do you have access to the Merck Index? It’s a common and well known pharmaceutical index. Oxandrolone’s properties are all detailed inside and it verifies what we’re saying. I’m not sure if it’s something you have access to overseas but I know most analytical chemists here know of it.

---

Also curious — if we post in your thread will you answer the question about your unopened package you tested? Or will it be ignored there as well?

---

Wait, so now it’s NOT “a quick Google search” away, now it’s in a book that nobody of the people reading this thread owns?

Daamn.

 

[EnergyControl]

Janoshik" pid='12404' dateline='1525876786:

EnergyControl" pid='12401' dateline='1525876180:

We work a real job alongside this service, our ability to reply briefly and our ability to provide the burden of proof (when that is usually on the accuser) aren’t proportional.

Regardless, Jano, do you have access to the Merck Index? It’s a common and well known pharmaceutical index. Oxandrolone’s properties are all detailed inside and it verifies what we’re saying. I’m not sure if it’s something you have access to overseas but I know most analytical chemists here know of it.

---

Also curious — if we post in your thread will you answer the question about your unopened package you tested? Or will it be ignored there as well?

---

Wait, so now it’s NOT “a quick Google search” away, now it’s in a book that nobody of the people reading this thread owns?

Daamn.

---

Are you genuinely trying to throw shade over me asking if you are able to reference the industry standard pharmaceutical index that any analytical chemist should have access to? As in, the most possibly reliable source to verify our claims? That is laughable if you’re being serious. Nobody would second guess if I referenced you the dictionary for a word’s definition, as chemists this is our equivalent… not to mention you claimed Oxandrolone can’t be detected above 180nm when you can search “Anavar HPLC” on Google and the first few results that come up all test it higher.

Also, no answer to my question about your thread even? You’re ignoring it to that extent?

 

[Janoshik]

EnergyControl" pid='12405' dateline='1525876897:

Janoshik" pid='12404' dateline='1525876786:

EnergyControl" pid='12401' dateline='1525876180:

We work a real job alongside this service, our ability to reply briefly and our ability to provide the burden of proof (when that is usually on the accuser) aren’t proportional.

Regardless, Jano, do you have access to the Merck Index? It’s a common and well known pharmaceutical index. Oxandrolone’s properties are all detailed inside and it verifies what we’re saying. I’m not sure if it’s something you have access to overseas but I know most analytical chemists here know of it.

---

Also curious — if we post in your thread will you answer the question about your unopened package you tested? Or will it be ignored there as well?

---

Wait, so now it’s NOT “a quick Google search” away, now it’s in a book that nobody of the people reading this thread owns?

Daamn.

---

Are you genuinely trying to throw shade over me asking if you are able to reference the industry standard pharmaceutical index that any analytical chemist should have access to? As in, the most possibly reliable source to verify our claims? That is laughable if you’re being serious. Nobody would second guess if I referenced you the dictionary for a word’s definition, as chemists this is our equivalent… not to mention you claimed Oxandrolone can’t be detected above 180nm when you can search “Anavar HPLC” on Google and the first few results that come up all test it higher.

Also, no answer to my question about your thread even? You’re ignoring it to that extent?

---

So much words and so little time for “a quick Google search” that would prove you are not a liar.

Also, you are lying again.

 

[EnergyControl]

Janoshik" pid='12408' dateline='1525877136:

EnergyControl" pid='12405' dateline='1525876897:

Janoshik" pid='12404' dateline='1525876786:

EnergyControl" pid='12401' dateline='1525876180:

We work a real job alongside this service, our ability to reply briefly and our ability to provide the burden of proof (when that is usually on the accuser) aren’t proportional.

Regardless, Jano, do you have access to the Merck Index? It’s a common and well known pharmaceutical index. Oxandrolone’s properties are all detailed inside and it verifies what we’re saying. I’m not sure if it’s something you have access to overseas but I know most analytical chemists here know of it.

---

Also curious — if we post in your thread will you answer the question about your unopened package you tested? Or will it be ignored there as well?

---

Wait, so now it’s NOT “a quick Google search” away, now it’s in a book that nobody of the people reading this thread owns?

Daamn.

---

Are you genuinely trying to throw shade over me asking if you are able to reference the industry standard pharmaceutical index that any analytical chemist should have access to? As in, the most possibly reliable source to verify our claims? That is laughable if you’re being serious. Nobody would second guess if I referenced you the dictionary for a word’s definition, as chemists this is our equivalent… not to mention you claimed Oxandrolone can’t be detected above 180nm when you can search “Anavar HPLC” on Google and the first few results that come up all test it higher.

Also, no answer to my question about your thread even? You’re ignoring it to that extent?

---

So much words and so little time for “a quick Google search” that would prove you are not a liar.

Also, you are lying again.

---

sigh

Alright, ignore us asking if you can reference a literal equivalent to a pharmacy dictionary. We ask to try to validate our claims in the most official way possible, and you childishly reply with zero substance or proof we’re lying. Us trying to validate our claims isn’t “so many words”, it’s us trying to communicate with you to validate. Apparently that’s impossible. Imagine asking someone to prove something, providing no proof our methods are wrong, and then calling us a liar when we attempt to get answers from you about a reference material we want to use to verify exactly what you’re asking. Like…there’s nothing in that post that could even be a lie, it’s a question. I’m not claiming anything, I’m asking you something.

Also, still ignoring me. Can I ask about that fraud in your thread, or will it also be ignored?

https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/oxandrolone

There’s the PubChem Oxandrolone page. Scroll down to find what you’re looking for. Click the Merck index part to access it if you have that access. There’s way to get access if for some reason you don’t.

---

Also check out testing done by SIMEC (sp?) and BioTech — testing ranges from 180-240nm, with an instance of 280 and 295 for contiminants.

 

[Janoshik]

EnergyControl" pid='12414' dateline='1525878996:

sigh

Alright, ignore us asking if you can reference a literal equivalent to a pharmacy dictionary. We ask to try to validate our claims in the most official way possible, and you childishly reply with zero substance or proof we’re lying. Us trying to validate our claims isn’t “so many words”, it’s us trying to communicate with you to validate. Apparently that’s impossible. Imagine asking someone to prove something, providing no proof our methods are wrong, and then calling us a liar when we attempt to get answers from you about a reference material we want to use to verify exactly what you’re asking. Like…there’s nothing in that post that could even be a lie, it’s a question. I’m not claiming anything, I’m asking you something.

Also, still ignoring me. Can I ask about that fraud in your thread, or will it also be ignored?

https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/oxandrolone

There’s the PubChem Oxandrolone page. Scroll down to find what you’re looking for. Click the Merck index part to access it if you have that access. There’s way to get access if for some reason you don’t.

Two things I wanted from you:

A) Show me a quick google search with a study that’s publicly available where Oxandrolone is detected at 240 nm or above.

B) Please provide us with math where numbers provided by you lead to a calculation of 22 mg and 26 mg of oxandrolone per pill.

1. the link you have posted does not contain absorbance spectra of oxandrolone
2. the link you have provided is not a study or example
3. absorbance plot for oxandrolone is not in merck index

You still, after all this time have not shown me that there are legitimate studies or practical examples where detection of oxandrolone at or above 240 nm is mentioned - even though you claimed “a quick google search” can verify your claims.

You still have not provided us with the math necessary to calculate the data you have provided either.

But well, we got you to admit you have faked the HGH raw data, so we are getting somewhere, although slowly.

 

[EnergyControl]

Janoshik" pid='12417' dateline='1525879723:

EnergyControl" pid='12414' dateline='1525878996:

sigh

Alright, ignore us asking if you can reference a literal equivalent to a pharmacy dictionary. We ask to try to validate our claims in the most official way possible, and you childishly reply with zero substance or proof we’re lying. Us trying to validate our claims isn’t “so many words”, it’s us trying to communicate with you to validate. Apparently that’s impossible. Imagine asking someone to prove something, providing no proof our methods are wrong, and then calling us a liar when we attempt to get answers from you about a reference material we want to use to verify exactly what you’re asking. Like…there’s nothing in that post that could even be a lie, it’s a question. I’m not claiming anything, I’m asking you something.

Also, still ignoring me. Can I ask about that fraud in your thread, or will it also be ignored?

https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/oxandrolone

There’s the PubChem Oxandrolone page. Scroll down to find what you’re looking for. Click the Merck index part to access it if you have that access. There’s way to get access if for some reason you don’t.

Two things I wanted from you:

A) Show me a quick google search with a study that’s publicly available where Oxandrolone is detected at 240 nm or above.

B) Please provide us with math where numbers provided by you lead to a calculation of 22 mg and 26 mg of oxandrolone per pill.

1. the link you have posted does not contain absorbance spectra of oxandrolone
2. the link you have provided is not a study or example
3. absorbance plot for oxandrolone is not in merck index

You still, after all this time have not shown me that there are legitimate studies or practical examples where detection of oxandrolone at or above 240 nm is mentioned - even though you claimed “a quick google search” can verify your claims.

You still have not provided us with the math necessary to calculate the data you have provided either.

But well, we got you to admit you have faked the HGH raw data, so we are getting somewhere, although slowly.

Okay, unfortunately replies to you have become pointless at this point. You are choosing to intentionally misconstrue and ignore the majority of what we’re saying.

1. Yes it does.
2. The industry standard reference guide is beyond adequate and nobody would argue it isn’t. Additionally, we noted two names you can Google to find a plethora of their HPLC data on Anavar. Much of it is on MESO or pages where Java is required, but it’s out there. We carry no burden beyond this (not to mention any analytical chemist who tests Oxandrolone should know what we’re saying is accurate).
3. The information you asked for is present…if you want to try to prove you can’t detect Oxandrolone or any of its usual contaminants at those wavelengths, feel free to let me know. That’s on you. If you’re not experienced enough to know, that’s an issue on its own.

We have answered the Anavar math question FIVE times now. Literally five. Just in this thread alone.

We will assume you did indeed falsify reports to that customer then. You’ve ignored every instance of us asking and refused even to let me know if I can ask you in your own thread. The hypocrisy is laughable and it’s clear you have no good explanation as to how you tested an unopened package.

 

[Janoshik]

EnergyControl" pid='12414' dateline='1525878996:

Also check out testing done by SIMEC (sp?) and BioTech — testing ranges from 180-240nm, with an instance of 280 and 295 for contiminants.

You mean SIMEC testing oxandrolone when they don’t even use UV but refractive index (RI) detector?

https://imgur.com/hc7JxE0

Link for anybody to verify how EC is lying to you all - https://anaboliclab.com/lab-results...atories-oxandrol-lab-test-results-2015-07-23/

 

[EnergyControl]

Janoshik" pid='12420' dateline='1525880080:

EnergyControl" pid='12414' dateline='1525878996:

Also check out testing done by SIMEC (sp?) and BioTech — testing ranges from 180-240nm, with an instance of 280 and 295 for contiminants.

You mean SIMEC testing oxandrolone when they don’t even use UV but refractive index (RI) detector?

https://imgur.com/hc7JxE0

Link for anybody to verify how EC is lying to you all - https://anaboliclab.com/lab-results...atories-oxandrol-lab-test-results-2015-07-23/

I’m not sure you realize you can’t just say someone’s lying and it be true. Lol. I know threats, immaturity, and desperately recruiting people on Disocrd are your go to methods for discrediting, but those aren’t acceptable.

Come back to me when you provide any legitimate evidence that Anavar cant be tested at that wavelength (again, any credible analytical chemist knows you can).

 

[Janoshik]

EnergyControl" pid='12419' dateline='1525880035:

1. Yes it does.
2. The industry standard reference guide is beyond adequate and nobody would argue it isn’t. Additionally, we noted two names you can Google to find a plethora of their HPLC data on Anavar. Much of it is on MESO or pages where Java is required, but it’s out there. We carry no burden beyond this (not to mention any analytical chemist who tests Oxandrolone should know what we’re saying is accurate).
3. The information you asked for is present…if you want to try to prove you can’t detect Oxandrolone or any of its usual contaminants at those wavelengths, feel free to let me know. That’s on you. If you’re not experienced enough to know, that’s an issue on its own.

We have answered the Anavar math question FIVE times now. Literally five. Just in this thread alone.

We will assume you did indeed falsify reports to that customer then. You’ve ignored every instance of us asking and refused even to let me know if I can ask you in your own thread. The hypocrisy is laughable and it’s clear you have no good explanation as to how you tested an unopened package.

1. What prevents you from print screening and posting it here then? Except the fact that you are lying, of course.
2. See above - I have posted the data from meso, where they are not using any wavelengths, because they use completely different detector - not UV but refractive index detector. Another verifiable lie.
3. Why don’t you take a picture of oxandrolone absorbance plot from Merck index for everybody to see, then?

Also, how did you answer my Anavar question about math and calculations without any actual math and calculations? Did I miss anything (rhetorical question)?

 

[EnergyControl]

Janoshik" pid='12422' dateline='1525880380:

EnergyControl" pid='12419' dateline='1525880035:

1. Yes it does.
2. The industry standard reference guide is beyond adequate and nobody would argue it isn’t. Additionally, we noted two names you can Google to find a plethora of their HPLC data on Anavar. Much of it is on MESO or pages where Java is required, but it’s out there. We carry no burden beyond this (not to mention any analytical chemist who tests Oxandrolone should know what we’re saying is accurate).
3. The information you asked for is present…if you want to try to prove you can’t detect Oxandrolone or any of its usual contaminants at those wavelengths, feel free to let me know. That’s on you. If you’re not experienced enough to know, that’s an issue on its own.

We have answered the Anavar math question FIVE times now. Literally five. Just in this thread alone.

We will assume you did indeed falsify reports to that customer then. You’ve ignored every instance of us asking and refused even to let me know if I can ask you in your own thread. The hypocrisy is laughable and it’s clear you have no good explanation as to how you tested an unopened package.

1. What prevents you from print screening and posting it here then? Except the fact that you are lying, of course.
2. See above - I have posted the data from meso, where they are not using any wavelengths, because they use completely different detector - not UV but refractive index detector. Another verifiable lie.
3. Why don’t you take a picture of oxandrolone absorbance plot from Merck index for everybody to see, then?

Also, how did you answer my Anavar question about math and calculations without any actual math and calculations? Did I miss anything.

Your claim: our numbers shouldn’t be similar. Our claim: That’s exactly how they should be because that’s how HPLC works. We’ve been over this.

Do you have any inkling of evidence Anavar or it’s common contaminants can’t be tested at that wavelength? Yes or no? In America, our courts put the burden of proof on you. I supplied a link you, as a chemist, can use to verify, but that’s not even my job. You can’t make claims without backing them up — so back them up.

Again, will you ever answer about your fraud? I will continue to ask until you do, as much as you’d like to have it hidden beneath layers of threats and claims with no evidence. A customer literally claimed a package came back to him, unopened, but you tested his stuff. How does that happen?

 

[TrenHard]

Are there any other chemists on SST? The var fight feels like it should be really simple and something with an obvious answer rather than so much back and forth.

 

[Janoshik]

EnergyControl" pid='12424' dateline='1525880548:

Janoshik" pid='12422' dateline='1525880380:

EnergyControl" pid='12419' dateline='1525880035:

1. Yes it does.
2. The industry standard reference guide is beyond adequate and nobody would argue it isn’t. Additionally, we noted two names you can Google to find a plethora of their HPLC data on Anavar. Much of it is on MESO or pages where Java is required, but it’s out there. We carry no burden beyond this (not to mention any analytical chemist who tests Oxandrolone should know what we’re saying is accurate).
3. The information you asked for is present…if you want to try to prove you can’t detect Oxandrolone or any of its usual contaminants at those wavelengths, feel free to let me know. That’s on you. If you’re not experienced enough to know, that’s an issue on its own.

We have answered the Anavar math question FIVE times now. Literally five. Just in this thread alone.

We will assume you did indeed falsify reports to that customer then. You’ve ignored every instance of us asking and refused even to let me know if I can ask you in your own thread. The hypocrisy is laughable and it’s clear you have no good explanation as to how you tested an unopened package.

1. What prevents you from print screening and posting it here then? Except the fact that you are lying, of course.
2. See above - I have posted the data from meso, where they are not using any wavelengths, because they use completely different detector - not UV but refractive index detector. Another verifiable lie.
3. Why don’t you take a picture of oxandrolone absorbance plot from Merck index for everybody to see, then?

Also, how did you answer my Anavar question about math and calculations without any actual math and calculations? Did I miss anything.

Your claim: our numbers shouldn’t be similar. Our claim: That’s exactly how they should be because that’s how HPLC works. We’ve been over this.

Do you have any inkling of evidence Anavar or it’s common contaminants can’t be tested at that wavelength? Yes or no? In America, our courts put the burden of proof on you. I supplied a link you, as a chemist, can use to verify, but that’s not even my job. You can’t make claims without backing them up — so back them up.

Again, will you ever answer about your fraud? I will continue to ask until you do, as much as you’d like to have it hidden beneath layers of threats and claims with no evidence. A customer literally claimed a package came back to him, unopened, but you tested his stuff. How does that happen?

Still no numbers and equations. You can’t post any?

Yes, I have tested more oxandrolone samples than you could count. Also SIMEC uses RI detector for that, because UV detection for Anavar sucks. Otherwise they wouldn’t have decided to use RI which is lengthy, insensitive and generally pain in the ass.

That’s quite a lot of backing. Your link proves nothing, because that information is simply not there.
If it is there, why don’t you post a print screen of that information?

You are literally unable to provide an information you claim “a quick Google search” can provide. You can’t back yourself up and it’s here for everybody to see.

Easy as that.

---

Oh, also Analyzer from Meso uses GC/FID for oxandrolone, not UV… Makes one wonder.

Every analytical lab that’s legitimate and in the business far longer than you uses a different method… Guess SIMEC, Analyzer and me are dumb according to you?

 

[EnergyControl]

Janoshik" pid='12427' dateline='1525880907:

EnergyControl" pid='12424' dateline='1525880548:

Janoshik" pid='12422' dateline='1525880380:

EnergyControl" pid='12419' dateline='1525880035:

1. Yes it does.
2. The industry standard reference guide is beyond adequate and nobody would argue it isn’t. Additionally, we noted two names you can Google to find a plethora of their HPLC data on Anavar. Much of it is on MESO or pages where Java is required, but it’s out there. We carry no burden beyond this (not to mention any analytical chemist who tests Oxandrolone should know what we’re saying is accurate).
3. The information you asked for is present…if you want to try to prove you can’t detect Oxandrolone or any of its usual contaminants at those wavelengths, feel free to let me know. That’s on you. If you’re not experienced enough to know, that’s an issue on its own.

We have answered the Anavar math question FIVE times now. Literally five. Just in this thread alone.

We will assume you did indeed falsify reports to that customer then. You’ve ignored every instance of us asking and refused even to let me know if I can ask you in your own thread. The hypocrisy is laughable and it’s clear you have no good explanation as to how you tested an unopened package.

1. What prevents you from print screening and posting it here then? Except the fact that you are lying, of course.
2. See above - I have posted the data from meso, where they are not using any wavelengths, because they use completely different detector - not UV but refractive index detector. Another verifiable lie.
3. Why don’t you take a picture of oxandrolone absorbance plot from Merck index for everybody to see, then?

Also, how did you answer my Anavar question about math and calculations without any actual math and calculations? Did I miss anything.

Your claim: our numbers shouldn’t be similar. Our claim: That’s exactly how they should be because that’s how HPLC works. We’ve been over this.

Do you have any inkling of evidence Anavar or it’s common contaminants can’t be tested at that wavelength? Yes or no? In America, our courts put the burden of proof on you. I supplied a link you, as a chemist, can use to verify, but that’s not even my job. You can’t make claims without backing them up — so back them up.

Again, will you ever answer about your fraud? I will continue to ask until you do, as much as you’d like to have it hidden beneath layers of threats and claims with no evidence. A customer literally claimed a package came back to him, unopened, but you tested his stuff. How does that happen?

Still no numbers and equations. You can’t post any?

Yes, I have tested more oxandrolone samples than you could count. Also SIMEC uses RI detector for that, because UV detection for Anavar sucks. Otherwise they wouldn’t have decided to use RI which is lengthy, insensitive and generally pain in the ass.

That’s quite a lot of backing. Your link proves nothing, because that information is simply not there.
If it is there, why don’t you post a print screen of that information?

You are literally unable to provide an information you claim “a quick Google search” can provide. You can’t back yourself up and it’s here for everybody to see.

Easy as that.

---

Oh, also Analyzer from Meso uses GC/FID for oxandrolone, not UV… Makes one wonder.

Every analytical lab that’s legitimate and in the business far longer than you uses a different method… Guess SIMEC, Analyzer and me are dumb according to you?

---

You’re seriously ignoring us to this extent?
This is ridiculous and absolutely poor professionalism on your part.

Your claim was that our numbers are too close, that shows you don’t understand HPLC data or are trying to mislead the community. I haven’t posted “math” because your claim is that HPLC results should be different than what they ALWAYS should be like — the numbers are meant to be very close, and when you said they should be 15% different, that’s hugely incorrect and why I think you’re trying to lie to the community because you think they aren’t smart enough. A junior in college majoring in chemistry would know you’re lying, it’s absurd.

Provide proof you can’t get Var at that wavelength. You can. It’s absorption is far higher than the ridiculously low 180nm you claimed. Again, even an amateur chemist could determine this. Is your equipment or methodology that bad you aren’t able to? Or is this another part of your threaten, recruit, spam tactics?

13th time, zero mention even of your fraud? Are you that afraid to address it? I’m being attacked for a methodology that’s entirely accurate, without proof, but you can’t address an unopened package you “tested”. Interesting.

 

[Janoshik]

EnergyControl" pid='12428' dateline='1525881184:

It’s absorption is far higher than the ridiculously low 180nm you claimed. Again, even an amateur chemist could determine this.

I have never ever even written 180 nm anywhere, liar.
That’s even under absorbance of any solvent - how comes I know that and you don’t?

I said, you can’t reliably detect anavar at 240 nm or above and that nobody in the world does that. I have provided proof of 3 well known analytical labs - me, Analyzer and SIMEC.

You claimed you can prove that Oxandrolone being detected at 240 nm or above can be verified with “a quick Google search.”

Why don’t you show us?

The quick Google search is taking you two hours now.

C’mon, show us one example of a study or lab report where they do that that can be Googled.

 

[EnergyControl]

Janoshik" pid='12433' dateline='1525881717:

EnergyControl" pid='12428' dateline='1525881184:

It’s absorption is far higher than the ridiculously low 180nm you claimed. Again, even an amateur chemist could determine this.

I have never ever even written 180 nm anywhere, liar.
That’s even under absorbance of any solvent - how comes I know that and you don’t?

I said, you can’t reliably detect anavar at 240 nm or above and that nobody in the world does that. I have provided proof of 3 well known analytical labs - me, Analyzer and SIMEC.

You claimed you can prove that Oxandrolone being detected at 240 nm or above can be verified with “a quick Google search.”

Why don’t you show us?

The quick Google search is taking you two hours now.

C’mon, show us one example of a study or lab report where they do that that can be Googled.

In our emails, you had mentioned 180-220nm at some point. Am I misremembering? It was fairly recently.

Let me ask you this: if you had to use HPLC and were to set your UV detector to test for Anavar (and common contaminants), what two wavelengths might you choose? Do you know why you might think above 240nm it becomes less reliably detectable? Are you aware mobile phase and column length affect that? Or that higher wavelengths allow us to test for more common contaminants? Might you just have learned different methods or perhaps ones just more specifically suited to your equipment and methods?

 

[Janoshik]

EnergyControl" pid='12441' dateline='1525883192:

Janoshik" pid='12433' dateline='1525881717:

EnergyControl" pid='12428' dateline='1525881184:

It’s absorption is far higher than the ridiculously low 180nm you claimed. Again, even an amateur chemist could determine this.

I have never ever even written 180 nm anywhere, liar.
That’s even under absorbance of any solvent - how comes I know that and you don’t?

I said, you can’t reliably detect anavar at 240 nm or above and that nobody in the world does that. I have provided proof of 3 well known analytical labs - me, Analyzer and SIMEC.

You claimed you can prove that Oxandrolone being detected at 240 nm or above can be verified with “a quick Google search.”

Why don’t you show us?

The quick Google search is taking you two hours now.

C’mon, show us one example of a study or lab report where they do that that can be Googled.

In our emails, you had mentioned 180-220nm at some point. Am I misremembering? It was fairly recently.

Let me ask you this: if you had to use HPLC and were to set your UV detector to test for Anavar (and common contaminants), what two wavelengths might you choose? Do you know why you might think above 240nm it becomes less reliably detectable? Are you aware mobile phase and column length affect that? Or that higher wavelengths allow us to test for more common contaminants? Might you just have learned different methods or perhaps ones just more specifically suited to your equipment and methods?

Yes, you are ‘misremembering’. I mentioned 200nm. Do you want to post our email conversation here, or is it enough that I have forwarded it to people who can verify that?

My method uses 190, 200 and 240 nm. Your method claims to have used 245 nm and 290 nm ( with detection at 242 nm which… was not used so I assume that it’s just another typo).

https://imgur.com/e4VEWTF

I know exactly why it’s not reliably detectable - it simply has extremely small absorbance at that level.

Mobile phase and column length affect… Absorbance? Now you are just kidding me, get back to school.

So you test for contaminants in anavar, but don’t test for the anavar itself, if you use wavelengths that high?

Stop shifting burden of proof on me now - you claimed you can prove that Oxandrolone being detected at 240 nm or above can be verified with “a quick Google search.”

Did you not?

The quick Google search is taking you well over two hours now.

C’mon, show us one example of a study or lab report where they do that that can be Googled.

You are wasting so much time with this, when you could’ve posted a one simple google link… Makes one wonder.

 

[EnergyControl]

Janoshik" pid='12448' dateline='1525883825:

EnergyControl" pid='12441' dateline='1525883192:

Janoshik" pid='12433' dateline='1525881717:

EnergyControl" pid='12428' dateline='1525881184:

It’s absorption is far higher than the ridiculously low 180nm you claimed. Again, even an amateur chemist could determine this.

I have never ever even written 180 nm anywhere, liar.
That’s even under absorbance of any solvent - how comes I know that and you don’t?

I said, you can’t reliably detect anavar at 240 nm or above and that nobody in the world does that. I have provided proof of 3 well known analytical labs - me, Analyzer and SIMEC.

You claimed you can prove that Oxandrolone being detected at 240 nm or above can be verified with “a quick Google search.”

Why don’t you show us?

The quick Google search is taking you two hours now.

C’mon, show us one example of a study or lab report where they do that that can be Googled.

In our emails, you had mentioned 180-220nm at some point. Am I misremembering? It was fairly recently.

Let me ask you this: if you had to use HPLC and were to set your UV detector to test for Anavar (and common contaminants), what two wavelengths might you choose? Do you know why you might think above 240nm it becomes less reliably detectable? Are you aware mobile phase and column length affect that? Or that higher wavelengths allow us to test for more common contaminants? Might you just have learned different methods or perhaps ones just more specifically suited to your equipment and methods?

Yes, you are ‘misremembering’. I mentioned 200nm. Do you want to post our email conversation here, or is it enough that I have forwarded it to people who can verify that?

My method uses 190, 200 and 240 nm. Your method claims to have used 245 nm and 290 nm ( with detection at 242 nm which… was not used so I assume that it’s just another typo).

https://imgur.com/e4VEWTF

I know exactly why it’s not reliably detectable - it simply has extremely small absorbance at that level.

Mobile phase and column length affect… Absorbance? Now you are just kidding me, get back to school.

So you test for contaminants in anavar, but don’t test for the anavar itself, if you use wavelengths that high?

Stop shifting burden of proof on me now - you claimed you can prove that Oxandrolone being detected at 240 nm or above can be verified with “a quick Google search.”

Did you not?

The quick Google search is taking you well over two hours now.

C’mon, show us one example of a study or lab report where they do that that can be Googled.

You are wasting so much time with this, when you could’ve posted a one simple google link… Makes one wonder.

I’m beginning to think you are simply misunderstanding our methods. 240/245 (close to #s you used) and 290 are very reasonable numbers to be using — as we’ve said, and perhaps this is some of the source of confusion so we’ll clarify again, the 290 number is to scan for contaminants, the lower number being used for the anavar itself. Nothing about that is abnormal or unreliable by any means. Any margin of error would be so minuscule even if we pushed the nm higher.

Also, I’m not sure your point about column length and mobile phase, these have obvious effects on plenty of things, retention time, wavelength, etc. If you frequently use unique mobile phases or tailored ones you’d notice a lot of that changes even if you just go from a C4 to C18 column, for example.

(For any curious, we didn’t even make money off of this anavar test, we offered it free to help the board find real var because of how often the stuff is faked. We didn’t make a single dime off of it.)