Glucorell R Test Results

ulter · 09-26-2003, 05:38 PM

San Rafael Chemical Services was kind enough to drop everything and test Glucorell R today. There will be other tests soon, this is just the first. We decided to have the stores pull a bottle and FedEx them to various labs. The techs at SRCS aren't foolish enough to claim they can seperate R from S with a column and standard that don't exist. But since the question around here seems to be how much Lipoic Acid is in a capsule, the analysis they just emailed me should suffice.

http://www.anabolicfitness.net/srcs/30970.jpg

If you have a .pdf viewer this one is easier to read

http://www.anabolicfitness.net/srcs/30970.pdf

I don't expect the AF bashers will care that Mike's analysis is flawed and wrong. But Mike will and so will the lab that did his test. For those of you who have posted that we shouldn't sue Mike, I wonder how you'd feel if this was your product that someone tried to discredit with a bogus lab test.

Kraftydog · 09-26-2003, 05:49 PM

bump for good peeps

Vinnie Bobarino · 09-26-2003, 06:10 PM

BUMP!

A L E O U X · 09-26-2003, 06:23 PM

bumpity bump

1fast400 · 09-26-2003, 06:40 PM

bump haha

AliveGuy · 09-26-2003, 06:43 PM

on Ulter's test, possibilities

1) The lab screwed up (they do lack knowledge in HPLC area in regards to chirality--this could imply perhaps all of HPLC they suck at)

2) The lab is fradulent (as was a claim against ICB), and actually knows Ulter

3) Chain of command was fradulent, ie, special bottles sent. (as was a claim against Neogen)

4) Both results are correct and consistancy changes.

5) both results are wrong.

dont we need an independent party with an independent lab that uses published methods to sort that out?

Kraftydog · 09-26-2003, 06:52 PM

I think that its pretty obvious that the test from IBC is bull****, for all the reasons I have posted in the other thread.

I think that HPLC for ALA is a pretty basic process, it must be since it comes with every powder you buy, and this chiral test seems to be a very complicated one. Whether or not its possible to do the test I think that accuracy is in the favor of the HPLC test ulter has.

1fast400 · 09-26-2003, 06:54 PM

Quote:

and this chiral test seems to be a very complicated one.

Why not go back to the original thread and answer my question. My assumption, you can't.

AliveGuy · 09-26-2003, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kraftydog
I think that its pretty obvious that the test from IBC is bull****, for all the reasons I have posted in the other thread.

I think that HPLC for ALA is a pretty basic process, it must be since it comes with every powder you buy, and this chiral test seems to be a very complicated one. Whether or not its possible to do the test I think that accuracy is in the favor of the HPLC test ulter has.

Chirality as a method of ALA differention is a scientifically published and credible method in Chirality journal 1997. It is as valid of a testing method as anything else, and more valid than unproven, unstandardized ones. This is not a problem...just cause Ulter's lab isn't advanced on special HPLC method's doesn't imply others are not.

I will not allow you to have a double standard here! Any argument you used against ICB to start suspicion is as valid against Ulter's lab, if not more.

Again, on Ulter's recent test:

1) The lab screwed up (they do lack knowledge in HPLC area in regards to chirality--this could imply perhaps all of HPLC they suck at)

2) The lab is fradulent (as was a claim against ICB), and actually knows Ulter

3) Chain of command was fradulent, ie, special bottles sent. (as was a claim against Neogen)

4) Both results are correct and consistancy changes.

5) both results are wrong.

dont we need an independent party with an independent lab that uses published methods to sort that out?

Kraftydog · 09-26-2003, 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ********
Why not go back to the original thread and answer my question. My assumption, you can't.

You have not even mentioned the possibility that your tests might be wrong, I know they are NOT your tests so you dont need to repeat it, but the evidence is in favor of that conclusion.

I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt but I can see that this whole thing was a sham designed by you to attack Ulter and AF whom you hate.

I hope they sue you out of existance, because that is what it seems you were trying to do to them.

You would think that with such results you would get a test from another lab. But that would be too smart and might contradict the results that made you look golden while torching them.

shame on you.

AliveGuy · 09-26-2003, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kraftydog
You have not even mentioned the possibility that your tests might be wrong, I know they are NOT your tests so you dont need to repeat it, but the evidence is in favor of that conclusion

What evidence? Evidence more questionable than Neogen's? Hehe.

Listen...Every test could be wrong...you see that up there.

Yet you dont care. You ONLY will ALWAYS consider any test for Ulter that is postive right, and any other test that is not wrong.

Face it,

It will take a third pary to settle this. Every criticism you had against Neogen's method applies two fold against Ulter's recent test in some manner. You are a fool to claim Mike's results are invalid without claiming the same to Ulter's. Ive made it abundently clear at this point that although I trust Mike, and not Ulter, I will not believe any results not ran by a third party and an uninvolvd lab. Isn't that the sensible logical approach at this point? Trust WTF you want but wait till you can't be bitching about the actual lab, chain of custody, organizers, and methods of testing before making a decision.

Kraftydog · 09-26-2003, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by AliveGuy

I will not allow you to have a double standard here! Any argument you used against ICB to start suspicion is as valid against Ulter's lab, if not more.

for someone who calls people stupid and retard you make some really dumb statements. You dont allow **** because thats not your place.

what I said was that HPLC is widely used and if you look at the method for ala HPLC is a lot simpler than the one in the Chirality abstract. ergo it is much more likely that the flaw is in the testing at IBC.

Kraftydog · 09-26-2003, 07:09 PM

so you are saying that SRSC is not a real lab?
doesnt it strike you as kind of odd that ulter has three labs that say his stuff is good, are all three labs in collusion?

I think you have let you bias for mike and against ulter put you in a position where you are arguing foolishly.

AliveGuy · 09-26-2003, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kraftydog
what I said was that HPLC is widely used and if you look at the method for ala HPLC is a lot simpler than the one in the Chirality abstract. ergo it is much more likely that the flaw is in the testing at IBC.

Chiral HPLC is another widely known, but less used, method of testing. It isn't some puzzle or some ****. Do you work in a lab. Huhu. WTF are you talking about? So a lab with advanced knowledge of some method that practices them are more likely to fail than a lab that isn't advance in knowledge and practices simpler HPLC methods?

Face it, no results at this point mean anything without a third party. Why are you dodging that point?

AliveGuy · 09-26-2003, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kraftydog
so you are saying that SRSC is not a real lab?

I am saying any of the 5 conclusions I listed above may have happend!

Period.

Remember, those three labs all were not aware of advanced HPLC testing methods for ALA like Chirality, which is all highly suspect that they are not up on that technology..funny labs. Thats common knowledge in the scientific community for any guy in a lab coat that does a pubmed search or reads journals on the technologies they employ.

Kraftydog · 09-26-2003, 07:13 PM

a quick search provided this

http://nmrservices.com/

http://www.wcaslab.com

I could not find the actual SRCS site

About San Rafael Chemical Services

Located in Salt Lake City, Utah, San Rafael Chemical Services (SRCS) was established in 1993 under the direction of Ralph Meibos, a 25-year veteran of chromatographic and spectrometric analysis and interpretation. SRCS specializes in HPLC analysis of biological material. For instrumentation, SRCS utilizes Hewlett Packard's 1090 series II/L HPLC and ties into the HP 5989 A - Mass Spectrometer engine when analyzing certain compounds and for method development. They also have the HP 5890 series II Gas Chromatograph for GC/MS determinations, along with other devices. SRCS also provides microbiological services and has licenses from the State of Utah and the United States Department of Justice, and the Drug Enforcement Administration for controlled substances (1-5) Analytical Laboratory.

Professional associations include the American Chemical Society (ACS), the American Society for Mass Spectrometry (ASMS) and the Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC).

AliveGuy · 09-26-2003, 07:15 PM

Yes, a real lab. One that doesn't read journals related to technologies they use as far as I can tell.

Listen...review the 5 above. apply them in both cases to either tests...then.....

explain to me why Ulter is God and has the proper test, why Mike is related to Osama, and why we do not need a third independent party using an independent lab organizing things.

AliveGuy · 09-26-2003, 07:17 PM

Furthermore, when you get done and take your head out of your ass, explain to me why no 3rd partys are ever needed, and why any company should be able to send thier stuff personally to any lab of their choosing, have it tested good, and why that therefore proves ALL their stuff is good, despite any refutation.

Give me a break.

Kraftydog · 09-26-2003, 07:24 PM

one more time because while you are befuddled you seem to care.

ulter test
HPLC for ALA
99.1 mg lipoic

mike test
HPLC chiral for ALA- which apparently only this lab does
49mg lipoic

HPLC is a proven and widely used method for ALA, for pretty much everything. The chiral test is not. From the old posts on the subject both mike and ulter spent a lot of time looking for labs that could even test for the enantiomers.

Ulters test is correct. ergo Mikes tests is not.

I dont know this with absolute certainty, but it is the most logical conclusion. I know that I beleive it with absolute certainty.

I have wasted enough time on this I have a charity run meet and greet in the morning and I need to get my rest so goodnight.

AliveGuy · 09-26-2003, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kraftydog
HPLC is a proven and widely used method for ALA, for pretty much everything. The chiral test is not. From the old posts on the subject both mike and ulter spent a lot of time looking for labs that could even test for the enantiomers.

HPLC Chiral is a PROVEN and PUBLISHED method in Chirality Journal of 1997 for differentiating the ALA enantiomers. Period.

I agree that plain HPLC is also well established. But, I question the lab that uses it because they are unaware of advanced HPLC methods such as Chiral HPLC, which is a credibility issue.

No logical conclusion can mbe made. Logic is deriving the only possible conclusion (which are many in this case) from a set of premises (those which we are not sure of).

Quote:

Originally posted by Kraftydog
I dont know this with absolute certainty, but it is the most logical conclusion. I know that I beleive it with absolute certainty.

No offense, but I don't think you grasp the concept of logic, as a device to reach conclusions. At this point, the only logical stance is to have NO conclusion, based on insufficient premises (some contradictory) that do not lead to one conclusion.

Instead, here's where Im at. You see, I trust Mike..thats not logic but bias. Yo can trust Ulter. I trust he had nothing wrong to do with a test external from himself. I trust the testing method, which is published. I do not trust the third party or the lab, as I do not know them. Ulter may or may not have underdosed his product intentionally, and probably didn't. The test does say they were underdosed. I do not fully trust the results for obvious reasons.

I do not trust Ulter being directly involved in his testing, because of motive (which doesn't imply wrong doing). I do not trust this lab because they know Ulter and do not know how to preform Chiral HPLC for ALA. So I do not trust those results.

I remain suspicious, still trusting Mike as I did before. But, I will not believe ANY result untill a third party goes to an uninvolved lab. Any other conclusion is just funny logic.

ulter · 09-26-2003, 07:41 PM

Glucorell R is routinely tested by some of the best labs in the country. We have been doing this since day one and posting the results on the website. We didn't have to spend our money doing this for the past 15 months but we wanted people who were not familar with us as a supplement company to know we sold the best possible product. We use different labs and rotate them just so we can verify the results of one against another to remove any chance of error.
SRCS is one of the best HPLC labs in the US. West Coast Analytical is also considered one of the best. And NMR has TWO Nobel Prize winners in Chemistry for NMR. We will be asking one of them to testify. Since it's their work Mike has defamed.
We are sending our product to be tested by the two largest labs in North America. Both are publically traded and could only be accused of fabricating tests by those like AG with a vivid imagination. Both will give us the results and they will be posted.
These extra tests we are doing, aside from the routine tests we do, are being done for no other reason but to satisfy those people who would doubt our product. Mike decided to test our product without our knowledge and then without giving us the oppurtunity to ask that the lab he chose send our sample to another lab for second opinion like he should have done, he just posted our trademark (what is likely to be his most costly mistake because the damages for this are statuatory and he'll end up having to pay $5000 for each view of that page) and then attached results from a lab, with a terrible reputation for inaccuracy, on his website. He then set about posting how underdosed our product is on several boards around the internet. What he did was wrong and there is no acceptable excuse for it.

AliveGuy · 09-26-2003, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ulter
Both will give us the results and they will be posted.
These extra tests we are doing, aside from the routine tests we do, are being done for no other reason but to satisfy those people who would doubt our product.

Oh. So I assume your settling this and doing the tests by giving funds to an uninvoled third party to organize this and send using a proper chain of custody to labs that you are not in contact with, who all use published methods for ALA differentiation?

Oh wait? not so...ahh. Nevemind. I thought people would give a **** for a moment.

Im sure by now that anyone who see this for the joke it is isn't going to change their mind and the others who follow wont either. Im actually staying in the middle pending something I can logically believe, despite trust in any party. I better also get off to my charity meet and greet

nArKeD · 09-26-2003, 07:53 PM

I'm sorry, but I'm not inclined to believe test results posted by the company which sells the product. That is as unreliable as the label on the box. A third party will need to settle the issue on dosage per capsule.

1fast400 · 09-26-2003, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Mike decided to test our product

I guess you to can't read. I did not test your product, nor did I have anything to do with the testing. I'm going to write this in crayola, scan it and then post a link for it so you understand that.

All of you that contend the testing isn't accurate. Do you forget that the total numbers don't add up anyway? So if the method were incorrect, it would just come up with wrong R and S numbers, but the TOTAL number would still be right.

ulter · 09-26-2003, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by AliveGuy
Oh. So I assume your settling this and doing the tests by giving funds to an uninvoled third party to organize this and send using a proper chain of custody to labs that you are not in contact with, who all use published methods for ALA differentiation?

Oh wait? not so...ahh. Nevemind. I thought people would give a **** for a moment.

Im sure by now that anyone who see this for the joke it is isn't going to change their mind and the others who follow wont either. Im actually staying in the middle pending something I can logically believe, despite trust in any party. I better also get off to my charity meet and greet

The bottles will be supplied at random to the labs doing the testing by the stores that have it on their shelves. We could do it your way but it's pointless and BTW would cost Mike even more than the method we're using. Keep in mind he'll be paying for all this when you make up your elaborate plan of how we should get our product tested.

1fast400 · 09-26-2003, 08:02 PM

I'm going to start selling a reading comprehension book on my site

ulter · 09-26-2003, 08:05 PM

Mike, tell it to the judge. I pity you if you believe that Neogen is going to cover your ass on this. We have your posts stating you are testing our product Mike, now you say you didn't. You can't have it both ways. You posted your were having it tested and now the test is wrong and you're trying to backpeddal by saying you didn't do it. Good luck with that.

AliveGuy · 09-26-2003, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ulter
Mike, tell it to the judge. I pity you if you believe that Neogen is going to cover your ass on this. We have your posts stating you are testing our product Mike, now you say you didn't. You can't have it both ways. You posted your were having it tested and now the test is wrong and you're trying to backpeddal by saying you didn't do it. Good luck with that.

afterall, posts 5 months ago (if true contextually or said at all) on a bodybuilding forum is legally binding and relevant in a court of law.

Good point above about the label...why bother with the assays Ulter? Just scan the label and post it as proof!

ulter · 09-26-2003, 08:42 PM

God I hope someone just like you is defending Mike in court AG.

ahbroody · 09-26-2003, 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ulter
Mike, tell it to the judge. I pity you if you believe that Neogen is going to cover your ass on this. We have your posts stating you are testing our product Mike, now you say you didn't. You can't have it both ways. You posted your were having it tested and now the test is wrong and you're trying to backpeddal by saying you didn't do it. Good luck with that.

I have no stake in this, I live in Nor Cal and know none of you people. This whole thing makes me laugh though. But Ulter seeing as how you claim to have some legal knowledge, let me help you. I am only a cop, however a mere statement cannot prove guilt. If mike can show some outside third party funded the test, you dont have him, atleast not in any court I have been in. If someone tested your product and gave the results to me and I posted them could you sue me? I have been to court a few times in my day. The court does not like to play connect the dots. If the evidence is not clear and without any and I mean ANY assumptions, I dont see how you could win. Even if it looks like he may have been associated, if there is not a clear paper trail showing he funded the test, and provided the sample, how can he be implemented in slander. Everything appears circumstancial. All you have is a statement he said he would do this at some point. If the legal system worked this way a hell of a lot of people would have been convicted on week evidence. Maybe the civil system is different from the criminal system, but I have met a few judges and they dont like playing connect the dots. If your relative works for macy's though he must know something. I just wish this crap would get over so I can see who wins. From my perspective of going to court and having to testify and seeing how things work.
If mike can show he nor anyone who works for him paid for the test, he was given the test for free, and merley posted results he was given, I dont see a judge deciding on your behalf. I know there seems to be a lot of coincidences here, but you cannot convict on coincidences, only hard evidence. There does seem to be a lack of it based on what has been posted.
If this is like everything else this crap will take for ever to resolve, the courts are usually busy with more serious items.
Maybe some random person with a couple of bucks who did not like you ulter saw you guys lil argument and decided to pay for the test. When he got the results he wanted to give them to mike to post. Could this have happened?
mikey