After my post about the results of the Energy Control analysis of BlueViking's tab, many people messaged me about planning to send other vendor's tabs to EC for analysis. I think -- or at least I thought -- that was a wonderful idea.
In the interest of fairness, I'm going to post comment on a reply I got in another thread from someone who also sent tabs to EC for testing, and who has some serious reservations about their methods. The gist of the comment is this: after sending in tabs to EC, he got varying answers about their methods of measurement. Also, when you compare data sheets between an EC submission from edata and the test of Peaceful's tabs a few weeks ago, they are not the same. I don't think it can be said they were caught in an outright lie, but, as the commentor said to me, there are some serious "shenanigans" going on. The commentor claims to have even spoken to famed LSD scientist then David Nichols (if you don't know who he is -- google him), who implied that EC is up to some sneaky shit. I am not saying that all this invalidates the test results, but we do need to look at EC's analyses with suspicion. I've edited the comment to have it make a little more sense -- some of the stuff is out of context) is as follows:
"[OP's comment] has nothing to do with skepticism it has everything to do with energy control. When they sent those lab tests they claimed to have done GC/MS and that heat destroyed the ISO. . . . [OP is quoting from my original post here:] "the Energy Control lab tech told me that they are able to distinguish between active amounts of LSD 25 and inactive amounts of iso-lsd . . ." This is exactly that was told to me except for the fact that mine couldn't give the ISO because they used GC/MS. Which heat degrades ISO so it wouldn't show up. Now if you compare that with the recent emails I've exchanged with them you'll begin to see what I'm talking about.
Me
I was planning on getting another tab tested with you guys but I had a question. Last time when you tested my tab of LSD, it had no ISO-LSD or LUMI-LSD on analysis. You claimed, "The quantitative result was made with an HPLC. LSD is degraded by high temperatures of GC/MS, so you need another technique to quantify it. We're using a calibration curve from a reference standard of LSD and we're using a mass spectra with MRM mode to quantify it." What I don't understand is according to your own results webpage http://energycontrol.org/analisis-de-sustancias/resultados/ultimas-muestras-analizadas.html it shows many of the blotters you test contain ISO-LSD. Many of which are in higher quantity than the LSD itself. What I would like to know is what steps I would need to take, when initiating this test with you guys, to properly have my tab tested for LSD, ISO and LUMI and any other contaminants that may be on the blotter. If I need to have an LC/MS done on it that would be fine just let me know the details.
Energy Control: You are right, LSD is analysed with HPLC/MS/MS because of what you mentioned about temperatures. We always do it this way, if last results just showed LSD should be because it didn't contain anything else ;) There is no special steps to take, no worries.
My reply back was But if that's the case then why did you send me a GC/MS readout? And never claim to have run LC/MS in the first place. https://www.ecstasydata.org/view.php?id=3374 I sent the data sheet to ecstasy data so it's an easy reference for you. It clearly shows GCMSD so I'm still confused? Why are you blatantly?
Then the best reply yet from energy control: That's for qualitative analysis. The quantitative result was made with an HPLC. LSD is degraded by high temperatures of GC/MS, so you need another technique to quantify it. We're using a calibration curve from a reference standard of LSD and we're using a mass spectra with MRM mode to quantify it.
I've already gone over this with Dr. Nichols one of the researchers in LSD and he told me that energy control is definitely doing something fishy. He's said I've clearly called them out on their own bullshit. After my last email back to them they won't even respond so...... Compare all of the data sheets suppose it BV mine and peaceful's....you'll see what I'm saying.*"
Has Energy Control been caught in a lie? And, if so, what does that mean for the accuracy of their results? The purpose of my post was not to burn BlueViking at the stake. I fully admit that I was quite harsh and biased in my original post. That was not fair to BlueViking. I should have taken a more mediated tone by looking at all possible explanations for the result. I am simply looking for the truth -- do these vendors, including BV, accurately dose their tabs? Two things to take away from this: first, as various commentors have noted, it is not scientifically or statistically sound to say that, because one tab may have been underdosed, all tabs are underdosed. It certainly is a red flag, but more tests need to be done before one can say with certainty that all tabs are being underdosed. But secondly, and most importantly, if Energy Control's methods are suspect, and they may not be accurately measuring dosage in tabs, then the whole process goes out the window and we, as a community, are back to square one. I am not saying to totally disregard EC results -- it seems like they are accurately testing substances, according to their results page -- but perhaps we should take their dosage results with a grain of salt.
TL;DR I received some information from another Redditor that may cast doubt on the accuracy of the BlueViking lab report posted here a few days ago. Take Energy Control's results with a grain of salt.
Props to you sir for seeking the truth and being honest.