Energy Control's Methods May Cast Doubt on Accuracy of BlueViking Lab Report

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.


Comments


[42 Points] alfabi:

Props to you sir for seeking the truth and being honest.


[28 Points] SureWhyNot1923:

You are asking us to believe that a non-governmental organization is intentionally lying about the LSD content. Your proof is that someone told you they were wrong.

Here's the thing- Energy Control is literally the most respected drug testing center in the world. This is clearly an example of the Dunning-Kruger effect- the word of the experts (EC) has come in. People who would happily admit they are not experts don't like it, so they look for any reason for it not to be true.

The problem is, you can't vote on the sex of a cat. It is what it is. No matter how many people say "BV is amazing and he always doses perfect." The truth, plain and simple, is that an accepted authority says that is untrue.

NOW... I don't think we should crucify BV. But it's in his court to prove this is not true- send some of his own tabs out for review. But everyone who buys from him until that happens (or someone offers something other than "Well, maybe the report isn't right!") is basically saying they don't care if vendors lie.

As a community, it's been decided to accept slow shipping. Apparently, as a community, most would have us say it's ok to lie about potency, too.

You don't have to believe that BV sells underdosed tabs. You don't have to believe that both times I had HoS's tested they were within ten percent, or that DHLab tested heavy in all three tests. You don't have to believe that I've had BV tested before, and the reason I stopped buying from him was that multiple tests confirmed they were severely underdosed and he used the same "The lab's wrong because everyone sure trips" bullshit. LSD is active at 25ug's. Street tabs average between 20-50, depending on the area. Telling me 95ug's of LSD makes someone trip is not surprising- but if you're selling it as 200ug's, that's bullshit.

Anyway, no one will care- this thread will continue to ignore science because an internet drug dealer says he's not lying.


[20 Points] ineedbetterfriends:

I think that everything is above board. What they are saying is that they use two techniques to characterise the LSD. They use GC/MS to get a qualitative result (LSD or not?) and then they use a HPLC with a calibration curve of known LSD solutions to get a quantitative result (how much LSD is there, and what isomers are present). This is not unusual.

The reason the data sheets are different is because they are showing two different tests, the qualitative and the quantitative. First they confirm the chemical (because you need to know what the chemical is in order to *know what standard solution to make), and then they quantify it.

What you need to do is get a copy of both the GC/MS and HPLC/MS reports. Once you have those, you will be in a better position to understand their testing methodology.


[15 Points] akcom:

I would just like to point out that while I agree EC is doing something fishy, I do not for a second believe the OP has been in contact with Dr. Nichols or that Dr. Nichols has anything to say about EC. As a researcher in the field, I've met Dr. Nichols on multiple occasions at symposiums and conferences and I am 100% positive he would not even respond to an email about this sort of non-sense.

As for EC, what they're telling you is utter shit. GC/MS cannot distinguish between isomers (iso-LSD versus LSD) and there is no way iso-LSD would be preferentially destroyed.


[14 Points] None:

We need the LSD Avengers again. Thats a lot cheaper than having it tested.


[8 Points] youtakesally:

Why trusting an NGO when you can trust an anonymous drug dealer? Whatever he claims is much more reliable!


[5 Points] SimianCinnamon:

I think alot of this backlash is due to peoples "Drug Penis" size being threatened. Ive known plenty of people, especially when it comes to acid, who totally take pride in taking big doses of acid and bragging about it. Moreso on here as well. Ive always been skeptical of the people who post about taking 300 mics to the dome and actig like it was just another casual trip...


[5 Points] Liquidedna:

Greetings. I have worked in many laboratories over the years. Environmental, pharma, micro. In short, jack of all trades, master of none. I wanted to add a couple things to consider regarding laboratory testing. First, the QUALITY of work a given lab performs can be determined to some degree using some basic methods. I'm going to list some that I think might help.

Duplicate samples- by submitting samples that you KNOW are equal. I'm not sure if this means cutting a tab in two or from the same area of a sheet. I'm sure you all know more about variation and what could vary for a given sample size. But by sending two samples that you know are equal is an easy way to check accuracy.

Request QC related to the sample- this would include calibration curves, standard checks, blank checks and in-house duplicate data. A lab should provide dated, traceable quality control information that proves instrument accuracy.

Multiple lab verification-send duplicate samples to multiple labs and compare results.

In my experience there are different levels of quality from lab to lab. And I have seen, first hand, labs "fudge" data. So I guess anything is possible but if you really want to invest some time and money, there are ways to confirm data authenticity and accuracy.


[5 Points] soliketotally:

You are too dumb to understand the analysis methods.


[0 Points] None:

Good on you for doing a bit of digging to bring this to light. There must be another company that'll test more honestly.


[2 Points] bababooooooooey:

Oh so maybe this one result wasn't as credible as everyone thought.

Maybe all those thousands of reviews weren't just "anecdotal evidence".

I got jumped all over and downvoted to oblivion for suggesting everyone take a step back before clubbing BV's acid. I was just shilling for BV. I was just an inexperienced acid user. I was just misinformed on how LSD works.

I have faith in this DNM community. If a vendor whether it be BV or Humboldt or any other vendor who has gotten shamed on reddit I go with the reviews from the markets.

Reddit is notorious for unfounded scam accusations, and spreading of FUD.

I knew there was something wrong here.


[1 Points] None:

good work, Lou. The game is afoot.


[1 Points] Dosedup:

What if like HoS totally works for EC? It's the perfect plan . Tenguy.jpg


[1 Points] Vendor_BBMC:

Yes, it depends on the filament temperature, which in high-throughput labs is set at a compromise to avoid continual recalibration.

ephedrine is turned into methamphetamine at high input temperatures. Its just a matter of time before its used as a legal defence.

I would have concerns about all the LSD being removed from the blotter to the solvent used, too


[1 Points] None:

Plot twist: Energy Control ate the tabs and sent BS paperwork.


[1 Points] Drogoteca:

I'm expecting to see the bloodshed and no blood around here. :P

I know that many people would like to expect from Energy Control or any other NGO working on drug testing and harm reduction, accurate results on their tests.

But at the same time I wonder... how many of you people have funded somehow anytime a NGO where you wanna test your drugs?

I'm not saying I don't care for an uncertain result of any sample, I'm just saying that if I want that accuracy level, I'd pay a PRO lab to test what I want... or I'd support more often with money those NGOs that make it for free, whether it'd be Energy Control or AiLaket or any other in the world.

Just saying.

:)


[1 Points] iknowwwhatiknow:

so this just in from Energy Control....more bologna as now they claim that the original sheets they sent me in august are just examples see below

When did you send your blotter? We started sending pdf reports since october, not before because of old software. But LSD has always been quantified by HPLC since 2013.

/u/bababooyey123


[1 Points] SoulUndead:

I'm less concerned about EC's methods and more concerned about the fact that you used an old ass tab to test...


[1 Points] BreathAether:

There are some threads in The Majestic Garden's forums that have a few Energy Control reports of a handful of blotters and some of the blotters sent in were +/- 10ug of the advertised dosages and some others were about half of the advertised dosage.

OOTP was in there with one of the most accurately laid tabs of 92 ug (advertised at 100 ug) and Inanna (forgot the microgram content but I remember it being accurate).

Stay skeptical though, correlation =/= causation.


[1 Points] throwahooawayyfoe:

Thank you for saying this. The info you provided yesterday could have potentially crucified a major vendor if taken the wrong way.

I have to say this in BV's defense, though, simply because he popped my darknet cherry and for that he'll always have a special place in my heart. He's never done me wrong and his tabs have always taken me to a new and more exciting level than the last. I do truly believe he gets a bad, or at least uneven, lay every once in a while because I've only ever gotten one single tab, one tab that was attached to the rest of the 5-strip, that was weaker than the others. I will also say this. Even if he does intentionally underdose his tabs, it's still some of the best fucking acid I've ever had in my life.


[1 Points] galmse:

You know, I defended you just a bit in your other thread. But now I think you're just attention whoring.


[0 Points] irGoodman:

Good work, what a great update.


[0 Points] None:

I'm gonna put on my tin foil top-hat and say that this is a grand conspiracy and EC is in fact running a scam: have people sent you free acid (plus a bonus of however much you charge for your "service") and then resell it for 100% profit while fabricating test results.

I will now remove the hat.


[-1 Points] spainthrowaaway:

None


[-3 Points] DnmAvenger:

This is great that you came back this way. I actually got a response back from BV when I messaged him on Evo and he was open for discussion about the test. He told me that he commented on the original thread you made also. I am not sure if he posted as himself or anonymously.

I hope this serves as a lesson to everyone who grabbed those fucking pitchforks and torches. Do not jump to conclusions when evidence is not overwhelming. There are good vendors out there. BV is one of them.

I do not think anyone really understands the scientific process around here. If you remember... you should have learned all about it in like the 4th grade. I am not saying BV is perfect, but I hope everyone that was talking shit(especially LNB) enjoys the taste of all that foot in your mouth. Big, gigantic props to OP for everything, but this just goes to show that you should always take problems up with the vendor first.

BV told me himself that it was hard to argue with lab tests, and that he was going to look further into all of this. So many variables could be wrong even without this current revelation. Nothing against OP, but many other vendors had Marilyn prints. That alone should raise doubt. You have no idea what he sent or proof of where it was purchased. You can't believe everything you read on the internet. You kinda have to be vetted around here before I take any posts that you make seriously. Just because you put the fire out doesn't mean that it is cool that you started it in the first place.


[-7 Points] PsychedelicTangerine:

Blue Vikings tabs are for sure accurate other than that one time he had the bad lay. Either got an edge piece or another vendors sabatoge. BV sells out in hours. Will still use him