Bostin Loyd and Jerry Ward – the Third and Final Installment

This is the third and final installment of the Transformix Peptides series. The Transformix Indictment mentions quite a few drugs – and as you can imagine I’ve got some thoughts on them. To anchor these thoughts, I’ll be going through statements made by the owner(s) of the company (which were later used as evidence against them) and broadly discussing the drugs. This may be a factor to consider when you decide whether or not to add your name to their customer list — remember, multiple Transformix customers were outed when they got busted (a direct result of their snitching).

As I am using quotes from Transformix as a springboard, I’ll also be addressing 1. why those statements are inaccurate, and 2. why they constituted evidence of criminal activity. You may be surprised to find out that statements made by their customers were also used as evidence…but let’s not get ahead of ourselves. It’s not my intent to specifically trash the owners of Transformix (Anthony Novak and Spencer Gill), but rather to give you some insight into the general state of the research chemical industry (or peptide industry or SARMs industry, if you prefer). I’ve also got some thoughts to share on these drugs, categorically speaking (none of which really “fit” into the two prior articles).

As I see it, the majority of information being published online (videos, articles, blog posts, whatever) is done so by those with a direct financial incentive (e.g., by a company selling research chems or a podcast sponsored by that company…or…you get the idea). Accordingly, that information is tainted (at best)…but if we’re speaking honestly, it’s wrong as often as not. This article attempts to clean up some of the misconceptions about these drugs.

***

I wrote Anabolic Steroids, Ultimate Research Guide in 2005 – although covering a wide spectrum of performance enhancing drugs, it was focused primarily on anabolic androgenic steroids. I wrote “Beyond Steroids” (a deep dive into growth hormone, IGF-1, and related peptides) in 2006. And I introduced SARMs to the underground through a 2007 article (about half a year before they hit the market) – followed up by a solid couple of years writing about any SARM I could find in every medical journal. Because I was so prolific in writing about these substances, I actually received a cease and desist letter from GTx Pharmaceuticals (I neither ceased nor desisted).

I bring this up, not to brag (which would be 9/10 cringe), but because these three categories (anabolic steroids, peptides, and SARMs) represent the three primary families of performance enhancing drugs. Sure, there are some other important groups (beta agonists, anti-estrogens, etc.), but steroids, SARMs, and peptides are the backbone of nearly all pharmaceutical-based performance enhancement protocols.

In other words, people develop and design protocols around anabolic steroids, SARMs, and peptides, not anti-estrogens and beta agonists. This makes my job, at least for this article, easy…The Transformix indictment references drugs from all three categories, and this is how I’ll be breaking up my analysis. So if you’re reading along with the indictment (link in endnotes), it may seem as though I’m jumping around a lot. I am, but this is for logical (if not chronological) consistency.

SARMs:

“The term SARMS [sic] stands for Selective Androgen Receptor Modulators…[they] are not an imitation of steroids…they’re an upgrade. They’re said to treat various illnesses that were formerly treated with anabolic steroids and other medicines.” (Indictment, pg. 20).

SARMs are not “…used to treat illnesses that were formerly treated with anabolic steroids…” This is because in the time between my first using them, and that statement being made, SARMs have not been FDA-approved for anything. This isn’t just Ostarine either…no SARM has ever made it through the clinical trials necessary to prove that they’re better than anabolic steroids (and therefore a useful medication). This means they’re not legal for sale in any form – you already know that they can’t be sold as a research chemical, people have gone to prison for selling them as dietary supplements, and they’re not legally allowed to be produced as a compounded medication.

When I first wrote about SARMs, back in 2007/8, I was almost as enthusiastic as Transformix concerning their projected efficacy. Back then, I had managed to get a bottle of Ostarine before anyone had even heard of the stuff. Nobody was selling it yet and nobody had used it. The owner of the company had two bottles, and he kept one and gave me the other. Yeah, it was that long ago.

Because it hadn’t hit the market yet, obviously there were no logs anywhere. Writing the first published article on the stuff, I called it “testosterone without the testosterone.” I was very enthusiastic about the future of performance enhancement when it came to SARMs. Legitimate scientific data was scarce. Because I’d been off steroids for a while, I had a fairly clean slate regarding any response to androgens, and I saw pretty good results. Still, at this point, we didn’t have solid data on whether Ostarine (or any SARMs) inhibited testosterone production (they do), and I was the only person who’d used it for performance enhancing purposes (as opposed to clinical test subjects who used it without exercising). If there were any athletes using SARMs to defeat drug testing, they weren’t exactly posting logs.

So that’s my excuse for my initial overenthusiasm. But fast forward a decade, when Transformix was claiming them to be an upgrade over anabolic steroids…there’s no excuse for that kind of misinformation.

To me, Ostarine’s effects were similar to what would be seen with a low/standard hormone replacement therapy dose. The problem is, at least in the real world, mega dosing SARMs does not produce the same dose/response curve as steroids. There just seems to be a low ceiling for what you can actually get out of SARMs, and they’re just not on par with anabolic steroids. Put another way, doubling your testosterone dose from 200mgs/week to 400mgs/week, will produce a roughly commensurate doubling of gains; doubling your dose from 2,000mgs/week to 4,000mgs/week does NOT double your gains. There is a point of diminishing returns with all performance enhancers and the ceiling for SARMs is comparatively low.

Inasmuch as they lack some of the side effects typically associated with testosterone replacement therapy, they also lack many of the benefits. I didn’t experience an increase in libido or many of the other (desirable) effects, just a few pounds of muscle and strength gains. I found this to be the case with every SARM, from a personal use perspective. I just can’t get on board with the idea that SARMs are better – or even as good as – anabolic steroids. I’m talking about real-world-better. Sure, if we compare an unrealistically low dose of something like Mesterolone (Proviron) with a massive dose of RAD-140 (or Andarine, or whatever), the SARM is going to win every time. But a marginally supraphysiological dose of any reasonable androgen is light years more effective (all around) than SARMs.

I know, I know…lots of people (most of whom are selling them) swear by SARMs, but if we’re being honest, they’re nowhere near an upgrade of anabolic steroids. At best, they can be used in lieu of a weak oral anabolic steroid, and they represent a “safe” performance enhancing drug in terms of being able to go online, order with a credit card, and be virtually assured (as the end user) that there won’t be legal repercussions (in terms of being arrested and prosecuted, I’ve never seen this happen to an end-user).

“There’s a product on Transformix, it’s called SARM 3D. It’s got three SARMs in one…Ostarine, LGD, and GW.” (Indictment, pg. 38).

This statement is 2/3rds correct. Ostarine is a SARM. LGD (presumably LGD-4033) is a SARM. But GW (presumably GW-501516) is not a SARM at all. It’s not even close. This drug has got nothing to do with the androgen receptor but rather is a PPAR δ receptor agonist. These guys are advising customers on product use and they don’t even know what they are selling.

Without going too deep, the peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor influences various aspects of metabolism including substrate utilization (converting foodstuffs into usable energy) and lipid storage (body fat accumulation or reduction). In rodent studies it’s been shown both to reduce bodyfat and improve exercise performance; it also produces gigantic tumors in multiple organs (leading to the drug never making its way out of rodent trials.)

Transformix also marketed YK-11 as a SARM. And I realize that everyone believes YK-11 is a SARM. Maybe YOU have been told that YK-11 is a SARM. But YK-11 is actually a 19-nor anabolic steroid (17α-methyl-δ2-17β-hydroxyestra-4,9-dien-3-one). YK-11 is not listed as an anabolic steroid under the Controlled Substance Act. But note that it meets the criteria to legally be considered a “designer steroid,” as it 1. has been created or manufactured with the intent to promote muscle growth or other pharmacological effect similar to testosterone or, 2. is marketed to suggest that it will have effects similar to testosterone. Traditionally, SARMs are manufactured and marketed in precisely this manner, with intent and claims that they act like testosterone.

So while everyone believes this substance is a SARM (including the prosecutors in this case), I assure you, it is an anabolic steroid. Like every anabolic steroid besides testosterone, it selectively activates the androgen receptor. This is the whole reason behind synthesizing anabolic steroids beyond testosterone, e.g., to produce disparate anabolic and androgenic effects through manipulating the base structure. YK-11 is a 19-nor anabolic steroid with a funky modification to allow it to be orally active.

This is YK-11:

This is the base structure of all anabolic steroids:

As you can see, YK-11 has a base structure that places it firmly in the anabolic steroid category. Of course, there’s no human data on this stuff, and human data (logs, brah) is less than impressive. When’s the last time we had a widely available 19-nor oral anabolic steroid on the market? Nilevar in the ‘60s? Anyway, if you decide to use it, just do so with your eyes open to the fact that you are not using a SARM, you are using an anabolic steroid (and likely a highly suppressive one).

SARMs and anabolic steroids are two different categories of pharmaceuticals — even though, obviously, anabolic steroids also modulate the androgen receptor. This applies both scientifically and legally. As you can see from the pictures below, SARMs do not have a steroid molecule as their base structure. That’s the whole point of SARMs as a category of pharmaceutical, that they produce anabolic steroid-like effects without actually being anabolic steroids. Referring to an anabolic steroid as a SARM does not make it one…although, to date, this seems to be sufficient to fool prosecutors (who have prosecuted those selling it numerous times but always failed to correctly identify that it is an anabolic steroid).

Anabolic Steroids

Besides YK-11, Transformix was selling anabolic steroids, marketed as “prohormones.” One such product was “Brickhouse.” Describing Brickhouse, the owner of Transformix said (to an undercover agent) that it contains “M1, Methylsten, and DMZ…which are all borderline legal.” Spoiler alert: none of these substances are legal.

Assuming that “M1” is Methyl-1 Testosterone, this is a controlled substance in Schedule III and is completely illegal for sale by anyone (no, doctors can not prescribe it and compounding pharmacies can not produce it). Calling it a dietary supplement does not make it one. Assuming that “Methylsten” is Methylstenbolone and that DMZ is Dimethazine, both of these drugs are unlisted anabolic steroids that have been successfully prosecuted under the Designer Anabolic Steroid Control Act. This product isn’t even close to borderline legal. But as with the great majority of drugs sold in this manner, the government doesn’t prosecute the end user (even if in this case they dimed ‘em out to USADA and got them sanctioned as competitive athletes).

All three of the drugs are 5 alpha reduced anabolic steroids, meaning that they have been converted to a dihydro version, and results/side effects are going to be similar to other DHT derivatives (think hair loss and acne), while the fact that these drugs are methylated indicates that they will stress the liver. Methylstenbolone has been compared by users to Stanozolol (Winstrol), while DMZ and M1T have been compared to Oxymetholone (Anadrol). For DMZ, a better comparison would be to Methasterone (Superdrol, or more accurately, “Methyldrostanolone”), as a DMZ molecule is actually just two Methyldrostanolone molecules connected through an azine bond. This is a very weak bond that is eliminated upon ingestion, leaving behind the pair of steroid molecules to be metabolized. If you look at the diagram of the base steroid molecule above, you will see two of them in the picture below.

Just for fun…ever take a look at Aromasin (Exemestane, below)? Yeah, it’s a dihydrotestosterone based anabolic steroid. Dihydrotestosterone has aromatase inhibitory properties, and with the correct modifications (as seen with Aromasin), it can inhibit estrogen enough to cause an increase in testosterone (lower estrogen enough and you will impact the body’s negative feedback loop and thereby raise testosterone). But because it wasn’t produced to have anabolic properties (which it does), and never marketed for those effects, it doesn’t meet the criteria to be considered a designer steroid.

Peptides

“Peptides are good. Peptides are awesome, don’t get me wrong, but peptides, the only downside, you got to inject peptides…” (Indictment, pg. 38).

Ahhhh, peptides…where to begin. First, you absolutely do NOT have to inject peptides. At least not all of them. Peptides are just amino acids joined together with a peptide bond (note: this doesn’t mean that all peptides are legal for sale as a dietary supplement). Many growth hormone releasing peptides are orally active (GHRP-6, for example). In addition, there are a ton of purported nootropic peptides (Semax, Selank, Dihexa – none of which I necessarily believe are effective) that are orally available. And of course, BPC-157, is available in both pill and injectable form (the strength of a placebo given by injection is greater than an oral placebo…so if you’re considering using this stuff, make sure it’s the injectable form).

Despite being named “Transformix Peptides,” the majority of criminal activity covered in this indictment didn’t have much to do with peptides. However, when we look at the actual products being sold, a good number were peptides: HGH-Frag, IGF1-Lr3, IGF-DES, CJC-1295, and GHRP-6. As you can see, these are all related to growth hormone secretion. Well, sort of…IGF-1 is released in response to the secretion of human growth hormone, while the rest of these drugs are growth hormone releasing peptides, or GHRPs..

Again, a peptide is just a sequence of amino acids bound together by peptide bonds. To get into the weeds a bit more (legally), a peptide is any peptide-bound sequence 40 amino acids or less while a “protein” is a peptide chain comprised of greater than 40 amino acids (the scientific community often puts that boundary at 50 amino acids). Anything larger (longer?) than 40-50 aminos in length is no longer classified as a peptide, but rather a protein. So technically, IGF-1 isn’t actually a peptide (nor is hCG or hGH, both of which are also a sequence of amino acids with peptide bonds).

Customer Comments:

This is where the indictment provides information that most will probably overlook. Why did the government include comments made by Transformix’s customers? Some of the customer comments include:

“[unknown]…from this company is badass it helps control estrogen aka what gives you bitch tits!!!” and “…get this instead of your protein shake.”

These comments, although not posted by the company itself, show that they were aware that people were purchasing their products for human use. That’s right, comments made by their own customers, endorsing the products (and meant to help the company) ended up being used as evidence against them. This is common sense, but it’s not enough for a research chemical company to not directly say that the products are for human consumption, if it can be proven that they are aware of their products being otherwise misused (read: correctly used).

So hypothetically, let’s assume there is a research chemical business with a Facebook page and all of the comments are from users talking about how great the products are, clearly from experience/personal consumption. Or even worse, imagine a research chemical company who sponsors a forum on a message board, and they’ve got thousands of posts concerning dosing and use and how to incorporate the drugs into a cycle. Take 1 milligram of Arimidex/Anastrozole every third day. Inject the IGF1-Lr3 post-workout. Taper the clenbuterol along with the T3. Imagine sitting in a witness box trying to explain to a jury that, yes, you paid to open those forums, and yes, you gave a monthly product allowance to the moderator overseeing the forum(s), but no, you had no idea that anyone was consuming your products (even though the forum description was “How to use peptides”).

Email Exchanges:

As if the customer comments weren’t bad enough, Transformix also answered emails telling customers exactly how to use their products for research.

“Hello…Research protocol for Clen and T3 are as follows; Clen – start 40mcg Everyday split into 2 doses *Taper up by 20mcg every 2 weeks for clen. Do not go higher than 80mcgs[.] T3- Start with 25mcg everyday[.] Taper up by 25mcg after 1 week. Stay at 50mcg for another 9 weeks.”

You get the idea. This isn’t Hogwarts where you can say the magic word “research” and convert the sale of an illegal drug into a totally legal transaction. There is no such loophole and any influencer or self-published eBook author who tells you otherwise is badly confused.

Some Final Thoughts

Throughout my time in this space, I have used a good deal of products from research chemical companies. At times this is because I wanted something for which I could not obtain a prescription – maybe to test drive a PCT (Exemestane, hCG, and Nolvadex) of my own devising. Maybe I wanted to use a pharmaceutical that lacks approval in the United States (for example Clenbuterol is not FDA-approved, although its cousin Albuterol is widely prescribed). Or maybe, in my younger (read: more reckless) days I wanted to use something that had barely made its way out of the medical journals – I used IGF1-Lr3 and MGF (Mechano Growth Factor) two decades ago, when there was little to no published data on their use as performance enhancing drugs. I used stuff that actually never made it to the research chemical market (I used something that was identified as EPOrh, or erythropoietin releasing hormone, to boost RBC count).

If you’re choosing to purchase research chemicals, you should be clear on the fact that these companies are not exploiting a loophole. They are straight up selling you drugs, and it’s entirely illegal. You should also be clear that these guys are a tsunami of misinformation regarding everything from what the drugs are to how the drugs work. Warnings aside, I’ve never seen a customer arrested for purchasing them, nor have I seen anyone develop an abscess or unexpected medical complication from using them. To be perfectly frank, while IGF-1 is known to be associated with numerous different types of cancer – we don’t know the degree to which overuse of growth hormone releasing peptides and IGF1-Lr3 increases that risk.

I’ve seen research chemicals “not work” (e.g., they were under dosed or did not contain active ingredients) – maybe this isn’t a problem if we are talking about IGF1-Lr3, but if we are talking about an aromatase inhibitor, it could be the difference between developing gyno and not developing gyno. It’s not as though you can report a research chemical company the Better Business Bureau…often you can’t even leave a bad review or complain on a message board, because many will delete negative comments. To avoid bad reviews on their Arimidex (a moderately strong aromatase inhibitor), Great White Peptides used to lace it with Letrozole (Femara – an incredibly strong aromatase inhibitor – notorious for tanking estrogen into the gutter).

Everyone has seen some research chemical users suffer the expected medical complications (wrecking cholesterol and lipid profiles with Letrozole, for example…or getting insomnia from Clenbuterol, etc…). This is the price you pay after checkout, when you actually use the drugs. Of course, I’ve also seen (and experienced) great success with the use of research chemicals. On the business side, of the dozens of companies that have come and gone, only two (2) research chemical companies made some money, banked it or invested it in another area of the industry, and walked away without being arrested. Of those two, one ended up in prison anyway (for something else). If you’re in the market, thinking of using research chemicals or even starting your own company read this article again (then re-read the first two parts), and make the most informed decision possible.

End Notes:

All Freedom of Information Act documents regarding this article series is now available on MuckRock:

I have uploaded the indictment to Court Listener, using the RECAP browser extension:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vawd.110851/gov.uscourts.vawd.110851.4.0.pdf

Podcast Appearance, speaking about SARMs:

https://livelifeaggressively.libsyn.com/ep157-controversial-supplement-industry-watchdog-anthony-roberts-returns-to-talk-sarms-the-psychology-of-missed-deadlift-reps-conor-mcgregor-vs-aldo-the-problem-wsupplement-sponsorships-in-mma-more