Source QC and C of A (do you have one?)

[readalot]

You are not worth my time.

Clearly I am based on the data available. You told me who would not reply to me again and yet you did. You are not a person of your word.

Thank you for response. Here is some helpful information to improve your reasoning and analytical skills if you want:

The Ladder of Inference - Mindtools

Use the Ladder of Inference to explore the seven steps we take in our thinking to get from a fact to a decision or action, and challenge them.

www.mindtools.com

How did you take the information in my posts and jump to the conclusions you did? How was your fragile AAS worldview challenged? Do better. An apology would be the honorable thing for you to give. Do you have good character?

 

[readalot]

Thank you for the rapid fire 11 dislikes on my posts @lonewolf54321 . Surely I must be on the right track here.

Take care.

 

[lonewolf54321]

Thank you for the rapid fire 11 dislikes on my posts @lonewolf54321 . Surely I must be on the right track here.

Take care.

I missed a few lol. Only track you are on is seeing how many people ignore you.

 

[readalot]

I missed a few lol. Only track you are on is seeing how many people ignore you.

Enjoy.

 

[Obscured78]

This dude just likes to hear himself
talk and believes himself to be smarter than everyone else.
Like you said you don’t even use UGL.
And you’re also unwilling to conduct these tests yourself.
So go away already, nobody cares. It’s annoying.

 

[readalot]

This dude just likes to hear himself
talk and believes himself to be smarter than everyone else.
Like you said you don’t even use UGL.
And you’re also unwilling to conduct these tests yourself.
So go away already, nobody cares. It’s annoying.

Thanks for the feedback and confirming you did not read the thread.

Besides a little back and forth with some of the abusive members, not once have I indicated I think I am smarter than everyone else. Not even close.

Pure projection on your part. I have gone out of my way to provde details so my position is not bastardized. If your takeaway from that is I like to hear myself talk, then so be it.

 

[GaulEmilRenzo]

Ban when?

 

[readalot]

Ban when?

Ban who?

That is your contribution here?

 

[Millard]

Bringing this here to not clog up B Ware's thread further with useless attacks from the unhelpful obstruction crowd.

So now clog up Stan’s thread? Brother if a source is interested they’ll read your thread and reach out to you.

Probably best to reply to this topic in this thread to keep the discussion from getting fragmented (and "clogging up" other threads).

 

[Millard]

Speciation (Phase 1) and quantification (perhaps Phase 2) of impurities. See summary below. As discussed heavy metals are probably not a major concern but definitely a "nice to check". For some reason many seem to try to reduce my questions/ideas to "heavy metals" as a straw man tactic I presume.

. I have tried to make as clear as I can but perhaps I need to do better. Heavy metals/metal contamination is not the primary concern with all this although it should be routinely checked as part of panel identified above. And I agree with you that other consumer products as the ones your highlighted above and even simple tuna cans most likely pose a higher relative risk.

The piece of all this that is most sorely lagging is the ID/quantification of the typical 1-5% impurity pile in AAS raws. The majority is most likely not metals / heavy metals but unreacted raw materials for the chemical synthesis, side products, or spent catalyst that was not removed during purification (typically crystallization for AAS). Also any residual solvent?

So as part of this identification (initial) and quantification (later stage) we will be able to gauge what risk these impurities pose to the user or whether they are more innocuous than the AAS API. For example it may be that for many raws the major impurity is the androstane starting material or unreached carboxylic acid for the ester. The key is to determine and ensure raw manufacturers are doing their job on the synthesis and purification. What impurity level is too much? There is a standard that seems to be acceptable now. With the ID of those impurities will that standard still be acceptable?

You should streamline and simplify. Instead of 'asking for the moon', list those specific tests that are readily available now, calculate the costs, and propose this as a recommendation towards incrementally increasing the number of tests above and beyond qualitative/quantitative.

 

[Millard]

I'm not sure why everyone is losing their minds over this.

@readalot is asking for additional testing above and beyond the standard qualitative/quantitative tests that most sources are doing now.

We are familiar with qualitative/quantitative questions like:

'Does Primo 200 contain methenolone enanthate? How much methonolone enanthate?'

He wants testing to answer more questions like:

'Does Primo 200 contain any impurities besides methenolone? Does it contain other AAS e.g. testosterone, trenbolone, etc? Does it contain impurities like arsenic, mercury, lead, etc.?'

And also additional testing to answer questions like:

'Does Primo 200 contain microbiological, mold, or yeast contamination?'

And finally, he wants sources to pay for this additional testing.

It's basic harm reduction stuff that I would hope most people would support.

I would have expected the disagreement to understandably be more focused on the specifics of his proposal. I think the problems are in the details. Not the general harm reduction approach.

The naked source advocacy in other threads has caught me off guard.

 

[Pinnacle Elements]

I'm not sure why everyone is losing their minds over this.

@readalot is asking for additional testing above and beyond the standard qualitative/quantitative tests that most sources are doing now.

We are familiar with qualitative/quantitative questions like:

'Does Primo 200 contain methenolone enanthate? How much methonolone enanthate?'

He wants testing to answer more questions like:

'Does Primo 200 contain any impurities besides methenolone? Does it contain other AAS e.g. testosterone, trenbolone, etc? Does it contain impurities like arsenic, mercury, lead, etc.?'

And also additional testing to answer questions like:

'Does Primo 200 contain microbiological, mold, or yeast contamination?'

And finally, he wants sources to pay for this additional testing.

It's basic harm reduction stuff that I would hope most people would support.

I would have expected the disagreement to understandably be more focused on the specifics of his proposal. I think the problems are in the details. Not the general harm reduction approach.

The naked source advocacy in other threads has caught me off guard.

I propose @readalot steps up as a source to provide these tested products to the standards he seeks.

I don’t think it’s a terrible idea. But I think he will find that the costs associated with his desires don’t resonate with a profitable business.

If he’s correct, he will make a killing in the niche he identified in the market.

However, the market seems to hold cost effective over quality, in general. I.e- QSC has multiple accounts of floaters in their vials. Yet, people still frenzy over the source.

 

[readalot]

If he’s correct, he will make a killing in the niche he identified in the market.

I can assure you I won't make any killing. I have no financial interest or conflict in this and even offered to help fund. Wow.

I need to step up as a source? Yeah ok.

 

[SkankHunt]

However, the market seems to hold cost effective over quality, in general. I.e- QSC has multiple accounts of floaters in their vials. Yet, people still frenzy over the source.

This^

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

I'm not sure why everyone is losing their minds over this.

@readalot is asking for additional testing above and beyond the standard qualitative/quantitative tests that most sources are doing now.

We are familiar with qualitative/quantitative questions like:

'Does Primo 200 contain methenolone enanthate? How much methonolone enanthate?'

He wants testing to answer more questions like:

'Does Primo 200 contain any impurities besides methenolone? Does it contain other AAS e.g. testosterone, trenbolone, etc? Does it contain impurities like arsenic, mercury, lead, etc.?'

And also additional testing to answer questions like:

'Does Primo 200 contain microbiological, mold, or yeast contamination?'

And finally, he wants sources to pay for this additional testing.

It's basic harm reduction stuff that I would hope most people would support.

I would have expected the disagreement to understandably be more focused on the specifics of his proposal. I think the problems are in the details. Not the general harm reduction approach.

The naked source advocacy in other threads has caught me off guard.

I think the problem is

-he is linking this to every source
-he doesn't even use UGL
-he was annoying to begin with

I just feel his motives aren't truly about harm reduction but just to be irritating

 

[readalot]

He wants testing to answer more questions like:

'Does Primo 200 contain any impurities besides methenolone? Does it contain other AAS e.g. testosterone, trenbolone, etc? Does it contain impurities like arsenic, mercury, lead, etc.?'

And also additional testing to answer questions like:

'Does Primo 200 contain microbiological, mold, or yeast contamination?'

Correct. Does it contain other organic impurities that may be injurious? Side products, residual solvents, unremoved catalyst?

Correct on the others...metals, endotoxins, etc.

It would greatly expand our knowledge of raw quality by using an expanded screening process.

Many losing their minds and all this really is is an expanded quality check on raws.

 

[Pinnacle Elements]

Also, as long as the product is filtered through a sterile 0.22ug filter- mold and bacteria will not pass through. It doesn’t matter if raws have mold in them.

For reference - a water particle theoretically is the size of your thumb nail. An oil particle with testosterone dissolved may be the size of your fist. Bacteria & fungus would be about the size of the earth.

A 0.22ug filter sterilizes the product.

 

[lonewolf54321]

I can assure you I won't make any killing. I have no financial interest or conflict in this and even offered to help fund. Wow.

I need to step up as a source? Yeah ok.

Maybe step up and fucking buy something instead of constantly bitching about potential contaminants in products you don't even use lol.
Dickwang and Danish Panther had a bastard kid named readalot

 

[readalot]

My motivation was harm reduction and bringing an improved standard. I already stated my particular angle. As someone who may use ugl as compounding access is removed, these standards are want I would look for. Also there are items that aren't available through US compounders.

I was attacked for no reason. Naked source advocacy as Millard puts it. What was your motivation?

I just feel his motives aren't truly about harm reduction but just to be irritating

 

[readalot]

Maybe step up and fucking buy something instead of constantly bitching about potential contaminants in products you don't even use lol.
Dickwang and Danish Panther had a bastard kid named readalot

Digression. You don't get it.