MESO-Rx Sponsor Primal Pharma - US Domestic

[Ferhev]

How is cheaper Mdprivate labs ? Prolactin test is $99 and with good labs is $9

 

[Ghoul]

 

[ANAL_Bolic]

P

Privatemdlabs is cheaper and offers more testing with their 25% off if you wanna check them out next time.

Privatemdlabs is 10x more expensive than Goodlabs

 

[MisterT]

Jano Test E250 “Unknown Batch”

Waiting on other test, also requested Jano to fix report to say Primal and batch “P10” as the label says.

Did we ever find out why we never got the Test E raw results?

 

[initialize]

@Primal_Pharma any ETA when tren ace will be back in stock?

 

[AllbrandNew]

But just know, if your vial has a green CAP - it’s that new new.

Different green or the same green as the ones that I had issues with?

 

[Scooby69]

If you need labs here's the 20% off link and code.

Goodlabs

Affordable bloodwork for all.

app.hellogoodlabs.com

Code - Uvbo7K

Thank you for sharing this. I've been using Marek, which I thought was cheap until I saw the prices at Goodlabs!

 

[AllGoodThings]

Different green or the same green as the ones that I had issues with?

View attachment 357721

They said green CAP, so not exactly sure, but hopefully we're getting plain, uncoloured silver aluminium, and the green is just on the plastic cap/flip top

 

[AllbrandNew]

They said green CAP, so hopefully we're getting plain, uncoloured silver aluminium, and the green is just on the plastic cap.

That does make more sense, and hopefully you're right.

Edit: Also, bonus points for the royal spelling of coloured.

 

[AllGoodThings]

That does make more sense, and hopefully you're right.

Edit: Also, bonus points for the royal spelling of coloured.

And aluminium, which was the original spelling recognized by the IUPAC (International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry) for several years before they decided to acknowledge "aluminum" as a variant.

 

[Photon]

Jano Test E250 “Unknown Batch”

Another "same" batch with large variances.
Thanks for testing.

Janoshik Analytical

Janoshik Analytical

 

[Trenmaster04]

Jano Test E250 “Unknown Batch”

Waiting on other test, also requested Jano to fix report to say Primal and batch “P10” as the label says.

Did we ever find out why we never got the Test E raw results?

Thanks for testing. Still waiting on GCMS?

 

[BigChungusRX]

@Primal_Pharma EQ eta?

 

[BigDadd7]

On it you poor thing. My wife isn’t thick but she is S American.

That was perfect. Thank you.

 

[Earthworm Jim]

Jano Test E250 “Unknown Batch”

Waiting on other test, also requested Jano to fix report to say Primal and batch “P10” as the label says.

Did we ever find out why we never got the Test E raw results?

Yeah. Primal said he didn't feel like releasing the results.

 

[newguy2]

Jano Test E250 “Unknown Batch”

Waiting on other test, also requested Jano to fix report to say Primal and batch “P10” as the label says.

Did we ever find out why we never got the Test E raw results?

RIP your email inbox. Might want to get that covered up.

 

[Primal_Pharma]

They said green CAP, so not exactly sure, but hopefully we're getting plain, uncoloured silver aluminium, and the green is just on the plastic cap/flip top

Exactly

 

[Primal_Pharma]

View attachment 357727
View attachment 357729

Another "same" batch with large variances.
Thanks for testing.

Janoshik Analytical

Janoshik Analytical

Quick clarification on “same batch” and variance. A batch is a single, homogenized production run mixed, filtered, and filled under the same conditions from the same raw source. Within that, small result swings are normal and typically come from sampling technique, vial position during fill, agitation before aliquoting, lab method differences, instrument calibration and stated uncertainty, and sample prep losses. Two results that fall within the method’s combined uncertainty are statistically consistent with the same batch.

The clean way to verify is to pull a well-mixed composite, split it, run the same method at the same lab in parallel, and document chain of custody. If the spread exceeds the method’s uncertainty, we investigate; if it does not, it reflects normal analytical scatter rather than a different or inconsistent batch. If any of this sounds unfamiliar, it may just be a misunderstanding of how batches and analytical uncertainty work…

 

[SwolieGuacamole]

View attachment 357727
View attachment 357729

Another "same" batch with large variances.
Thanks for testing.

Janoshik Analytical

Janoshik Analytical

My thoughts.


So the breakdown seems to be…

1. 001, the first, was 262.
2. The “unknown” has to be batch p10 (238).
3. P11, the current, 241.

You’re going to tell me the alternative (001 & p10 claimed to be the same) would be a 10% variance between same batch testing lol. Likely not

And it was already confirmed that P11 testing is not P10 labeled, because if you bought in late September, you were part of the most recent batch (p11) and “you’re fine”.

 

[Photon]

Quick clarification on “same batch” and variance. A batch is a single, homogenized production run mixed, filtered, and filled under the same conditions from the same raw source. Within that, small result swings are normal and typically come from sampling technique, vial position during fill, agitation before aliquoting, lab method differences, instrument calibration and stated uncertainty, and sample prep losses. Two results that fall within the method’s combined uncertainty are statistically consistent with the same batch.

The clean way to verify is to pull a well-mixed composite, split it, run the same method at the same lab in parallel, and document chain of custody. If the spread exceeds the method’s uncertainty, we investigate; if it does not, it reflects normal analytical scatter rather than a different or inconsistent batch. If any of this sounds unfamiliar, it may just be a misunderstanding of how batches and analytical uncertainty work…

Deflecting as usual.

We are seeing multiple products with ~+/-10% variances between 3rd party and vendor testing. So much for homogeneity. This isn't the first.

What good are your testing results if none of them are anywhere close to what people are receiving?

MESO-Rx Sponsor Post in thread 'Primal Pharma - US Domestic'

Oct 22, 2025

Because one good GCMS hit can still fool you. Even with a clean library match, reference standard, and nice ions, you’re still relying on one separation and one ionization in a complex matrix. Coelution, in-source fragments, near-isomers, or matrix additives can mimic the target. An orthogonal check changes the rules of the game to see if the ID survives. Run the reference and sample on a different column and confirm identical retention and RI, verify exact mass and fragments with HRMS/MS, and for polymer additives add FTIR on an extract. If it’s suspected as a leachable, extract the...

• Photon

• 
•