MESO-Rx Sponsor Primal Pharma - US Domestic

[just some dude]

I’ve never seen so much testing variance from a source in my life. 1-2% = standard. Everything here has been 10-50%. I’d rather CN resell at this point lol.

i mean wasn’t there already accusations that it’s just resold / relabeled chinese crap? people are buying because they want top quality gear, but end up finding themselves receiving and/or making excuses. bs

 

[SwolieGuacamole]

i mean wasn’t there already accusations that it’s just resold / relabeled chinese crap? people are buying because they want top quality gear, but end up finding themselves receiving and/or making excuses. bs

With all the variance, I don’t believe that to be the case anymore. At least from cn oils I’ve seen. Most are fairly consistent. But what I’ve seen doesn’t mean much. Just personal take.

 

[ZaddyZonar]

i mean wasn’t there already accusations that it’s just resold / relabeled chinese crap? people are buying because they want top quality gear, but end up finding themselves receiving and/or making excuses. bs

With the inconsistent stories and dates that testing was ordered for the most recent primo, the GCMS testing will show whether it’s CN primo or not. Doubtful on their other lines of oil though.

 

[readalot]

Received $200 transfer, so kudos for the quick turnaround. This mostly covers the cost of testing, shipping, and a vial. I assume my time was valued at about negative $5.00.

I’m only putting this here because I don’t want there to be an impression of goodwill when there wasn’t. I got roughly what I paid and nothing more.

I’m gonna write off the other 3 vials, as I don’t want to go through the hassle of additional testing.

And this concludes my relationship with @Primal_Pharma.

Reimbursement Terms:
(1) 100% of cost for any testing on your products. No limit.
(2) 100% of shipping
(3) $50 admin fee to cover customer's time

Reimbursed through either store credit or XMR based on customer's choice.

See this thread page. These were the terms. You can read Primal's response. Up to you to make sure vendor is following through.

 

[readalot]

people are buying because they want top quality gear,

Then they should pay for it.

Many seem to want top quality gear at bottom feeder prices and don't put in the work to help improve standards while actively working against effort to improve standards.

 

[Dial It In]

With the inconsistent stories and dates that testing was ordered for the most recent primo, the GCMS testing will show whether it’s CN primo or not. Doubtful on their other lines of oil though.

It is sitting there should be shortly

 

[readalot]

I’ve never seen so much testing variance from a source in my life. 1-2% = standard.

You really want a 1-2% variance?

Then what would you be pushing for when engaging vendors?

 

[SwolieGuacamole]

You really want a 1-2% variance?

Then what would you be pushing for when engaging vendors?

What’s the standard/typical same batch variance seen by jano?

 

[readalot]

What’s the standard/typical same batch variance seen by jano?

My point was batch variance of 1-2% coming out of a vendor. Not Jano's HPLC testing variance. I assumed that was your point.

You said source. Not Jano.

Maybe should provide an example for clarity?

 

[SwolieGuacamole]

My point was batch variance of 1-2% coming out of a vendor. Not Jano's HPLC testing variance. I assumed that was your point.

You said source. Not Jano.

Well what I’m saying is, jano should be the standard.

There should be no reason a source can’t follow that same standard. Unless source tested products, and blind tests, aren’t one of the same….is what I’m getting at


Batch “A” should test 1-2% across the board
Batch “B” should test 1-2% across the board.

Throw in another percent for outliers.

But 10-20% across same batch?

 

[readalot]

Well what I’m saying is, jano should be the standard.

There should be no reason a source can’t follow that same standard. Unless source tested products, and blind tests, aren’t one of the same….is what I’m getting at


Batch “A” should test 1-2% across the board
Batch “B” should test 1-2% across the board.

Throw in another percent for outliers.

But 10-20% across same batch?

Lets assume Jano is +/- 2%. Actually better most of the time. But let's use that.

Now superimpose on that on top of 2% batch variance for vendor on 200 mg/ml:

Confidence interval [192, 208]

200 × 1.02 × 1.02 = 208
200 x 0.98 x 0.98 = 192

200 +/- 8 mg/ml

Now what would we push for if we want much less than 2% batch variance as produced from vendor?

 

[readalot]

Another example:

<= 1% batch variance
<=2% Jano testing variance

[194, 206]
200 +/- 6 mg/ml

We have no control over Jano variance (analytical method).

How can you tighten process variance?

 

[SwolieGuacamole]

Another example:

<= 1% batch variance
<=2% Jano testing variance

[194, 206]
200 +/- 6 mg/ml

We have no control over Jano variance (analytical method).

How can you tighten process variance?

My question would be, why would a source have a differentiating same batch variance? Outside of what is anticipated from jano. To the point of becoming a massive outlier.

 

[readalot]

Batch “A” should test 1-2% across the board
Batch “B” should test 1-2% across the board.

Yes I see what you are saying. Every vial from same batch should test within 2% if all vials are from same homogeneous batch (and analytical testing variance is <= 2%).

I am bringing up the concept of brewing accuracy. How do we ensure that ... if we want a 200 mg/ml batch ...we get one?

 

[Photon]

You really want a 1-2% variance?

Then what would you be pushing for when engaging vendors?

By voting with their wallets.

I don't think anything special needs to be said tho, nobody wants to purchase vials that have 10-25 percent variances between them. How'd you even dose them? Who'd wants to test everything?

We don't even know if these vendors are brewing in their bathtub.

 

[readalot]

I don't think anything special needs to be said tho

You think a source can maintain 1% concentration accuracy with a beaker?

I don't.

 

[readalot]

We don't even know if these vendors are brewing in their bathtub.

Well they could bring the right equipment to the bathtub.

 

[SwolieGuacamole]

My question would be, why would a source have a differentiating same batch variance? Outside of what is anticipated from jano. To the point of becoming a massive outlier.

You think a source can maintain 1% concentration accuracy with a beaker?

I don't.

Is this what you’re implying? Multiple beakers?

 

[Photon]

You think a source can maintain 1% concentration accuracy with a beaker?

I don't.

I suggest a larger bathtub
and more sales

 

[readalot]

Is this what you’re implying? Multiple beakers?

Ditch the beaker. Use a volumetric flask where they can top off the final volume on the batch VERY accurately.

As had been mentioned before, avoids these online density calculators / recipes.

https://thinksteroids.com/community/threads/primal-pharma-us-domestic.134430762/post-3629196