MESO-Rx

Anabolic Steroids

Readalots Enhanced Testing

readalot said:
Hope you had a good Thanksgiving Brother. So coming back to this in context. There would have been no way I would have received the participation and info I got from the vendor in Project 3 if he thought I was going to disclose his name. He trusted me obviously.

My thinking is that if we want intel on the raws situation then we have to have a means to get the surveillance data. I don't want to penalize domestic brewers who have the decency to collect and share this data (see @RandallFlagg 's comments above). Pretty clear at this point that international vendors for finished oils ain't going to help (hope I am wrong).

Hence, you create a means for brewers to collect the quality data on raw materials without the fear of repercussion from customers or raws suppliers. And of course vendors will get the benefit of sharing data on their products if they disclose. If some data is suspect you've got to provide a means for the vendor to share without fear of repercussions as this thing is rolled out.

Make sense? Disagree? Feel free to tear up the whole thing. Appreciate your engagement.

After feedback received, my opinion is that surveillance data should be prioritized and let the vendors who value this set themselves apart. No requirement per se on batch testing which would penalize ethical vendors. Instead, let the vendors who endorse surveillance shine through.
Click to expand...
If testing comes back terrible does that vendor still use them? Shouldn't we know if a vendor is using bunk raws?
 
accidentaljedi173 said:
If testing comes back terrible does that vendor still use them? Shouldn't we know if a vendor is using bunk raws?
Click to expand...
Yes. IMO that's where GCMS becomes a useful tool when evaluating finished products in the context of raws used in their manufacture. I know we still have a ways to go with getting acceptance from the community on that option.

GCMS (in addition to HPLC) would give customers a way to audit raws used in UGL finished products if they desired.
 
BigNoOne said:
It’s another analysis that if someone felt comfortable sending a sample to Eurofins, the lab would have no idea what the raw material was. They would just run the endotoxin analysis.
Click to expand...
Excellent idea. I've done little to tap/leverage other potential analytical testing options. There is still a lot of work to do to qualify and standardize the endotoxin results as @Ghoul has pointed out so well. It's a great bang for the buck though as @MyNameIsJeff has stated in his thread if it's done right.

Appreciate the interest.
 
BigNoOne said:
That’s why we push UGLs for blind testing credit so customers can send samples in to confirm results. Boom. Circle of trust.
Click to expand...
While I agree it's few and far between for blind testing currently.
readalot said:
Yes. IMO that's where GCMS becomes a useful tool when evaluating finished products in the context of raws used in their manufacture. I know we still have a ways to go with getting acceptance from the community on that option.

GCMS (in addition to HPLC) would give customers a way to audit raws used in UGL finished products if they desired.
Click to expand...
How does any of it help if they are anonymous the entire time. I would want to know if a vendor has shit raws and that's why a blind test was off. I need to trust that a vendor is using good raws instead of brewing with shit ones. Point is I would want to know instead of playing a guessing game.
 
accidentaljedi173 said:
While I agree it's few and far between for blind testing currently.

How does any of it help if they are anonymous the entire time. I would want to know if a vendor has shit raws and that's why a blind test was off. I need to trust that a vendor is using good raws instead of brewing with shit ones. Point is I would want to know instead of playing a guessing game.
Click to expand...
Given @BigNoOne 's feedback above I revise my stance. While I needed to leverage anonymity in Project 3 to get it done, his proposed method appears to be a viable one to have a workable system without using anonymity.

I appreciate @BigNoOne and @narta for their feedback that the less po po looking the system is, the better.

And you too @accidentaljedi173!
 
Last edited:
BigNoOne said:
Lol. I think it’s great that the fuzzy furry gear is free of endotoxins.

I just wish it was produced to be free of the fuzzy and furry things too.

It strikes me as odd that we alleviate concern for the no-see-ems when the larger problem is literally right in front of our eyes in the form of threads bobbing around in our injectables.

I’ll have to remember to apologize to dear Tracey for insulting its poorly produced products.

Have a Happy Shillsgiving
Click to expand...
Damn it. Now I have to start disclosing which part of the post I am "liking" lol.
 
FunkOdyssey said:
It is domestic, and I'll pay the $5-$10 premium all day for comprehensively tested products.
Click to expand...
And just like that...

readalot

Post in thread 'Enhanced Testing Database'

readalot said:
Matrix (SST vendor)

Heavy metals test on raw AAS

Sterility on finished oil
Click to expand...
A new option emerges...


Domestic premium line. Appears to be a trial offering to gauge interest. 7 usd extra per vial.

Well done on setting a new bar for QC surveillance.
  • Like

The value in my mind is the surveillance data. What will community members choose?
 
Last edited:
readalot said:
And just like that...

readalot

Post in thread 'Enhanced Testing Database'

readalot said:
Matrix (SST vendor)

Heavy metals test on raw AAS

Sterility on finished oil
Click to expand...
A new option emerges...


Domestic premium line. Appears to be a trial offering to gauge interest. 7 usd extra per vial.

Well done on setting a new bar for QC surveillance.
  • Like
Click to expand...


Absurd pricing. A kilo of raws produced 350-400 vials. Even the most comprehensive testing downs cost thousands of dollars. $2 a vial is more than enough.
 
FastBun said:
fent… really??
Click to expand...
November 6 post that you’re just getting to?

And yea. Why is that dismissed? Endotoxins are a concern because they may not be manufacturing the raws in a sterile environment. Yet we trust that they cleaned out the processing equipment so there’s no residual leftovers? Fent is just an example buddy. Is it entirely retarded to guess when a raw tests 96% purity that part of the 4% could be leftover from a different compound.

So that’s why. Thanks for catching up.
 
BigNoOne said:
November 6 post that you’re just getting to?

And yea. Why is that dismissed? Endotoxins are a concern because they may not be manufacturing the raws in a sterile environment. Yet we trust that they cleaned out the processing equipment so there’s no residual leftovers? Fent is just an example buddy. Is it entirely retarded to guess when a raw tests 96% purity that part of the 4% could be leftover from a different compound.

So that’s why. Thanks for catching up.
Click to expand...
no one is putting fent in steroids… the post could have been from December 2006… I post where I please.. catch up on raws manufacturing and how they are making fent…
 
FastBun said:
no one is putting fent in steroids… the post could have been from December 2006… I post where I please.. catch up on raws manufacturing and how they are making fent…
Click to expand...
No shit. Not intentionally.

And whatever dude. You missed the point.

Do you know how chinamen store the raws? Know how they distribute them?
Know how they label them?
Endotoxins = BIG concern but some other raw contaminating the batch is zero concern.

You’re naive.
 
BigNoOne said:
You need to know what you’re looking for though and the lab has to have the capability. That’s a big limitation.
Click to expand...
Yes you are right. I am not satisfied with scope of GCMS yet. Very good point on non targeted vs targeted analysis.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

readalot
Enhanced Testing Database
2 3 4
Replies
70
Views
3K
readalot
readalot
B
Test & muscle fatigue
Replies
7
Views
311
lilhawk
L
C
Favorite dog breeds?
2 3 4
Replies
76
Views
631
Country Club Hero
C
B
Big dummy needing a starting place
Replies
1
Views
58
Liter O' Test
L
K
First cycle
Replies
15
Views
120
RekTest
RekTest

Sponsors

Latest posts

Back
Top