MESO-Rx Sponsor Primal Pharma - US Domestic

[readalot]

I’m no brew master but don’t we get more accurate dosing when we know our raw purity before brewing or is that irrelevant?

Very relevant as one considers all the input errors for a propagation of error analysis on final product API concentration.

 

[Infernalmango]

Would be nice to detail it so folks understand the process. Then community members may have helpful input to improve accuracy and precision batch to batch.

Pretty simple imo. How it should be done:
- Receive raws.
- Test raws.
- Do math. Brew.
- Test brew.
- List for sale.

How it seems its being done:
- Receive raws
- Guess. Brew.
- Test raws and brew at same time.
- List for sale.

 

[crispybacon!]

Definitely.
If you don't know purity prior, you are brewing blind.
it can be 88% or 98%

How much powder do you add?
Flip a coin!

I think the thing I’m more curious about is, if the same raws were used, how did the 100 come in so tight, yet the 200 is so far off.

 

[New2theGame!!]

Care to explain what you mean to the folk that aren’t as bright as you?

Its over 10% underdosed, you think that’s good brewing?

 

[New2theGame!!]

It's tested.

Raws and finished were sent in and posted. Even under dosed we still know what's in the bottle. I rather a source show me he fucked up the dosing instead of a blind test from one of us showing it.

Usually I don't really say shit about sources unless I have a problem. But your comment seems kinda pointless. So unless you have a valid issue maybe try working on shutting up.

Obviously your user name is spot on. You are new2thegame and should probably just set back and learn some more before talking.

Over 10% underdosed is brewed well huh? Did you get homeschooled?

And it’s just a name, I’ve been doing this for a while. Are you really a hard gainer little man or just don’t know how to work out?

 

[LayPave]

I think the thing I’m more curious about is, if the same raws were used, how did the 100 come in so tight, yet the 200 is so far off.

Very good point right here!

 

[New2theGame!!]

I think the thing I’m more curious about is, if the same raws were used, how did the 100 come in so tight, yet the 200 is so far off.

Exactly but we have others that are happy with underdosed gear for same raws.

 

[New2theGame!!]

Just follow sop and get dosing right in the first place is my biggest issue. These guys are making hand over fist either way tho so they just don’t care. Shortcuts over and over again.

Well said sir

 

[ackmack78]

Pretty simple imo. How it should be done:
- Receive raws.
- Test raws.
- Do math. Brew.
- Test brew.
- List for sale.

How it seems its being done:
- Receive raws
- Guess. Brew.
- Test raws and brew at same time.
- List for sale.

At this point who cares anymore. Not because it's not important, but the vendor has shown they're going to do it how they do it. What you're talking about has been talked about for the last 3months repeatedly. I keep an eye on this thread to see if things change but as far as making purchases I made the decision to move on.

At this point it seems clear that everyone who is complaining is not going to make a difference.

 

[Whistles77]

Its over 10% underdosed, you think that’s good brewing?

I think the raws were tested, HLPC done, GCMS done that came up great, results shared, price adjusted.

Could it have been produced with a higher lead time and more accurately? Sure it could’ve by knowing raw purity before brewing. Definitely not perfect, but as a product it is what it is. I’ll pin it (I’ve already bought both the 100mg and the 180mg).

As far as im concerned this looks like great Primo 180mg/ml. I’d be more worried about the label concentration being misleading than the testing, which suggests the product is pinnable and gives me the info I need.

But then, I’m just a homeschooled simpleton.

Tradeoffs between scale, lead time, cost, quality and how they relate to customer needs and market demands? All too advanced for my little brain.

 

[Raiders789]

I think its worth pointing out that the FDA typically allows a +-10% margin of error with injectable pharmaceuticals, and on top of that HPLC testing can have an error range of up to 5%.

It's highly unlikely primal purposely under dosed just their primo 200 to save a little bit of raws lmao, otherwise they wouldn't have lowered the primo200's price. I'd be willing to bet it was testing MoE not falling in their favor, and if people were to send in blind samples I'm sure we'd see testing come in much closer to 200mg/ml.

 

[Infernalmango]

At this point who cares anymore. Not because it's not important, but the vendor has shown they're going to do it how they do it. What you're talking about has been talked about for the last 3months repeatedly. I keep an eye on this thread to see if things change but as far as making purchases I made the decision to move on.

At this point it seems clear that everyone who is complaining is not going to make a difference.

Sometimes the good fight is a tough fight. Iv got a lot of primal stuff from the beginning, but yes I veered elsewhere once the bs started.

He just blew up too quick, but I still have hope for him to eventually get it together.

 

[readalot]

@Primal_Pharma

Thoughts on SOPs? Any opportunities to tighten up accuracy and precision batch to batch? Any updates?

Many people mention they want these tighter tolerances but what are we going to do to get there?

 

[Photon]

I think its worth pointing out that the FDA typically allows a +-10% margin of error with injectable pharmaceuticals, and on top of that HPLC testing can have an error range of up to 5%.

It's highly unlikely primal purposely under dosed just their primo 200 to save a little bit of raws lmao, otherwise they wouldn't have lowered the primo200's price. I'd be willing to bet it was testing MoE not falling in their favor, and if people were to send in blind samples I'm sure we'd see testing come in much closer to 200mg/ml.

2% in 2023

Post in thread 'Janoshik Analytical laboratory testing services'

Apr 2, 2023

hi, I have results from the same batch of product (I mean the literal same bottle) that came out with a 10-15% variability on testing. Eg a tren enan dosed originally at ~223mg/ml came out once at 214mg and another at 232mg. Why is that? My guesses are:

1) normal margin of error in testing methods
2) sample sedimentation
3) not ideal calibration samples

Hello,

1) our stated permissible margin of error is ± 5%, which would mean range of 211.85 - 234.15 mg/ml for 223 mg/ml sample. Usually it's around 2%, 5% is quite rare tbh.
2) not sure what sedimentation means in this context...

• janoshik

• 

 

[crispybacon!]

I think its worth pointing out that the FDA typically allows a +-10% margin of error with injectable pharmaceuticals, and on top of that HPLC testing can have an error range of up to 5%.

It's highly unlikely primal purposely under dosed just their primo 200 to save a little bit of raws lmao, otherwise they wouldn't have lowered the primo200's price. I'd be willing to bet it was testing MoE not falling in their favor, and if people were to send in blind samples I'm sure we'd see testing come in much closer to 200mg/ml.

I don’t think I’ve seen anyone claim that Primal was deliberately shorting the P200. That wouldn’t even make sense anyway since he was having it tested. It’s more a question of brewing competency, for me at least.

 

[newguy2]

I don’t think I’ve seen anyone claim that Primal was deliberately shorting the P200. That wouldn’t even make sense anyway since he was having it tested. It’s more a question of brewing competency, for me at least.

For sure the 100mg being spot on makes things look a bit subpar. I would have more confidence in the Brewer if they were both off by a similar margin.

These guys just can't exercise the patience to test raws and then brew.

But who knows what goes on behind the scenes. They may be leveraged financially and need to get the stuff for sale to recoup some capital.

 

[PrimoKerby]

People complaining about the underdosed primo for 165$ domestic price when you can get pharmaqo 175mg primo for 180$ it hasn’t even been GCMS tested, or raws tested relatively it’s a good price and we know what’s in it, what’s the big issue ? In retrospect he’s done everything right in this segment. Sure maybe brewing calculations need to be refined more but I take this as a great movement into the right direction in progress of a source.

 

[Raiders789]

2% in 2023

Post in thread 'Janoshik Analytical laboratory testing services'

Apr 2, 2023

hi, I have results from the same batch of product (I mean the literal same bottle) that came out with a 10-15% variability on testing. Eg a tren enan dosed originally at ~223mg/ml came out once at 214mg and another at 232mg. Why is that? My guesses are:

1) normal margin of error in testing methods
2) sample sedimentation
3) not ideal calibration samples

Hello,

1) our stated permissible margin of error is ± 5%, which would mean range of 211.85 - 234.15 mg/ml for 223 mg/ml sample. Usually it's around 2%, 5% is quite rare tbh.
2) not sure what sedimentation means in this context...

• janoshik

• 

I may be incorrect, but a bit of surface research gave me the impression that (at least for testosterone) they have to conform to the USP monograph and they require that testosterone injections be within 90%-110% of the labeled amount of whatever test ester(by HPLC). But the manufacturers can shoot whatever range they want, like within 2% and market as that, as long as it meets the USP requirements

I don’t think I’ve seen anyone claim that Primal was deliberately shorting the P200. That wouldn’t even make sense anyway since he was having it tested. It’s more a question of brewing competency, for me at least.

True and you could be right. But I just did a quick surf of their lab results on their website and it looks like big majority of their injectables are almost spot on, with a few slight overdoses and under doses. But then again, there was the cyp 50 overdose a little while ago that was pretty significant so I'm not sure what to think

 

[Photon]

I may be incorrect, but a bit of surface research gave me the impression that (at least for testosterone) they have to conform to the USP monograph and they require that testosterone injections be within 90%-110% of the labeled amount of whatever test ester(by HPLC). But the manufacturers can shoot whatever range they want, like within 2% and market as that, as long as it meets the USP requirements

Indeed, pharma variance is 10%.
I'm just saying that repeated testing of a vial or batch @ Jano has a rough variance of 2% (average as of 2023) - 5% (rare case)

 

[Raiders789]

Indeed, pharma variance is 10%.
I'm just saying that repeated testing of a vial or batch @ Jano has a rough variance of 2% (average as of 2023) - 5% (rare case)

Ohhh ok my bad I totally misinterpreted that lmao