weighted chinup
Well-known Member
I agree. There should be nothing fear if honest labs are doing what they are suppose to do be doing. If raws come back very poor they will finally have credible evidence to go back to their suppliers and can help the community out poor raw suppliers. If raws come back acceptable, then they can dose up to the advertised label, or bring the advertised label to the tested purity. If raws come back good, then proceed to use raws for finished product. If finished products do not come back with the same potency as raws, the source needs to look at their brewing practices. Cost is not an issue, the amount of business and satisfied and reassured customers this would break would be tenfold the investment. Please don't get me wrong, I am supportive of this move, there should be accountability. AAS are not cheap, customers spend their hard earned money on products sources produce. These customers should get what they pay for.
I haven't posted in this thread since very early on in the start, and I remember an earlier exchange where you said something along the lines of - you want to test stuff but no one is volunteering a testing connection or there aren't any readily available.
The community has been made aware of a testing facility that is readily available, with examples of their work and service. Personally I know of 2 testing facilities that will provide both qualitative testing and quantitative, both are located in the EU. I hope to see more people make use of these places in the near future.
The only thing stopping you is a logistical issue and safety concerns really...basically shit that's pretty much inherent to black market business in the first place.
That is not our intention, I do not doubt the authenticity or testing methods. The reason we ask is because we have had some labs and suppliers send testing results, COAs, etc that could have been either fabricated, done on purified standards that they themselves do not sell, results from another supplier and not their own, etc. By having access to the raw data to results that have been publicly published, it give us something very real, concrete and applicable, if that makes sense. It matches raw data with a real world application and lab, and the method in which they determined the purity would match the current published reports.
Please understand that I am in no way trying to be contentious or resist the idea of quantitative testing - it would only help and improve our operation. My intention of my first responses was to try and give a, albeit limited, look into why in many cases it is not as simple as it may seem for sources. I am hesitant to give much more information in this regard because of the public nature of this forum. Hopefully you understand.
If there are concerns about fabricated test results, either the source or a concerned individual can contact the lab, ask about the specific test, and verify it with a chemist. If someone claims a report has been fabricated, that would actually be very easy to prove/disprove. The customer or person making the claim can find out with just one email.
Of course there will be skepticism, and there really is no negative to wanting raw data attached in the report. However, if consumers don't trust a report from a facility that is GMP certified and has been audited by the US FDA, I highly doubt some spectras that 99 percent of people wouldn't be able to interpret in the first place will change their mind. The fact that these tests can be verified with a simple email does more for verifying authenticity than raw data will imo.
Last edited: