Marcus
New Member
Sort of... Check out thane labs thread today
MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
Alpha Pharma Test E 250 - labmax 12/1/14
- Thread starter Johnson513
- Start date
Colt44
Well-known Member
How long after pin did you test?
Marcus
New Member
Per ml?
blood as after 5 weeks .. i have 4 weeks more on hrt .. and i start 1 g ... on cycle i do blood test every 3 months full panel ...
Marcus
New Member
Then why did you say you were pinning 500mg? Your story isn't adding up
one guy posted tests on eroids and elite
mayby i can findet
translated wrong,, I am using google trans ... iam done test 500 and master .. now on hrt....
Marcus
New Member
This is getting old fast. It again looks like you are saying 500mg of test Or the combination?
Boilermech
Member
Even at 250mg every 6th day coming in at 1290 is just at 5x so it's still way low. 98mg per ml would be more believable for those numbers.
MD is now sending over Borat to refute our lab results? Clever
Dreamin_Big
New Member
You can take this with a grain of salt since I didn't get blood work, but I was using a local guy's test e at 500mg/week and my blood work was 3500 after 5 weeks. At about 9 weeks I ran out and switched the alpha pharma at the same dosage. Nothing about my diet or exercise changed but after a couple weeks I felt less strong and started to lose size. However, I only dropped 2 pounds… and like I said no blood work. My wife did comment that my arms were looking smaller and I never told her I switched.
mercury
New Member
this only confirms again and again that alpha pharma is uderedoesed shit
when he did labmax you could see that it was underdosed from the weak blue glow.
You know what doesn't confirm it, though? The fact that most of the top guys here use it. Without knowing them personally, I do know it is basically their drug of choice.
My point being: This doesn't really "confirm" anything. User reports are far too subjective, and they go both ways.
In one sense I actually "hope" AP is underdosed, because that means that guys I know responded to less drugs than they thought they used.If they thought they were using 750mg EW but were using half of that but still gained a lot, well that's good news in the genetics department.
But until there's a solid, quantitative analysis, this will be in the neighborhood of he said/she said. Does anyone know when such an analysis will be done? I'd like to contribute, if money is needed, along with others.
My point being: This doesn't really "confirm" anything. User reports are far too subjective, and they go both ways.
In one sense I actually "hope" AP is underdosed, because that means that guys I know responded to less drugs than they thought they used.If they thought they were using 750mg EW but were using half of that but still gained a lot, well that's good news in the genetics department.
But until there's a solid, quantitative analysis, this will be in the neighborhood of he said/she said. Does anyone know when such an analysis will be done? I'd like to contribute, if money is needed, along with others.
Marcus
New Member
Give it up bro, I know you want it to be good. I understand you have quite the stash of AP, but it just isn't what it's cracked out to be no matter how you spin it
Not true. I want it to be good for the reason that it is a very accessible source/product in this area (more the reason not have "quite the stash" lying around). It's been around for quite some years, correct? Prior to '09, atleast. I am going to assume it will stay around. I'd much rather decide upon a source or product that's here to stay and is G2G (the G2G part needs checking out!), rather than the bi-annual roll the dice lotterly of "is my gear underdosed or not" from a source that is indubitably and self-proclaimed UG.
The fact that I want it to be good does not cloud my judgement, though. And besides, my judgement is not really of importance. All that matters is the evidence. It is pretty much established scientific method that anedoctal evidence ranks the lowest in the hierarchy. And with all due respect to the LM analyses - which I am not discounting or ignoring - let's not disregard the 9 samples from WEDINOs either.
I am not going to decide finally upon this product until there is conclusive proof. Conclusive proof is not here yet. I would like to contribute to its coming. PM me details on how I can, if anyone is a position to test it properly.
I'll share my own thoughts on the issue though. Considering the fact that they have expensive packacing, amps (more expensive than vials), scratch off codes for online verification, serial/batch numbers, manuf. dates and exp. dates, inserts, a water mark and are CONSISTENTLY confirmed to qualitatively contain that which is claimed, and considering that they have a strong brand-name, are registered for business in several countries, and make lots and lots of money, they' be stupid beyond reckoning to skip expenses where it matters most: CONTENT. In the grand scheme of things I absolutely cannot fathom why anyone in their position would cut costs at such a minor post as AAS raws. What the hell money difference does it make if their purity is 60% or 98%, in terms of cutting costs? Minimal. And, if they DO underdose it, that has potential to negatively influence sales big time. For all these reasons I am very curious.
The fact that I want it to be good does not cloud my judgement, though. And besides, my judgement is not really of importance. All that matters is the evidence. It is pretty much established scientific method that anedoctal evidence ranks the lowest in the hierarchy. And with all due respect to the LM analyses - which I am not discounting or ignoring - let's not disregard the 9 samples from WEDINOs either.
I am not going to decide finally upon this product until there is conclusive proof. Conclusive proof is not here yet. I would like to contribute to its coming. PM me details on how I can, if anyone is a position to test it properly.
I'll share my own thoughts on the issue though. Considering the fact that they have expensive packacing, amps (more expensive than vials), scratch off codes for online verification, serial/batch numbers, manuf. dates and exp. dates, inserts, a water mark and are CONSISTENTLY confirmed to qualitatively contain that which is claimed, and considering that they have a strong brand-name, are registered for business in several countries, and make lots and lots of money, they' be stupid beyond reckoning to skip expenses where it matters most: CONTENT. In the grand scheme of things I absolutely cannot fathom why anyone in their position would cut costs at such a minor post as AAS raws. What the hell money difference does it make if their purity is 60% or 98%, in terms of cutting costs? Minimal. And, if they DO underdose it, that has potential to negatively influence sales big time. For all these reasons I am very curious.
Marcus
New Member
What about your terrible bloodwork on AP gear? That's not conclusive (or at least scientific rather than subjective) proof to you?
Shut up shill
It's scientific, but I asked that it be explained in layman's terms, which it hasn't yet. Not all of us are knowledgeable in these matters. I supplied the lab reference values and so far no one has explained by that bloodwork is terrible based on those values. And pardon my skepticism, but considering post #5, I don't find it odd behavior to want to have it explained like I'm an 8 year old
Here's the thread in question: https://thinksteroids.com/community/threads/bloodwork-alpha-pharma-test-e-testobolin.134360669/
As far as the "shill" comment goes - I considered not commenting, but I don't want to leave it unaddressed. Why the hell would I post "terrible bloodwork" for AP if I were a shill or offer to chip in to pay for a conclusive lab analysis conducted by a 3rd party selected not by me..?!. I understand boards are full of shills and scammers, and I appreciate skepticism and caution. But I am positively neither of those and I'm selling positively nothing. Please review my post history and specifically the one about AP before you pull accusations out of a hat. That is poor behavior, and unwarranted.
