Asia Pharma and British Dragon

[Pericles]

They are prescribed by a doctor.....4 years of med school, 4-5 years of residency.

And also docs are much much less willing to prescribe benzos anymore because of their danger.

 

[PillarofBalance]

Many people are legitimately prescribed these medications every day. To assume otherwise demonstrates your level of intelligence.

No actually it doesn't. I have a script for Xanax. And I take it to a CVS Pharmacy to be filled. I don't take it to some sketchy online shop over seas or some shit and I don't need to go on the boards to ask some "bros" if CVS is legit.

Piss off.

 

[heavyiron]

No actually it doesn't. I have a script for Xanax. And I take it to a CVS Pharmacy to be filled. I don't take it to some sketchy online shop over seas or some shit and I don't need to go on the boards to ask some "bros" if CVS is legit.

Piss off.

Exactly, therefore its not a rec drug in your case and in the cases of many others.

btw, sounds like you have missed a few doses of your meds tough guy. LOL

 

[tommyguns]

It is a rec drug if you take it for those reasons. Personally for me it was a conscious decision that I made after several weeks of no sleep due to the fact that the prescription pain meds my surgeon scripted me kept me awake almost all night everynight. I am over 12 weeks now post surgery for a 3 shoulder tears and an AC fracture. I am healing well and no longer require any medication pain or sleep.

Did I make my posts to make any personal gains? No.
Did WP increase sales? I don't know.
Do I regret making my post? Yes and No.
I am not an advocate of rec drugs, I used to have different views, but people change as they grow and yes age.

The OP here; is AP/BD legit? has been derailed as you all can see. It has been turned by some members who have personal agendas, into anything but a discussion thread. All the members who responded with actual experiences have been labeled as shills and the only other responses are clutter. I would like to see the people who have ordered from WP post up their experiences, good and bad. All other posts in regards to this thread are null and we all know this.

A personal note to Banner. If you have information on WP, like you stated, why would you not post it? If it is something you have discovered during your "investigating", share it with us and put this thread to bed. Protect the members with facts proving that they are not legit. I have shared my opinion on this source and by posting my TD's from another site you have indeed collaborated my story, thanks. Where I come from they call that shooting yourself in the foot.

 

[Millard]

A personal note to Banner. If you have information on WP, like you stated, why would you not post it?

I don't think Banner is holding back!

 

[Millard]

Regarding the whole Xanax debate: I'm a big supporter of individual liberties. I support individual choice to use drugs to build muscle and I support individual choice to use drugs to 'get high'. There's an undeniable element of risk. I don't demonize either. But I strongly support drug education and harm reduction.

At the same time, I acknowledge that anabolic steroids are categorically different from any other drugs on the Controlled Substances list. They do not belong and should not be lumped together with other addictive drugs.

 

[tommyguns]

While attempting to verify the information WP/AP has provided I've discovered information about WP that could potentially be very harmful them that I am unwilling to post. I

I don't think Banner is holding back!

What do you think he meant by this Millard? I'm being honestly curious here as he has so fervently attacked anyone who disagrees with him. If he knows anything that could protect us as potential consumers, wouldn't it serve him to explain?

 

[regular]

What do you think he meant by this Millard? I'm being honestly curious here as he has so fervently attacked anyone who disagrees with him. If he knows anything that could protect us as potential consumers, wouldn't it serve him to explain?

Shill, you made numerous boring antagonistic posts both on the forum and via PM. You, your fellow staff, and a WP rep showed up in classic WP shill fashion in the WP legitimacy thread further reaffirming how illegitimate WP is. You and your friends are shills, you behaved deceitfully, and I don't owe you anything. Remain in suspense.

I don't think Banner is holding back!

There are levels that I will not stoop to.

I'm guessing the reason so many people are willing to accept the assertoin that AP=WP is because WP was of the first resellers to promote AP. And WP continues to be one of the loudest (and "memorable") cheerleaders of the brand.

But when other resellers promote certain brands, we rarely jump to the conclusion that they MUST own the brand. So there must be something more... opcorn:

This thread is about AP/BD's misrepresentation of their products. Many people who have a personal and financial incentive to see WP succeed have participated in this thread. Why? The official story has always been WP is not AP probably the same way FBB is not WP. Why would WP so feverishly defend a line of products if they were not one in the same? When I go to the grocery store and I tell the manager of the store a product he sells is poor he doesn't call every employee of the store and neighboring stores to come attack me. Why is WP so invested in AP? Why don't they just use a different brand? Why all of the deceptive business practices? Is it unreasonable to suspect they are one in the same?

just a quick info from me...I have been in touch with some AP products lately and to their defense the quality was very good.

On the other hand I don't understand why do they let WP sell it online while it has such a bad rep...

Great question. Why would AP allow WP who uses such poor business practices to sell their products? Perhaps it's because AP uses deceitful business practices themselves too and it doesn't bother AP. Perhaps they both use deceptive business practices and are the same company.

 

[Pericles]

Tommy & Heavy;

Benzos are highly addictive, and their use must be supervised by someone trained in there use, like a psychiatrist. P docs are much much less likely to prescribe theses drugs do to their danger. Selling them over the net removes that supervision.

And as far as gear is concerned, charging 4 times the normal rate for gear that is ugl yet sold as hg is also wrong.

 

[heavyiron]

Tommy & Heavy;

Benzos are highly addictive, and their use must be supervised by someone trained in there use, like a psychiatrist. P docs are much much less likely to prescribe theses drugs do to their danger. Selling them over the net removes that supervision.

And as far as gear is concerned, charging 4 times the normal rate for gear that is ugl yet sold as hg is also wrong.

I agree, I think WP is overpriced and I would not spend my cash with him but I do know some of his prods tested good. I could care less if guys don't want to use him.

I think Xanax is a powerful drug that needs to be respected however I will not judge someone for using it.

 

[getright1time]

Tommy & Heavy;

Benzos are highly addictive, and their use must be supervised by someone trained in there use, like a psychiatrist. P docs are much much less likely to prescribe theses drugs do to their danger. Selling them over the net removes that supervision.

And as far as gear is concerned, charging 4 times the normal rate for gear that is ugl yet sold as hg is also wrong.

I find it alarming that some forums even allow sponsors of this caliber to be on their site. Rec drugs no matter how one wants to quantify the rational of use, are exactly that if not prescribed by a health care professorial. Highly addictive and usually abused even under the watchful eye of a DR.

Anyone who denies the possibility that these to "separate" entities are not one in the same is either in denial or in business with the sponsor In some form or fashion that could be any variable or benefits from low prices for promoting said supplier to free products you name it.

And those who defend such a sponsor well that says a lot about that individuals true credit.

JMO

 

[Kamala]

Micro Labs Xanax are legit no matter what anyone says. I would bet my life on it.

Nothing I have posted is untrue.

The issue isn't about their legitimacy, the issue is what place these drugs have on a bodybuilding site. All its doing is bringing heat to the whole community, so someone can make a few extra bucks.

I'm all about people being able to put whatever they want in their bodies, but bodybuilding forums are not the place to be advertising recs......... It just gives opponents of aas ammunition to use against us. Anybody who truly cares about working out or the community doesn't schill recs, they just care about $$$...... Sadly this is where its at though, guys that own BB boards that don't even work out.

 

[heavyiron]

The issue isn't about their legitimacy, the issue is what place these drugs have on a bodybuilding site. All its doing is bringing heat to the whole community, so someone can make a few extra bucks.

I'm all about people being able to put whatever they want in their bodies, but bodybuilding forums are not the place to be advertising recs......... It just gives opponents of aas ammunition to use against us. Anybody who truly cares about working out or the community doesn't schill recs, they just care about $$$...... Sadly this is where its at though, guys that own BB boards that don't even work out.

I guess everyone has a perspective. I think most regular people would think its insane to crush up cattle implants into a solution and inject the compound for muscle building effects. I imagine to some folks that sounds like pretty hardcore addiction. Maybe worse than taking a sleeping pill to offset the effects of the Tren.

Anyway, I do hear you brother.

 

[Millard]

Why would WP so feverishly defend a line of products if they were not one in the same?

Is it unreasonable to suspect they are one in the same?

It's one possible explanation. But is it the most likely?

I thought it was much more likely that Mihael Karner owned AP since he had probably a dozen internet pharmacies all selling AP. And he apparently made a lot of money selling AAS. (So much that he could afford to pay a one million euro get out of jail card to avoid extradition to the USA).

A lot of other people agreed. But that explanation kinda went out the window when AP continued operating after Karner went to jail.

Knowing what we know about WP's marketing, to think WP is AP gives him a lot of credit

 

[Millard]

The issue isn't about their legitimacy, the issue is what place these drugs have on a bodybuilding site. All its doing is bringing heat to the whole community, so someone can make a few extra bucks.

I'm all about people being able to put whatever they want in their bodies, but bodybuilding forums are not the place to be advertising recs......... It just gives opponents of aas ammunition to use against us.

This is generally true. The use of drugs to "build muscle" is categorically different from the use of drugs to "get high". The addition of AAS to the Controlled Substances list implied that there was no such distinction and bodybuilders are no different than any other recreational drug user.

So, anything that reinforces this misguided perception isn't a good thing for AAS users.

(Kamala, the following isn't directed at you but just general questions to everyone.)

But how far should we take this distinction?

We argue that "building muscle" is a legitimate use of drugs contrary to societal consensus.

We argue that steroids can be used without being abused contrary to societal consensus.

How consistent is it when one argues:

"Getting high" isn't an acceptable use of drugs.

Recreational drugs can't be used without being abused.

Do recreational drugs need to be demonized in order for steroids to be accepted?

 

[biggerben69]

This is generally true. The use of drugs to "build muscle" is categorically different from the use of drugs to "get high". The addition of AAS to the Controlled Substances list implied that there was no such distinction and bodybuilders are no different than any other recreational drug user.

So, anything that reinforces this misguided perception isn't a good thing for AAS users.

(Kamala, the following isn't directed at you but just general questions to everyone.)

But how far should we take this distinction?

We argue that "building muscle" is a legitimate use of drugs contrary to societal consensus.

We argue that steroids can be used without being abused contrary to societal consensus.

How consistent is it when one argues:

"Getting high" isn't an acceptable use of drugs.

Recreational drugs can't be used without being abused.

Do recreational drugs need to be demonized in order for steroids to be accepted?

No, rec drugs don't need to be demonized, but it's my belief, and the belief of many vets in our community, that they should not be sold by the same source on the boards we frequent. The majority of customers that want recs aren't like us and they can and have brought unwanted heat.

 

[tommyguns]

No, rec drugs don't need to be demonized, but it's my belief, and the belief of many vets in our community, that they should not be sold by the same source on the boards we frequent. The majority of customers that want recs aren't like us and they can and have brought unwanted heat.

This is a self justifying argument based on your perceived knowledge of scheduled drugs and is not true according to the US Controlled Substance Act.

Alprazolam is a schedule IV http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Schedule_IV_drugs_(US)

Steroids are a schedule III http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Schedule_III_drugs_(US)

This is a common misnomer that is shared by many AAS user as they believe that what they are doing is improving their body. When in fact it is the exact opposite.

 

[Millard]

No, rec drugs don't need to be demonized, but it's my belief, and the belief of many vets in our community, that they should not be sold by the same source on the boards we frequent. The majority of customers that want recs aren't like us and they can and have brought unwanted heat.

I agree. Steroid users are categorically different than recreational drug users as a whole. We've known this for some time and the limited research addressing this topic has supported it.

High-functioning NMAAS users of approximately 30 years of age who do not compete athletically receive little attention in the larger discussion of NMAAS use and also bear little resemblance to the illicit drug abuser to whom they are often compared. These findings suggest that one size does not fit all....

A seeming contradiction runs through our data. In spite of possible limitations of the Internet for data collection, the segment of the population engaged in NMAAS that we accessed was an active, young, well-educated, and health-focused group. This health-centered lifestyle may seem clearly inconsistent with the potential complications of NMAAS. However, at least in the case of this sample, the use of AAS appeared well-considered; most attempt to use AAS responsibly, adopting what are perceived as safer routes of administration and hygienic injection practices, consuming a healthy diet, employing methods to reduce side effects, obtaining regular blood work, and periodically cycling on and off AAS.

J Int Soc Sports Nutr. 2007 Oct 11;4:12.
A league of their own: demographics, motivations and patterns of use of 1,955 male adult non-medical anabolic steroid users in the United States.
Cohen J, Collins R, Darkes J, Gwartney D.

JISSN | Full text | A league of their own: demographics, motivations and patterns of use of 1,955 male adult non-medical anabolic steroid users in the United States

 

[Kamala]

This is generally true. The use of drugs to "build muscle" is categorically different from the use of drugs to "get high". The addition of AAS to the Controlled Substances list implied that there was no such distinction and bodybuilders are no different than any other recreational drug user.

So, anything that reinforces this misguided perception isn't a good thing for AAS users.

(Kamala, the following isn't directed at you but just general questions to everyone.)

But how far should we take this distinction?

We argue that "building muscle" is a legitimate use of drugs contrary to societal consensus.

We argue that steroids can be used without being abused contrary to societal consensus.

How consistent is it when one argues:

"Getting high" isn't an acceptable use of drugs.

Recreational drugs can't be used without being abused.

Do recreational drugs need to be demonized in order for steroids to be accepted?

its 2 separate sets of drugs with 2 distinct purposes. Is it hypocritical to bash recs and promote aas for muscle building? Maybe, but its all about making a clear separation between the 2. The media loves to promote roid rage, and all kinds of other bs that has no basis in truth. Every time a source gets busted will recs beside aas it plays into their hands.
The guys on this site know that responsible aas use is not harmful, we need to get the truth out there. As long as we embrace guys selling recs, and allow the medias and government to lump it all together we hurt ourselves.

 

[Millard]

This is a self justifying argument based on your perceived knowledge of scheduled drugs and is not true according to the US Controlled Substance Act.

Alprazolam is a schedule IV http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Schedule_IV_drugs_(US)

Steroids are a schedule III http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Schedule_III_drugs_(US)

This is a common misnomer that is shared by many AAS user as they believe that what they are doing is improving their body. When in fact it is the exact opposite.

The Controlled Substances Act isn't a very accurate assessment of the addictive potential drugs. It can't be used to prove their potential for harm. AAS don't belong on any schedule.