ATTN: OGs and other well known members. Source talk?

[readalot]

and move on and forget the point that i'm making

Typical. Obfuscation through bright shiny/entertaining object.

AAS users / ADD symptoms. Effective.

 

[readalot]

Sure.
For instance, I personally would not have a suitable space to do any of this, as much as I would like to.
It's not about the time it takes, necessarily, so what you say about that is correct.
But not everyone can do this in a way that is consistently appropriate, safe and sterile.
Frankly, despite all the reading I have done about it here, I would still be fearful to get something wrong.
But then I am a retard and I am aware that many others will go for it without a second thought and successfully.
Brilliant but that is not me, unfortunately.

Bottom line: inexcusable for anyone to hand wave, excuse, try to explain away a vendor putting floaters in a finished injection vial. Simple.

Why is this so important to recognize?

 

[iris]

Bottom line: inexcusable for anyone to hand wave, excuse, try to explain away a vendor putting floaters in a finished injection vial. Simple.

Aside from one person here, nobody else is excusing it, though.

 

[readalot]

Aside from one person here, nobody else is excusing it, though.

Accurate in this thread. Thank you

 

[kaizoku]

I'm sure you seen

I never seen

when I seen it

This is what i seen

Asks for US domestic labs…can barely write basic English.

I “seen” what you did there.

 

[readalot]

The floaters are a red herring. Vials with floaters have proven to be sterile.

False. One vial was tested for endotoxins and came back below LOD. Still unsure the qualifications of that assay with +/- controls. That is partly my fault for not digging into that deeper.

It doesn't affect me because I filter all my gear and so should you. Whether or not QSC *should* address it is up to them and their business goals. I hope they will so everyone will shut the fuck up about it.

Which, to be clear, doesn't mean that I don't believe that people shouldn't report it if they find it in their gear, but all the fucking people hand wringing about it that have never purchased oils from them.

Since you are a brilliant guy (even in your own estimation), I'm sure you will be retracting your "red herring" claim. Right?

Red herring - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Post in thread 'QSC - Primo 200 - Quantitative and Endotoxin test results'

Nov 27, 2024

How does testing for endotoxins indicate that the vial is completely sterile?

You are correct to point out that limitation. The standard endotoxin assays detect only Gram-negative bacterial endotoxins. There may in principle be contamination with Gram-positive bacteria, which produce exotoxins or endospores that won't be picked up by the test. Or fungi that produce fungal spores.

However, my argument is the following: If the production facilities and hygiene protocols are able to prevent even the tiniest number of gram-negative bacteria from entering the product, then it seems...

• MyNameIsJeff

• 

Be a good example for us lesser folks.

 

[Ateam2023]

你总是把供应商的问题归咎于消费者

wtf does that say? English please

 

[readalot]

wtf does that say? English please

Enjoy. Come again.

Nǐ zǒng shì bǎ gōngyìng shāng de wèntí guījiù yú xiāofèi zhě

You always blame the customer for the supplier's problems

 

[iris]

False. One vial was tested for endotoxins and came back below LOD. Still unsure the qualifications of that assay with +/- controls. That is partly my fault for not digging into that deeper.



Since you are a brilliant guy (even in your own estimation), I'm sure you will be retracting your "red herring" claim. Right?

Red herring - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Post in thread 'QSC - Primo 200 - Quantitative and Endotoxin test results'

Nov 27, 2024

How does testing for endotoxins indicate that the vial is completely sterile?

You are correct to point out that limitation. The standard endotoxin assays detect only Gram-negative bacterial endotoxins. There may in principle be contamination with Gram-positive bacteria, which produce exotoxins or endospores that won't be picked up by the test. Or fungi that produce fungal spores.

However, my argument is the following: If the production facilities and hygiene protocols are able to prevent even the tiniest number of gram-negative bacteria from entering the product, then it seems...

• MyNameIsJeff

• 

Be a good example for us lesser folks.

The "qsc should address it just so y'all shut the F up, if not it's up to them if they want to sort it out" is quite telling.
In the meantime, you are being told to get a new hobby and try fishing, instead of not shutting the F up on that thread.
Zeb was right, it is useless.
Most of their customers don't care. They just want the quick, cheap, easy stuff (as reported above) and that is that. Otherwise, you are a pita.
Bighunanballs got that when he complained about the underfilling.
Apparently, it has been fixed (not sure whether anyone checked).
He got a fair amount of pushback from members for speaking up but had he not said anything, the undefilled vials would still be sold.
The issue with floaters is that the ones who find them and post pictures are still going to purchase.
Not many have changed vendor; even if they have, most of them will go back there for promos, anyway.

 

[readalot]

get a new hobby

My hobbies speak for themselves .

 

[FastBun]

Cause the vast majority of people can't even math properly, let alone make complex calculations that contain volume displacements. And that's on top of an initial investment for labware etc.

Treat UGL finished oils for what it is.

Edit: Why the fuck do you still argue about QSC or any illicit substance vendor? Don't fucking buy their shit and move on. Since there is ZERO reports of harm done so far (afaik, if I am wrong please point me to the thread) from their oils, given the volume of units sold, the whole thing is a NothingBurger.

Some of you need to get out of your fucking bubble into the real world. Nothing is free. If it's cheap there is probably a catch. If it's good and cheap, you probably need to DIY.

But in the age of the instant gratification and "the world owns me", everyone demands cheap, fast, top quality and pampering.

Newsflash: That's not how the world works.

Yup… arguing with QSC is pointless.. people should just spend money with source that holds their values… good and cheap never go together …

 

[FastBun]

Hey Bun,
No I wasn't thinking you support that source.
I was just saying that making this stuff is not feasible, for most people.
If you can, good for you.
If not, as they always say, vote with you wallet by choosing a vendor that meets your requirements and proves to be reliable.
Have a good day.

always able to get your point across gently… love that.. yeah I don’t have the space or time to brew myself so I understand this..

 

[narta]

good job searching for awhile to find an american movie to pretend you can't read my message without google translate
doesnt even fit this context, but you wanted everyone to be see the gif and say "haha good movie" and move on and forget the point that i'm making

You honestly think I can understand Chinese? I am faltered, but unfortunately, no.

English, bad English, some Latin and my native language

Futuere

 

[ebkallday]

All of the ruthless source vetting OGs are banned or have left the board.

The rest don't give a shit to be involved in source drama and doing all the work for the smooth brains waiting to be spoonfed.
It circles back to the core principle, everyone needs to do their own research.

If peoples "research" leads them to believing the tidal wave of qsc shills instead of practical reasoning, that's on them.

This hits the nail right on the head!!

 

[ebkallday]

All of the ruthless source vetting OGs are banned or have left the board.

The rest don't give a shit to be involved in source drama and doing all the work for the smooth brains waiting to be spoonfed.
It circles back to the core principle, everyone needs to do their own research.

If peoples "research" leads them to believing the tidal wave of qsc shills instead of practical reasoning, that's on them.

Alot of those dudes and I had met in the real world. I disappeared for a few years to come back and find all this out. All these board sponsors selling gear is a different deal too. There was a time when board sponsors weren't aloud ro engage in certain types of products. In fact there were only a couple sponsors and one was a peptide company.

 

[readalot]

Dedicated to you @biggerben69 and @BigBaldBeardGuy. Tracy as he should remain.

Revoked for BBBG.

Kudos to "Tracy" for stepping up on the testing. Here's to much much more in 2025.

 

[Millard]

No, that's not the point I was making.
My point is that the people who are truly unaffiliated with sources, are aware that even the most candid statement on experience with a particular source can be misconstrued as shilling or an advocation of that sources quality.

Which I inherently disagree with, individuals should make their own decisions on the quality of a source by the frequency and consistency of their testing, the strength of their testing credit, and the integrity in which they handle issues, rather than because an orange name they have never met said they used them once.


There are definitely quite a few that masquerade as community advocates in vetting sources, subverting their competition.
I don't think this detracts from my original point.

In PM/DM with people you don't know more than just a username on a forum should be considered "public" for the purposes of my original statement.


I think there is a fine line between disclosure, and advertisement.

Which is why I personally subscribe to the philosophy of not discussing whether I use a source or not and instead focusing on the merits/faults that are present.

The community doesn't benefit from me saying "I used abc's gear" and the only reason a statement like that would carry any merit would be based on my alleged reputation and credibility are a reliable source of information.

This obviously does not include posting data like lab testing.

Thanks for the clarification. It's the use of "publicly" that made me scratch my head at your initially statement:

"The truly impartial/knowledgeable/credible members will almost never discuss their choice in sources publicly."

Rather than assume "publicly" also includes PMs/DMs, I would rather see it it explicitly spelled out so that more newbies don't start sending PMs to members thinking that is the secret to finding good sources.

"The truly impartial/knowledgeable/credible members will almost never discuss their choice in sources publicly or privately."

I applaud your personal policy not discussing sources you may use. This is the way to go!

A lot of less scrupulous people participate on forums precisely so they can use their reputation for influence - either publicly or privately.

There is indeed a fine line between disclosure and advertisement in these cases. But I don't think people can have it both ways:

They can't avoid disclosure in public to avoid appearance of shilling/advertising while AT THE SAME TIME openly disclosing in private (via PM/DM).

If you are choosing to avoid disclosure in public for these reasons you must avoid disclosure in private for the same reasons.

The distinctions between honesty/dishonesty and transparency/non-transparency are more clear cut.

 

[oldie59]

The sky is clear and the sky is clear, so I will not let you down.

wtf does that say? English please

 

[BigTomJ]

Thanks for the clarification. It's the use of "publicly" that made me scratch my head at your initially statement:

"The truly impartial/knowledgeable/credible members will almost never discuss their choice in sources publicly."

Rather than assume "publicly" also includes PMs/DMs, I would rather see it it explicitly spelled out so that more newbies don't start sending PMs to members thinking that is the secret to finding good sources.

"The truly impartial/knowledgeable/credible members will almost never discuss their choice in sources publicly or privately."

I applaud your personal policy not discussing sources you may use. This is the way to go!

A lot of less scrupulous people participate on forums precisely so they can use their reputation for influence - either publicly or privately.

There is indeed a fine line between disclosure and advertisement in these cases. But I don't think people can have it both ways:

They can't avoid disclosure in public to avoid appearance of shilling/advertising while AT THE SAME TIME openly disclosing in private (via PM/DM).

If you are choosing to avoid disclosure in public for these reasons you must avoid disclosure in private for the same reasons.

The distinctions between honesty/dishonesty and transparency/non-transparency are more clear cut.

Yeah I agree entirely.

I am not as anonymous as others on this forum, so my reputation and integrity extends beyond an avitar and screen name.
I'm not perfect, and don't mean to suggest my philosophy is black and white, I still do occasionally talk about a source when relevant.
I'm just very cautious in how I approach it so that it can't be even remotely misconstrued as advertisement, and usually that just results in me not sharing unless there's a good, harm reduction, reason to.

 

[MackVMT]

How does being less anonymous than others on a steroid forum correlate with reputation and integrity?

People deceive and lie all the time online using their real identity.

Agree with others on never discussing my sources or vouching with anyone public or PM.