EuroChem Decaject 200/Decaject Depot - HPLC-UV - 2015-06 - performed by SIMEC via AnabolicLab.com

[Docd187123]

the problem is that it was good a few months ago, it might be bunk today.

I see this all the time.

So posting some results a few months old might cause too much controversy.

No it doesn't. It can be used to help show a trend over time in regards to the source's ability to put out a good product. T

 

[insertnamehere]

the problem is that it was good a few months ago, it might be bunk today.

I see this all the time.

So posting some results a few months old might cause too much controversy.

IMO, the more evidence we have to consider, the more qualified our assessment becomes.

Please reconsider posting all the data you have on any AAS you've had tested.

 

[brutus79]

Don't you mean the lab's results would be more believable? I mean why are we questioning the credibility of the lab when it's been accredited? I think it's bc we were expecting dismal results that some are having a hard time believing them. It's almost like the chicken and the egg argument: are you questioning the credibility bc you had a preconceived notion of how the results would turn out or are you questioning the results bc of the credibility of the lab?

I question the credibility of ANY activity that can generate massive cash loss or gain. An occurrence that will result in a major money fluctuation is like a rotting corpse. Vultures are always close. How do they know? They just do.

The results of these tests have the ability to make or lose millions of dollars for these large ugl's- and this is a lab that has a direct business relationship with some very big players. I am not saying anything is not on the up and up, but I wouldn't doubt for a second naps wouldn't kick 50k to the lab for a result or to keep an overdosed sample of every compound on hand. It's like that jailbreak that just happened..it was an accredited correctional facility but a few bad apples got some killers out of a max facility pretty easy.

I never believe the mass specs that come out at 10 percent either- then someone pops a 5 x blood on the label dosage math and those reports are fucking bullshit. I almost have less faith in mass spec mostly due to my inability to interpret them and everyone else's ability to explain results. They seem open to a lot of interpretation. Maybe I am an idiot.

I keep my mouth shut because it looks like sour grapes coming from me, although it isnt. I would give my left nut to have a button to press that would order me all the underdosed gear... it doesn't exist. I am incredulous at the test results so far. They do not reflect my own experiences or the experiences with ugl products people have said they had that I trust. Time will tell...

I just think it isn't a bad idea to audit the auditors. Feel me?

 

[Millard]

this is not correct a lot of samples were sent to them by members. they did a lot testing for free for people before. despite so much contribution people only bitch at them.

they did for me too, last time they refused because and they had problems with people calling them like it was open crack house. I believe the do only domestic for Canadian customers now.

I'm referring to the HPLC analyses. Not the colorimetric testing. Sorry for any ambiguity.

 

[greenddog1]

I just think it isn't a bad idea to audit the auditors. Feel me?

These are all valid points and they should be addressed, however, this project should be supported and funded. To come so far to get a leg up on the suppliers is vital to pressure these UGLs to supply quality products. If this fails you can bet these same UGLs will sit back, laugh and really start sticking it to their hapless customers.

I almost have less faith in mass spec mostly due to my inability to interpret them and everyone else's ability to explain results. They seem open to a lot of interpretation. Maybe I am an idiot.

I'm an idiot as well. There are some here that I trust to correctly interpret for those of us that are compromised.

By the way, hope all is going well with you and family.

 

[Millard]

the problem is that it was good a few months ago, it might be bunk today.

I see this all the time.

So posting some results a few months old might cause too much controversy.

Since when is too much controversy a bad thing? All analytical testing is important and relevant even if it's dated - not necessarily to tell you a product made today is legit or bunk - but to discern patterns and consistency.

If two products - product A and product B - both test well on lab tests today but the 10 spot checks for each product over the past 2 years shows that product A was only good 2 out of 10 times and product B was good 9 out 10 times, then I consider that valuable information.

 

[brutus79]

These are all valid points and they should be addressed, however, this project should be supported and funded. To come so far to get a leg up on the suppliers is vital to pressure these UGLs to supply quality products. If this fails you can bet these same UGLs will sit back, laugh and really start sticking it to their hapless customers.


I'm an idiot as well. There are some here that I trust to correctly interpret for those of us that are compromised.

By the way, hope all is going well with you and family.

It is going far better than I deserve my friend...

I also agree- this program is a huge win for the aas community in general and I in no way am trying to cast doubt- I am simply hoping to shoot holes in it that can be sealed with lead or concrete... this needs to be bulletproof with the amount of backlash it will face in the event of inevitable less than desirable results.

 

[greenddog1]

It is going far better than I deserve my friend...

I also agree- this program is a huge win for the aas community in general and I in no way am trying to cast doubt- I am simply hoping to shoot holes in it that can be sealed with lead or concrete... this needs to be bulletproof with the amount of backlash it will face in the event of inevitable less than desirable results.

Good for you!
I know that and back your concerns/sentiments 100%. For any positive outcome to occur this project must continue. Otherwise, just roll over and don't bitch when it hurts.

 

[Millard]

I just think it isn't a bad idea to audit the auditors. Feel me?

Who is best qualified to audit the auditors?

I doubt AnabolicLab can do a better or more credible job of auditing SIMEC than the US FDA. If I say SIMEC is good to go or if AnabolicLab says SIMEC is good to go, will that be more convincing than the US FDA saying SIMEC is GTG?

Skepticism and suspicion is good. But when does too much unfounded skepticism start to get in the way of progress?

If SIMEC's accreditations and qualification are insufficient to convince you, I really doubt anything I could do or AnabolicLab could do would make a difference.

I encourage anyone who wants to check up on AnabolicLab, SIMEC, etc. to buy 3 vials of any one of the products tested in the first batch -- testosterone enanthate, nandrolone decanoate, boldenone undecylenate, trenbolone acetate manufactured by Alpha/Balkan/Eurochem/Geneza/Pharmacom. Send the FIRST vial to SIMEC, the SECOND vial to MMC International (or any accredited lab willing to publicly substantiate the results) and the THIRD vial for labmax colorimetric testing or blood serum testing (obviously testosterone only).

This would be far more convincing to those skeptics than anything I could say or do.

AnabolicLab could be the very best thing ever to happen to the AAS-using community. It could do exactly what is says its doing. But if no one believes in it, it won't fulfill its stated objectives. Unfounded skepticism will kill it.

 

[insertnamehere]

I'm willing to send in the Watson I procured from DS to both SIMEC and MMC for testing. I already have the blood work posted here in this sub forum.

 

[Millard]

I am incredulous at the test results so far. They do not reflect my own experiences or the experiences with ugl products people have said they had that I trust. Time will tell...

I want to comment on this ^^ statement as well. I urge everyone to please not overgeneralize the results. Only 5 labs and 4 products were tested. In no way should anyone interpret this testing to be a cross-section of the UGL market or representative of the quality of products found in the overall AAS black market.

The selection of manufacturers and products was highly targeted. AnabolicLab didn't choose UGLs or products randomly. We didn't choose products/manufacturers that were most likely to fail. We chose products from manufacturers that were "supposed to be" good/better based on various criteria.

We selected the most popular labs and the most popular products. The relative popularity of the labs may be in dispute but I think most people agree that the labs tested -- particularly Alpha PHarma, Balkan, Geneza, Pharmacom -- account for a significant market share.

Selection criteria:

(1) have the most users;

(2) have been around 5+ years (Geneza/Pharmacom) or even 10+ years (Balkan/Eurochem);

(3) are the best funded/financed

(4) make the boldest claims e.g. legally-registered company (Balkan/Alpha Pharma); own their own pharmaceutical quality facilities (Balkan/Pharmacom); use contract pharmaceutical manufacturing facilities (Alpha Pharma); perform their own regular internal quality control verification (Alpha Pharma/Balkan/Geneza/Pharmacom);

Taken together, the targeting of manufacturers meeting criteria (1), (2), (3) and (4) may have increased probability of better results than what would have been expected in a random cross-section of the entire UGL market.

The first batch of results should NOT be considered representative of the underground market as a whole. It really can't even be considered representative of the all batches of and all products of the selected manufacturers.

 

[Millard]

I'm willing to send in the Watson I procured from DS to both SIMEC and MMC for testing. I already have the blood work posted here in this sub forum.

Thank you

 

[CensoredBoardsSuck]

I want to comment on this ^^ statement as well. I urge everyone to please not overgeneralize the results. Only 5 labs and 4 products were tested. In no way should anyone interpret this testing to be a cross-section of the UGL market or representative of the quality of products found in the overall AAS black market.

No UGL can remain in business for 10+ years by only selling bunk or underdosed products. That doesn't mean there won't be periods of poor quality, but there have to be periods of good quality or the lab wouldn't have survived.

With regard to this set of tests, they could very well be representative of UGLs who are currently experiencing a good period and the next round of tests might be failures. The only way to know if UGL product quality is cyclical is by doing continuous, random testing until a pattern can be established. We don't have enough data to make that determination yet, and there is really nothing we should take from these tests results other than the fact that they represent a few UGLs during brief moment in time.

The test results have been surprising, and for many, too good to be believable. But they're not necessarily impossible to believe. By the look of bodybuilders on the boards and in gyms, there's no question that there are reasonably good quality AAS on the market. Maybe not every AAS, and maybe not all the time, but there is definitely enough good AAS on the market frequently enough that bodybuilders are getting results. It really doesn't require a very big a leap of faith to believe the biggest and oldest UGLs are selling them. But we need more data before we can draw that conclusion with any certainty.

Time will tell the tale on what UGLs are selling as well as the validity of the testing program's results. Until then, I'll continue to support the program and let it gather more data. This program is too important to give up on based on one round of tests. We should have a much clearer picture by this time next year - hopefully much sooner.

 

[Millard]

With regard to this set of tests, they could very well be representative of UGLs who are currently experiencing a good period and the next round of tests might be failures. The only way to know if UGL product quality is cyclical is by doing continuous, random testing until a pattern can be established. We don't have enough data to make that determination yet, and there is really nothing we should take from these tests results other than the fact that they represent a few UGLs during brief moment in time.

^^ This is so critically important for anyone to truly appreciate the value of the program.

One data point is not very useful. If we have 10 data points on a particular manufacturer (or even better, a single product by that manufacturer), the value increases and continues to increase with each additional data point. It is the patterns that are most important.

 

[T_L]

Really good posts in this thread!! Solid questions and answers all round.

I'm willing to send in the Watson I procured from DS to both SIMEC and MMC for testing. I already have the blood work posted here in this sub forum.

I could also donate a single amp of prescription Sustanon250 if needed. I have trough blood test results whilst using it too.