Finding Powder

[ChemStar]

These tests by Llewellyn are a few years old. Here are a couple articles I wrote about them:

Are Steroids from Underground Labs Contaminated with Toxic Metals?

Identities of Underground Labs with Contaminated and Underdosed Products Revealed

Just read them. Glad to see someone who's thinking outside the box. As you would know, the powder is where the problem would lie. And you also are fully aware that no one spends 10k on machines for their UGL. As long as I have access to a real lab I thought I'd put it to good use for everyone

 

[Millard]

Are there any legal obstacles to someone becoming a testing authority like dance safe that you are aware of?

I'm hoping a person in a position of high authority will do this and don't understand why it hasn't happened yet. By charging a fee one could generate a small profit or at least break even.

San Rafael Chemical Services (SRCS) used to do this several years ago. It was more or less $100 per sample. They allowed anyone to anonymously submit a steroid sample for testing. They even had a DEA license.

Feds didn't really like that. DEA raided them (back in 2006-2007?). I don't know that they even broke the law. But they stopped AAS testing after that. It sent a message to other labs too.

 

[regular]

Honestly I'm a little surprised you'd even ask that question, but after searching for about 9 seconds I found this video on the steroid articles part of THIS website.

William Llewellyn Discusses Evolving Black Market for Anabolic Steroids [VIDEO]

Start around the 15 minute mark where he talks about how incredibly impure these sources are. I don't think it's a stretch to say the guy cooking tren in his kitchen sink could be contaminating his product. EVEN if the cook was extremely careful, the POWDER he is using could EASILY contain impurities. You think the guys in China who mass produce the powder give a shit about your health?

From all my searching I have found no threads or no person who's mentioned TRUE quality control. I don't expect anything to be 100% purity. But I personally would like to know the risk I'm taking before I inject. And I'm sure I'm not alone

I own a copy of Underground Anabolics by William Llewellyn and some of his other books. The portion of the lecture you directed me to is from Underground Anabolics. All of the tests he references are several years old and were conducted on products circulating in Europe. There isn't a single test in his book which was conducted on a raw hormone.

You're speculating without any evidence that the source of the heavy metal contamination was the hormone. The hormone could contain an insignificant amount of impurities. The metals could have been introduced by another component of the formulation, the equipment used to blend the product, the vial it was bottled in, or the stopper. You have no idea.

You have no evidence the products currently in circulation contain impurities outside of an acceptable range.

 

[ChemStar]

San Rafael Chemical Services (SRCS) used to do this several years ago. It was more or less $100 per sample. They allowed anyone to anonymously submit a steroid sample for testing. They even had a DEA license.

Feds didn't really like that. DEA raided them (back in 2006-2007?). I don't know that they even broke the law. But they stopped AAS testing after that. It sent a message to other labs too.

Do you have any saved articles or data from that? Although it was a long time ago, I'm interested to see what they found if they even posted anything. I'm looking now for legit data from pure samples so if and when I do start testing myself I have a baseline to compare my results to.

 

[regular]

As you would know, the powder is where the problem would lie.

What evidence do you have to support this claim?

 

[Millard]

Do you have any saved articles or data from that? Although it was a long time ago, I'm interested to see what they found if they even posted anything. I'm looking now for legit data from pure samples so if and when I do start testing myself I have a baseline to compare my results to.

You mean the SRCS sample analyses? Here are some of their reports from 2004:

AnabolicLab.com - Anabolic Steroid Quality Control Validation

 

[Millard]

There isn't a single test in his book which was conducted on a raw hormone.

No testing of raw hormone. I guess most steroid consumers wouldn't care. It would only be relevant to homebrewers and UGLs.

 

[ChemStar]

You're speculating without any evidence that the source of the heavy metal contamination was the hormone. The hormone could contain an insignificant amount of impurities. The metals could have been introduced by another component of the formulation, the equipment used to blend the product, the vial it was bottled in, or the stopper. You have no idea.

You have no evidence the products currently in circulation contain impurities outside of an acceptable range.

Your right, I don't. Hence the entire reason I started the thread. Trust me I'm looking for examples that they are indeed pure. But tell me the % of people who get powder and run IR's on it? Anyone on the internet could put "my powder is super legit it passed 100%" and make an infographic. I'm not about to take their word for it. Maybe because I'm overly cautious or that I was taught through college to question things logically and rationally, like almost all science majors. I'm NOT making claims as I have no personal data to go off of. I do intend to do that though, just looking for a powder to start with.

People are free to believe what they wish and inject what they want, I just think real data could be valuable and I don't see any argument against that.

 

[ChemStar]

There isn't a single test in his book which was conducted on a raw hormone.

You're speculating without any evidence that the source of the heavy metal contamination was the hormone.

You have no evidence the products currently in circulation contain impurities outside of an acceptable range.

No testing of raw hormone. I guess most steroid consumers wouldn't care. It would only be relevant to homebrewers and UGLs.

Banner, getting the hormone into powder form involves even more chemical reactions. They do not go to their Testosterone bush and scrape off powder into a vial. EVERYTHING has to be synthesized from somewhere. The more chemical reactions done, the higher the chance of impurities. So before you even get the chance to combine the powder with the reagents and cook, there was much cooking and a final lyophilization process done to give you the powder u have. It's not "raw hormone" as everything used is synthetic!

It'd be like if you gave me a vial of whatever, and I tested it. What I'm actually testing is YOUR cooking quality, along with the cooking quality of whoever you got the powder from.

IF you start at the source, the powder, you can have a good idea of what your final product will contain. Maybe you're right, maybe there are no impurities. I just kind of doubt it, highly.

 

[ChemStar]

I saw yesterday a thread of someone advertising BBpowder. A lot of people chimed in saying it was good stuff. I'm not trying to start wars here, but wouldn't both the dealer and the clients want to know what the powder composed of? If it was pure, the dealer is g2g and has scientific proof of it. Better for all who homebrew

 

[regular]

Your right, I don't. Hence the entire reason I started the thread. Trust me I'm looking for examples that they are indeed pure. But tell me the % of people who get powder and run IR's on it? Anyone on the internet could put "my powder is super legit it passed 100%" and make an infographic. I'm not about to take their word for it. Maybe because I'm overly cautious or that I was taught through college to question things logically and rationally, like almost all science majors. I'm NOT making claims as I have no personal data to go off of. I do intend to do that though, just looking for a powder to start with.

People are free to believe what they wish and inject what they want, I just think real data could be valuable and I don't see any argument against that.

The title of this thread is "Finding Powder." You started this thread to find a raw hormone source.

I'm not arguing against you testing anything. I hope you test everything you can get your hands on and create a lot of data.

The test/s you're planning to conduct on a hormone alone would be useless to end users because there would be no guarantee that a finished product doesn't contain contaminates outside of an acceptable range. The test would be helpful only to a raw hormone vendor. Test finished products if you want to provide meaningful data to the community.

 

[ChemStar]

I see exactly what you're saying. And yes, this thread applies mostly to home brewers. End product users know full well they're taking a gamble, but even testing the powder isn't USELESS.

Say I went through three reputable sources. Are there a ton more sources than 3 out there? Yep. But if all 3 powders were outlandish, maybe end product users would tread more carefully? I realize it could be viewed as a stretch, and that most won't care.

Anyway, I may start with BBpowder unless anyone has a better idea of a source. I figured I'd come here with a thread because I'm sure there are a lot of homebrewers out there who share sources and whatnot. Just looking for the big names to start.

I'm looking forward to hopefully contribute here and have enlightening conversations all can learn from.

 

[Mr. Joe]

Test finished products if you want to provide meaningful data to the community.

I have to side with ChemStar on this point. Any chemist will tell you that the final product's purity depends very highly, if not mostly, if not practically entirely on the quality of the initial substrate(s). And in this situation, let's face it, the powder is really the final product. No offense to the UGL's and the homebrewers out there, but dissolving solute into solvent in the right proportions and filter sterilization aren't exactly rocket science. I think knowing which UGLs are using quality powders is of importance to the community. Safety should always be the first consideration.

However, I do agree with you that testing finished product is of more practical use to the average consumer. I see no reason not to have multiple layers of quality control.

Oh the days of Organic, running IR once a week, half the class has water contamination, no water used in the protocol...

 

[ChemStar]

Mr. Joe explained it well. Put another way, I could test 10 different samples of the same gear, all from the same ugl. They would probably all be different, yet similar. The thing they share in common is the powder used.

There are simply too many ugls with too many finished products to test. I feel it more effective to test the powder that these ugls are using. They could be careful as hell and 100% sanitary yet make product that contained crap bc the powder they used was bad. There are far less powder sources out there than there are finished product sources and sooner or later they overlap

 

[tanuki]

I'll give you a hint. The powder suppliers are on google. They are in plain sight otherwise they'd make no money. If I were you I'd stay away from sites with urls like buysteroidpowders, steroidpowders, etc.

Can't hold your hand anymore than that.

 

[tanuki]

Problem with testing raw powder sources is an issue of which factory it came from. Foreign powder suppliers are in reality dropshippers. One day your stuff can come from Beijing and the next Guangzhou.

 

[ChemStar]

Problem with testing raw powder sources is an issue of which factory it came from. Foreign powder suppliers are in reality dropshippers. One day your stuff can come from Beijing and the next Guangzhou.

You're right. I suppose my theory isn't really plausible as there is no way to guarantee anything comes from anywhere consistently. I will start narrowing down choices. If I can I'll PM you with my final 2 choices, and you can maybe infer which one is more reputable? Then I'll get to work and publish the results on a new thread.

My mission here is to not only be a personal user of homebrewed gear, but to also supply real data about purity to those who also homebrew but don't have the means of testing the raw powder themselves. Maybe my research won't directly help anyone and simply serve as something to think about. Just figured if I test powder that many use to brew, it could give possible warning signs or possible reassurance that the substrates are g2g.

Thanks for your help guys

 

[regular]

I have to side with ChemStar on this point. Any chemist will tell you that the final product's purity depends very highly, if not mostly, if not practically entirely on the quality of the initial substrate(s). And in this situation, let's face it, the powder is really the final product.

You're assuming I'm not a chemist. You're also assuming the source of the contamination is the hormone itself. No one has ever provided any evidence the hormone itself is contaminated. You're assuming industrial grade solvents aren't being swapped for pharmaceutical grade solvents. You're assuming the oil being used is actually USP grade. Spend some time reading the procedures UGL labs are using to work up and formulate their products. Most are cup and jar labs. You'll see some of the procedures being used can and likely do introduce contaminates to finished products. Watch this guy use cooking oil from a can as his primary excipient:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t59D9uSFsJ8]American Underworld - Steroids - YouTube[/ame]

The hormone is not the finished product. Any chemist would disagree with you. The hormone is typically one of four ingredients in the final formulation. You have no idea what the source of contamination is.

 

[ChemStar]

If you were a chemist you would know full well what it takes to synthesize hormone derivatives. For you to imply that the only chance of contamination is from the actual cooking process yet ignore the fact that the powder itself must be "cooked" is illogical. Like I said before, there is NO SUCH THING as "raw" hormone. Unless ur talking the shit ur pituitary spits out. In all other cases, its synthesized which takes multiple chemical reactions, filterings, etc

 

[regular]

If you were a chemist you would know full well what it takes to synthesize hormone derivatives.

Pick up a copy when you get a chance.

For you to imply that the only chance of contamination is from the actual cooking process yet ignore the fact that the powder itself must be "cooked" is illogical.

Where was that implied?

There is nothing to suggest the hormone is the source of contamination. You have nothing other than William Llewellyn reiterating a story he was told by a UGL operator about his hormone being impure. Speculation with speculation on top. A lab which is capable of synthesizing synthetic hormones is capable of working up the finished product. The hormone could be contaminated. So can the solvents and oil in the finished product. There is no guarantee any of them or all of them are not contaminated.

Like I said before, there is NO SUCH THING as "raw" hormone. Unless ur talking the shit ur pituitary spits out. In all other cases, its synthesized which takes multiple chemical reactions, filterings, etc

The term raw hormone is used to describe hormone powder. Manufacturing hormones does not always require multiple chemical reactions. Sometimes it requires just one simple reaction.