"Generic" GH ASSAYS

[Gigem46]

Damn. Wish I had bought blacks instead of greys now! I think the result matches up with #s I've seen posted on pm about the blacks. Good shit @tp2013.

 

[DickySmalls]

Damn. Wish I had bought blacks instead of greys now! I think the result matches up with #s I've seen posted on pm about the blacks. Good shit @tp2013.

You're telling me... I bought 20 of the kits. I hope they don't test 0.25 IU like the other guy's vial.

 

[tp2013]

TP, I know this is probably been asked, and forgive me if it has, do you do your own testing as well as the factory.

Correct the factory does it themselves and we do it ourselves. But i need to see why we have differences. Dr. Jims results came out to 4.58 mg. .For us other than #10 and #11 batches rest all came to 5 or more than 5mg per vial ( according to our testing). so a difference of at least .5mg ( unless the number on vial is #10 or #11)between Dr. Jims results and ours. Dr. Jim can you confirm what was the number written on the blacktop vial. Also may i ask if iam reading this correct. Is purity at 97.1 percent? It is important to us. Thank you

 

[mands]

Come on Grey tops! It's like the dice are rolling down the craps table, waiting patiently...

We have plenty of grey tops coming in for testing. We will get to the bottom of things.

mands

 

[ickyrica]

We have plenty of grey tops coming in for testing. We will get to the bottom of things.

mands

No rush brother, I have all the time in the world.

 

[jJjburton]

So so far there is samples...1,2,3,13,14 correct. Or did I miss all those in betweeen 3 and 13?

 

[ickyrica]

I'm guessing requested samples were given number assignments by the testers. The reason behind bigger numbers being released before smaller would be due to shipment times; 13/14 made it to testing before 4-12.

 

[Trapmonster]

SAMPLE # 14

@mands will be along eventually to identify the samples and their "sources".

If you look at the results, the mg and iu portion of it shows /div meaning there was an error on the raw data/spreadsheet when the formula tried to run and display on the test results page

 

[DickySmalls]

If you look at the results, the mg and iu portion of it shows /div meaning there was an error on the raw data/spreadsheet when the formula tried to run and display on the test results page

Unless it's 0 mg trying to divide by zero and throwing the error?

 

[Trapmonster]

Unless it's 0 mg trying to divide by zero and throwing the error?

That could also be a possibility. But that would have to mean there is absolutely nothing else in the vial that was measured as well

 

[mands]

That could also be a possibility. But that would have to mean there is absolutely nothing else in the vial that was measured as well

It was starch. No gh was present and it's completely bunk... Fantastic packing too. Looked like a million bucks on the outside. Worth nothing on the inside.

mands

 

[Trapmonster]

Wow, crazy stuff, good to know

It was starch. No gh was present and it's completely bunk... Fantastic packing too. Looked like a million bucks on the outside. Worth nothing on the inside.

mands

 

[Dr JIM]

It was starch. No gh was present and it's completely bunk... Fantastic packing too. Looked like a million bucks on the outside. Worth nothing on the inside.

mands

Arm and Hammer, Argo or another high end brand

 

[Dr JIM]

If you look at the results, the mg and iu portion of it shows /div meaning there was an error on the raw data/spreadsheet when the formula tried to run and display on the test results page

Unless it's 0 mg trying to divide by zero and throwing the error?

LOL

Some "bros" just can't resist the temptation of speculation.

 

[DickySmalls]

LOL

Some "bros" just can't resist the temptation of speculation.

So it is 0 mg or is mands wrong that it's totally bunk? I'm confused now.

 

[Dr JIM]

Correct the factory does it themselves and we do it ourselves. But i need to see why we have differences. Dr. Jims results came out to 4.58 mg. .For us other than #10 and #11 batches rest all came to 5 or more than 5mg per vial ( according to our testing). so a difference of at least .5mg ( unless the number on vial is #10 or #11)between Dr. Jims results and ours. Dr. Jim can you confirm what was the number written on the blacktop vial. Also may i ask if iam reading this correct. Is purity at 97.1 percent? It is important to us. Thank you

Post YOUR testing as I have done or there's nothing to discuss!

 

[tp2013]

Post YOUR testing as I have done or there's nothing to discuss!

can you please let me know the purity of sample in the result. as i seem to be over looking it. Also may i know the number that was printed on the vial. Thank you.

 

[Dr JIM]

can you please let me know the purity of the result. as i seem to be over looking it. Also may i know the number that was printed on the vial. Thank you.

And what makes you believe a "purity" assay was conducted exclusive of an AAA?

As I've mentioned I don't know anything about what was printed on the vial, (except #13) that's MANDS area which I believe has already been cited.

 

[ickyrica]

It was starch. No gh was present and it's completely bunk... Fantastic packing too. Looked like a million bucks on the outside. Worth nothing on the inside.

mands

Shady mother fuckers dude. Again, thx for the testing. Proving to be worth it, no doubt.

So it is 0 mg or is mands wrong that it's totally bunk? I'm confused now.

Mands is correct.
0 mg=starch=bunk

 

[tp2013]

And what makes you believe a "purity" assay was conducted exclusive of an AAA?

As I've mentioned I don't know anything about what was printed on the vial, (except #13) that's MANDS area which I believe has already been cited.

Iam not assuming it was conducted.But i think it is also a big concern other than MG in a vial.. So from your response can I interpret that it was no done?