HGH and IGF-1 levels

[janoshik]

I am glad I found this thread. I was considering your services. It seemed funny how you could offer these tests at 1/4 the cost every other lab charges.
Perhaps you would like to see the lab test over at eroids you did for another company? You know the one where your picture of the items being tested did not match the actual product sent you? Two totally different brands. Your excuse was that the totally different products picture was for reference purposes and was not the actual product tested? I knew that was bullshit.

Oh, look, another guy lacking basic brain function and ability to comprehend stuff.

Sod off.

The sample pictured was no brand of some UGL stuff you would like to inject, it's a goddamn official reference standard. Or do you think that European Center for pharmaceutic standards is having their stuff tested with me? I'm flattered, thank you.

You know, the reference standard, the stuff that certified laboratories can purchase that costs more than all the kits you are going to use in the next year.

I'll gladly post the link here, so other people can assess your brain function:
Pictures - Godtropin HGH analysis


Have a nice day.

 

[janoshik]

Oh, and I wonder if I used big enough letters for mands in the posts before.

He might start thinking he can interpret studies, had I not.

 

[Wunderpus]

Oh, and I wonder if I used big enough letters for mands in the posts before.

He might start thinking he can interpret studies, had I not.

While I appreciate your constant attempts at attacking @mands, it would be in good taste to at least have the courtesy to tag him in the posts... That will allow him the opportunity to reply to your snarky comments.

In other news, I'd rather deal with an individual that struggles to comprehend studies, than one who lies and botches tests... Not saying Mands cannot interpret studies, however seems as though it's still much BETTER than being branded a liar....

Hope you're well, Jano.

 

[janoshik]

While I appreciate your constant attempts at attacking @mands, it would be in good taste to at least have the courtesy to tag him in the posts... That will allow him the opportunity to reply to your snarky comments.

In other news, I'd rather deal with an individual that struggles to comprehend studies, than one who lies and botches tests... Not saying Mands cannot interpret studies, however seems as though it's still much BETTER than being branded a liar....

Hope you're well, Jano.

You are right, my mistake, I usually tag people when mentioning them, as can be seen in my history. As he participated in the thread, he'd get the notification anyway, would he not?

I can't but agree with you on the second part.


However, I do believe in fixing the mistakes. I've set up methods preventing that from happening ever again. All samples are pictured, labeled, raw data saved, backed up etc etc. I've apologized multiple times.

How long do people last in this kind of business usually? 1/4 of the time I did by now and then they try to comeback under a new name?

I think I'm taking the more honest route, although I've made mistakes. In good faith, believe it or not.


How many times did the likes of @Dr JIM apologize and took blame for botched tests, misinformation and straight made up lies?

 

[Wunderpus]

You are right, my mistake, I usually tag people when mentioning them, as can be seen in my history. As he participated in the thread, he'd get the notification anyway, would he not?

I can't but agree with you on the second part.


However, I do believe in fixing the mistakes. I've set up methods preventing that from happening ever again. All samples are pictured, labeled, raw data saved, backed up etc etc. I've apologized multiple times.

How long do people last in this kind of business usually? 1/4 of the time I did by now and then they try to comeback under a new name?

I think I'm taking the more honest route, although I've made mistakes. In good faith, believe it or not.


How many times did the likes of @Dr JIM apologize and took blame for botched tests, misinformation and straight made up lies?

Classy move to divert the attention away from yourself and try to throw a trusted member under the bus... Good tactic, however, it's been overused in the past.

Now, I do actually enjoy the fact you admit that you fucked up. Frankly, I genuinely hope you learned from it, and will improve your practices.

I do believe time will tell. However, in your line of work, it seems as though one blatant lie should be enough to disqualify all of your results indefinitely. I realize you see it as an opportunity to be "born again" and come back a changed man... If only that even panned out that way in the real world. In my experience, liars and scammers remain just that until death... I cannot recall a time that a thief or liar ever fully changed their ways, it's a character flaw, one that you cannot break.

 

[janoshik]

...However, in your line of work, it seems as though one blatant lie should be enough to disqualify all of your results indefinitely.

And for some reason I feel you are applying this to me only.

See above, where you refer to a 'trusted member.'

Think about it and I'd be happy if you gave me your input about what you think of this bias of yours. This really is a wonderful example and absolutely the same exact thing I tried to point out with that.

I realize you see it as an opportunity to be "born again" and come back a changed man... If only that even panned out that way in the real world.

No I do not.

I meant that it's the easiest thing in the world to change names, stay low for a while and start a new lab. Happening every single day around these places, is it not?

Not quite the honest way and the one I did not take.

I'm not going to be a changed man, I did not and will not change a bit.

I've PRIVATELY provided information I believed and still BELIEVE to be correct to Mands for his own private benefit FOR FREE as a FAVOR so he and JIM can actually fix their testing and not provide bad results to people. Because they were hurting YOU, the customers and honest sources and were helping people who were selling shit products. Burying their heads into the sand.

I shouldn't have done what I've done, but there it is, cannot be undone.

Like I said, I've done so in good faith and did not handle the aftermath.

In my experience, liars and scammers remain just that until death... I cannot recall a time that a thief or liar ever fully changed their ways, it's a character flaw, one that you cannot break.

Generalizing is a classy move as well.

 

[mands]

Oh, and I wonder if I used big enough letters for mands in the posts before.

He might start thinking he can interpret studies, had I not.

You need to back off. Stop bringing me into threads when others attack you(especially when you are trying to get shots in on me without tagging me). Members can see right through your rubbish.

You are a liar for one and a contemptible person to boot. I'm done with you. You know what's worse than a liar? Is a liar who will deliberately lie in such a way that he can manipulate his lie to be interpreted different ways. That's an art... Congrats.

I'll just drop this right here for all that believe in you and what you represent.

Jano "The ultimate Con-man and Liar?" thread...You be the judge

mands

 

[janoshik]

You need to back off. Stop bringing me into threads when others attack you(especially when you are trying to get shots in on me without tagging me). Members can see right through your rubbish.

You are a liar for one and a contemptible person to boot. I'm done with you. You know what's worse than a liar? Is a liar who will deliberately lie in such a way that he can manipulate his lie to be interpreted different ways. That's an art... Congrats.

I'll just drop this right here for all that believe in you and what you represent.

Jano "The ultimate Con-man and Liar?" thread...You be the judge

mands

Well, @mands, I did kinda had to tag you twice in #74 and #75 before getting an answer before.
I should've figured to put at least two tags in there.

Now in an answer to that you failed to reply again to a direct quote @mands.

Didn't figure out that quoting you is not enough and I should tag you in #77 as well.


It's quite an art pulling ad hominems all the way while trying to hide own incompetence, @mands. You learn from the best.


Also, you sound pretty mands. (sorry, tag doesn't work with that, apparently)


Or are you trying to act as if you had not participated in this thread before at all and I was just abusing you randomly all over the place?

 

[Eman]

I'm not going to be a changed man, I did not and will not change a bit.

We know. That's all that matters actually. You are what you are, Jano. I've told you before that you have something to offer the forum. You probably have something to offer to the society you live in even.

Unfortunately though, you are what you are and you're not going to change.

Well, @mands, I did kinda had to tag you twice in #74 and #75 before getting an answer before.
I should've figured to put at least two tags in there.

Now in an answer to that you failed to reply again to a direct quote @mands.

Didn't figure out that quoting you is not enough and I should tag you in #77 as well.


It's quite an art pulling ad hominems all the way while trying to hide own incompetence, @mands. You learn from the best.


Also, you sound pretty mands. (sorry, tag doesn't work with that, apparently)


Or are you trying to act as if you had not participated in this thread before at all and I was just abusing you randomly all over the place?

He was probably just ignoring you... your attitude comes off extremely annoying.

 

[Wunderpus]

We know. That's all that matters actually. You are what you are, Jano. I've told you before that you have something to offer the forum. You probably have something to offer to the society you live in even.

Unfortunately though, you are what you are and you're not going to change.



He was probably just ignoring you... your attitude comes off extremely annoying.

Attitude aside, Jano lied to Mands and potentially set Mands and Jim up to look like fools with botched tests.... So, yeah, I get why Mands would be unhappy.

 

[Eman]

Attitude aside, Jano lied to Mands and potentially set Mands and Jim up to look like fools with botched tests.... So, yeah, I get why Mands would be unhappy.

I think it all comes back to his attitude... The botched tests were probably, ultimately, just to spite Jim.

Mands might have rubbed him the wrong way too at some point... Hard to say, he's a sensitive one.

 

[janoshik]

Attitude aside, Jano lied to Mands and potentially set Mands and Jim up to look like fools with botched tests.... So, yeah, I get why Mands would be unhappy.

I think it all comes back to his attitude... The botched tests were probably, ultimately, just to spite Jim.

Mands might have rubbed him the wrong way too at some point... Hard to say, he's a sensitive one.

That was not botched and was genuinely meant to help them realize there is something off with their testing.

I still had a little hope back then that they just might just be deceived by the info provided to them by the testing facility.

They are fools solely because they fail to acknowledge that all their work was not only useless, but harmful.

 

[janoshik]

He was probably just ignoring you... your attitude comes off extremely annoying.

I have a bad enough temper to get triggered by stupidity.

Also, wonderful how he had not ignored my annoying posts a thousand times before, but when I point out he's spreading false information and heavily misinterpreting article, suddenly it just gets so much easier to ignore what I say.

Mands might have rubbed him the wrong way too at some point... Hard to say, he's a sensitive one.

Quite possibly when making shit up a few weeks ago? D'oh.

 

[Wunderpus]

That was not botched and was genuinely meant to help them realize there is something off with their testing.

Explain, please, how lying about results was intended to "help" them.... I would be genuinely curious to know.

Imagine if your vial (the one you tested) actually contained different amounts of hGH from the supplier. This could easily happen, even in the same batch. With that, don't you believe it is important to test the exact sample you are sent?

Well, of course you didn't believe it was important. You went ahead and tested a sample you assumed was the same batch that Mands sent you. Then, you lied about some extravagant event where your girlfriend or whatever sent out his package, etc. etc., I don't even remember the details...

Regardless, Jano, you lied. That's the final point here... Everything else doesn't mean shit. You lied about testing a sample that was sent in to you, and then you fabricated some elaborate lie about customs, removing the packaging of the samples, etc. etc.... This is just unforgivable, to me.... Others may disagree, and good for them. I just don't care to have liars/con men around here.

Do not forget you'd be the FIRST to call out a colleague who lied about testing products...

 

[Eman]

That was not botched and was genuinely meant to help them realize there is something off with their testing.

I still had a little hope back then that they just might just be deceived by the info provided to them by the testing facility.

They are fools solely because they fail to acknowledge that all their work was not only useless, but harmful.

Useless? Come on, you don't really have a leg to stand on do you? Your contribution of genuine help equated to zero...

Harmful my ass. Now you're sounding like the stupid one.

Quite possibly when making shit up a few weeks ago? D'oh.

Shall I quote the post where you admitted lying? Come on, Jano... Don't be a hypocrite.

 

[mands]

@jano you have major issues.

I do not spread false information. If I do it's very few and far between and I retract anything that is not correct.

For the record your levels will be highly suppressed from taking exogenous GH for 18-36 hours. Period. Research yourself.

mands

 

[janoshik]

Explain, please, how lying about results was intended to "help" them.... I would be genuinely curious to know.

Imagine if your vial (the one you tested) actually contained different amounts of hGH from the supplier. This could easily happen, even in the same batch. With that, don't you believe it is important to test the exact sample you are sent?

I've tested multiple ones.

Useless? Come on, you don't really have a leg to stand on do you? Your contribution of genuine help equated to zero...

There are some who disagree and that's enough for me.

And not having a leg to stand on? Pretty much anybody with half a brain and a bit of education bashed that little AAA project. Or have you missed that?

Harmful my ass. Now you're sounding like the stupid one.

So you don't believe that providing pretty much random results, where good products look underdosed (remember those seros that were sent for mass spec to confirm they were underdosed and that their testing was good like a year ago? lol) and stuff that's straight up shit full of byproducts tests good is harmful?

Shall I quote the post where you admitted lying? Come on, Jano... Don't be a hypocrite.

Shall I give another lecture on reading comprehension and logic?

 

[Wunderpus]

Shall I give another lecture on reading comprehension and logic?

Are you retracting your statement where you admitted to lying?

 

[janoshik]

@jano you have major issues.

I do not spread false information. If I do it's very few and far between and I retract anything that is not correct.

For the record your levels will be highly suppressed from taking exogenous GH for 18-36 hours. Period. Research yourself.

mands

Can't disagree with you on the first one and will refrain from saying anything about the second one.

I see you are still having the same stance and I really really did my research.

In fact, I don't think there are people who have done more research and reading on human growth hormone than me.

And yet I disagree with your statement and have found quotations that indeed support my stance.

You are issuing a statement and put the burden of proof of me, which is a logical fallacy.

"Trusted member said" is not a proof for me, however common it is around here.

So if you can't support your statement with any relevant quotation it's false information.


If you disagree with my post #77 and I've committed any sort of a logical fallacy, please, let me know.

Thank you for your time.




(Is this rubbish? Taking shots? Annoying? Let me know, because I literally can't make a more neutral post than this. I'd appreciate an honest answer.)

 

[janoshik]

Are you retracting your statement where you admitted to lying?

I love it how you guys are putting words in my mouth.

And I am not supposed to be annoyed by this?

No, I'm asking Eman if I shall give another lecture of reading comprehension and logic, which both seem to be quite lacking around these parts.

I'll do a little brain exercise with you two.

Okay, when did mands say I lied?

Got it?

Good.

Now, would you call that time to be relatively "a few weeks" ago?