Labmaxisgay
MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
[HPLC] Pharmacom "Pharmanan P100" NPP
- Thread starter RThoads
- Start date
Also @mercury this is why you shouldn't tell people labmax shows what's in the vial. It doesn't. You told @RThoads his vial contained cyp and not NPP. All the test could really tell is that it doesn't contain pure NPP. Now everyone thinks labmax somehow failed, as if a chemical reaction can make a mistake.
LOL LOL LOL, I literally laughed out loud at this. nice.
Labmax can and does fail if it relies upon the SUBJECTIVE interpretation of color, fluorescence, etc by an UNTRAINED user.
and contaminants...
True. Being color blind, I'm more aware of this than most : )
Hahahaha literally not what I was expecting to read but that got a laugh. Thanks.
mercury
New Member
sorry, it is research lab for institution use only.
I had favor done on limited basis, not wide open to accept testing.
Then it is my opinion that it was irresponsible for you to post your info, without also attaching a HUGE qualifier that no supporting evidence would be provided, and that this was privately obtained info that could not/would not be verified.
This is just too serious of a claim for you to make based just on your word that it happened.
But in this case, that's NOT what happened. The labmax result was nothing like NPP, and it was confirmed by two different testers. So one item out of something like 6 or 7 Pharmacom products that were tested failed a labmax test, and Frank was willing to pay to have the contents confirmed by Simec.
IMO this is exactly what LM should be used for. It could have been mislabeled cyp instead of just not pure enough to pass LM. When that happens the seller should be willing to back up his claim with reliable testing.
I think labmax is more effective for some substances/tests than other.
Tren is almost always on point, test cyp./enan as well. I also believe the winny/var test is pretty solid. However, tests like primo, eq, NPP, masteron etc seem to be MUCH more unreliable.
Obviously this doesn't imply the correct dosing, just the correct hormone, theoretically.
Were the two testers trained by Labmax?
What was nothing like NPP? The color, the fluorescence, what exactly? I mean I've seen plenty of disagreement on color and fluorescence, especially when attempting to capture by camera. Does this not make the test subjective now and reliability takes a dive bc of that? 1/6 or 7 failed labmax and now further testing proved it was indeed NPP. At what point or pass/fail rate do you give up on labmax or conversely accept it verbatim?
Does this really come as much of a surprise to you Bickel? It doesn't for me. I knew he'd shift away from providing any sort of evidence immediately. I'd love to be proven wrong and see a scrap of paper with the school letterhead though but I'm not foolish enough to hold my breath for that.
mercury
New Member
you have to understand what Simec does and stop talking nonsenses
They do HPLC only it means that they look for only one specific steroid, it will confirm presence and concentration but it will not provide you info if there are other steroids present.
GC/MS on other hand will detect everything what is in the sample. In my case they found also test prop.
So Simec did not do anything wrong only provided you with limited information.
That is such reflective bullshit and you know it.
THe gear was advertised at 100mg/ml and testing showed it to be 110mg/ml. You think the lab added something else to this batch? Why the hell would hey waste their money when the product is already good and dosed above and beyond label claims? You are useless. Hold on, let me throw in some test cyp along with this NPP bc I have enough money.....
mercury
New Member
Docd you only have half of the brain, no response from me.
it is settled then. Mercury is a labmax shill in denial
I think one of the commentators on the results of the tests works for Labmax.
I already agreed it's a subjective test, so there's no quantifiable line to divide pass and fail. That doesn't mean that most people can't tell two obviously different colors apart, especially when there are reference photos.
If a company earns my trust and doesn't occasionally dump bunk or mislabeled products on unsuspecting customers, I might give up on LM. That would be nice, actually. I know that everything I pin passes labmax, but it's no guarantee of dosage or even content in some cases. LM is a reasonable sanity check for the cost, nothing more. It's not an ideal test and no one is claiming it's perfect (well, almost no one).
So what you're really saying is I still have half a brain more than you. I'll take it just from the sheer joy of watching you flounder (sorry to the member flounder) around like a representative without the company's backing.
The reason I asked, and if I'm wrong, sorry, is it thought mass specs would only tell you what's in the sample,not the quantity. Thought you needed reference standards for that
