[HPLC] Pharmacom "Pharmanan P100" NPP

[rpbb]

the sad thing is that people have thrown out possibly good gear based on these tests

 

[IronJulius]

the sad thing is that people have thrown out possibly good gear based on these tests

maybe LM will reimburse them

 

[Docd187123]

maybe LM will reimburse them

Ask Mercury and Ebola to see what their superiors say

 

[flenser]

the sad thing is that people have thrown out possibly good gear based on these tests

This is true. But I have no problem rejecting gear that's not pure enough to pass labmax. Most UGLs do NOT test their raws at all, and have no idea what's in them. The only reason we are talking about this is because Frank was willing to pay $300 to test the gear that failed labmax. That's too costly for me to do every time something looks off to me. Labmax is the ONLY option beyond just pinning and praying.

 

[rpbb]

This is true. But I have no problem rejecting gear that's not pure enough to pass labmax. Most UGLs do NOT test their raws at all, and have no idea what's in them. The only reason we are talking about this is because Frank was willing to pay $300 to test the gear that failed labmax. That's too costly for me to do every time something looks off to me. Labmax is the ONLY option beyond just pinning and praying.

nothing wrong with that philosophy. I've picked a supplier (won't say who), based off simec testing and bloodwork results posted by other members. hopefully anaboliclab.com will be around for a long time

 

[Docd187123]

This is true. But I have no problem rejecting gear that's not pure enough to pass labmax. Most UGLs do NOT test their raws at all, and have no idea what's in them. The only reason we are talking about this is because Frank was willing to pay $300 to test the gear that failed labmax. That's too costly for me to do every time something looks off to me. Labmax is the ONLY option beyond just pinning and praying.

But if you throw away an entire cycle's worth of gear based on a LM result that might be wrong you just wasted more than the $300 you would've spent on analytical testing no?

 

[flenser]

But if you throw away an entire cycle's worth of gear based on a LM result that might be wrong you just wasted more than the $300 you would've spent on analytical testing no?

And if the analytical testing proves the gear is bad? How much have you wasted then? I think if a product isn't pure enough to pass LM, the seller should pay for analytical testing.

 

[ROB581211]

And if the analytical testing proves the gear is bad? How much have you wasted then? I think if a product isn't pure enough to pass LM, the seller should pay for analytical testing.

But the problem with things passing/not passing labmax is there is no written guidelines saying what will cause a false reading. Is it less than 80% pure is it 99%. Lab max was not created for users to test their products. It was created for LE to do a quick on the spot check of what they were dealing with. There is not one person on here that can say for a fact LM is worth anything. If a 1% impurity causes a false reading then you are saying its bad gear? But nobody knows what that number is. Is there a specific carrier oil that skews results. What if it's a EO/GSO mix. There are far to many variables to it to consider it reliable. Your argument has been well it's not pure this or that. But what sort of impurity is ok? I'm sure even Watson has a % of impurity that is allowed.

 

[Wunderpus]

This is true. But I have no problem rejecting gear that's not pure enough to pass labmax. Most UGLs do NOT test their raws at all, and have no idea what's in them. The only reason we are talking about this is because Frank was willing to pay $300 to test the gear that failed labmax. That's too costly for me to do every time something looks off to me. Labmax is the ONLY option beyond just pinning and praying.

So you would've chucked this NPP? Not bashing you, I probably would of, to be honest.

 

[Docd187123]

And if the analytical testing proves the gear is bad? How much have you wasted then? I think if a product isn't pure enough to pass LM, the seller should pay for analytical testing.

You would've wasted an extra 300$ if analytical testing showed it to be bad BUT in RT's case we have proof it's actual NPP. The other issue is there seem to be TOO MANY factors that influence LM, it's like the chick that wants to fuck but doesn't, keeps going back and forth, and ends up teasing you all night long. If the test is so finicky that a 1% impurity rate for example could cause a false positive then what is it really worth?

 

[Wunderpus]

It's worth about what they cost, $17 a piece, LOL.

It's better, as I mentioned, for things like test. and tren. IME.

Also, it's weird that Mercury has never once denied working for Labmax (from what I have seen). Not that I particularly CARE, but if he didn't, I'd assume he would deny it...?

 

[Docd187123]

It's worth about what they cost, $17 a piece, LOL.

It's better, as I mentioned, for things like test. and tren. IME.

Also, it's weird that Mercury has never once denied working for Labmax (from what I have seen). Not that I particularly CARE, but if he didn't, I'd assume he would deny it...?

Do you know how many pop tarts one can buy with $17 x Y amount of compounds x Z amount of cycles????? Lol

 

[flenser]

But the problem with things passing/not passing labmax is there is no written guidelines saying what will cause a false reading. Is it less than 80% pure is it 99%. Lab max was not created for users to test their products. It was created for LE to do a quick on the spot check of what they were dealing with. There is not one person on here that can say for a fact LM is worth anything. If a 1% impurity causes a false reading then you are saying its bad gear? But nobody knows what that number is. Is there a specific carrier oil that skews results. What if it's a EO/GSO mix. There are far to many variables to it to consider it reliable. Your argument has been well it's not pure this or that. But what sort of impurity is ok? I'm sure even Watson has a % of impurity that is allowed.

I get your point, and I don't disagree. I only know from experience that a failed LM is right more often than it’s wrong. At least with testosterones I know that, as they have been verified with blood work. With other compounds we only had LM and user reports, so no hard evidence either way.

And a 1% impurity can be very important depending on what it is. Does no one remember the test prop sold by MFL and Pep that contained male contraceptives? It also contained testosterone. I know because I pinned it and got blood work after my libido crashed – for 3 months! You guys may not like Merc, but he has a point. Simec would have reported that crap as test p, not test p with male contraceptives. LM failed that stuff. Too bad I decided to pin on faith.

So you would've chucked this NPP? Not bashing you, I probably would of, to be honest.

Actually, there were several people reporting it was working before anyone tested it. I would probably have kept it and waited for more reports. The NPP I got from PCT-SHOP I did throw away, but LM showed that as not having any hormone at all. There’s no uncertainty in a result that has no UV response.

You would've wasted an extra 300$ if analytical testing showed it to be bad BUT in RT's case we have proof it's actual NPP.

Yes, and Frank deserves high marks for covering the cost. Exactly my point about sellers being responsible for proving the quality of their own products.

The other issue is there seem to be TOO MANY factors that influence LM, it's like the chick that wants to fuck but doesn't, keeps going back and forth, and ends up teasing you all night long. If the test is so finicky that a 1% impurity rate for example could cause a false positive then what is it really worth?

I think you’re right about there being too many factors that influence the test. I wish there were more reliable options in my price range. As for 1% impurity possibly blowing the test, see my comments above.

 

[Wunderpus]

I get your point, and I don't disagree. I only know from experience that a failed LM is right more often than it’s wrong. At least with testosterones I know that, as they have been verified with blood work. With other compounds we only had LM and user reports, so no hard evidence either way.

And a 1% impurity can be very important depending on what it is. Does no one remember the test prop sold by MFL and Pep that contained male contraceptives? It also contained testosterone. I know because I pinned it and got blood work after my libido crashed – for 3 months! You guys may not like Merc, but he has a point. Simec would have reported that crap as test p, not test p with male contraceptives. LM failed that stuff. Too bad I decided to pin on faith.



Actually, there were several people reporting it was working before anyone tested it. I would probably have kept it and waited for more reports. The NPP I got from PCT-SHOP I did throw away, but LM showed that as not having any hormone at all. There’s no uncertainty in a result that has no UV response.



Yes, and Frank deserves high marks for covering the cost. Exactly my point about sellers being responsible for proving the quality of their own products.



I think you’re right about there being too many factors that influence the test. I wish there were more reliable options in my price range. As for 1% impurity possibly blowing the test, see my comments above.

True... I suppose I tend to trust LM more than it looks like I should. Oh well.

 

[flenser]

What do you think, should I trust LM or pin it and get blood work?

 

[mercury]

What do you think, should I trust LM or pin it and get blood work?

what is it, the male contraceptives ?

 

[flenser]

what is it, the male contraceptives ?

Norethisterone, we thought at the time. No telling what it really was.

 

[mercury]

for sure it is not pharmacy grade test prop, it can still be prop mixed with something.

I would not pin this, I know that a few guys here would anyway.

I am just guessing it can be anything, but the red color reminds me something. I am not sure if you point UV on B vial, I assume it is B under UV light.

But I do not believe that they substituted test prop for that thing ...

 

[flenser]

for sure it is not pharmacy grade test prop, it can still be prop mixed with something.

I would not pin this, I know that a few guys here would anyway.

I am just guessing it can be anything, but the red color reminds me something. I am not sure if you point UV on B vial, I assume it is B under UV light.

But I do not believe that they substituted test prop for that thing ...

The pic is from 2013. I did pin it, and it did have test in it. Unfortunately for me and several others it had some libido crushing compound mixed in. I didn't labmax it until after we became suspicious of the prop.

 

[mercury]

The pic is from 2013. I did pin it, and it did have test in it. Unfortunately for me and several others it had some libido crushing compound mixed in. I didn't labmax it until after we became suspicious of the prop.

for me it is just another evidence if you do not get the right colors do not pin it because is not pharmacy grade, it is mixed with something.

it still might have the right hormone but do you really want to test on your liver if it is mixed with something else