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.