The bulk of your claims are difficult to quantify. I've seen guys claim drol was bunk, I later found out that the person making that claim put on 8lbs in three weeks and he was using nothing but drol. Clients can claim products are bunk to get free gear or have unreasonable expectations. Scamming can occur on either side of a transaction.
You may very well be correct that there was an issue with four of the products you received, but I haven't received any reports of any issues from anyone else. You're complaining that you received extra var, which is something I've never seen someone be ungrateful for until now.
Labmax is a kit purchased on the Internet for the purpose of testing hormones. How does someone send a product "in for a labmax?" Labmax tests are thin evidence because they rely on color indicators and unskilled testing personnel. A labmax might be a decent indicator of what a sample is, but that initial indication needs to be followed up with testing from a reputable and verifiable lab that uses real analytical instruments. ALP's var has tested as var, with a real analytical lab: http://www.ecstasydata.org/results.php?start=0&search_field=all&s=anavar
If someone was taking dbol, in lieu of clomid or nolva, it seems like a real stretch for that person to have grown a gland that needs to be removed. Nolva and clomid can cause the same bloating dbol does. Per his post, JB already had gyno. Your portryal of K's products causing your friend to need "gyno surgery" is misleading:
1. The mislabeling is a claim for which you have presented no evidence. You could very well be right, mistakes get made by vendors, but I've personally never seen this issue come up with K before. I'm amazed you feel getting extra var is a problem, which according to your post, is cause of the "off counts."
2. Vendors typically rely on certificates of analysis that come from their chemical supplier. This is how the entire chemical / scientific industry works. When a quality issue arises, testing is conducted to be sure the next highest guy on the ladder is being honest. I have seen K mention that he has access to testing and that he was sending samples to be tested for his own QC about two months ago. Sources themselves are interested in having their products tested for QC purposes or because they are confident their products are proper, but they are limited by legal barriers.
B. The testing of one batch is relevant to another because it is likely coming from the same supplier further up the ladder. Depending on the volume of orders a suppler processes, the supplier may be pulling the product he is shipping from a drum or pail that could last for a long time. There is a chance the same product you received will be tested.
Which source in the community tests every product they sell every time?
3.
Millard and I discussed crowd-funding a certified testing authority. Unfortunately, the feds demonstrated that they will not allow a DEA licensed lab to test PEDs for PED users. San Rafel Chemical Services was raided, had all of their information seized, and had to surrender their DEA license to test controlled substances because they were providing analytical testing to PED users. Obtaining concentration information from a lab, will cause that lab to get hammered by the feds, if the lab is discovered.
I was the person who proposed that the community use estacydata.org, over a year ago, well before joining the staff at AB. I made that proposal because it appears the community can not legally obtain concentration data. Estacydata.org is the most public, legitimate, and reliable testing authority I am aware of. Although they do not provide a milligram count, they will provide a ratio of active ingredients.
4. In #2 you state that K responded to your claim that a product was poor by having a sample tested. So, according to you, he has responded to your needs and is likely waiting for the results of the test he sent off. If he doesn't get back to you or you can't work out the problem you're having with him, contact a staff member at AB.
5. As far as I know, Gman and IM have nothing to do with K. They have been around for many years, with reputations in good standing, and having a good grasp of who people are in the community are though. They have both been participating at AB for a long time.
It seems that you have the same opinion of IM and Gman that they have of you regarding credibility. Nothing beneficial will come from you guys antagonizing each other. I don't like the child molester claim, it's like saying you want someone dead. The first time I saw that I thought it was real, wheels started turning.
IM and Gamn aside, I've seen you trash other guys who do positive things for the community that you are completely unaware of. My contact with you has always been good. However, you seem to have serious trouble separating the good guys from the bad guys, which is going to hurt your journey on the boards.
6. There is no posting conspiracy at work to bury anything at AB. Are you arguing that only you should be allowed to post in a thread?
A claim is not evidence. That's not to say that your claims are incorrect though.
What got brushed under the rug? I am a moderator from the board where k is. I am extremely busy and I wrote a thoughtful reply addressing your complaint as soon as I noticed it. Contact K and wait for a reply. If you can't work it out with him, contact me or another member of the staff.
You are encouraged to post anything you want, make whatever claims you want, and leave whatever feedback you desire. We don't hide/tamper with/delete feedback at AB. Feel free to ignore the guidance you're being offered by people who are more experienced than you are.
When I go to a restaurant for dinner and order a steak, if my steak isn't cooked as I ordered it, I politely ask the waitress to bring me a steak that is prepared the way I intended it to be. In response, I typically I receive an apology, a new steak, and sometimes a free desert. I do not immediately jump to the conclusion that the waitress, chef, frequent patrons, and management staff are all involved in a conspiracy to rip me off because there was a problem with my order. I do not take it upon myself to stand up on a chair in the center of the restaurant and shout to everyone who will listen to me that my order was bad and the restaurant is a scam that everyone is in on. Utilizing professional courtesy has served me well.
How can a consumer of sound mind feel that being exposed to fraudulent data is not harmful to their ability to make decisions? Presenting information that leads someone to believe something is good, when it is in fact bad, is as much a failure as leading someone to believe something is bad, when it is in fact good. My point is that easily manipulated tests from unverifiable or unquantifiable sources are being used to determine the validity of products, therefore testing results are more of a claim than the hard evidence they are being billed as.
I ran up against this issue recently when ItialianMuscle posted a mass spec test indicating a product contained 25% of what it should. The source, who has a good reputation, later sent me a mass spec indicating the product he used to make the batch was 99% pure. He swears up and down that the finished product contains appropriate amount of active ingredient. IM said he felt there was a typo in the concentration area of the test results he presented. It's extremely easy to present a fraudulent test (even unknowingly) and use that as evidence to claim as product is good or bad. Either test result could have been manipulated or screwed up by the unverifiable lab/lab tech conducting the test. I can't say that the product was correct and I can't say the product was incorrect, it was a stalemate. The source offered to replace the product though. Both parties presented evidence that product in question was good and bad. I trust both parties. The unknown in that situation was the evidence each man used to support their claim.
I worked in the financial services industry and have seen every form of evidence used to process a transaction manipulated to further someone's agenda.