[Labmax] Pharmacom Dianabolos 10 (methandrostenolone) 24-OCT-2015

[ruckin]

You can't labmax blends man... I also think simec would be, for example, 3X more expensive to test a 3 compound blend (honestly, I don't know if they can even do that?).

But it would be nice, as blends are oftentimes labeled as the shittier/lesser quality version than blending your own.

Also, @Millard Baker I have been told the at Simec cannot test masteron. Can you confirm whether or not that is true? If it is, or may be, why would that be the case?

Thanks!

I'd find that hard to believe, since drostanolone propionate is an actual pharmaceutical product, or at least it was at some point, no?

 

[ebola]

some of my thoughts

Could we just have whomever sends it to Simec simply LM it first to give that additional data/info and to see how consistent LM results are?

.

I think that it is a good idea if we calibrate labmax to have our own color chart.

But the problem with Simec is that they test only for main hormone, they do not provide information if there are other contaminations. If the sample is contaminated with other hormones it will always fail labmax,

we would need pharma grade sample for color calibration ,clean sample with only one hormone present.

 

[Wunderpus]

I'd find that hard to believe, since drostanolone propionate is an actual pharmaceutical product, or at least it was at some point, no?

I was shocked too. But I heard that from a pretty reputable source, who tried to send in Masteron, and they told him they currently cannot test it. I'm not sure if that was a temporary in house issue, or what.

 

[biggerben69]

I was shocked too. But I heard that from a pretty reputable source, who tried to send in Masteron, and they told him they currently cannot test it. I'm not sure if that was a temporary in house issue, or what.

I thought that our friend the Doc didn't have a standard to test against(I'm using terms incorrectly) because he didn't have a sample. It may also have been the case for a time with labmax? Simec should be golden.

 

[Wunderpus]

I thought that our friend the Doc didn't have a standard to test against(I'm using terms incorrectly) because he didn't have a sample. It may also have been the case for a time with labmax? Simec should be golden.

BB, it's 24K who mentioned the issue with masteron and simec. I don't believe he will be upset I am publicly speaking about it, as he was willing to do anything (it seemed) to resolve his old masteron hiccup. I noticed he is still not selling his masteron until it's capable of being tested. I was fairly shocked that simec was incapable (allegedly) of testing masteron. I haven't seen ONE simec test of masteron, though... Have you? None from any of the pharmacom tests, none by Anabolic Lab, etc? That's why I was hoping @Millard Baker might have some insight.

 

[Wunderpus]

I thought that our friend the Doc didn't have a standard to test against(I'm using terms incorrectly) because he didn't have a sample. It may also have been the case for a time with labmax? Simec should be golden.

I just sent Simec and email, hopefully they will reply. I could only find a note that they can legally import drost. prop./enan., but nothing about whether or not they're capable of testing it.

Stand by.

 

[Millard]

Also, @Millard Baker I have been told the at Simec cannot test masteron. Can you confirm whether or not that is true? If it is, or may be, why would that be the case?

Yes, it is true. But don't worry. AnabolicLab.com will find another way to test masteron.

 

[Wunderpus]

Yes, it is true. But don't worry. AnabolicLab.com will find another way to test masteron.

That seems odd to me. Any reason why?

 

[PHL Official]

You can't labmax blends man... I also think simec would be, for example, 3X more expensive to test a 3 compound blend (honestly, I don't know if they can even do that?).

But it would be nice, as blends are oftentimes labeled as the shittier/lesser quality version than blending your own.

Also, @Millard Baker I have been told the at Simec cannot test masteron. Can you confirm whether or not that is true? If it is, or may be, why would that be the case?

Thanks!

yes they can`t. i inquired about this. the reason is simple, they don`t have a certified reference standart of masteron to compare it with, thus they can not test masterone without it. Maybe they find it once, but now they don`t provide this opportunity.

I think that it is a good idea if we calibrate labmax to have our own color chart.

But the problem with Simec is that they test only for main hormone, they do not provide information if there are other contaminations. If the sample is contaminated with other hormones it will always fail labmax,

we would need pharma grade sample for color calibration ,clean sample with only one hormone present.

regarding simec - this is not quite correct. Simec provides graphs in raw data, which show all peaks detected during testing. If there are lot of hormones there will be lot of peaks. They just can`t recognize what exactly is there, but they are able to see the presence of another substances. In fact they can also identify them, but an analyse of this kind would cost you much higher.

 

[Millard]

yes they can`t. i inquired about this. the reason is simple, they don`t have a certified reference standart of masteron to compare it with, thus they can not test masterone without it. Maybe they find it once, but now they don`t provide this opportunity.

That seems odd to me. Any reason why?

The reference standard appears to be readily available from Steraloids where SIMEC obtains other standards:

http://steraloids.com/5-androstan-2-methyl-17-ol-3-one-propionate.html

I'll have to check my correspondence but I believe they didn't have a reliable method using their existing equipment.

 

[PHL Official]

The reference standard appears to be readily available from Steraloids where SIMEC obtains other standards:

http://steraloids.com/5-androstan-2-methyl-17-ol-3-one-propionate.html

I'll have to check my correspondence but I believe they didn't have a reliable method using their existing equipment.

hm... ok, i have to check my correspndense. maybe i mixed up.
it would surprise me if they had no reliable method.

 

[ebola]

regarding simec - this is not quite correct. Simec provides graphs in raw data, which show all peaks detected during testing. If there are lot of hormones there will be lot of peaks. They just can`t recognize what exactly is there, but they are able to see the presence of another substances. In fact they can also identify them, but an analyse of this kind would cost you much higher.

this is what I am taking about, we are not 100% sure if samples tested by simec are not contaminated with something else.

that would be interesting if we could calibrate labmax to have our own color chart with samples we know are 100% pharma grade

 

[Millard]

this is what I am taking about, we are not 100% sure if samples tested by simec are not contaminated with something else.

Not exactly true. The raw data will show but will not identify the substance unless they run repeated analyses for other substances.

 

[flenser]

this is what I am taking about, we are not 100% sure if samples tested by simec are not contaminated with something else.

that would be interesting if we could calibrate labmax to have our own color chart with samples we know are 100% pharma grade

The images and videos on the LM site are fine for pharm grade products. The issue is whether a less than pure product is acceptable to use. Depending on which aas is being tested as well as the oil being used, small amounts of another aas can completely change the result.

For example, properly dosed test p can be made to look like tren ace with very little tren added. And apparently NPP is easy to mask with test cyp. Different oils can also affect the brightness of the UV response, which would affect the color if it contains more than one aas since it doesn't affect all colors equally.

There are too many variables to calibrate a test like this. It can tell you there's no significant hormone present at all. It can also tell you your product is not pure, but in no way can it identify or show the amount of impurities present.

While not everyone agrees, I find these results useful. But using the results to speculate on the content is less than useless. It gives the impression of knowledge where there is none. From what I have seen, and we have had a very knowledgeable individual doing the speculation, it's no more accurate than astrology.

 

[flenser]

Not exactly true. The raw data will show but will not identify the substance unless they run repeated analyses for other substances.

Will the raw data be published? TBH I'm surprised we haven't had a certain good doctor complaining about the lack of disclosure. Other HPLC lab reports I've seen have always contained considerably more information.

 

[Millard]

Will the raw data be published? TBH I'm surprised we haven't had a certain good doctor complaining about the lack of disclosure. Other HPLC lab reports I've seen have always contained considerably more information.

Anaboliclab.com started publishing raw data with the recent oxandrolone and testosterone propionate testing. The raw data will be included on all future reports.

My experience differs from yours and Dr. Jim's. Of the three labs that I've worked with, none of them automatically offer the raw data. They only provide interpretative report. After all, that's what we're paying for. They are somewhat reluctant at extra work involved compiling the data and sometimes charge extra. However, all three labs were willing to place their name and accountability behind the reports.

I think the difference is that the reports we've seen posted here are usually NOT interpretative reports. They are mainly just raw data. The people and labs doing the analyses are doing so anonymously and simply provide the data for others to interpret. Perhaps providing an interpretation is a legal line they are not willing to cross. So all they feel comfortable offering is the data.

 

[flenser]

Anaboliclab.com started publishing raw data with the recent oxandrolone and testosterone propionate testing. The raw data will be included on all future reports.

My experience differs from yours and Dr. Jim's. Of the three labs that I've worked with, none of them automatically offer the raw data. They only provide interpretative report. After all, that's what we're paying for. They are somewhat reluctant at extra work involved compiling the data and sometimes charge extra. However, all three labs were willing to place their name and accountability behind the reports.

I think the difference is that the reports we've seen posted here are usually NOT interpretative reports. They are mainly just raw data. The people and labs doing the analyses are doing so anonymously and simply provide the data for others to interpret. Perhaps providing an interpretation is a legal line they are not willing to cross. So all they feel comfortable offering is the data.

I went to anaboliclab and looked for the raw data before posting that, and I still missed it. I see it now, though : )

The only time I personally cared about the raw data from Simec was the test of NPP from Pharmacom. I would have loved to know how much, if any, testosterone was in there. Any significant second peak in the data would have made it worth having a second test performed.

 

[rpbb]

I went to anaboliclab and looked for the raw data before posting that, and I still missed it. I see it now, though : )

The only time I personally cared about the raw data from Simec was the test of NPP from Pharmacom. I would have loved to know how much, if any, testosterone was in there. Any significant second peak in the data would have made it worth having a second test performed.

i take it there wasn't a second peak?

 

[flenser]

i take it there wasn't a second peak?

I don't know. @RThoads had it tested, not AL. So we never saw what else it contained.

 

[ebola]

I went to anaboliclab and looked for the raw data before posting that, and I still missed it. I see it now, though : )

The only time I personally cared about the raw data from Simec was the test of NPP from Pharmacom. I would have loved to know how much, if any, testosterone was in there. Any significant second peak in the data would have made it worth having a second test performed.

I think that it is very common with UGL to have gear contaminated with other ASS, they do not change filters.

I do not remember where but some guys posted lab results and in many cases there was mix usually of 2 different ASS.