List of Meso Approved Sources

[Millard]

To prove the point, that there are no sources that meet the criteria of what the underground demands. It's become counter productive that members here take the stance that all sources are bad, all raws are bad, all src sites are bad, etc.

Burr i would disagree with you about it being counter-productive. If this board only provides one side of things, like revealing who the shitty suppliers are by testing, then it has served an excellent purpose in my eyes. Just because it is not the one stop shop for everything steroids doesn't mean it is useless....far from it. I have accepted that this is the place to get the scoop on anything bad you might hear about a source. Isn't that worth something? Like the consumer reports for AAS. What exactly would be wrong with that?

The steroid underground subforum is a goldmine of information about sources/UGLs and products. There's nothing counterproductive about that.

What I do find counterproductive is a lot of the conclusions made based on this information.

There is far too much dichotomous thinking when it comes to the AAS black market. People are compelled to classify sources/UGLs as either "GTG" or "scammer". These terms are so overused that they are practically meaningless.

There is no such thing as a perfect source. So, I'd recommend that everyone eliminate that GTG term from your vocabulary when discussing sources.

There seems to be this tendency among individuals and even other forums to "approve" a source based on labmax or serum blood testing. While the tests provide useful info about specific products, it is silly to extrapolate that data (no matter how positive it may be) to every other aspect related to the source and/or product line. And when you use this limited data to make a "GTG" or "approved" proclamation, this is exactly what you are doing.

The same flawed thinking applies when applying the "scammer" label.

And what is worse, once those labels are applied, the critical thinking stops. This is especially true with GTG/approved sources. People stop asking questions.

It's troubling that so many people are will to lend their credibility to promote a source as GTG/approved without so much as a single analytical HPLC/MS test performed on even a single product.

Maybe if they performed multiple HPLC/MS tests on each and everyone of a UGL's products over the course of 12 months, then it would mean something. Otherwise, these labels do more harm than good.

The proper way to interpret positive serum/labmax/analytical test results is to limit it to the specific product at that specific time. Don't extrapolate the results to all products and don't give the UGL/source a pass for the next several months either.

 

[Millard]

So, if sources/UGLs are NOT "GTG" or "approved", they must be "scammer", right?

Would you call your local grocery vendor a "scammer" after they offered poor service and/or poor products? Why not use the "scammer" label when talking about Walmart, Albertson's, Kroger, Hyvee, Safeway, etc.

One time they may have sold you moldy bread; a bag of apples with rotten ones hidden inside; chicken that went bad in the refrigerator a day later; forgot to put a bag with $40 product in your cart at checkout; charged more at the register than was advertised on the shelf; sold a 5kg bag of potatoes but was really only 4.5kg

Do you call them scammers, discourage everyone you know from shopping there, call anyone who continues to shop there an idiot or anyone who promotes the store a shill?

Probably not. People might look at you funny.

Instead, you usually give a more measured response. You explain specific details of your experience and why this made you unhappy/dissatisfied.

They may even continue to shop at the store even after hearing about your adverse experience. You might even continue shopping at the store. It depends on the available options and the alternatives. At least, you and those you've notified will be better informed.

But if someone is screaming 'Walmart is a scammer' without providing specifics, they will most likely be ignored. People might chuckle and walk quickly past him right into Walmart.

The scammer label is practically meaningless. Specifics are needed to make a bigger impact. This is the best way to effectively communicate the information.

 

[Millard]

Here are some recommendations that I previously posted to encourage a more meaningful discussion about black market sources that goes beyond a simple GTG vs. scammer label:

----
What I would recommend against is calling every BAD lab a scammer. The word "scammer" is so overused that it is has become largely uninformative. As a result, it is often dismissed by a significant percentage of consumers.

There are many instances where "known scammers" continue to recruit hundreds of customers many of which are mostly satisfied with the service; customers who have repeated positive experiences with a source aren't going give much credibility to a generic, non-specific scammer alert.

This doesn't mean that there is no basis for the scammer alert. It just means that the reasons for the scammer alert have not been communicated in a manner that adequately warns consumers of potential problems with a source.

Rather than paint BAD sources with broad designations only, it would be much more useful and effective to provide explicit detail. In essence, create a thread and make a case, including as much detail as possible, about why consumers should not use a particular vendor. For example, here is a non-inclusive list of reasons that vendors have fallen under the umbrella of the "scammer" designation. The availability of these reasons may allow consumers to make better decisions.

• Arrested by law enforcement
• Supply and/or distribution chain arrested by law enforcement
• Becomes confidential informant for law enforcement
• Takes money and never ships product
• Takes money and selectively ships product
• Very complicated/restrictive/ambiguous reship policy in instances of customs seizure
• Only re-ships once in instances of customs seizure notice
• Never re-ships in instances of customs seizure
• Ships product with microbial contamination or visible contaminants
• Ships underdosed product
• Ships product with androgen other than that listed on label
• Ships product with no detectable androgens
• Ships wrong product or does not ship entire order
• Misrepresents UGL products as FDA-approved
• Does not offer replacement products to dissatisfied customers
• Packages shipped in a sloppy manner that results in damaged product
• Packages shipped in insecure manner that increases risk of customs seizure
• Takes excessive amount of time to ship order
• Responds to negative customer feedback with threats of violence or other
• Responds to negative customer feedback with organized shill attack
• Responds to negative customer feedback with dismissive or rude responses
• Customer service is inconsistent
• Takes excessive amount of time to respond to inquiries
• Fails to provide secure email address
• Fails to provide pictures of paraphernalia used in production
• Sells overpriced product
• Source is new and has no feedback and/or history

Source: https://thinksteroids.com/community/threads/labeling-ugl-threads-gone-bad.134357592/

 

[ThE SiCkNeSs]

Taco bell= scammer. I get the squirts no matter what I eat from them. NOT MESO APPROVED

 

[MANWHORE]

Taco bell= scammer. I get the squirts no matter what I eat from them. NOT MESO APPROVED

YOU'RE CRAZY!!

 

[heady muscle]

The steroid underground subforum is a goldmine of information about sources/UGLs and products. There's nothing counterproductive about that.

What I do find counterproductive is a lot of the conclusions made based on this information.

There is far too much dichotomous thinking when it comes to the AAS black market. People are compelled to classify sources/UGLs as either "GTG" or "scammer". These terms are so overused that they are practically meaningless.

There is no such thing as a perfect source. So, I'd recommend that everyone eliminate that GTG term from your vocabulary when discussing sources.

There seems to be this tendency among individuals and even other forums to "approve" a source based on labmax or serum blood testing. While the tests provide useful info about specific products, it is silly to extrapolate that data (no matter how positive it may be) to every other aspect related to the source and/or product line. And when you use this limited data to make a "GTG" or "approved" proclamation, this is exactly what you are doing.

The same flawed thinking applies when applying the "scammer" label.

And what is worse, once those labels are applied, the critical thinking stops. This is especially true with GTG/approved sources. People stop asking questions.

It's troubling that so many people are will to lend their credibility to promote a source as GTG/approved without so much as a single analytical HPLC/MS test performed on even a single product.

Maybe if they performed multiple HPLC/MS tests on each and everyone of a UGL's products over the course of 12 months, then it would mean something. Otherwise, these labels do more harm than good.

The proper way to interpret positive serum/labmax/analytical test results is to limit it to the specific product at that specific time. Don't extrapolate the results to all products and don't give the UGL/source a pass for the next several months either.

Once again Millard's grounded views are spot on. I envision us MESO members as being a crew on a old wooden tall ship that is divided by the scammer/GTG labeling. The scammer on the port side and the GTG on the Starboard. The ships starts listing to one side or another as members feed off other members and the ship becomes unstable and we all end up in the drink.

Millard is right on. I think we can all be too emotional and too quick to draw conclusions. Even with the labmax and blood tests. These tests are not totally conclusive.

 

[heady muscle]

Here are some recommendations that I previously posted to encourage a more meaningful discussion about black market sources that goes beyond a simple GTG vs. scammer label:

----
What I would recommend against is calling every BAD lab a scammer. The word "scammer" is so overused that it is has become largely uninformative. As a result, it is often dismissed by a significant percentage of consumers.

There are many instances where "known scammers" continue to recruit hundreds of customers many of which are mostly satisfied with the service; customers who have repeated positive experiences with a source aren't going give much credibility to a generic, non-specific scammer alert.

This doesn't mean that there is no basis for the scammer alert. It just means that the reasons for the scammer alert have not been communicated in a manner that adequately warns consumers of potential problems with a source.

Rather than paint BAD sources with broad designations only, it would be much more useful and effective to provide explicit detail. In essence, create a thread and make a case, including as much detail as possible, about why consumers should not use a particular vendor. For example, here is a non-inclusive list of reasons that vendors have fallen under the umbrella of the "scammer" designation. The availability of these reasons may allow consumers to make better decisions.

• Arrested by law enforcement
• Supply and/or distribution chain arrested by law enforcement
• Becomes confidential informant for law enforcement
• Takes money and never ships product
• Takes money and selectively ships product
• Very complicated/restrictive/ambiguous reship policy in instances of customs seizure
• Only re-ships once in instances of customs seizure notice
• Never re-ships in instances of customs seizure
• Ships product with microbial contamination or visible contaminants
• Ships underdosed product
• Ships product with androgen other than that listed on label
• Ships product with no detectable androgens
• Ships wrong product or does not ship entire order
• Misrepresents UGL products as FDA-approved
• Does not offer replacement products to dissatisfied customers
• Packages shipped in a sloppy manner that results in damaged product
• Packages shipped in insecure manner that increases risk of customs seizure
• Takes excessive amount of time to ship order
• Responds to negative customer feedback with threats of violence or other
• Responds to negative customer feedback with organized shill attack
• Responds to negative customer feedback with dismissive or rude responses
• Customer service is inconsistent
• Takes excessive amount of time to respond to inquiries
• Fails to provide secure email address
• Fails to provide pictures of paraphernalia used in production
• Sells overpriced product
• Source is new and has no feedback and/or history

Source: https://thinksteroids.com/community/threads/labeling-ugl-threads-gone-bad.134357592/

Perfect! Thank you Millard.

 

[heady muscle]

So, if sources/UGLs are NOT "GTG" or "approved", they must be "scammer", right?

Would you call your local grocery vendor a "scammer" after they offered poor service and/or poor products? Why not use the "scammer" label when talking about Walmart, Albertson's, Kroger, Hyvee, Safeway, etc.

One time they may have sold you moldy bread; a bag of apples with rotten ones hidden inside; chicken that went bad in the refrigerator a day later; forgot to put a bag with $40 product in your cart at checkout; charged more at the register than was advertised on the shelf; sold a 5kg bag of potatoes but was really only 4.5kg

Do you call them scammers, discourage everyone you know from shopping there, call anyone who continues to shop there an idiot or anyone who promotes the store a shill?

Probably not. People might look at you funny.

Instead, you usually give a more measured response. You explain specific details of your experience and why this made you unhappy/dissatisfied.

They may even continue to shop at the store even after hearing about your adverse experience. You might even continue shopping at the store. It depends on the available options and the alternatives. At least, you and those you've notified will be better informed.

But if someone is screaming 'Walmart is a scammer' without providing specifics, they will most likely be ignored. People might chuckle and walk quickly past him right into Walmart.

The scammer label is practically meaningless. Specifics are needed to make a bigger impact. This is the best way to effectively communicate the information.

BTW,
Walmart is a scammer!

 

[devildog93]

Millard i get your point. More often than not claims against sources do have credible data backing them such as low bloods, failed labmaxes, etc. I don't care what words you want to use to describe them, but to me they are definitely not gtg.

If i shopped for groceries at Mike strong co. i would kick the manager in the nuts. Super secret membership card only, must buy $100 of pom juice before you can buy anything else, the manager is hiding half the time, and the box of french bread pizzas says 6 but really only has 1. Yea, at that point i would be raising holy hell. Actually i would probably already know how it ran and would steer clear of the place altogether, much like his lab.

It is a crazy time and as much as i understand how the scammer term gets overused, or at least seems to, it is many times right on the money. If a guy has no idea what is in the gear he is selling he shouldn't be in the business. A rotten apple at the grocery store won't give me an abcess. Unlike moldy bread, we can't see any of this and many times won't know until week 5 when and if we get bloods done.

Still, i get your point about being extremely clear on the reasoning for labeling someone bad. The list you came up with is good and i will try to use some of those in the future. Then again, calling someone an assclown shyster can cover quite a few of those in one fell swoop. I understand how keeping it clinical and moderate has it's place, but i also understand that sometimes people need a bit more.

 

[Millard]

More often than not claims against sources do have credible data backing them such as low bloods, failed labmaxes, etc. I don't care what words you want to use to describe them, but to me they are definitely not gtg.

My point is that this is true of practically EVERY UGL. It's not a GTG vs. not-GTG choice. Most of them are somewhere in between. It's the details and specifics that help consumers make the most informed choices.

 

[ISYMFS]

This is my first post here at Meso but I agree with the GTG vs scammer not being cut and dry. I am looking at doing my first cycle soon. I would defiantly consider an UGL that sold under dosed gear to an extent if I knew 1 I was going to get it and 2 I wasent going to get the shit and it make my leg have to be amputated. There is a difference in the type of "scammer" an UGL may be.

 

[Ozzy619]

This is my first post here at Meso but I agree with the GTG vs scammer not being cut and dry. I am looking at doing my first cycle soon. I would defiantly consider an UGL that sold under dosed gear to an extent if I knew 1 I was going to get it and 2 I wasent going to get the shit and it make my leg have to be amputated. There is a difference in the type of "scammer" an UGL may be.

Theres plenty of under dosed gear that you can get, but lets not promote this on Meso, we try and keep a standard.

 

[ISYMFS]

You're right, didnt mean to sound like you should support somebody selling stuff that is not what they say it is. You shouldnt. Just saying if I knew some test was good all except for the fact that it was 200mg/ml instead of the said 250mg/ml I would look at it way more heavily than somebody selling gear that somehow has a black curly hair in it!! Different type of scammer you have there imo.

 

[dmt31]

The steroid underground subforum is a goldmine of information about sources/UGLs and products. There's nothing counterproductive about that.

What I do find counterproductive is a lot of the conclusions made based on this information.

There is far too much dichotomous thinking when it comes to the AAS black market. People are compelled to classify sources/UGLs as either "GTG" or "scammer". These terms are so overused that they are practically meaningless.

There is no such thing as a perfect source. So, I'd recommend that everyone eliminate that GTG term from your vocabulary when discussing sources.

There seems to be this tendency among individuals and even other forums to "approve" a source based on labmax or serum blood testing. While the tests provide useful info about specific products, it is silly to extrapolate that data (no matter how positive it may be) to every other aspect related to the source and/or product line. And when you use this limited data to make a "GTG" or "approved" proclamation, this is exactly what you are doing.

The same flawed thinking applies when applying the "scammer" label.

And what is worse, once those labels are applied, the critical thinking stops. This is especially true with GTG/approved sources. People stop asking questions.

It's troubling that so many people are will to lend their credibility to promote a source as GTG/approved without so much as a single analytical HPLC/MS test performed on even a single product.

Maybe if they performed multiple HPLC/MS tests on each and everyone of a UGL's products over the course of 12 months, then it would mean something. Otherwise, these labels do more harm than good.

The proper way to interpret positive serum/labmax/analytical test results is to limit it to the specific product at that specific time. Don't extrapolate the results to all products and don't give the UGL/source a pass for the next several months either.

People are creatures of habit and more importantly of comfort. They feel comforted knowing/seeing someone test a product and get what they deem to be a good result from it. This creates a comfort level that carries over to the UGL's other products.

On the other side, if one person has a bad experience, that UGL is crucified and their thread eventually gets left for dead unless people are owed something and are waiting to be made whole. There is also comfort found in that too. The sigh of relief people who hadn't ordered feel when they see they were justified in not ordering from a source that goes the wrong way.

Is it reasonable to assume that no matter what that a UGL will meet up to a standard of quality that we, as the customer, dictate? IMO no, but only because that is a pipedream that will never become reality. We're not talking about geniuses here who decided to break bad. These are pretty generic, everyday, run of the mill drug dealers, who substance of choice to sell just happened to be AAS. They get into trouble because there are so many ways to test the legitimacy of AAS, that every source will eventually make that one fatal mistake, and have their business ruined.

For us, again as the customer, we don't have any thing other Labmax and Blood Tests at our disposal readily. It's really as simple as that. Because of comfort, those have become the de facto ways of determining the legitimacy of a source. This isn't really going to change, because it can't. A customer, especially of AAS, want's instant gratification. We're like kids who just went to buy a new toy. If your parents told you that you have to wait 2 months to use the new toy to make sure it's safe or you can play with it now what would you do? Your parents tell you, if you wait 2 months and it comes out that it is dangerous, we'll give you your money back and you'll be able to buy a new toy, but you're going to have to wait for the results. If you play with the toy right now, it may or may not work, but you probably won't be getting a new toy if it doesn't work. You'd throw a tantrum and just play with the toy, assuming the risk involved.

We're very much like children in this regard. We see a source, we want to use the gear immediately, we want to get test results immediately, and we want those results to be generated by us as well. Subconsciously it gives us more belief that our results are purely objective because the individual user is able to administer the test. I do a labmax, I get my results within 5 minutes total time. I get bloodwork, I get results within a week, of the blood in MY body and how much hormone is in MY body. This brings me more comfort than waiting a month or more to get HPLC results that might be out of date by the time they get posted. In a month, any decent sized operation will have sold through all the raw powder they used for that batch and will be on to a new batch. We're always playing catch up that way. Instead, we have the opportunity to call out the bullshit as it's happening.

I really have thought about this a lot and I don't know what a reasonable thing to do is. Asking sources to do more will always lead to either them running away with people's money, or them posting HPLC results that we all poke holes through and make them no longer legitimate.

 

[FuriousWO]

Has there ever been a successful source at MESO? If so what happened to them?

 

[bickel29]

I believe that the idea of a "succesful" source is a moving target - often evolving, with a changing set of criteria. I have only been here at Meso for a year and a half, and in that time, I have seen our community continually raise the bar on what is "succesful" and/or acceptable.

When I first came here, so long as a UGL'S customers were 'feeling it' and 'making great gains' and the PIP wasn't THAT bad, people were happy. Now, with SCOC requirements, demands that blood test levels meet that of gear from the pharmaceutical industry, and Mass Spec results, we have found out that over the last 6 months to a year, that no public ugl is able to meet our standards for what a "succesful" ugl is supposed to be as of December 2014.

I think that the more that we test public ugl's, the more we will realize that we are not going to find any that always meet our new standards, which makes the point that @Millard Baker was making about labeling labs completely good, or completely scammer.

Unfortunately, too many of these ugl's are such a train wreck, that they don't even give us the opportunity to give them the benefit of the doubt.

 

[bigpoppachump]

Has there ever been a successful source at MESO? If so what happened to them?

There was club stretch when I got here in the summer of 13 and the dicksuckery surrounding him and bio was amazing. I was very jealous that I wasn't known enough to be part of that but then that ship suddenly hit a iceberg and sank faster than the titanic. I've missed a lot of icebergs since I've been here. I've figured out one thing is for certain since I've been here and it's that ALL labs will crash and burn. Some faster than others and some rise to great heights before they do but in the end they ALL crash and burn.

 

[rambosmurf]

So, if sources/UGLs are NOT "GTG" or "approved", they must be "scammer", right?

Would you call your local grocery vendor a "scammer" after they offered poor service and/or poor products? Why not use the "scammer" label when talking about Walmart, Albertson's, Kroger, Hyvee, Safeway, etc.

One time they may have sold you moldy bread; a bag of apples with rotten ones hidden inside; chicken that went bad in the refrigerator a day later; forgot to put a bag with $40 product in your cart at checkout; charged more at the register than was advertised on the shelf; sold a 5kg bag of potatoes but was really only 4.5kg

Do you call them scammers, discourage everyone you know from shopping there, call anyone who continues to shop there an idiot or anyone who promotes the store a shill?

Probably not. People might look at you funny.

Instead, you usually give a more measured response. You explain specific details of your experience and why this made you unhappy/dissatisfied.

They may even continue to shop at the store even after hearing about your adverse experience. You might even continue shopping at the store. It depends on the available options and the alternatives. At least, you and those you've notified will be better informed.

But if someone is screaming 'Walmart is a scammer' without providing specifics, they will most likely be ignored. People might chuckle and walk quickly past him right into Walmart.

The scammer label is practically meaningless. Specifics are needed to make a bigger impact. This is the best way to effectively communicate the information.

Dammit that was a very good explanation/example of what should be done and said and why, i hope people listen

 

[urbangroop]

I don't mind sharing sources with people I trust and know, but openly sharing good sources with the general public is like giving away lobster numbers at your honey hole. It's just not gonna happen. All it takes is one asshole or LE to fuck it up for everyone. Too risky and irresponsible IMO.

Hit the nail on the head! as long as it can take to find a good source why the hell ruin that by bringing multiple people on board which is when Stuff gets messed up.

 

[Kinikuman]

There was club stretch when I got here in the summer of 13 and the dicksuckery surrounding him and bio was amazing. I was very jealous that I wasn't known enough to be part of that but then that ship suddenly hit a iceberg and sank faster than the titanic. I've missed a lot of icebergs since I've been here. I've figured out one thing is for certain since I've been here and it's that ALL labs will crash and burn. Some faster than others and some rise to great heights before they do but in the end they ALL crash and burn.

You're right. They all either quit or get forced out of business. And the dicksuckery still continues.

I love your avi. Quint is one of my all-time favorite characters.