graniteman
New Member
I look at it this way. Only a few compounds truly need testing from decent sources, Primo, var, hgh and the likes. Test E \C, deca, eq are pretty evident in their actions, same with dbol, drol,
Hey, if you would rather use a broken hammer than a screwdriver to turn a screw, by all means , have at it. The cost difference between the two aren't that different and the reliability is light years. If you read labmax it states ''presumptive tests only'', follow the natural trail and it is confirmed with a mass spec.
Im not sellin anything here, if you guys think you're gettin what ya need, ok with me . Carry on
labmax is subjective and held hostage by the competence of the tester and/or the accuracy of the camera. Its a useful tool, but results really need to be compared to one another for decent effectiveness. Mass spec doesn't have this weakness, but is prohibitive due to cost as well as availability.
Saying labmax was "proven wrong" is really an attack on the tester and not the tool. You can't say a hammer is broken because it won't turn a screw.
Hey, if you would rather use a broken hammer than a screwdriver to turn a screw, by all means , have at it. The cost difference between the two aren't that different and the reliability is light years. If you read labmax it states ''presumptive tests only'', follow the natural trail and it is confirmed with a mass spec.
Im not sellin anything here, if you guys think you're gettin what ya need, ok with me . Carry on