Kinikuman
Well-known Member
Over in the MS thread, there was a suggestion about adding a QA component, addendum, amendment, whatever to the SCOC. I thought bringing that up here would be worthy of discussion.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
So what is an acceptable level for UGL gear? Are you happy with 5x, 7x maybe?
(I'm not)
Setting a minimum standard for suppliers to this board may be a good first step towards eliminating some of the ongoing and probably unnecessary controversy. If member bloods consistently come back below a certain threshold, you get an "under-doping" violation,get suspended, maybe banned for life, depending on the seriousness of the offense. What say you all?
Originally posted in the Underground:
Let's say the standard for Pharma grade is in the range of 8x to 12x, depending upon the individual, but that if we compiled all the numbers, we would average out to 10. This is based on observations by professionals in a clinical setting. When somebody comes along and publishes a paper that says otherwise that may change but for now it is the best science we have. We should see roughly as many 12s as 8s at doses of up to 1gm/wk. If we however see a large number 8s start popping up we would obviously begin looking at the potency of our medication as a probable cause. Pharma grade gear should be the standard by which the UGLs are held, with perhaps a small margin of error due to the nature of their business.
So what is an acceptable level for UGL gear? Are you happy with 5x, 7x maybe?
(I'm not)
Setting a minimum standard for suppliers to this board may be a good first step towards eliminating some of the ongoing and probably unnecessary controversy. If member bloods consistently come back below a certain threshold, you get an "under-doping" violation,get suspended, maybe banned for life, depending on the seriousness of the offense. What say you all?
Those are all batch dependent. You can't put a blanket statement out there as it can be misleading.I like this a lot.
One thing you might want to try, instead of just saying "this source is legit" or "this source isn't", is to tier the evidence, like this:
Tier D: Source has multiple good reviews (say, 20+) who don't seem to gain financially from this
Tier C: Source has passed blood test
Tier B: Source has passed labmax
Tier A: Source has passed mass spec
I would be fine ordering from a Tier D+C source, and I'd make a D+C+B source my go-to in lieu of a Tier A source.
Those are all batch dependent. You can't put a blanket statement out there as it can be misleading.
[The tier list] doesn't address new sources since none of these tests will have been performed yet. Also we seem to be having issues with all of these tests currently. Labmax is routinely questionable, blood tests are not matching up with Dr. Scally's 8-10x rule and mass specs are almost impossible to find or are unreliable(depending on who's doing them). I like the idea you have, but some things need to be ironed out, I think, for it to work properly.
For instance like wats goin on with spetz. Us members who have common since and steer clear of shady and underdosed gear the newer members that are desperate are keeping spetz alive. Wile we arnt giving him our buisness they are and he can pop n and out and sell bs while make a killing and we have no control over this. We can encourage new members to find a beter source but when the better known sources arnt intrested in that kind of attention which is understandable leaves the impatient desperate members no choice in there minds to buy half dosed gear thus makin it ok for. sources to cut corners and sell junk because the gear is selling. Wat can. B done about this???
Flounder posted this elsewhere but it's related to the SCOC so it'd be better to have it here in one place:
Hopefully it will become common practice for new sources to send out free samples for blood testing and labmaxing. The sources should pay for the tests too, honestly, but we're lucky to have sources willing to send out samples for testing as it is. Usually they expect a positive review in return, which is ridiculous.
You're absolutely right to mention that test results can always come under doubt.
Maybe the best solution would be a set of standards regarding labmaxing and blood testing. The lab testing forum DOES have a lot of posts along the lines of "I'm not sure I did this right..." -- so maybe there should be a standard. That way, when you tallied the number of labmaxes you can only tally labmaxes that comply with the standards for testing. (Same thing with blood testing and the 8-10x rule.)
Also, I think reviews are undervalued. You can easily fake 10-20 reviews, but some sources have 100+ reviews spread out over years. If enough people try one substance and experience great effects/results from it, there is *something* there worth buying. This should apply to the major injectables and orals, anyway, where the side effects are obvious. For more specific effects from milder compounds (primo for example), reviews are a more difficult thing to work with.
We have already been through this. Samples from the source do not work. They just send out known good samples for testing, then shit gear afterward. Did you read this thread and the old COC thread? You keep regurgitating the same shit that's been hashed out.Flounder posted this elsewhere but it's related to the SCOC so it'd be better to have it here in one place:
Hopefully it will become common practice for new sources to send out free samples for blood testing and labmaxing. The sources should pay for the tests too, honestly, but we're lucky to have sources willing to send out samples for testing as it is. Usually they expect a positive review in return, which is ridiculous.
You're absolutely right to mention that test results can always come under doubt.
Maybe the best solution would be a set of standards regarding labmaxing and blood testing. The lab testing forum DOES have a lot of posts along the lines of "I'm not sure I did this right..." -- so maybe there should be a standard. That way, when you tallied the number of labmaxes you can only tally labmaxes that comply with the standards for testing. (Same thing with blood testing and the 8-10x rule.)
Also, I think reviews are undervalued. You can easily fake 10-20 reviews, but some sources have 100+ reviews spread out over years. If enough people try one substance and experience great effects/results from it, there is *something* there worth buying. This should apply to the major injectables and orals, anyway, where the side effects are obvious. For more specific effects from milder compounds (primo for example), reviews are a more difficult thing to work with.
We have already been through this. Samples from the source do not work. They just send out known good samples for testing, then shit gear afterward.
You say the same shit over and over... Everything you've said has been discussed, you're not enlightening any of the members here with your eloquent speech and semi-intelligent observations (I say semi-intelligent because they have been said a hundred times before). Every one of your posts seems to discuss your disdain with Meso and how we can fix it, your 48 hour tenure I doubt qualifies you to speak on this. Maybe start out at the member introduction section and go from there instead of the underground criticizing the status quoI've read both, yeah, and I do contribute elsewhere. I also contribute here. I post on more than one steroid board. I'll probably keep doing that.
True, but stores face the same quandary: employees slack when their bosses aren't around and stay on their best behavior when their bosses are around.
That's why they invented Secret Shoppers and the like. But Secret Shoppers are paid by the company to do that. You have to pick one: sources give you free samples, or you anonymously test sources. They are contradictory wants. The very fact of sources giving away something for free means they have the option to select what they're giving away.
The only way to quality control this is to create some kind of crowd fund to buy anonymous samples. Maybe you've suggested this already.
This has been discussed. We were LITERALLY talking about it in the mikestrong thread earlier today, check it out there man. My personal opinion: no free samples to anyone, sources should test their gear for their own good regardless of anything else, everyone should run their own tests for both personal peace of mind and to keep sources in check, I don't think there is a need for crowdfunding. Check out Strongs thread. Just read it though pleaseOkay, you've read something before and like old accounts. I'm not really going to do much about that.
So, other than repetition, do you disagree that wanting free samples from sources and wanting samples anonymously tested are contradictory wants? And what do you think about crowdfunding for anonymous samples?
This is a good observation.One thing you might want to try, instead of just saying "this source is legit" or "this source isn't", is to tier the evidence, like this:
Tier D: Source has multiple good reviews (say, 20+) who don't seem to gain financially from this
Tier C: Source has passed blood test
Tier B: Source has passed labmax
Tier A: Source has passed mass spec
I would be fine ordering from a Tier D+C source, and I'd make a D+C+B source my go-to in lieu of a Tier A source.
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
Hopefully it will become common practice for new sources to send out free samples for blood testing and labmaxing. The sources should pay for the tests too, honestly, but we're lucky to have sources willing to send out samples for testing as it is. Usually they expect a positive review in return, which is ridiculous.
We do not like free samples as this only works to the sources advantage. If they know it's going to be tested of course it will be great gear. Testing has to be anonymous to work.
Samples from the source do not work. They just send out known good samples for testing, then shit gear afterward.
The only way to quality control this is to create some kind of crowd fund to buy anonymous samples. Maybe you've suggested this already.
Either a source starts out with good intentions or they don't. .. to me that is the only difference.