Not what the label says - Sobering Belgium forensics test

[master.on]

http://www.ata-journal.org/articles/ata/pdf/2012/02/ata120011.pdf

Naposin "dbol" is really quinine

Decanabol "deca + T prop" is really T enanthate

T "enanthate+cypionate+propionate" is really just T prop

Golden Gear "Deca" is really T enanthate

Boldenone 200 is really boldenone + T prop

Parabolan Neo 100 mg is really Deca + T prop

Methyl-1-T (17 alpha methyl-17 beta DHEA hydroxy-androst-1-ane-3-one) dehydroepiandrosterone is really just DHEA

"Deca 200" is really Deca + Nandrolone base + T prop + T Enant

Ephedrine is really Clen

"sustanon" blend is just T enanthate + TNE

"Primobolan" is really Mesteron prop + deca

"Proviron" is really Anastrozole

Ultradrive "boldenone undecylenate + methandriol" is really Equip + T Enant

"Turinabol" is really Dbol

Testomix "sustanon-like blend" is really just T prop

Test Prop is really T prop + T enant

"Winstrol" is really T prop + T enant

Trenbolen Testen "Tren E + Test E" is really just Equip + T Eanan

Please note that they only tested WHICH products they contain, not if they were underdosed

NOW WATCH THE SHILLS GO CRAZY SAYING THEY ARE THE FEW EXCEPTIONS

 

[master.on]

YET more analysis
Analysis of Confiscated Black Market Drugs Using Chromatographic and Mass Spectrometric Approaches
http://jat.oxfordjournals.org/content/32/3/232.full.pdf

Anabol "Dbol" is really MethylT

"Norma" "Deca" is really T enant or T enant + T cyp

"sustanon 250" is missing the decanoate T ester

"Tadalafil" is really just sildenafil

"Naposim" just MethylT

"Primobol 100" is really Deca + NPP + T prop + T PP + T enant

Trenabol no matter if labeled as "tren Ace" or "Parabolan" is really T prop + T PP + Equip

Tri Trenabol 150 "tren blend" is really Tren E + T Prop + T PP + T enan

again they didn't test for UNDERDOSING

 

[XKawN]

Any companies named?

 

[bickel29]

Am I reading this right, that this study is from 5 years ago, with the published findings being released in 2012?

Not that that makes it any more enjoyable to read, but the date of this report DOES seem relevant to its application in assessing the black market almost a half decade after the samples were gathered/confiscated and tested.

Also, the Belgium authorities collecting and testing the samples - did they have any reason(s) to have been influencing the outcomes to benefit a case they were already trying to make? I'm not accusing them of being corrupt, just wondering aloud whether or not they'd be affecting outcomes or filtering the info?

 

[chapss]

This is a good example of why I am skeptical of the results I'm seeing at anaboliclab. If anyone is familiar, wedinos used to test steroids (along with recreational drugs too), but stopped testing steroids because 1. too many submissions and 2 (here's the big one) the actual content vs. the label was so wildly off on average that it could almost be assumed most of the time your not getting what you think you are. This paper is right in line with that finding. As a statistician, the high percentage of "this simec test confirms the label" at anaboliclab vs. what other harm reduction efforts have found is pretty damning.

 

[bickel29]

This is a good example of why I am skeptical of the results I'm seeing at anaboliclab. If anyone is familiar, wedinos used to test steroids (along with recreational drugs too), but stopped testing steroids because 1. too many submissions and 2 (here's the big one) the actual content vs. the label was so wildly off on average that it could almost be assumed most of the time your not getting what you think you are. This paper is right in line with that finding. As a statistician, the high percentage of "this simec test confirms the label" at anaboliclab vs. what other harm reduction efforts have found is pretty damning.

So if your suspicion were to be true that the results being published by @AnabolicLab.com are not representative of what is really going on in the black market, where would you say that the "problem" lies? What do you think is causing the results found by AnabolicLab to be so far off from 'the real world' for lack of a better term?

 

[bickel29]

This is a good example of why I am skeptical of the results I'm seeing at anaboliclab. If anyone is familiar, wedinos used to test steroids (along with recreational drugs too), but stopped testing steroids because 1. too many submissions and 2 (here's the big one) the actual content vs. the label was so wildly off on average that it could almost be assumed most of the time your not getting what you think you are. This paper is right in line with that finding. As a statistician, the high percentage of "this simec test confirms the label" at anaboliclab vs. what other harm reduction efforts have found is pretty damning.

So if your suspicion were to be true that the results being published by @AnabolicLab.com are not representative of what is really going on in the black market, where would you say that the "problem" lies? What do you think is causing the results found by AnabolicLab to be so far off from 'the real world' for lack of a better term?

Oh, also, can anyone else chime in and confirm or deny what I stated a few posts up - that this appears to be a report from 5 years ago?

Is anyone seeing (or not) the same thing? A lot can change in a black market in that amount of time.

 

[chapss]

One could say a lot can change on the black market in 5 years, another could say its business as usual. Without any data, it's just bullshitting saying one or the other is true. If I was to interject my own opinion, I would say I don't see any reason why the overall market would have changed since then - for the most part the applicable laws have not changed and the incentives to participate in this market are also unchanged. As for reasons why @AnabolicLab.com would deviate vs. other harm reduction efforts, we can only speculate. Anyone that works with data for a living would be skeptical of a single entity having vastly different results than the norm.

 

[Docd187123]

One could say a lot can change on the black market in 5 years, another could say its business as usual. Without any data, it's just bullshitting saying one or the other is true. If I was to interject my own opinion, I would say I don't see any reason why the overall market would have changed since then - for the most part the applicable laws have not changed and the incentives to participate in this market are also unchanged. As for reasons why @AnabolicLab.com would deviate vs. other harm reduction efforts, we can only speculate. Anyone that works with data for a living would be skeptical of a single entity having vastly different results than the norm.

So you're basing your norm data set from a minimum of 5yrs ago? Also, it's not a single entity that has tested from anabolic lab. Two separate labs in two different countries have been used by anabolic lab....

 

[chapss]

wedinos, the report in this thread, and all the labs/bloods posted in this forum vs. anabolic lab. Anabolic lab like 90% come back a-ok but we never see that % ok elsewhere.

 

[chapss]

For the record, I'm not saying anaboliclab is a shill or their work is trash or they are doing shit wrong or anything like that. I'm saying, based on what is observed elsewhere, their results are unusual. A reasonable person given all the data can make their own conclusions about belief or non-belief.

 

[Docd187123]

wedinos, the report in this thread, and all the labs/bloods posted in this forum vs. anabolic lab. Anabolic lab like 90% come back a-ok but we never see that % ok elsewhere.

For the record, I'm not saying anaboliclab is a shill or their work is trash or they are doing shit wrong or anything like that. I'm saying, based on what is observed elsewhere, their results are unusual. A reasonable person given all the data can make their own conclusions about belief or non-belief.

You realize how hard it is to accurately interpret blood work? Split injection vs once a week injections, timing from last injection to actual blood draw, relying on the integrity of the poster himself, error in measuring dose, etc etc....

If you tend to trust Wedino's data you'd almost have to trust Simec's data and Chemtoxms data as their accredited laboratories so the only place for the unusual aspect to manifest would be from anabolic lab which I don't believe to be the case. I'd believe it's due to it being easier to get raws from overseas, the older data set of wedino and this study vs today's environment, the boom of internet sales for AAS etc

 

[bickel29]

I have been in this game, from a feet on the street, real world user point of view, for a long time. I have been a user for a long time, and known many users IRL for a long time.

From my experience, and IMO, the number of anonymous users on the internet who receive and use "bogus", "bunk", "fake", "counterfeit" and "way underdosed" AAS is SIGNIFICANTLY higher than the number of people I know in real life who use the same exact sources, yet seem to get real good results running the same AAS from the same sources. Bottom line, and @Docd187123 alluded to this, a lot of users not getting testing protocols dialed in, but also a lot of novice trainers/users ordering up some gear online and then running it with shitty diets, piss poor training, and wild expectations - and then shocked and angered when they get just average or lower results from their gear purchase, and hop on and share details

Now, i will say that i think there is definitely more garbage gear on the market than AnabolicLab is finding there to be, BUT -----> IMO, I think a lot of the shit gear on the market is coming from shit sources that AnabolicLab is not even testing, because they haven't become well enough known.

 

[Millard]

This is a good example of why I am skeptical of the results I'm seeing at anaboliclab.

I can understand the skepticism as I am familiar with the published literature on black market products. And if I did not have 100% knowledge of the AnabolicLab collection procedure, then perhaps I would initially be skeptical too. But given my position, I am 100% confident in the results from AnabolicLab.com

As a statistician, the high percentage of "this simec test confirms the label" at anaboliclab vs. what other harm reduction efforts have found is pretty damning.

And as a statistician, I suspect you would look carefully at all the variables that could account for the different results rather than jumping to quick conclusions to "damn" the results from AnabolicLab.

I will list a couple of the variables that I think are most important:

(1) AnabolicLab makes no effort to obtain brands that are representative of the underground steroid black market. It generally selects the most popular brands, the most highly rated brands based on review sites, the brands that have a significant or international userbase and the brands that have been around for several years. Maybe brands that meet these criteria are categorically different than a random selection of all brands on the black market. Don't you think?

(2) AnabolicLab peforms repeat testing on brands that test well but not so much on brands that don't test well. In other words, AnabolicLab is not trying to find brands that test poorly. It does more repeat testing of brands that test well.

(3) AnabolicLab anonymously collects samples higher in the distribution chain. Most studies that I've seen collect from street level dealers or from local and regional black markets. AnabolicLab anonymously collects from manufacturers and high-level distributors who most often operate internationally.

These factors alone could account for the difference. Anyone who takes an unbiased look at these variables would probably expect there to be a difference in results.

Without any data, it's just bullshitting saying one or the other is true. If I was to interject my own opinion, I would say I don't see any reason why the overall market would have changed since then - for the most part the applicable laws have not changed and the incentives to participate in this market are also unchanged. As for reasons why @AnabolicLab.com would deviate vs. other harm reduction efforts, we can only speculate. Anyone that works with data for a living would be skeptical of a single entity having vastly different results than the norm.

You've set up a false dichotomy. But just because one set of results is true doesn't mean the other set of results is necessarily false. Why couldn't both be true? You know this.

I don't think there's any reason to think the "overall market" has necessarily changed either. But AnabolicLab is not capturing the "overall market". And neither is the Eurofins Belgium data nor the Wedinos UK data for that matter. They are not even capturing the same markets. So I don't think you are making fair comparisons at all.

For the record, I'm not saying anaboliclab is a shill or their work is trash or they are doing shit wrong or anything like that. I'm saying, based on what is observed elsewhere, their results are unusual. A reasonable person given all the data can make their own conclusions about belief or non-belief.

Anyone that works with data for a living would definitely be skeptical of AnabolicLab's AND Wedino's UK results AND Eurofin Belgiums results as representative of the "overall market".

But data scientists would also make a greater attempt to understand the factors that could account for the differences.

I think any reasonable person would carefully look at factors that could account for the differences and come to a much different conclusion than you have.

 

[ProfessorX]

I can understand the skepticism as I am familiar with the published literature on black market products. And if I did not have 100% knowledge of the AnabolicLab collection procedure, then perhaps I would initially be skeptical too. But given my position, I am 100% confident in the results from AnabolicLab.com



And as a statistician, I suspect you would look carefully at all the variables that could account for the different results rather than jumping to quick conclusions to "damn" the results from AnabolicLab.

I will list a couple of the variables that I think are most important:

(1) AnabolicLab makes no effort to obtain brands that are representative of the underground steroid black market. It generally selects the most popular brands, the most highly rated brands based on review sites, the brands that have a significant or international userbase and the brands that have been around for several years. Maybe brands that meet these criteria are categorically different than a random selection of all brands on the black market. Don't you think?

(2) AnabolicLab peforms repeat testing on brands that test well but not so much on brands that don't test well. In other words, AnabolicLab is not trying to find brands that test poorly. It does more repeat testing of brands that test well.

(3) AnabolicLab anonymously collects samples higher in the distribution chain. Most studies that I've seen collect from street level dealers or from local and regional black markets. AnabolicLab anonymously collects from manufacturers and high-level distributors who most often operate internationally.

These factors alone could account for the difference. Anyone who takes an unbiased look at these variables would probably expect there to be a difference in results.



You've set up a false dichotomy. But just because one set of results is true doesn't mean the other set of results is necessarily false. Why couldn't both be true? You know this.

I don't think there's any reason to think the "overall market" has necessarily changed either. But AnabolicLab is not capturing the "overall market". And neither is the Eurofins Belgium data nor the Wedinos UK data for that matter. They are not even capturing the same markets. So I don't think you are making fair comparisons at all.



Anyone that works with data for a living would definitely be skeptical of AnabolicLab's AND Wedino's UK results AND Eurofin Belgiums results as representative of the "overall market".

But data scientists would also make a greater attempt to understand the factors that could account for the differences.

I think any reasonable person would carefully look at factors that could account for the differences and come to a much different conclusion than you have.

The information was published in 2012

Trends in products and product quality change on the BlackMarket

Same with illicit street drugs - quality/purity (cannabis, cocaine, heroin, etc)

I've personally sent powders (API) and finished oil samples for analysis to a U.S. Accredited Lab for some of the UGL "gear" that I personally use

I've even cross-checked those results with SIMEC by sending the same samples

Always have had the same (similar) results (mg per mL)

The findings in this 2012 report would reflect the recent "trend" of BlackMarket steroid products increasing in dose accuracy and correct labeled compound

It's similar to what we are seeing with BlackMarket "Generic" Chinese HGH products compared to what was on the market 2+ years ago

Just my .02

 

[Ophydian]

Does AL test for only what is labeled on the product? If so considering a lot of the results were mixed blends of different compounds could it be that when something shows underdosed that it is really a mix compound of what is labeled and then something Ike Test P?

For instance Deca 200 having Nandrolone Deca and Test P?

 

[Kinikuman]

It is simple really - UGLs have gotten away with what they could in the past. Because of sites like this one that promote comprehensive and reliable testing methods, the life cycle of the ripoff UGL has been greatly shortened. I do not think that the AL results are off from the real world, it is just that this world we have chosen has been improved by the valiant efforts of guys like MIllard who advocate for harm reduction and informed AAS usage. It is easy to be skeptical. In this case, better to just be thankful. I sure as hell am.

 

[Kinikuman]

Does AL test for only what is labeled on the product? If so considering a lot of the results were mixed blends of different compounds could it be that when something shows underdosed that it is really a mix compound of what is labeled and then something Ike Test P?

For instance Deca 200 having Nandrolone Deca and Test P?

They test for compound and concentration. You can see this if you look carefully at the reports that have been published. You could have 20 compounds in 1 ml of oil and they'd be able to tell you what they are and how much of each with incredible accuracy. Yes, they are that good. They use some of the best equipment available and have impeccable testing processes and protocols. You'd be better of questioning whether the sun will rise tomorrow.

 

[Millard]

Does AL test for only what is labeled on the product? If so considering a lot of the results were mixed blends of different compounds could it be that when something shows underdosed that it is really a mix compound of what is labeled and then something Ike Test P?

For instance Deca 200 having Nandrolone Deca and Test P?

Anaboliclab usually only tests for the compound that is listed on the label. So the scenario you presented is a possibility.

One would think that a product that is accurately dosed according to label claims would be unlikely to contain significant quantities of undisclosed AAS. Similarly, a product that is severely underdosed may be more likely to have unlisted, undisclosed AAS ingredients. Unfortunately, Anaboliclab.com has not performed the testing to confirm these assumptions.

You could have 20 compounds in 1 ml of oil and they'd be able to tell you what they are and how much of each with incredible accuracy

I wish Anaboliclab could do this but since SIMEC charges for each substance analyzed, it is not financially feasible.

 

[Oregongearhead]

Information outdated . Useless info unless its current and names suspect Labs ...