where did you get your education that you do not understand simple things ?
those type of tests give fluorescence in presence of UV light, each test is made of different chemicals, they can be used for variety of substances and they are used in labs around the world. different test different substances. not only steroids
in this case you get fluorescence in presence of steroids. when you look at the light through a different optical filters it will look different.
in this case each oil works as different filter absorbing/ dispersing the light. this is why it looks different for different oils
So, if I'm understanding you correctly (humor me here for a minute), labmax will not show the presence of test cyp in mct but will show it in gso? Where does one obtain these optical filters to differentiate? You mean the flashlight? Are there different flashlights for different carriers? Please excuse me if I missed the assortment of lights for different carriers being used, didn't see them being advertised or talked about. Can you expand on these filters that labmax is offering if its more than just the flashlight? I'd rather be in the knowledgeable group, or are you referencing something that isn't available to a regular person through labmax?
So, imo, it's unreliable for of testing based on the idea that it's marketed as an all inclusive test for finished oils, raws, capsules or tablets. Does it say that test cyp will not be detected when mct is used and you dont have the special filter? I can't find that in any labmax literature. Can you?
So, something that is used for so many things (including testing other than steroids), has an error rate to it. Seems plausible. Do we now tear down regent testing as a viable means of identification because it has a hard time with different carriers? Or do we view this test as an outlier and anticipate other testing to be ok? Do we try to find out what went wrong and denigrate all regent testing in the process?
Accusing labmax of being fraudulent and scamming seems like a stretch to me if the testing process is solid. In your opinion, you seem to think it is a solid form of identification but from real world experience it comes up short, often.
Think about what you say and how you treat your peers. You have as many holes in your product as anyone else. You should be looking to improve the culture and expand the group's collective skill set. You're doing the opposite.
Dont reply, I dont care. my points been made much like your point the w&m doesnt know how to test gh has been made. But if you'd like we can sit here all day and talk shit. You seem to like that approach but my God you're bad at it.