Pharma mix 2 pharmacom - chem clarity lab test

[roger1990]

Its his desperate attempt at discrediting simec and AL. Implying Simec would fake results for a few bucks is beyond unbelievable.

This guy is a rep for chem clarity, chem tox, a ugl or something along these lines.

He is pushing this way to hard to be just a concerned meso member.

You're pretty delusional mate. I really couldn't care less wether you think I'm a hidden rep/shill, but at least look at the substance of my post instead of trying to discredit me because of your preconceived biases.

Believe whatever you will be the facts are that:
1) Dry labbing is common place even in far less shady and regulated spaces like the dietary supplement industry.
2) To my knowledge SIMEC asks customers to provide the stated dose of compounds they test. This is hardly a smoking gun and they have some very legitimate reasons from a cost perspective, but it makes dry labbing WAAAAAAY easier.
3) An ***IMO*** implausible number of UGL's pass these tests - even for much faked compounds like primo and anavar.

Does any of the above conclusively prove that these reports can't be trusted? Not at all, and I admitted this several times, but it's enough for *me* to not take any of these results at face value.

I've been following both the AAS and dietary supplement for almost a decade now and the (unexpected) shadyness is mind-boggling. IMHO I have every reason to be sceptical, but if it's more convienent for you to dismiss these concerns as being an undercover rep, so be it. I don't give a shit.

 

[roger1990]

You seem to be fairly familiar with simec. Why us that?

Now you're trying to make a comparison between Enron, and the VW omissions scandal to simec who hasn't been caught doing anything wrong.

Why?

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt but you obviously have an agenda here.

Do you lack reading comprehension? My argument was that the size of a company is just an appeal to authority and doesn't prove a damn thing (as evidenced by the referenced scandals involving multi-billion $ companies).

And I'm not actually that familiar with SIMEC at all (which might be a both a good thing or a bad thing - i.e. no bias but not really much ground to gauge their reputation either). It's not hard to find out that they have a single location somewhere in CH with 18 employees. Maybe try their site?

Look, I get it. Some new member is raising some questions on analyses which have been held in high regard by members on this board. And I wouldn't be suprised if my concerns will ultimately prove to be unfouded, but so far the only counter argument has been that SIMEC is a huge/highly regarded/established laboratory - whatever this may mean. Sorry but that's not enough for me hence why I referenced these scandals and the dry labbing examples in the dietary supplement industry.

 

[mercury]

Its his desperate attempt at discrediting simec and AL. Implying Simec would fake results for a few bucks is beyond unbelievable.

This guy is a rep for chem clarity, chem tox, a ugl or something along these lines.

He is pushing this way to hard to be just a concerned meso member.

it is obvious that he wants to push his fake lab by pretending that everybody cannot do testing, it makes me to laugh when small guy like him wants to discredit Simec or other bigger lab.

I tried to talk to this guy and he has no clue about chemistry.

 

[AnTabolic73]

Its not rocket science man. If you have good raws and a even half way trained monkey, you can brew good gear.

You really think simec is going to risk its reputation and livelihood by taking bribes from a ugl? Ok.

They do not only do testing on aas you know?? Furthermore If that were truly the case...why have they made the decision to stop testing?? Obviously because they dont need to test aas to stay in buissness.

Some of you guys really amaze me. Everything is always a conspiracy! Lol!

how would a ugl ruin there rep? take them to court?

simec prices are high in part, I'm guessing, because they'll back it up if called in to court. you think a ugl is doing that? going the legal route? or reporting it to governing bodies?

 

[T_L]

Now, for several reasons which I might expand upon if interested, I do trust this new testing company so unless the sender screwed up this result doesn't look good to me.

Go on then, explain your reasons.

 

[ronin17]

You're pretty delusional mate. I really couldn't care less wether you think I'm a hidden rep/shill, but at least look at the substance of my post instead of trying to discredit me because of your preconceived biases.

Believe whatever you will be the facts are that:
1) Dry labbing is common place even in far less shady and regulated spaces like the dietary supplement industry.
2) To my knowledge SIMEC asks customers to provide the stated dose of compounds they test. This is hardly a smoking gun and they have some very legitimate reasons from a cost perspective, but it makes dry labbing WAAAAAAY easier.
3) An ***IMO*** implausible number of UGL's pass these tests - even for much faked compounds like primo and anavar.

Does any of the above conclusively prove that these reports can't be trusted? Not at all, and I admitted this several times, but it's enough for *me* to not take any of these results at face value.

I've been following both the AAS and dietary supplement for almost a decade now and the (unexpected) shadyness is mind-boggling. IMHO I have every reason to be sceptical, but if it's more convienent for you to dismiss these concerns as being an undercover rep, so be it. I don't give a shit.

Mate? You wouldn't happen to be from the uk would you? I wanted to ask that but I felt it would be a little obvious.

Are you from the uk? The same place chem clarity is from?

 

[ronin17]

how would a ugl ruin there rep? take them to court?

simec prices are high in part, I'm guessing, because they'll back it up if called in to court. you think a ugl is doing that? going the legal route? or reporting it to governing bodies?

Sorry man, Im not understanding your question.

 

[ronin17]

Do you lack reading comprehension? My argument was that the size of a company is just an appeal to authority and doesn't prove a damn thing (as evidenced by the referenced scandals involving multi-billion $ companies).

And I'm not actually that familiar with SIMEC at all (which might be a both a good thing or a bad thing - i.e. no bias but not really much ground to gauge their reputation either). It's not hard to find out that they have a single location somewhere in CH with 18 employees. Maybe try their site?

Look, I get it. Some new member is raising some questions on analyses which have been held in high regard by members on this board. And I wouldn't be suprised if my concerns will ultimately prove to be unfouded, but so far the only counter argument has been that SIMEC is a huge/highly regarded/established laboratory - whatever this may mean. Sorry but that's not enough for me hence why I referenced these scandals and the dry labbing examples in the dietary supplement industry.

Nice deflection. And no, there arnt new members raising concerns about simec. Just you and a couple of the usual conspiracy theorists.

You never answered my question as to why you are ready to doubt simec but feel chem clarity is on the level.

Can you please explain this???

 

[ronin17]

it is obvious that he wants to push his fake lab by pretending that everybody cannot do testing, it makes me to laugh when small guy like him wants to discredit Simec or other bigger lab.

I tried to talk to this guy and he has no clue about chemistry.

There is no longer any question about his motives. I believe its good to be skeptical especially in this world.

However, its obvious he has a purpose here. Its pushing this new lab.
I never understand why these guys always do shit the way they do.

Shaddy.

 

[roger1990]

Mate? You wouldn't happen to be from the uk would you? I wanted to ask that but I felt it would be a little obvious.

Are you from the uk? The same place chem clarity is from?

Nope, not from the UK nor do I have any affiliation with the lab you mention (or any source or lab for that matter). Again, your instincts don't seem to be on point.

And the reasons why I do tend to trust this new lab (for now):
a) For starters they don't require a stated dose or even compound meaning dry labbing is pretty darn impossible - especially when sending in unmarked vials.
b) There are reports on UK forums of members sending in vials marked as compound x while actually containing compound y. So far this lab seems to have indentified the correct compound every single time.
c) as one would expect a huge number of UGL's fail lab tests - way more than samples sent to SIMEC (even from overlapping UGL's as evidenced by this topic).

Again, choose to believe whatever you want, but when calling me out at least have the decency to come up with arguments to back up the ad hominems and accusations. Whatever you think of my motivations (and like I said I couldn't care less) at least we can have a solid discussion this way.

 

[mercury]

Mate? You wouldn't happen to be from the uk would you? I wanted to ask that but I felt it would be a little obvious.

Are you from the uk? The same place chem clarity is from?

he is the same guy I saw on UK forum pushing the testing lab, the same talk the same cluelessness about chemistry.

 

[roger1990]

he is the same guy I saw on UK forum pushing the testing lab, the same talk the same cluelessness about chemistry.

Lol, I'm going to take this bite. How far are you willing to go with your accusations regarding my affiliation(s)?

What about getting an independent mediator to verify my identity, your identity and see whether these accusations are true? Whoever is wrong has to put up $1000 for a donation to a registered charity of the choosing of the counter party. Gonna walk the talk or is it easier to keep spouting baseless accusations without any consquences?

 

[ronin17]

Nope, not from the UK nor do I have any affiliation with the lab you mention (or any source or lab for that matter). Again, your instincts don't seem to be on point.

And the reasons why I do tend to trust this new lab (for now):
a) For starters they don't require a stated dose or even compound meaning dry labbing is pretty darn impossible - especially when sending in unmarked vials.
b) There are reports on UK forums of members sending in vials marked as compound x while actually containing compound y. So far this lab seems to have indentified the correct compound every single time.
c) as one would expect a huge number of UGL's fail lab tests - way more than samples sent to SIMEC (even from overlapping UGL's as evidenced by this topic).

Again, choose to believe whatever you want, but when calling me out at least have the decency to come up with arguments to back up the ad hominems and accusations. Whatever you think of my motivations (and like I said I couldn't care less) at least we can have a solid discussion this way.

So because Simec asks for "stated dosage" you believe that makes it easier for them to falsify tests? Why would they?

As far as the validity of the tests that are passes, there are many that do not pass and are not what they're supposed to be as far as dosage. I can remember one series of anavar tests where nearly every other sample was a fail.

If you notice, the majority of tests are from the "bigger" ugls. As they should be as these are the most popular.

It would be very easy to pick ugls that fail nearly every test. So the argument that there are too many passes holds zero weight imo.

Again, It would be very easy to pick ten ugls that would fail the testing standards. But why?

Simec has not only passed the test of time here but it has also had tons of samples sent in by our own members that tested right on the money.

Even if your not directly involved with this testing lab there is no question you are promoting it.

Good luck with that. Merry xmas bloke

 

[ronin17]

Lol, I'm going to take this bite. How far are you willing to go with your accusations regarding my affiliation(s)?

What about getting an independent mediator to verify my identity, your identity and see whether these accusations are true? Whoever is wrong has to put up $1000 for a donation to a registered charity of the choosing of the counter party. Gonna walk the talk or is it easier to keep spouting baseless accusations without any consquences?

Yes let's all start verifying our identities!
Lol!

Its not necessary. Its obvious why you are here. Your not here for the community.

 

[ronin17]

he is the same guy I saw on UK forum pushing the testing lab, the same talk the same cluelessness about chemistry.

Without a doubt. I like how he calls me mate and then says he's not from the UK

 

[roger1990]

So because Simec asks for "stated dosage" you believe that makes it easier for them to falsify tests? Why would they?

With all due respect, but did you even read my previous posts re: dry labbing practices. Since you seem to seriously lack reading comprehension I will repeat it once again:

It's explained in the link, but it basically boils down to faking results and not actually performing the laboratory analyses. This might be done to cut costs or to keep customers 'happy' (which in many cases are actually aware of this practice, but don't care as it gives them favorable results and plausible deniability) - or a combination of the two.

As far as the validity of the tests that are passes, there are many that do not pass and are not what they're supposed to be as far as dosage. I can remember one series of anavar tests where nearly every other sample was a fail.

If you notice, the majority of tests are from the "bigger" ugls. As they should be as these are the most popular.

It would be very easy to pick ugls that fail nearly every test. So the argument that there are too many passes holds zero weight imo.

Again, It would be very easy to pick ten ugls that would fail the testing standards. But why?

You're obviously not familiar the disparity in numbers of failed labs with actual peer-reviewed studies and these forum tests. I believe ergo-log.com has a nice collection of these studies so feel free to check them out and possible re-establish your opinion.

Regarding your point of picking ugls failing every single test - this is nothing more than baseless speculation and you know it. Might be true, might be complete BS, but you have no ground to state it as established fact the way you're doing now.

And if mere sentence of me saying I trust the report of that new UK lab translates to actively promoting said lab I don't know what to say.

Let's not pretend anything here, in the end all boils down to trust. Neither of us has any way to conclusively proof anything here and while we obviously seem to have a different trust threshold I don't think the wild accusations regarding my motivations add anything to this discussion. Even if they were true, it doesn't change anything about the substance of the arguments I presented. They either lack rationality or not - regardless of my supposed intentions. True or not?

 

[Pharmacom Helper]

Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

Could you please send me link on this thread in PM ?

I don't beleive in this. Underdosed/crashed gear it's "standard claims". But here we see that:
1) Missed Tren
2) MastE insted MastP
3) TestProp instead Test Phenyl

Ehm, it's simply impossible. I don't know what was tested but it's not our product.

 

[roger1990]

Yes let's all start verifying our identities!
Lol!

Its not necessary. Its obvious why you are here. Your not here for the community.

Lol, your last sentence is definitely true. I'm not here for the community - just like most are just here for themselves. Seriously, do guys actually join these kind of forums to get part of one big cozy family and hug, dance and altruistically share whatever they're sharing? Sounds pretty sad to me but to each there own.

And maybe we should continue this conversation in fluent Dutch so you can see mate is not an exclusive word used by native UK people? Or maybe get ultimate proof and pick up the gauntlet thrown at mercury? What do you think bloke?

 

[Den84]

Could you please send me link on this thread in PM ?

I don't beleive in this. Underdosed/crashed gear it's "standard claims". But here we see that:
1) Missed Tren
2) MastE insted MastP
3) TestProp instead Test Phenyl

Ehm, it's simply impossible. I don't know what was tested but it's not our product.

I don't find now the original thred but you can see this lab test on the specific closed thred where a moderator share all the lab test on the forum uk-muscle.
AAS Lab Tests


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

 

[bigpoppachump]

I always questioned where the gear came from that was my biggest question. Whenever I seen independent tests being done on UGLs in the past the test results were all over the place and then AB comes along and every body is hitting bullseyes left and right. That is what I find suspicious coming off with your attitude was not cool. I have a right to an opinion just as you do and my opinion is something isn't right. I don't think simec is deliberately taking bribe money to give the gtg. Maybe one person in their outfit is maybe someone is funneling cherry picked vials for testing to simec with just enough fails to give a feeling of legitimacy. But some of the labs in question have had multiple complaints about being weak and underdosed but then simec comes along and they are putting out pharmacy grade gear? Call me a conspiracy theorist but I'm not the only one who feels this way and have had many conversations privately about this subject but few are willing to speak up and go against the grain due to AB's popularity on here.