Pharmacom Labs Bold 300 - HPLC-UV - 2015-06 - performed by SIMEC via AnabolicLab.com

[Millard]

Until the process of sample acquisition and chain of custody is more thoroughly elaborated upon by ALS, many AAS users will continue to view reports of this nature with a jaded eye.

There's not much more to elaborate other than the specific individual who ordered the sample (and maybe their specific location) and the specific website where the sample was purchased (and its specific shipping location). Am I missing something else important?

 

[Dr JIM]

Their DOB!

 

[Dr JIM]

Where is that info posted M?

But yes knowing the website would certainly help, A LOT!

 

[Wunderpus]

anybody can be behind this site

there was program in UK called WEDINOS, it was government run, I can trust this one
but there is no way to verify this site.

it can be as well used to promote some gear.

I have seen a lot of analysis run here by other members and almost all was bunk, underdosed.

sorry but I will never be 100% convinced.

So all 4 of those labs got together, built Meso, constructed a false persona of Millard Baker, years later created anaboliclab.com and posted positive results...

Seems, um, unlikely. Selling drugs isn't that hard.

 

[Millard]

Until the process of sample acquisition and chain of custody is more thoroughly elaborated upon by ALS, many AAS users will continue to view reports of this nature with a jaded eye.

(Moreover the failure of ABLs to include any raw data, which would be required to formulate a narrative summary, only generates more skepticism IMO)

If these results are in ANY WAY acquired from the respective manufacturers, distributors, or their employees compliant data of this nature should be expected.

However whether these assays are something Meso members in the USA can use for THEIR COLLECTIVE BENEFIT is another matter.

Finally although I doubt there is any one individual more trustworthy than Millard in this cut throat PED business, the accountability I'm referring to is ABLa almost exclusively.

If they want to earn the trust of THIS COMMUNITY, simply posting the analyses of a few select samples whose origin is unknown just will not do IMO.

I've made a few suggestions (as have others) about how this degree of trust may be achieved, legal restraints aside, choice is theirs and theirs alone IMO

Regs
Jim

Please tell me SPECIFICALLY what can be added to the following report to more convincingly establish the chain of custody:

Pharmacom Labs PHARMA Bold 300 Lab Test Results

Pharmacom Labs PHARMA Bold 300 is presented in a 10ml vial and reportedly contains 300 milligrams of boldenone undecylenate per milliliter according to the label and packaging. Samples of this product were purchased from a European-based authorized reseller and internet source between the dates of April 10, 2015 and May 10, 2015. The samples were forwarded and received by the analytical laboratory Simec AG for HPLC-UV testing on May 19, 2015. The quantitative dosage testing report was completed on June 2, 2015. The “quality code” listed on the product was jlpyt4h0f9. The quality code was successfully used to authenticate/verify the product on pharmacomlabs.com/code. A screenshot was captured on the second verification attempt.

Label claim: Pharmacom Labs PHARMA Bold 300 has a label claim of 300 mg/ml boldenone undecylenate.

Actual content: Pharmacom Labs PHARMA Bold 300 was determined to have actual content of 329.79 mg/ml boldenone undecylenate.

(The following images are photographs of the actual product that was submitted for testing.)

 

[Millard]

Another one with extensive detail showing the sample tested by the lab originated from the stated manufacturer. Please help us improve it with specific recommendations:

Alpha Pharma Nandrobolin 250 Lab Test Results

Alpha Pharma Healthcare’s Nandrobolin 250 is presented in 1ml ampules and reportedly contains 250 milligrams of nandrolone decanoate per milliliter according to the label and packaging. Samples of this product were purchased from a European-based internet source between the dates of April 10, 2015 and May 10, 2015. The samples were forwarded and received by the analytical laboratory Simec AG for HPLC-UV testing on May 19, 2015. The quantitative dosage testing report was completed on June 2, 2015. The “batch number” listed on the product was ND1311. The serial number “897E1Ze48Q” authentication code “gfDe2ah87″ was successfully used to verify the authenticity of the product on check-alpha.com.

Label claim: Alpha Pharma Nandrobolin 250 has a label claim of 250 mg/ml nandrolone decanoate.

Actual content: Alpha Pharma Nandrobolin 250 was determined to have actual content of 249.27 mg/ml nandrolone decanoate.

(The following images are photographs of the actual product that was submitted for testing.)

 

[redrum720]

It would be great if we got our hands on there raws but I'm satisfied with the results

 

[mercury]

There's not much more to elaborate other than the specific individual who ordered the sample (and maybe their specific location) and the specific website where the sample was purchased (and its specific shipping location). Am I missing something else important?

it is hard to dispute results from Balkan and AP, they are known for good quality.

 

[DragonFlames]

I'd just like to know which country the raws came from lol. Seems odd to think all this Chinese gear is actually good after all. Looking good though. I'm excited for the future of anabolic lab.

 

[Dr JIM]

Another one with extensive detail showing the sample tested by the lab originated from the stated manufacturer. Please help us improve it with specific recommendations:

Alpha Pharma Nandrobolin 250 Lab Test Results

Alpha Pharma Healthcare’s Nandrobolin 250 is presented in 1ml ampules and reportedly contains 250 milligrams of nandrolone decanoate per milliliter according to the label and packaging. Samples of this product were purchased from a European-based internet source between the dates of April 10, 2015 and May 10, 2015. The samples were forwarded and received by the analytical laboratory Simec AG for HPLC-UV testing on May 19, 2015. The quantitative dosage testing report was completed on June 2, 2015. The “batch number” listed on the product was ND1311. The serial number “897E1Ze48Q” authentication code “gfDe2ah87″ was successfully used to verify the authenticity of the product on check-alpha.com.

Label claim: Alpha Pharma Nandrobolin 250 has a label claim of 250 mg/ml nandrolone decanoate.

Actual content: Alpha Pharma Nandrobolin 250 was determined to have actual content of 249.27 mg/ml nandrolone decanoate.

(The following images are photographs of the actual product that was submitted for testing.)

Have you ever heard of selective scamming M? Why I KNOW you have!

So WHO purchased these products becomes very important.

Were they bought by a well known BB with an established record on that "Eoropean based resaler site" or was it some lone weekend warrior making their first single vial purchase.

We both know such factors can make all the difference in the world.

Am I suggesting a specific character type is ideal, not at all!

But that a broad range of buyers should be used, on a RABDOM basis.

Although I've no problem informing the involved lab which AAS they are to search for in a particular sample, they should be required to determine it's concentration outright.

Finally to best ensure others can use this information, why is the source websites NAME not being published?

Regs
Jim

 

[Tren Warrior]

Again. Was only one single vial tested ?

 

[Dr JIM]

it is hard to dispute results from Balkan and AP, they are known for good quality.

Yea and for that reason they are also more prone to counterfeiting!

 

[Millard]

Have you ever heard of selective scamming M? Why I KNOW you have!

So WHO purchased these products becomes very important.

Were they bought by a well known BB with an established record on that "Eoropean based resaler site" or was it some lone weekend warrior making their first single vial purchase.

Tell me which buyer would be the better choice?

(A) a bodybuilder well-known on multiple boards with an established order history - let's say 10 orders - with the European based internet site; or

(B) the "lone weekend warrior" that no one has ever heard of who is making his first AAS purchase

Let me ask this another way: who is most likely to be selectively scammed?

HINT: It's certainly not "A". If selective scamming is involved, buyer "A" would be far more likely to receive the best service, the best prices and the best product.

Are you suggesting we use "lone weekend warriors making their first.. purchase" to best identify selective scammers?

 

[Millard]

But that a broad range of buyers should be used, on a RABDOM basis.

This is a tough one because I see some benefit in using a larger number of buyers but there is also significant risk.

Is it better to rely on 10 people that you trust completely or 100 people that you trust a little or 1000 people that you can't really be sure of?

Along those lines, here's something else to consider. Since I've announced the program, it has been inundated by offers from individuals willing to submit samples. Upon further inquiry, it turns out that about 3 out of 4 of the offers are from either internet sources or other steroid dealers. If the program opened up sample submission for everyone, could as many as 75% of the people submitting samples have a vested financial interest in positive results?

Furthermore, once the identity of the buyers is publicly revealed, their value as an anonymous buyer is nil. Then we'll exhaust those 10 fully trusted buyers (and even the 100 somewhat trust buyers) very quickly. Then we'll move through the 1000 we can't be sure of and then accept buyers for which we have no clue.

 

[CdnGuy]

Speaking for newer members having this program is going to change the AAS game. Vets here have been battling for years and taking hits in the ugl fight. I for one will be donating as should all new members. Keep the community safer.

 

[strongsafety41]

Tell me which buyer would be the better choice?

(A) a bodybuilder well-known on multiple boards with an established order history - let's say 10 orders - with the European based internet site; or

(B) the "lone weekend warrior" that no one has ever heard of who is making his first AAS purchase

Let me ask this another way: who is most likely to be selectively scammed?

HINT: It's certainly not "A". If selective scamming is involved, buyer "A" would be far more likely to receive the best service, the best prices and the best product.

Are you suggesting we use "lone weekend warriors making their first.. purchase" to best identify selective scammers?

Millard,

I really enjoy what you are doing here with this program. It truly will be groundbreaking and heighten awareness of those labs known for selective scamming.

On the other hand, if I'm a selective scammer I'd be sure to send the good product to target audience "A" listed above in a country where steroids can be tested. What time will hopefully tell is if the UGL will send the same product to countries where product can NOT be tested.

 

[Millard]

Finally to best ensure others can use this information, why is the source websites NAME not being published?

it is hard to dispute results from Balkan and AP, they are known for good quality.

Yea and for that reason they are also more prone to counterfeiting!

I see no reason to post the specific reseller's website unless there is a good reason to question chain of custody. Otherwise, the information only serves to promote one reseller over many others.

If (1) I purchase a product from an authorized reseller of the manufacturer + (2) I authenticate and verify the legitimacy of the product on the manufacturer's website + (3) the lab results match label claims, most people would NOT suspect the product was a counterfeit. This doesn't mean it is not. I guess the authorized reseller could make a perfectly-dosed counterfeit but it seems unlikely.

Now, if (1) + (2) apply but the product is underdosed or contaminated, it is possible that the manufacturer could claim a breach in the chain of custody. In such circumstances, the name/website of the reseller would be disclosed to the manufacturer. It is up to the manufacturer to clean house and remove bad resellers. AnabolicLab will publicly post all relevant information if the manufacturer claims the product tested was not actually one of their products.

 

[Millard]

On the other hand, if I'm a selective scammer I'd be sure to send the good product to target audience "A" listed above in a country where steroids can be tested. What time will hopefully tell is if the UGL will send the same product to countries where product can NOT be tested.

To clarify, Switzerland is the country where it is legal to test AAS. AnabolicLab has never revealed the countries in which the buyers reside. In other words, the buyers could very well reside in any country in the world. Once they receive their order, then they forward it to Simec in Switzerland.

Selective scammers won't be notified of the countries where buyers are located precisely to keep sources from selectively sending good product to the buyers' country.

This is another very important reason why the program should not publicly reveal the identity of the buyers. The more information about the prospective buyers that is available to sources, the more likely selective scammers can exploit it.

 

[CensoredBoardsSuck]

Furthermore, once the identity of the buyers is publicly revealed, their value as an anonymous buyer is nil. Then we'll exhaust those 10 fully trusted buyers (and even the 100 somewhat trust buyers) very quickly. Then we'll move through the 1000 we can't be sure of and then accept buyers for which we have no clue.

The buyers always have the option of ordering anonymously but I'm not concerned about knowing their identity and trust you've done your diligence. FWIW, even if all the buyers were somehow alerting all the UGLs that the order was going to be tested, I think it's quite unlikely that all these labs were able to provide accurately dosed product on such short notice.

Any skepticism at this point, I believe, should be limited to Simec and their failure to include all the analytical data with the summary.

 

[smashfit]

Label claim: Pharmacom Labs PHARMA Bold 300 has a label claim of 300 mg/ml boldenone undecylenate.

Actual content: Pharmacom Labs PHARMA Bold 300 was determined to have actual content of 329.79 mg/ml boldenone undecylenate.

Don't mean to be the simpleton on this thread...but I'm kind of confused by these numbers...so this means that the Pharma Bold 300 had over 100% concentration?

That doesn't really make sense why a UGL (or ANY lab whether legal or not) would have OVER dosed substances....it's a waste of money.....or am I reading this incorrectly?