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

[ironwill1951]

you guys that keep picking apart what millard is trying to do here should be ashamed of yourselves , what a bunch of whiney little bitches,,

 

[Millard]

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

I trust Simec's interpretative report but I fully agree that the raw data should be public. It's time to send them a reminder/status update request.

In the future, I will request to have report + data sent together immediately after the completion of testing. This is one of a few things in the process that we are working to improve with Simec. Another is the request that Simec take photographs of the unopened samples as they receive to confirm they match the photographs submitted by the buyer.

 

[MindlessWork]

As this program is so new why not give it time as samples will be done periodically if I got that right @Millard Baker.

 

[Millard]

you guys that keep picking apart what millard is trying to do here should be ashamed of yourselves , what a bunch of whiney little bitches,,

No, not at all. We need all the scrutiny and constructive criticism we can get. The feedback we receive on MESO is generally from people who want to see the program to succeed. This is a friendly audience for us on MESO. Other forums may not be so kind. And if the programs wants to succeed, it needs to address and resolve any flaws and shortcomings in its procedure. Most importantly, it needs to effectively communicate why it does everything it is doing because it may not always be apparent.

 

[Millard]

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?

The motives for UGLs vary. Generally, significant overdosing can be just as important indicator of poor quality control as underdosing. This is assuming the goal is to have a product that matches label claims. However, some UGLs may intentionally overdose because they believe it is a good marketing ploy. So, it really depends on how you want to look at it.

 

[strongsafety41]

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.

Thanks for the clarification. Im all for keeping the buyer identity private. It keeps the playing field level.

 

[mercury]

The motives for UGLs vary. Generally, significant overdosing can be just as important indicator of poor quality control as underdosing. This is assuming the goal is to have a product that matches label claims. However, some UGLs may intentionally overdose because they believe it is a good marketing ploy. So, it really depends on how you want to look at it.

it is a good a job to have something like this whatever the controversy is about it.

 

[insertnamehere]

@Millard Baker is there currently a system of checks and balances within your core group of trusted buyers, to ensure that now and in the future, this program will not be compromised by one or more persons being compensated for supplying properly dosed products on behalf of a manufacturer?

 

[Millard]

@Millard Baker is there currently a system of checks and balances within your core group of trusted buyers, to ensure that now and in the future, this program will not be compromised by one or more persons being compensated for supplying properly dosed products on behalf of a manufacturer?

There's no formal system yet and we're open to suggestions. Some precautions we've taken or are planning included things like no advance notice beyond a couple of days (even for the trusted buyers) of which compound will be tested, which manufacturer will be selected and which reseller will be used; documentation that products were obtained from the agreed upon reseller; and photographic evidence of the products received and forwarded for testing. We'll also take steps to prevent buyers from ordering too frequently from the same manufacturer/reseller. For example, they may obtain a product from "reseller A" of "manufacturer A" one time but the next time they will obtain a product from "reseller B" of "manufacturer B". This is to avoid buyers from becoming too comfortable with any particular reseller or manufacturer.

 

[insertnamehere]

There's no formal system yet and we're open to suggestions. Some precautions we've taken or are planning included things like no advance notice (even for the trusted buyers) of which compound will be tested, which manufacturer will be selected and which reseller will be used; documentation that products were obtained from the agreed upon reseller; and photographic evidence of the products received and forwarded for testing. We'll also take steps to prevent buyers from ordering too frequently from the same manufacturer/reseller. For example, they may obtain a product from "reseller A" of "manufacturer A" one time but the next time they will obtain a product from "reseller B" of "manufacturer B". This is to avoid buyers from becoming too comfortable with any particular reseller or manufacturer.

Overall that sounds like reasonable parameters to keep things in check.

Approximately how much notice do you give a trusted buyer to procure desired product from a specific source? And how much time is allotted for the trusted buyer to have receipt of shipment to the lab?

 

[CensoredBoardsSuck]

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.

In cases where the seller is an authorized reseller, it shouldn't make any difference who the sample is purchased from. If one of the long term goals of the testing program is to encourage ugls to improve or maintain quality, whatever the case may be, it will be in the ugl's best interest to ensure their resellers are trustworthy. After all, a failed sample from an authorized reseller is the same as a failed sample from the ugl itself.

I think disclosing the seller will be required when/if AL starts testing pharm grade products. Legit pharm grade gear requires no testing by us but the legitimacy of that sold by each source on the black market is highly suspect. In the last year alone we've seen several supposed pharm grade products that were not only counterfeit, but bunk as well. But we've also seen the very same product from a different reseller that was satisfactory.

 

[Millard]

Overall that sounds like reasonable parameters to keep things in check.

Approximately how much notice do you give a trusted buyer to procure desired product from a specific source? And how much time is allotted for the trusted buyer to have receipt of shipment to the lab?

Only a couple of days. All deliveries in the first batch were easily within 2 weeks. We haven't set a cutoff on the allotted time. It does make sense to restrict the window. What do you think is reasonable?

 

[Millard]

In cases where the seller is an authorized reseller, it shouldn't make any difference who the sample is purchased from. If one of the long term goals of the testing program is to encourage ugls to improve or maintain quality, whatever the case may be, it will be in the ugl's best interest to ensure their resellers are trustworthy. After all, a failed sample from an authorized reseller is the same as a failed sample from the ugl itself.

I think disclosing the seller will be required when/if AL starts testing pharm grade products. Legit pharm grade gear requires no testing by us but the legitimacy of that sold by each source on the black market is highly suspect. In the last year alone we've seen several supposed pharm grade products that were not only counterfeit, but bunk as well. But we've also seen the very same product from a different reseller that was satisfactory.

I agree completely on both issues. It's the manufacturer's/UGL's responsibility to ensure the trustworthiness of its authorized resellers. If the product fails a lab test even when obtained from an authorized reseller + verified on manufacturer's website, then its the manufacturer that has some explaining to do.

Re: pharmaceutical diversion of pharm grade AAS, disclosing the specific source of each sample is the only way. In this case, we assume products produced by Bayer, Schering, etc. meet label claims. So, that's not the question we're seeking to answer. We want to know if the origin of the black market products is really due to pharmaceutical diversion.

 

[insertnamehere]

Only a couple of days. All deliveries in the first batch were easily within 2 weeks. We haven't set a cutoff on the allotted time. It does make sense to restrict the window. What do you think is reasonable?

Two days to order and pay is perfect.

Must they show proof of order and estimated ETA for products purchased within this time? If not, I think you should require it. Details in the chain of custody can reveal if there is any foul play.

Additionally, consider having them show proof, with date, of when they received products.

There should be a time set on mailing products to lab as well. Maybe within 24hrs after receiving it? 48hrs? And again, they should show proof when, how, and to who it was shipped to.

Do trusted buyers have to wait for funds from the program or do they get reimbursed?

If they are reimbursed, the reimbursement should only come if the time allotted for each phase is confirmed with proof. Kinda harsh sounding maybe but something like that creates incentive to follow a consistent protocol that only benefits the programs legitimacy as a whole.

 

[Millard]

Two days to order and pay is perfect.

Must they show proof of order and estimated ETA for products purchased within this time? If not, I think you should require it. Details in the chain of custody can reveal if there is any foul play.

Additionally, consider having them show proof, with date, of when they received products.

There should be a time set on mailing products to lab as well. Maybe within 24hrs after receiving it? 48hrs? And again, they should show proof when, how, and to who it was shipped to.

Do trusted buyers have to wait for funds from the program or do they get reimbursed?

If they are reimbursed, the reimbursement should only come if the time allotted for each phase is confirmed with proof. Kinda harsh sounding maybe but something like that creates incentive to follow a consistent protocol that only benefits the programs legitimacy as a whole.

Excellent suggestions. The trusted group was fully-funded beforehand.

 

[insertnamehere]

A little more about the "trusted buyers", if you don't mind.

By what standards did you assess and qualify each trusted buyer? Did you have a system by which to quantify their resources and trustworthiness?

 

[insertnamehere]

We'll also take steps to prevent buyers from ordering too frequently from the same manufacturer/reseller. For example, they may obtain a product from "reseller A" of "manufacturer A" one time but the next time they will obtain a product from "reseller B" of "manufacturer B". This is to avoid buyers from becoming too comfortable with any particular reseller or manufacturer.

What steps will you take?

The easiest thing to do I suppose is to just keep track of every purchase between each trusted buyer and vendor and rotate among the 10 buyers as needed. This will take some management time but shouldn't be too taxing to spread out the interactions among everyone.

 

[Millard]

A little more about the "trusted buyers", if you don't mind.

By what standards did you assess and qualify each trusted buyer? Did you have a system by which to quantify their resources and trustworthiness?

Excellent questions!

The first collection involved a few personal friends that I have known for several years. I am completely comfortable assuming responsibility for and placing my reputation on their actions.

I realize that as this program expands, it will quickly become necessary to look beyond a close circle of friends. A strict system for a network of trusted buyers is essential. I'm open to feedback.

 

[Mr.B66]

This has been a lifestyle for me for years, and never was there a program like this and as a result like everybody else, i hoped the contents of the vials contained what the label claimed. With a program like this that will certainly change. Not right away but in the long run.
This is a brand new program and of course there will be a learning curve, but imagine where it will be in a year and beyond.
I will definantly be a frequent contributor, i believe it to be a GREAT investment and i hope many others will feel the same way.
Thank you Millard for your work in making this happen!!!

 

[vgc]

I think that going forward it makes sense to always include all the raw data along with the reports. Not many people can read it, but those who are able to can act as a check on the lab's interpretation.

I also suggest allowing labs a 10% rather than 20% margin of error in dosing. 20% is a fairly substantial error.

I think it also makes sense to show photo documentation of the products being checked on the UGL's website.

Great suggestions from people in here, and great work.