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

[Dr JIM]

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.

Perhaps it would help if you explained the "risk" for a lab that is overtly advertising its capabilities and expertise.

Using TEN individuals is hardly what I had in mind especially if they are well known in BB circles as pro's, semi-pro's, forum moderators, owners or those with extensive connections such that any UGL would be much more hesitant to sell them BUNK.

(Oh and by the looks of the Pharmacon Bolo pic, whoever purchased these products is buying in HIGH VOLUME, which is far removed from what one may expect or need to receive as a cyclist, the latter being more susceptible to selective scamming IME)

It's pretty simple really if one desires reproducible results the samples MUST be obtained by TRUSTED NO BODIES, WEEKEND WARRIORS OR someone similar to your average Meso member! Otherwise I'm inclined to believe selective sample distribution to those whom are "well known in forum or BB circles" is responsible, at least in part for results I've never seen the likes of before.

I'd still like to know why the involved web sites are not being revealed.

Regs
jim

 

[Dr JIM]

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.

Excellent point, which is why my efforts are aimed at improving the outlook and odds for those in the USA

 

[Dr JIM]

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.

In no way am I suggesting a buyers identity become a point of dispute, it IS NOT!
Excellent explanation Millard

 

[bickel29]

So, I know it has been posted that me, StrongSafety, Doc Jim, whoever COULD send samples to Simec if we chose to do so, and pay our own way to have our samples tested, correct?

But did we establish what the cost of that testing would be, per sample, if we chose to do so?

 

[insertnamehere]

So, I know it has been posted that me, StrongSafety, Doc Jim, whoever COULD send samples to Simec if we chose to do so, and pay our own way to have our samples tested, correct?

But did we establish what the cost of that testing would be, per sample, if we chose to do so?

It would be nice to know this.

I'd like to send in the Watson I have from DS.

 

[bickel29]

This brings me to another point I was thinking of. It would be tremendous to see a bottle of Watson (or any scripted, straight from the pharmacy gear) tested, just to see how much the concentration deviated from the label claims. I am guessing that Watson Test 200 wouldn't come up exactly 200 mg - or would it?

 

[Dr JIM]

So, I know it has been posted that me, StrongSafety, Doc Jim, whoever COULD send samples to Simec if we chose to do so, and pay our own way to have our samples tested, correct?

But did we establish what the cost of that testing would be, per sample, if we chose to do so?

I looked into that and the cost I was quoted was $400 for an HPLC and $350 for a MS.
Actually that's about the AVERAGE price IME but almost all of those I checked with ALSO included the RAW GRAPHIC ANALYSES.

The latter is critical IMO bc such information is one way of creating a "check and balance" to a system wo one, since this data can provide some assurance the involved lab has not become complacent about their own testing procedures and/or processes

JIM.

 

[insertnamehere]

I looked into that and the cost I was quoted was $400 for an HPLC and $350 for a MS.
Actually that's about the AVERAGE price IME but almost all of those I checked with ALSO included the RAW GRAPHIC ANALYSES.

The latter is critical IMO bc such information is one way of ensuring the involved lab has not become complacent about their own testing procedures and/or processes

JIM.

Have you checked this lab, Jim?

http://steroidcheck.com/products/quantitative-analysis/details

Its about $288 for a quantitative analysis.

"Quantitative Analysis will give you a concentration of every quantifiable substance in your sample, as well as a detailed qualitative report on any other substances identified. this way you will know exactly if the substance complies with the specifications you are given."

 

[insertnamehere]

@Dr JIM here's a sample analysis:

http://www.steroidcheck.com/varia/Example_Quantitative.pdf

 

[Dr JIM]

This brings me to another point I was thinking of. It would be tremendous to see a bottle of Watson (or any scripted, straight from the pharmacy gear) tested, just to see how much the concentration deviated from the label claims. I am guessing that Watson Test 200 wouldn't come up exactly 200 mg - or would it?

A variance of up to 5% is permissible for many drugs by FDA standards, I'm not sure, but I doubt AAS would be an exception, since such a difference would not alter the management from a therapeutic perspective.

 

[Dr JIM]

Have you checked this lab, Jim?

http://steroidcheck.com/products/quantitative-analysis/details

Its about $288 for a quantitative analysis.

"Quantitative Analysis will give you a concentration of every quantifiable substance in your sample, as well as a detailed qualitative report on any other substances identified. this way you will know exactly if the substance complies with the specifications you are given."

I don't believe so, but I very much doubt raw graphic data will be included for that price, it RARELY IS!

 

[insertnamehere]

I don't believe so but I very much doubt raw graphic data will be included for that price, it RARELY IS!

Maybe you've already listed what raw data you seek but would you mind listing it here? I want to know what to look/ask for and why.

 

[Dr JIM]

Maybe you've already listed what raw data you seek but would you mind listing it here? I want to know what to look/ask for and why.

The spectrograph derived from a MS sample analysis and similarly a chromatograph that is generated by an HPLC. A narrative summation can not even be formulated in the absence of this information which is why it should be included as a precursor, IMO

This info allows the viewer to critique the narrative discussion for accuracy, completeness and reproducibility of the assay performed.

 

[weighted chinup]

Have you checked this lab, Jim?

http://steroidcheck.com/products/quantitative-analysis/details

Its about $288 for a quantitative analysis.

"Quantitative Analysis will give you a concentration of every quantifiable substance in your sample, as well as a detailed qualitative report on any other substances identified. this way you will know exactly if the substance complies with the specifications you are given."

A member recently used this lab and its services to do a quantitative test on a Canadian UGL's product I believe, he posted the report here -

https://thinksteroids.com/community...ort-from-labmax-here-is-the-report.134366065/

 

[insertnamehere]

A member recently used this lab and its services to do a quantitative test on a Canadian UGL's product I believe, he posted the report here -

https://thinksteroids.com/community...ort-from-labmax-here-is-the-report.134366065/

That's how I found the lab.

 

[insertnamehere]

The spectrograph derived from a MS sample analysis and similarly a chromatograph that is generated by an HPLC. Narrative data can not be commented upon in the absence of this information which is why it should be included as a precursor, IMO

This info allows the viewer to critique the narrative discussion for accuracy, completeness and reproducibility of the assay performed.

The link to the sample analysis from that lab has a chromatogram in the report. When you say raw data, do you mean a printed on paper copy?

 

[weighted chinup]

That's how I found the lab.

I would definitely like to hear Dr JIM's thoughts on whether or not the data in the LABMAX / MMC testing report is sufficient or of a good standard though.

 

[Dr JIM]

AT A GLANCE, a TIC must be connected to an HPLC or as an LC to achieve accurate concentration data, and they also failed to display their REFERENCE STANDARD!

I'll take a closer look and let you know BUT the conclusion is a long stretch based on the info I'm seeing AT PRESENT.

Thx for the info mate
JIM

 

[insertnamehere]

AT A GLANCE, a TIC must be connected to an HPLC or as an LC to achieve accurate concentration data, and they also failed to display their REFERENCE STANDARD!

I'll take a closer look and let you know BUT the conclusion is a long stretch based on the info I'm seeing AT PRESENT.

Thx for the info mate
JIM

Thanks, Jim.

 

[spj]

Millard I appreciate what u r doing for the community. I think it will shed alot of light not just on what's properly dosed, but will help get a better understanding on bloodwork. Obviously there's some factors being overlooked. And of course, labmax. The theory all ugls r bunk underdosed, IMO has been overplayed. Hopefully one day we can all rest assured knowing what we are putting into our bodies is not only what its said to be, but safe. This is a huge breakthrough to everyone involved. I will be contributing very soon.