Mate,
with all due respect, why should I define anything and why should I provide anything?
Because I thought you sided with science and dealt in facts and evidence.
An accusation was made – I would simply like to see if that accusation is founded in any data.
We cannot know if something is “expired” if we do not even have a definition of “expired.”
This is why I simply ask:
How do you know the actual product is expired?
What does "expired" mean to you?
Did you test the product and have legitimate concerns it has degraded?
Since degradation is a continuous process, please define for me the threshold at which you consider a product significantly degraded; and, why is this the threshold?
May I see the results and data please?
What you are doing right now is called shifting the burden of proof and while it might work rather well with most of the people, it ain't going to work with me and frankly I find it to be a rather insulting attempt to waste my time.
Actually, it is you who is “shifting the burden of proof” (but mate, please understand while it may be insulting to most people, I am not at all insulted because I do not take this personally – my opinion and respect for you do not change regardless of this topic – this discussion simply fails to meet the threshold for me to be emotionally moved at all and has no effect upon me personally).
My position is that the products are safe and efficacious to use.
In addition, I am confident many of those who act so appalled and complain the product are no good, will actually still use said product but simply will also enjoy a bonus of additional products as a result of their effort to complain (that is ok, the source agreed and so why wouldn't they accept -- I would accept credit or replacements too, so I do not fault them at all for that).
I never issued any accusations and have nothing to prove.
The accusation was made against my position.
Therefore, I simply would like to see the data, evidence, and defined parameters in support of this accusation against my position.
Until I see real data and evidence to refute my position, I will hold it – at a future time if real evidence is presented to warrant me to correct my position, I will happily learn from the new information and update my position accordingly.
You're heavily insinuating (while being smart enough to avoid definite statements to keep some plausible deniability) that the products of the brand you represent are completely ok well past their expiry date, decades even, so it better be you who produces results and data for your oils not going rancid past the expiry date, benzyl alcohol levels unchanged over the years and active compound levels unchanged through the eons.
I have already provided multiple references from respected sources which contributed to the formation of my own position and opinions.
In addition, my own educational background contributes to my position and opinions.
No one ever made any claim regarding the “active compound levels unchanged through the eons.”
"rancid" oil simply means an oil that has some oxidation.
Oxidation of oil may occur with every product from every brand (and often may have occurred before an AAS source even has possession of the oil), but this does NOT compromise sterility.
(note: Pharmacom vials are under negative pressure, which causes the stopper to be pulled inward as we sometime see, which means there is much less available oxygen to oxidize the carrier oil).
These are not food products in open systems with microbial contents.
AAS vials are sealed, sterilized, inert chemicals.
How about the reactants used to produce those intermediates?
What proof or info do you have about every reactant, intermediate, substrate, solvent, carrier, and other ingredient's manufacture date in every labs' (including FDA approved meds) products?
...many may be much older than people would expect.
If a lab orders some bulk chemicals from a supplier, those chemicals may have sat in the chemical manufacturer's inventory for some time, maybe years, before getting to the supplier. Then the supplier split it into smaller batches and some of those may have sat in the supplier's inventory for years.
Finally, an AAS source buys the chemical from the distributor and dissolves it into a carrier, filters/sterilizes, and seals it into final products.
If they are honest, they print the date this product was assembled.
But that date does nothing to tell you the age of the oil or each chemical used inside the product.
The “expiration date” has little meaning and anything may be printed on the label (as I mentioned, some less-honest sources simply print new labels when needed – the customer will never know).
Instead of deceitful options such as re-labeling as-needed, Pharmacom simply puts the date on the label that matches when that finished product was actually produced.
*NOTE: Basicstero has issued the customer credit (the customer himself recently posted and stated so), and in some previous cases replacements were sent. Therefore, even if there may not actually be a problem, Basicstero sided with the customer's concern and offer a generous resolution.
------
General comment, not directed at anyone specific:
The source appears to have already sided with the customer; I am not sure what more people would like from me?
Is this matter beyond just being business at this point and some people’s ego demands consensus?
Speech, ideas, information, and opinions that do not agree with the masses here should be suppressed?
Well, is just does not work that way and I am free to think for myself, have ideas, and express information just like anyone else.
I guess if people do not like it, they may just file a complaint against me with the appropriate regulatory agency.
People really should read what I share more carefully and learn from it – there is a lot of valuable insight there. Some may not make people comfortable, but it will allow them to be more aware and less dogmatic.
----
Quotes added below are not directed toward you, Jano, anyone specific; I would just like to have them here so it is easy to find the complete discussion and context. Many of my question and point are avoided because they are not supportive of people erroneous narrative.
Not sure why the racism is necessary to our discussion (what does one's ethnicity have to do with business?).
As for the "fucking greedy" accusation, I will just leave this:
Basicstero has issued the customer credit (the customer himself recently posted and stated so as may be seen in the quote above), and in some similar previous cases replacements were sent.
So, even if there may not actually be a problem, Basicstero sided with the customer's concern and offered a generous resolution.
The customer literally has the original item he ordered (and that I strongly feel he will use or sell, but not just throw away), AND now has credit.
Similarly, in the past you may find examples where the source issued replacements and bonuses etc.
If given credit and replacements etc. is "fucking greedy," then i wish some folks would be "fucking greedy" with me because I would love to have some more product (I can use them myself or even just re-sell locally to make cash).
@Olofmeister You complain a source is greedy even when the source issued the customer credit without any additional proof or evidence of the complaint claimed.
Greedy may not mean what you think it means.
How do you know the actual product is expired?
what does "expired" mean to you?
Did you test the product and have legitimate concerns it has degraded?
Since degradation is a continuous process, please define for me the threshold at which you consider a product significantly degraded; and, why is this the threshold?
May I see the results and data please?
There is my short reply.
*regardless (as noted at the end of the longer reply below) the source issued credit and/or replacements.
------
Now for those who wish to have more insight and understand reality (I understand many may not like the truth, but reality simply does not wait for us to “like” it – so it is best to consider the reality of situations so we each come to the most fully-informed choices).
how do you know when something was made when you buy from any UGL or even FDA approved manufacturer?
NOTE all the huge lawsuits for FDA approved meds later being recalled (everything recalled by the FDA was once approved by the FDA) and FRAUD from manufacturers (look at that track-record Pharma corporations have established):
List of largest pharmaceutical settlements - Wikipedia
and the record for single biggest CRIMINAL fine ever paid:
American pharmaceutical giant Pfizer Inc. and its subsidiary Pharmacia & Upjohn Company Inc. (hereinafter together “Pfizer”) have agreed to pay $2.3 billion, the largest health care fraud settlement in the history of the Department of Justice, to resolve criminal and civil liability arising from...
www.justice.gov
Pfizer may be about to break it's own record very soon here.
So how do we know the details about UGL product when even the largest Pharma Corporation do not tell the truth?
How old do you think the raw carrier oils are from the bulk supplier?
How old do you think the raws are that EVERY lab purchases?
How old do you think the substrates used to produce the raws were?
How about the reactants used to produce those intermediates?
What proof or info do you have about every reactant, intermediate, substrate, solvent, carrier, and other ingredient's manufacture date in every labs' (including FDA approved meds) products?
Hint: they are all very old.
If a lab orders some bulk chemicals from a supplier, those chemicals may have sat in the chemical manufacturer's inventory for some time, maybe years, before getting to the supplier. Then the supplier split it into smaller batches and some of those may have sat in the supplier's inventory for years.
Finally, an AAS source buys the chemical from the distributor and dissolves it into a carrier, filters/sterilizes, and seals it into final products.
If they are honest, they print the date this product was assembled.
But that date does nothing to tell you the age of the oil or each chemical used inside the product.
Do you think the product suddenly went from being 100% good one day, then the clock stuck midnight the next day and it suddenly went bad?
The "expiration date" on any such product are just a number from a printer -- anything may be written there.
Here are some ideas some sources use to avoid the "date" complaints:
1) Remove old labels when batches are getting old and print newer labels.
2) Sort batches in large bins according to contents but do not label the entire batch; then, simply label portions of the batch with new labels and "good dates" as needed to send out supply for a few months.
3) not include a date and avoid any of this.
Instead of options such as these, Pharmacom simply puts the date on the label that matches when that finished product was actually produced.
IF anything, I would think you guys would be appreciative of the fact Pharmacom is transparent and honest.
*NOTE: Basicstero has issued the customer credit (the customer himself recently posted and stated so), and in some previous cases replacements were sent.
So, even if there may not actually be a problem, Basicstero sides with the customer's concern and offered a generous resolution.
![talk-to-wall-talking[1].gif](https://thinksteroids.com/community/data/attachments/146/146581-3f56adf279bf7352c5de330ace67eefe.jpg?hash=P1at8nm_c1 "talk-to-wall-talking[1].gif")
