Pharmacom Labs PHARMA NAN D600 - HPLC/TAMC/TYMC - 2017-07 - SIMEC via AnabolicLab.com

[AnabolicLab.com]

Pharmacom Labs NAN D600 was determined to have an actual content of 678.2 mg/ml nandrolone decanoate compared to a label claim of 600 mg/ml.

No microbiological contamination was detected.

Steroid analytics courtesy of AnabolicLab.com: Pharmacom Labs NAN D600 Lab Test Results - Anabolic Lab

View media item 1504
View media item 1501

 

[Michael7]

Thanks for posting , why does the test report say Test E when its Nandrolone that was tested.

 

[AnabolicLab.com]

We will ask SIMEC about this. We didn't notice this before publication.

SIMEC generally only looks for the active ingredient listed on the label so we assumed this was nandrolone decanoate. SIMEC's reply will be posted asap.

 

[Johnny442]

Are the results deleted, or am I missing something? If so, why delete them? I think people wanting to use this product should know they're actually just using Test if that's what it says!

 

[Eman]

Are the results deleted, or am I missing something? If so, why delete them? I think people wanting to use this product should know they're actually just using Test if that's what it says!

Waiting on simec to clarify the results so they aren't misinterpreted I'm sure.

 

[Johnny442]

Ok, just curious. Thanks for the response!

 

[Millard]

Are the results deleted, or am I missing something? If so, why delete them? I think people wanting to use this product should know they're actually just using Test if that's what it says!

Waiting on simec to clarify the results so they aren't misinterpreted I'm sure.

Yes, we need to wait for SIMEC to clarify. The report is confusing.

The specification for testing the sample is 600 mg/ml nandrolone decanoate. The SIMEC report states that the sample complies (678.2) with the specification BUT the report also states that a testosterone enanthate analysis was performed and NOT a nandrolone decanoate analysis.

It would be irresponsible to publish and disseminate the reports without clarification from SIMEC.

 

[Eman]

Yes, we need to wait for SIMEC to clarify. The report is confusing.

The specification for testing the sample is 600 mg/ml nandrolone decanoate. The SIMEC report states that the sample complies (678.2) with the specification BUT the report also states that a testosterone enanthate analysis was performed and NOT a nandrolone decanoate analysis.

It would be irresponsible to publish and disseminate the reports without clarification from SIMEC.

Although my guess is that the test enanthate part is a typo, I'm very curious to see what SIMEC says.

Overall, the frequency of compounds being overdosed is really interesting. Goes to show that labs like Pcom that charge a premium price are shooting in the dark with respect to actual hormone content in there products... An amateur at home could achieve more accurately dosed products IMO.

 

[janoshik]

Although my guess is that the test enanthate part is a typo, I'm very curious to see what SIMEC says.

Overall, the frequency of compounds being overdosed is really interesting. Goes to show that labs like Pcom that charge a premium price are shooting in the dark with respect to actual hormone content in there products... An amateur at home could achieve more accurately dosed products IMO.

I risk being ostracized for this, but I strongly believe sending a few blind samples with a known concentration to SIMEC would help clearing this up.

From an analytical standpoint a trend like this would raise an eyebrow and get people looking for a systematic error. That's as neutral statement as I can make and I ain't trying to throw dirt here.

 

[Eman]

I risk being ostracized for this, but I strongly believe sending a few blind samples with a known concentration to SIMEC would help clearing this up.

From an analytical standpoint a trend like this would raise an eyebrow and get people looking for a systematic error. That's as neutral statement as I can make and I ain't trying to throw dirt here.

I think I understand what you're getting at but I imagine this is beyond the scope of AnabolicLab.

Are you suggesting to send the sample elsewhere to acquire the concentration?

 

[Wunderpus]

Waiting on simec to clarify the results so they aren't misinterpreted I'm sure.

Hmm, maybe.... Not sure HOW accurate our home scales are... But, +/- .78mg's/ml is considerable...

 

[janoshik]

I think I understand what you're getting at but I imagine this is beyond the scope of AnabolicLab.

Are you suggesting to send the sample elsewhere to acquire the concentration?

That depends on if you trust the "elsewhere" laboratory.



I had a trustless approach on my mind - where you have no need to trust a 3rd party.

Purchasing a raw material, accurately weighting it and using a graduated cylinder to dissolve it is a sure way to assess for that kind of systematic error.


You weight 10 or more grams of nandrolone decanoate - a scale costing 20 dollars can weight that with very high accuracy. You can verify the accuracy by weighting coins. Error can be kept at around 1%.

You put it into a graduated cylinder (or better yet, volumetric flask) and dissolve it. You can verify the accuracy of the cylinder by weighting distilled water.

Now you have a solution which contains maximum of x mg/ml nandrolone decanoate. I say maximum, because if you don't have the raws tested, you can't be sure, but I don't think I've ever encountered seriously bad deca raws.


If the result from any lab is significantly higher than x mg, you got the answer.

If it's lower, then either the lab is bad or the raws were bad.

 

[Millard]

From an analytical standpoint a trend like this would raise an eyebrow and get people looking for a systematic error. That's as neutral statement as I can make and I ain't trying to throw dirt here.

First of all, there is no "trend like this". AFAIK, this is the only time a SIMEC report listed a sample analysis that did not match the sample specification. An isolated incident does not make a trend.

Having said that, it appears SIMEC made a mistake: it either (1) made a clerical error (most likely) and inaccurately reported the analysis performed OR (2) performed the wrong analysis and failed to test the sample for nandrolone decanoate.

 

[janoshik]

First of all, there is no "trend like this". AFAIK, this is the only time a SIMEC report listed a sample analysis that did not match the sample specification. An isolated incident does not make a trend.

Having said that, it appears SIMEC made a mistake: it either (1) made a clerical error (most likely) and inaccurately reported the analysis performed OR (2) performed the wrong analysis and failed to test the sample for nandrolone decanoate.

I did not talk about the typo.

Typos happen to pretty much everyone. God knows I've had a lot of those.

EDIT: For clarification, I talked about occasions when the dosage is higher than expected.

 

[Millard]

I did not talk about the typo.

Typos happen to pretty much everyone. God knows I've had a lot of those.

Now I see you were referring to the frequency of overdosed samples...

 

[janoshik]

Now I see you were referring to the frequency of overdosed samples...

Yes. I'm glad we avoided a misunderstanding.

 

[Millard]

Yes. I'm glad we avoided a misunderstanding.

Clarification is always a good thing

 

[Millard]

SIMEC's response:

 

[stone988]

Still waiting for all the fake gear results, you shills really suck cock!!

 

[janoshik]

Still waiting for all the fake gear results, you shills really suck cock!!

B-but all gear is fake, if I don't become Arnold overnight, right?