Pharmacom Labs PHARMA Test P100 - HPLC-UV - 2015-12 - performed by SIMEC via AnabolicLab.com

[RThoads]

I had good results on their Test-prop vials.
Vials are my preference, but I switch to these amps just the last week on my run (had some so may as well use it rather than open a vial just for a few pins) and I did notice some PIP increase vs the vials I had been using, so something was different in teh formulation.

 

[E-rock]

I had good results on their Test-prop vials.
Vials are my preference, but I switch to these amps just the last week on my run (had some so may as well use it rather than open a vial just for a few pins) and I did notice some PIP increase vs the vials I had been using, so something was different in teh formulation.

Thanks for that input, that puts me at ease a bit more about the vials, it'll be the first time for me running short Ester prop. Even so I can just bump up my doses a bit incase they are a tad underdosed and just get bloods to see where I'm at.. well that's my plan at least when I'm ready to jump on my cycle.

 

[Masters Power]

I've heard Frank has been pm'd about having a test p vial received less than two weeks ago sent to simec for testing if no one else has already sent in a test p vial recently.

 

[Heynow]

Makes me wonder if they know it's 80, but figure it'll be ok since they are having these big ass discounts. Oh wait, aren't they are also throwing 10 amps in for free right now. Unless we test every damn vial we will never know and it's hard to trust illegal activity.

 

[mkulltra58]

Here's Frank explaination for anyone that didn't see it:

↑
Frank, what have you got to say, this is very disappointing

Pharmacom Labs PHARMA Test P100 - HPLC-UV - 2015-12 - performed by SIMEC via AnabolicLab.com | MESO-Rx Forum
yes this is disappointing, this was my first thought also. However i talk to our production team and there is a reasonable explanation. These are amps. One of the very first batches. We started to produce amps a very short tme ago. This is separate production line with own equipment and settings,etc. It is not optimized yet and it could not be set just for 1-2 days. Production process requires many factors to consider. Fine adjusting of all equipment can require up to half year to get a stable production. On top of this production technology of amps is more complicated as compared against vials. The reason consist in th technology itself. Oil in amps is different. I mean this is still GSO, but we use there other, new antiseptic agents, which are a new step in our development. I can not reveal production details, i am now awaere myself about all of them, but i can say that we use with amps so called "shocking sterilization". It requires appliance of new agents, which are not so sensitive as benzyl alcohol. You might not know this, but it is effective as antiseptic only if medium pH is between 5 and 7. It loses its antiseptic efficiency at a pH <5 or >7 and as result oil in amps can get spoiled already after several month. We consider this and many other details in production of our vials. You can find info about it in the official pharmacom Labs site - on the Innovations page
Code:
Pharmacom Labs - Innovations Site
With amps we for the first time used new chemical formulas, which makes oil more durable. Sterilizationconditions in our sterilization oven are also other as with vials.
So, all factors together can cause what we have seen. But amps are a better product as vials. Of course we will adjust our new production line and get stable dosages with the time. Our production team promissed to resolve it within next weeks.
Oil in vials shall have more accurate dosages. And to find out whether this is really so we offer you testing opportunity. Everyone can take advantage of it for free.
↑
There prices are on the high end of the scale. The test p result is disappointing, I hope they improve on testing raws.
Problem is not in the raws purity. They are pure. Here is Simec purity report for test p -

 

[Wunderpus]

Here's Frank explaination for anyone that didn't see it:

↑
Frank, what have you got to say, this is very disappointing

Pharmacom Labs PHARMA Test P100 - HPLC-UV - 2015-12 - performed by SIMEC via AnabolicLab.com | MESO-Rx Forum
yes this is disappointing, this was my first thought also. However i talk to our production team and there is a reasonable explanation. These are amps. One of the very first batches. We started to produce amps a very short tme ago. This is separate production line with own equipment and settings,etc. It is not optimized yet and it could not be set just for 1-2 days. Production process requires many factors to consider. Fine adjusting of all equipment can require up to half year to get a stable production. On top of this production technology of amps is more complicated as compared against vials. The reason consist in th technology itself. Oil in amps is different. I mean this is still GSO, but we use there other, new antiseptic agents, which are a new step in our development. I can not reveal production details, i am now awaere myself about all of them, but i can say that we use with amps so called "shocking sterilization". It requires appliance of new agents, which are not so sensitive as benzyl alcohol. You might not know this, but it is effective as antiseptic only if medium pH is between 5 and 7. It loses its antiseptic efficiency at a pH <5 or >7 and as result oil in amps can get spoiled already after several month. We consider this and many other details in production of our vials. You can find info about it in the official pharmacom Labs site - on the Innovations page
Code:
Pharmacom Labs - Innovations Site
With amps we for the first time used new chemical formulas, which makes oil more durable. Sterilizationconditions in our sterilization oven are also other as with vials.
So, all factors together can cause what we have seen. But amps are a better product as vials. Of course we will adjust our new production line and get stable dosages with the time. Our production team promissed to resolve it within next weeks.
Oil in vials shall have more accurate dosages. And to find out whether this is really so we offer you testing opportunity. Everyone can take advantage of it for free.
↑
There prices are on the high end of the scale. The test p result is disappointing, I hope they improve on testing raws.
Problem is not in the raws purity. They are pure. Here is Simec purity report for test p -

If he KNEW the calibration was off for the first few days, why would he sell them?

 

[Bone Gristle]

If he KNEW the calibration was off for the first few days, why would he sell them?

Also the vials weren't much better. Something like 11% under dosed. So the explanation doesn't hold much merit.

 

[mike0507]

I posted this in the wrong thread initially, so sorry for the duplicate and didn't realize it in time to delete the other one and post it here. For the sake of discussion regarding the 83.5mg/ml Test Prop result posted on the anaboliclab.com site, it was posted in green which indicates a passing result. The World Health Organization standards for the analysis and identification of drugs states that the analyte peak should be identifiable, discrete, and reproducible with a precision of 20% and accuracy of 80-120%. Although the concentration was lower than some other UGLs it's still within acceptable range. For comparison, look at the result for Novocrine Oxasim with a label claim of 10mg per tab. It failed (results shown in red) even though it was determined to have a content of 14.7mg per tab because it's outside of the acceptable range. I'll never complain over a little extra bang for my buck and value matters when it comes to spending my hard earned cash, but big picture is safety. Just thought it was worth discussing. Here's the link where I got the info from below. Thoughts?

http://apps.who.int/prequal/trainin...009/english/1-4_Analytical_considerations.ppt