MESO-Rx Sponsor Primal Pharma - US Domestic

[Photon]

Theres only 2 products you have that have that much solvents. The SUS500(was it? Don't recall) and the TRE400. Neither of which we have seen any GCMS on.

The TRE400 also did not match whatever you sent Jano for testing. 10% variance. So whatever the hell was in that vial or where it came from, nobody really knows.

 

[oldage]

He used to have Test Cyp 400. Solvent level in that comparable?

 

[Photon]

He used to have Test Cyp 400. Solvent level in that comparable?

not high
probably about the same as other LC gear
25%?

 

[crispybacon!]

It’s honestly surprising that none of the people still trying to take shots at us even bothered to correct you. The one that came in at 200 was the Test U from months back. The fact that the compound itself was unknown just shows how fast misinformation spreads.

The Cyp sample @crispybacon! submitted that tested at 220 was from the socalled mystery batch, the same one @SwolieGuacamole correctly called out at the time. We stopped using that raw source months ago. Meanwhile, every test that comes back on point gets ignored, and people keep recycling the same old results that we’ve already addressed.

What’s also being ignored is that customer bloodwork showing our products are performing exactly as expected, most cases even better.

But anyways, we’ve since moved to volumetric flasks and fully standardized our batching process. The expectation is that the previous complaints will be resolved. But I’m sure something else will become the next talking point soon lol.

It’s not recycling, it’s reminding. And you have a track record of dishonesty, so it would be foolish for anyone to take you at your word that you’re now using volumetric flasks and true homogeneous batches until it’s proven through repeated 3rd party testing.

You repeatedly lied, mislead, and gaslit people over the definition of your batches before finally coming clean. This is the problem. Every time there has been an issue, you can’t help but lie to try and cover up the reality. Only when pinned in a corner do you ever come clean.

So again, not recycling, reminding people who they’re dealing with. But I’m sure it’ll be different this time, right?

Quick clarification on “same batch” and variance. A batch is a single, homogenized production run mixed, filtered, and filled under the same conditions from the same raw source. Within that, small result swings are normal and typically come from sampling technique, vial position during fill, agitation before aliquoting, lab method differences, instrument calibration and stated uncertainty, and sample prep losses. Two results that fall within the method’s combined uncertainty are statistically consistent with the same batch.

The clean way to verify is to pull a well-mixed composite, split it, run the same method at the same lab in parallel, and document chain of custody. If the spread exceeds the method’s uncertainty, we investigate; if it does not, it reflects normal analytical scatter rather than a different or inconsistent batch. If any of this sounds unfamiliar, it may just be a misunderstanding of how batches and analytical uncertainty work…

If you truly understood the science behind it, you’d realize that what you’re calling “discrepancies” are actually confirmation of reproducibility. A 10% swing is well within normal variance when comparing different analytical setups, solvents, calibration curves, and reference standards.

And this is exactly why your critiques don’t land. You tried “measuring plastics” without a validated leachables/extractables protocol, no blanks or spike-recovery, no matrix-matched calibration, and treated artifact peaks as proof. That’s when you lost credibility and why I stopped engaging. If you want to talk science, bring a real method. Declared SOP, controls, calibration traceability, and replicate RSD. Otherwise you’re just waving screenshots at complex assays you don’t understand.

I hear you, but the idea that one blind test automatically defines an entire batch isn’t how this works. A single 220 result on a 250 label is something we review internally, but it’s not a reason to tell every customer to assume a different concentration. That would be irresponsible and scientifically wrong. We also aren’t expecting anyone to send their own vial in.

What we will do is verify our own process and tighten anything that needs tightening. We’ll also take care of anyone who reaches out with a specific concern.

I don’t think some of you guys understand how batches actually work. When someone brings up using a volumetric flask, that absolutely does impact vial to vial variance. The total accuracy of the batch starts with how precisely the final volume is measured. A calibrated volumetric flask gives you an exact volume instead of 'close enough' and that locks in the correct mg/mL for the entire batch.

Once the batch is fully mixed and uniform, every vial you pull should be the same because it’s all coming from the same solution. If the total volume is off even slightly, the concentration is already wrong before you ever start filling vials, and that’s where inconsistencies appear.

So yeah, better volumetric accuracy does lead to better sample consistency. They’re directly connected brothers!

 

[Primal_Pharma]

It’s not recycling, it’s reminding. And you have a track record of dishonesty, so it would be foolish for anyone to take you at your word that you’re now using volumetric flasks and true homogeneous batches until it’s proven through repeated 3rd party testing.

You repeatedly lied, mislead, and gaslit people over the definition of your batches before finally coming clean. This is the problem. Every time there has been an issue, you can’t help but lie to try and cover up the reality. Only when pinned in a corner do you ever come clean.

So again, not recycling, reminding people who they’re dealing with. But I’m sure it’ll be different this time, right?

Brother, your team that has nothing better to do reminds us everyday. You’re just clocking in for overtime at this point lol

 

[Primal_Pharma]

@justanoob is how most of these little internet critics wish they looked like and he’s been running our stuff exclusively for months. His kind of results are what the comment experts couldn’t buy or photoshop their way into.

Labs already back it up, and he’s walking proof. The rest of the little keyboard warriors can keep typing their feelings out, but it’s really not moving the needle. (No PUN intended)

Drop the bacon and pick up the steak, brother!