MESO-Rx Sponsor Primal Pharma - US Domestic

[Photon]

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…

Deflecting as usual.

We are seeing multiple products with ~+/-10% variances between 3rd party and vendor testing. So much for homogeneity. This isn't the first.

What good are your testing results if none of them are anywhere close to what people are receiving?

MESO-Rx Sponsor Post in thread 'Primal Pharma - US Domestic'

Oct 22, 2025

Because one good GCMS hit can still fool you. Even with a clean library match, reference standard, and nice ions, you’re still relying on one separation and one ionization in a complex matrix. Coelution, in-source fragments, near-isomers, or matrix additives can mimic the target. An orthogonal check changes the rules of the game to see if the ID survives. Run the reference and sample on a different column and confirm identical retention and RI, verify exact mass and fragments with HRMS/MS, and for polymer additives add FTIR on an extract. If it’s suspected as a leachable, extract the...

• Photon

• 
• 

 

[Photon]

Did we ever find out why we never got the Test E raw results?

He went from
Testing first before sales to
Sales first before testing and then to
Sales without releasing raw purity %

Pretty wild given how he keeps saying the raw situation is bad.
Last i asked about the tested raw purity results, he said he was not "bending backwards" to post them.

 

[SwolieGuacamole]

, he said he was not "bending backwards" to post them.

I can’t even fault him for this. That’s meso’s fault. You hype and back a source to the point of exemption.

You give them the power and you’re at their mercy. If people continue to support, that’ll never change.

 

[Primal_Pharma]

Deflecting as usual.

We are seeing multiple products with ~+/-10% variances between 3rd party and vendor testing. So much for homogeneity. This isn't the first.

What good are your testing results if none of them are anywhere close to what people are receiving?

MESO-Rx Sponsor Post in thread 'Primal Pharma - US Domestic'

Oct 22, 2025

Because one good GCMS hit can still fool you. Even with a clean library match, reference standard, and nice ions, you’re still relying on one separation and one ionization in a complex matrix. Coelution, in-source fragments, near-isomers, or matrix additives can mimic the target. An orthogonal check changes the rules of the game to see if the ID survives. Run the reference and sample on a different column and confirm identical retention and RI, verify exact mass and fragments with HRMS/MS, and for polymer additives add FTIR on an extract. If it’s suspected as a leachable, extract the...

• Photon

• 
• 

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.

 

[Photon]

A 10% swing is well within normal variance when comparing different analytical setups, solvents, calibration curves, and reference standards.

Provide a range in % you think Jano's testing variances should be.
10%?
15%?
20%?

 

[Photon]

That’s when you lost credibility and why I stopped engaging.

Nobody's going to spend thousands, break opsec and find a lab willing to test controlled gear, just to test your gear to use it.

 

[SwolieGuacamole]

I have personally never seen a 10% swing in same batch testing. 1-2% seems to be the standard.

But I’m a nobody. Any real world examples where guys have 10% variances?

 

[Primal_Pharma]

Nobody's going to spend thousands, break opsec and find a lab willing to test controlled gear, just to test your gear to use it.

The real point you’re dodging is that your DIY plastics stunt exposed you. You ran non-validated methods, ignored blanks and spike recoveries, treated artifacts as signal, and then presented garbage as proof. You read artifact peaks like they were gospel and tried to make it a gotcha. That’s not “exposing a vendor" that’s showing you don’t understand how to run or interpret analytical chemistry. So now you posture about how nobody will test because you know a real lab report would show you were out of your depth.

 

[Ateam2023]

I can’t even fault him for this. That’s meso’s fault. You hype and back a source to the point of exemption.

You give them the power and you’re at their mercy. If people continue to support, that’ll never change.

I agree 100% people going to buy tested or not , like dope fiends , its making sources less accountable because they'll take your money anyway and then give you the hem haw about "why this is that" etc

 

[MisterT]

Thanks for testing. Still waiting on GCMS?

Yeah unfortunately, Jano taking there sweet time and messing up what I told them to put on the report

 

[MisterT]

RIP your email inbox. Might want to get that covered up.

Yeah I lit Jano up for that, not sure what the fuck they’re doing. I told them primal, p10, and just put mister T like wtf

 

[DoubleDeez]

Yeah I lit Jano up for that, not sure what the fuck they’re doing. I told them primal, p10, and just put mister T like wtf

You could’ve covered up your email yourself before you posted it.

 

[MisterT]

You could’ve covered up your email yourself before you posted it.

It’s a live link, does your head work? A screenshot of a Jano test proves nothing.

 

[DoubleDeez]

It’s a live link, does your head work? A screenshot of a Jano test proves nothing.

Head broken, sorry

 

[Photon]

The real point you’re dodging is that your DIY plastics stunt exposed you. You ran non-validated methods, ignored blanks and spike recoveries, treated artifacts as signal, and then presented garbage as proof. You read artifact peaks like they were gospel and tried to make it a gotcha. That’s not “exposing a vendor" that’s showing you don’t understand how to run or interpret analytical chemistry. So now you posture about how nobody will test because you know a real lab report would show you were out of your depth.

And now you're trying to change the topic.
Why not run a Halloween sale while you're at it.

There's no gotcha.

I bought your gear to use.
However when queried about your brewing practices, you gave replies that were not compatible with what you were brewing. When queried further, you deflected it to your "brewer" saying the replies you previously gave was not valid. Since you do not brew, i stopped asking and sent it for testing.

Weird shit turned up and I posted it. With Jano's limited capabilities, that's the extend we can achieve. Since I'm no longer comfortable using your gear, it made zero sense for me to pursue it.


Now, what's an acceptable variance when both samples are sent to the same lab for the same test? At what point do you believe there is an issue?

10%?
15%?
20%?

MESO-Rx Sponsor Post in thread 'Primal Pharma - US Domestic'

Oct 29, 2025

A 10% swing is well within normal variance when comparing different analytical setups, solvents, calibration curves, and reference standards.

Provide a range in % you think Jano's testing variances should be.
10%?
15%?
20%?

• Photon

 

[BigDadd7]

It’s a live link, does your head work? A screenshot of a Jano test proves nothing.

You're acting like she's the one who's head doesn't work? Lmao. You're the one that just shared your email with the world.

 

[MisterT]

You're acting like she's the one who's head doesn't work? Lmao. You're the one that just shared your email with the world.

It’s a proton that is only registered to this meso account, it really isn’t that serious. Just annoying Jano doesn’t listen in the first place. Lmao you’re acting like it’s my banking email. It’s registered to this account and to place AAS orders

 

[manbat]

Lmao you’re acting like it’s my banking email

Can we get that too?

 

[BigDadd7]

It’s a proton that is only registered to this meso account, it really isn’t that serious. Just annoying Jano doesn’t listen in the first place. Lmao you’re acting like it’s my banking email. It’s registered to this account and to place AAS orders

Good point

 

[MisterT]

Can we get that too?

BankingMisterT@proton.me

Anyways primal I DMd for testing credit, think it’s time for me to leave this thread be.