Yes, anything with a date of 04/19 or beyond was brewed with the new system.
MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
Pristine Anabolics Intro
- Thread starter Trenity
- Start date
Yes, anything with a date of 04/19 or beyond was brewed with the new system.
Mdubbs
Member
I have 2 mast e vials with red tops that has a brew label of 12/18 batch #23
Electrician family man
New Member
off topic but wtf? This fucking trensomnia is ridiculous. I only started running it roughly two weeks ago. 200mg 2 x week tren e. Then 200mg test e/c. 2x a week. It’s ridiculous how bad my sleep has been. Any legit suggestions fellas? I’m so close to just calling it quits ithe tren and ordering some deca . Fml
88general88
Well-known Member
Ahahaha
Then that's when it was brewed. The grey stoppers came in late December/ early January I believe.
88general88
Well-known Member
Ghb works wonders. I personally don’t use it as a narcotic, and used it for sleep back when it was still legal. To this day it is the only thing that works successfully for me for long bouts with tren. If used responsibly there is nothing to worry about. Not addictive, where as most sleep aids are. the Only other thing I would recommend is high dose melatonin(like 30mg+) w/ gaba. Keep in mind that will only help for a little while.
Electrician family man
New Member
No shit ? That’s wild. Just super small doses? When was that shit legal brother?
88general88
Well-known Member
nineties. GBL like REMPRO AND BLUE NITRO you could still get your hands on in early 2000’s then some stupid frat boys that could Not get laid, Gary busey, and some other fuckers brought the house down on it. There is one source that carries it here but he went private months ago. NOT TGI
Remember GHB is now available by prescription. XYREM aka sodium oxybate
Mdubbs
Member
So the question is does it even make sense for me to send in this mast e for testing if its possibly cross contaminated? Since you've switched your brewing method like you've said. I have other gear that is from your "new method" that could possibly prove if its fixed.
88general88
Well-known Member
Hey buddy if I were you and I were going to invest in testing, I would go with new stuff and just assume that old is ... well no bueno. No use in beating a dead horse.
You are a smart dude you know what’s up
Mdubbs
Member
That's definitely the way I was leaning. The last few pages have been exactly that.
Ok, so I heard back from the chemist.
Stevonov sent 3 samples that day, and retests were performed today on all 3. Guess who paid for that.
The sample in question, (marked “B” when I received it), did NOT contain ANY testosterone enanthate. There was a contaminate of 1.06mg/ml nandrolone decanoate; but nothing else besides the boldenone cypionate.
His sample “C” had multiple contaminants of testosterone propionate 1.15mg/ml, and drostanolone propionate 2mg/ml (EQ was the main compound).
You can look back in this same thread where I disclosed that the chemist asked me why there wasn’t nandrolone in the vial when the label states nandrolone. I told him on that day that he should pay no attention to any labels and to consider all vials contaminated unless they were sealed, original packaging.
These values were not reported for two reasons:
1) They are insignificant. (I am unsure where the cutoff for “insignificance” is; but I resulted a 7mg contaminate to one person and a 10.2mg contaminate to another this weekend)
2) The samples were mailed to me in used vials with “Nandrolone Decanoate” on the labels. I believe they were Norma Hella brand vials.
There will be absolutely ZERO free retests on samples sent to me that were obviously not procured with the same degree of accuracy that you are demanding of the testing.
Why? Because the test results can be no more reliable than the sample quality.
In fact, the suggestion of getting something for free when results are unfavorable seems to be a more and more common occurrence here. From where does this sense of entitlement stem? The mention of it is just irritating and juvenile.
A while back, the chemist actually did retest a sample for free that was poorly procured. The sample contained a lot of water because the vial wasn’t dried properly before the sample was added. I went to the chemist and requested this retest for free because it was an honest mistake by the guy and he tried to make sure the vial was clean. More importantly, the guy was nice about it and didn’t automatically start flinging accusations.
I really don’t care if it offends people; but there are many people here that need to grow up. The childish fits and entitlement are just absurd anymore.
In second fact (and I will post this in my thread), I will no longer accept any oil samples unless they are in an unopened/unused vial. I don’t care if it is homebrew or PharmaCom or Watson. There has to be someone to take a step in preventing this unnecessary drama; and the potential for sample contamination is just too great when brewers and testers are all on continuous trial here. Contrary to modern thinking, the customer does have a degree of responsibility/accountability. If you want something for free, contact your source for replacement.
Now, as for the what if(s) and what happened(s): I don’t know; and I really don’t see how anyone could know. You question the brewer and the testers; but not the sample that was sent in a used vial that once contained a different compound?? Am I the only person who cannot find the logic in this line of thinking?
Just for grins, does anyone know the hold out volume of an 18ga x 1” needle? I do: it is 0.075ml.
Now, lets assume that someone used an 18gax1” needle, drew up some T-400, and injected the entire syringe contents into one sample vial. Then a sample of another compound was drawn up and injected into a different sample vial. Seems reasonable, right?
Wrong. That 18ga needle will hold exactly 30mg of T-400 or 22.5mg of Test E300 or 18.75mg of Test-E250 etc, etc.; and you can’t even tell it is there.
Did this happen? I don’t know.
Did Pristine sell cross contaminated products? I don’t know.
Did Jano find something that my chemist didn’t? Yes, he sure did; but my chemist didn’t find it because IT WASN’T THERE.
By deductive reasoning, it seems as if the sample I got and Jano got were from two different bottles. See post #5860.
I feel very strongly about the careless flinging of accusations about incompetence that goes on here. I think this is particularly inflammatory because, in my job, I have patients tell me and other providers that their primary care doctors are incompetent because they didn’t keep them from having heart attacks or strokes or whatever malady they are affected by……..it’s always someone else’s fault. All the while, these same patients are smoking and eating crap diets and sitting on the couch playing candy crush for 12 hours a day; but they feel like their hours on WebMD have given them superiority in intelligence and the right to question my judgement.
I believe that analytical chemistry is the primary income source for Jano; and I know for sure that it is what my guy does for a living.
My point is that the skill of the brewer and the competence of the chemist ALWAYS is questioned first here. Why? Do you all really believe that a layperson is better at removing every trace of compound from a used vial or syringe/needle than an analytical chemist is at analyzing chemicals? Ridiculous.
And before I forget: @egonormical1010 ; Spelling is not the forte, nor is English the first language of the analytical chemist that I use. I have seen the spelling errors; but I am unable to alter reports and I choose what I make an effort to nitpick. You may not know this but published analytical reports for legitimate pharmaceutical companies are reviewed for quite some time, for grammar, spelling, scientific legitimacy, etc., before publishing. I am quite certain that spelling errors are corrected in editing. If you would like to finance formal editing before these reports are disseminated; please get with me about sending the funds. Otherwise, pick your battles more wisely.
MisterSuperGod
Well-known Member
Rocket science.
janoshik
Subscriber
Exactly
janoshik
Subscriber
So we have 3 vials with bold cyp only, bold cyp and test and bold cyp and deca. Wow.
I do know this did not happen in this case, because I have very specific protocol for these exact reasons that Stevonov followed.
The BrianNOLA sample of Bold Cyp that contained the Deca includes pictures. One small unused vial and a fresh in the pack syringe. How’s the deca get in the vial?
Then stevanov submits in a used vial but all that is detected is the bold cyp.
I’m confused as to why you brought all that up but it doesn’t appear to have any bearing on the results.
Then stevanov submits in a used vial but all that is detected is the bold cyp.
I’m confused as to why you brought all that up but it doesn’t appear to have any bearing on the results.
T-Bagger
Elite
Sunday? Where the hell are you living? It was Monday all day yesterday lol.
Brawny
New Member
I understand that this is to prevent people from using old contaminated vials, but we shouldn’t be required to send a brand new vial of gear to get it verified.
If we send you a brand new labeled vial gear, with the compound plainly marked on the outside, then that’s not instilling much confidence in the chemist
It’s just more efficient for one person to spend 20 seconds peeling off a label than for another to spend a day defending allegations.
Similar threads
- Sticky
