@Qingdao Sigma Chemicals if you order the 10 pack of hgh from usa warehouse its 45 to ship? list says 10-30 for shipping usa warehouse? Could you clarify please thanks
MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
Qingdao Sigma Chemical Co., Ltd (International, US, EU, Canada and Australia domestic
- Thread starter Qingdao Sigma Chemicals
- Start date
Qingdao Sigma Chemicals
Subscriber
Shipping $10
Alibaba surcharge 5%
oh shit I forgot about the surcharge ok got it thanks
HB_22
Well-known Member
Lol. German customs are not strict, not anymore. Law enforcement is very strict, I agree, but customs pretty much let everything come through.
freedom69
Well-known Member
Email sent for promo sale order
Are the rest of the USA powders on the way still to warehouse?
Qingdao Sigma Chemicals
Subscriber
yes
bigboy420
Member
Are floaters a standard here?
Greenbay68
Member
Happy New Year! In 2023 I ran from QSC:
-Test Cyp
-Test Prop
-Mast P
-Tirzepatide
-BPC-157
-TB-500
-HGH
With exception of HGH (just started) all is great quality, and for a guy who’s been in the game for a long time- a great value for domestic reshipping.
In 2003 I had to go to the grocery store, call western union and speak with someone on the phone to wire money (2x the $) to a stranger in China, and then wait an unknown time for product to come, with no way to know if it was real, tainted or even going to show up. If it came, we’d have to sign for it, write ‘return to sender’ on it, and leave it for a day or two before digging in. Seizures were much higher then, as small packs coming from China were way less common.
there were no forums that shared sources unless you realllly got on the inside, and there certainly wasn’t blind testing available. It was not uncommon to get scammed and receive nothing, let alone fake product.
Just letting some of you newbies know how easy it is now~
-Test Cyp
-Test Prop
-Mast P
-Tirzepatide
-BPC-157
-TB-500
-HGH
With exception of HGH (just started) all is great quality, and for a guy who’s been in the game for a long time- a great value for domestic reshipping.
In 2003 I had to go to the grocery store, call western union and speak with someone on the phone to wire money (2x the $) to a stranger in China, and then wait an unknown time for product to come, with no way to know if it was real, tainted or even going to show up. If it came, we’d have to sign for it, write ‘return to sender’ on it, and leave it for a day or two before digging in. Seizures were much higher then, as small packs coming from China were way less common.
there were no forums that shared sources unless you realllly got on the inside, and there certainly wasn’t blind testing available. It was not uncommon to get scammed and receive nothing, let alone fake product.
Just letting some of you newbies know how easy it is now~
I personally have not got any floaters but with how cheap the oil is, I decided it's worth the effort for safety and peace of mind to filter with high quality Whatman filters into new sterile vials that have higher quality stoppers. I think other's also recommended that too
strangegenericguy
Member
Shipping to Italy Is with EU...special Lines(60$) or even with post NL(20$)?
Let me understand, for the promo i mean
Let me understand, for the promo i mean
Qingdao Sigma Chemicals
Subscriber
Italy EU special line
badboy
New Member
Thanks for providing sources on sub q. It is reasonable to say like any drug, different ROAs have different benefits and drawbacks.Wait, I can't just say "It's common knowledge"?
Anyway, no I'm not basing that off of what "fringe TRT clinics" say. There's actually quite a bit of literature on this, particularly recently (and I'm not just talking about all of the recent literature studying it for replacement therapy):
Routes of Drug Administration
Systemic absorption of a drug depends on its physicochemical properties, the nature of the dosage form on which it is included and the anatomical and physiological characteristics of the site of absorption. These considerations are important on the biopharmaceutical...link.springer.com
Per your assertion that "subq is the opposite of that", that's contradicted in virtually all literature I've seen,
As the blood perfusion in the s.c. tissue is lower than in the muscles, a s.c. injection will result in a delayed absorption of the drug with respect to an i.m. injection [17].
Interestingly, while the consensus in this thread is that SubQ is only viable for "TRT amounts", there are numerous references in literature about much larger volumes of oil-based compounds:
S.c. injections are the most-often used parenteral administration route due the possibility of self-injection by the patients, but the administered volume is limited. The administration of volumes larger than 1.5 to 2 mL usually requires multiple injections to minimize the risk of considerably high pain upon injection.
I've never gone higher, but I've personally had no issues running up to 1.1ml per injection.
wrt my assertion that oil-based on compounds weren't necessarily designed for IM per se, when Test Prop was introduced it was used exclusively IM, but with the introduction of Test Cyp and Test E in the late 1950s.
Primary sources for this are buried in very old literature I haven't seen in ages, but plenty of references exist for this in recent literature.
Testosterone deficiency: a historical perspective - PMC
The biological effects of the testes and testosterone are known since antiquity. Aristotle knew the effects of castration and his hypothesis on fertilization is one of the first scientific encounters in reproductive biology. Over centuries, ...www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Testosterone Therapy With Subcutaneous Injections: A Safe, Practical, and Reasonable Option - PMC
Injections with intramuscular (IM) testosterone esters have been available for almost 8 decades and not only result in predictable serum testosterone levels but are also the most inexpensive modality. However, they are difficult to self-administer ...
That last study has a pretty neat infographic showing the timeline of various testosterone formulations from 1889 to present.
Interestingly, while Test Prop (and later) Test Undecanoate were designed for IM injection, Test Cyp and Test E were used both IM and SubQ from the beginning.
IM was certainly more popular in the beginning, but the decision was never based on "these are designed for IM and aren't designed for SubQ".
Regardless, the is study after study coming out proving the viability of SubQ injections, I'm not going to dig up/post all of the links but from the references at the above links you could pull a dozen+ easily.
FWIW, there's some evidence that SubQ may be preferable for athletes, because the distribution of depot-based injections is heavily influenced by lymphatic drainage. In SubQ tissue, this is relatively stable, but is increased by physical activity IM:
Therefore, the pharmacokinetics of testosterone esters administered via IM vs SC route will vary according to the lymphatic circulation of the tissue. Lymphatic drainage is dependent on intrinsic and extrinsic pumping. Intrinsic pumping is dependent on the contraction of lymphangions (muscular unit of the lymphatics with unidirectional valves) that transport lymph by mechanisms analogous to that occurring in the cardiac chambers (42). Extrinsic pumping results from intermittent external pressure exerted by skeletal muscle contractions on the lymphatics (42). As the lymphatic drainage from SC tissue is largely dependent on intrinsic pumping, while IM lymphatic flow is also substantially influenced by extrinsic pumping during physical activity (43), these drainage patterns suggest that testosterone esters administered SC likely have more stable absorption kinetics compared to IM administration.
IMO the science is quite clear that SubQ injections are very viable, but for whatever reason bodybuilders are some of the worst I've seen about getting irrationally angry at anything evolving or changing. This is definitely one of those situations.
I use sub q for HRT because I don't need more than .25 ml x1 week and it keeps my levels the most steady. When I was doing IM I'd occasionally get PIP and I'd feel a crash few days before my next shot, not a huge deal but enough to be an inconvenience or mildly annoying. I'm not through a TRT clinic so going up in dose was not something my PCP was willing to do, so sub q thankfully fixed that issue for me. I don't have PIP with sub q and it is a smoother/quicker administration than IM for the volume I need.
Obviously for body building oil sub q becomes less practical at larger volumes 1-2 ml + per injection, multiple times week/day, and especially if you have low body fat percentage already....I'd prefer IM in that circumstance rather than tending to multiple lumps. But to me that's about whether it's practical for your goals vs effectiveness. IM will be absorbed more quickly but sub q will provide a more stable release.
And while the bottles do say for "IM use only" I'm sure it has to do with whatever the FDA initially approved the drug for as an ROA. Its not worth the effort to update the approval to include "sub q" on the label as an approved ROA because that'd be an absolute waste of time and money. Doctors prescribe drugs off label all the time including alternative ROAs, dosing, etc. I think it's actually *most likely* stated on the bottle as CYA/to prevent people from IV administration. At this point after seeing how many brand new GLP1 who people will pick up a needle and start going at it without basic research and make very preventable mistakes... I don't put it past people to inject an oil IV.
PushPullPl8s
New Member
What would you recommend for shipping to Canada? Is it considered Guaranteed for this promo? Thanks Tracy.
bigboy420
Member
Lowkey scared, thanks helped alot
Derpderp11209
New Member
Same as last time.
HB_22
Well-known Member
There is no customs risk for most countries as they reship a lot, meaning your order is not getting to your place first but is rather redirected within the area you live (USA, Europe).
I was once asking the same questions, had the same fear, but they know their business.
So basically it is shipped to some place within US / EU and then to the address of the customer. Am i correct by saying that?
HB_22
Well-known Member
That is correct.
Similar threads
- Sticky
