R
readalot
Guest
Uh, no. The work described in this very thread indicates Test Cyp also same issue.
Thanks for your reply.
MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
Readalots Enhanced Testing
- Thread starter Dirthand
- Start date
Thanks for your reply.
narta
Member
Test Cyp has crippling pip? Since when?
RandallFlagg
Member
I think the answer to that depends on whether you have access to an X-ray machine or not.
R
readalot
Guest
Project 3. Forthcoming.
Project Code Name:
An Honest and Ethical Vendor can make a difference.
Why GCMS (along with HPLC) is your friend. Of course some vendors will continue to not test their raws.
Test C and Test E raws are very pure and g2g, right? "Don't look behind the curtain, we'll go back and dial in the concentrations; everything A-ok. Extra stuff on the house!"
Project Code Name:
An Honest and Ethical Vendor can make a difference.
Why GCMS (along with HPLC) is your friend. Of course some vendors will continue to not test their raws.
Test C and Test E raws are very pure and g2g, right? "Don't look behind the curtain, we'll go back and dial in the concentrations; everything A-ok. Extra stuff on the house!"
Last edited by a moderator:
bigMoJo
Member
This is actually a really good point.
If, for example:
1. Source has 500kg raws Test C.
2. Sample sent for testing and comes back "clean."
3. 20,000 vials of Test C produced.
4. 5,000 vials labeled as "GCMS Sterile Tested" or whatever and sold @ $10.00 each.
5. 15,000 vials not labeled and sold @ $5.00 each.
If, I'm a consumer like @narta, I'm just going to buy the vials from the 15,000 batch because I know the other 5,000 batch from the same source are from the same "GCMS Sterile Tested" raws.
Anyone else who buys from 5,000 batch is essentially "stuck with the bill" with the cost for the additional testing.
Let me know if I missed something here, or this is inaccurate.
R
readalot
Guest
Did the raws get tested (surveillance data)? Always back to big question...who is going to pay?
bigMoJo
Member
Readalot,
Every "question"—"big" or "small"—is an important question. If the question or comment is telling you to "F" off, then it deserves consideration.
Nonetheless, "who is going to pay?" No one is giving the UGL AAS away for free. Insurance isn't going to cover it. You're not paying, are you? It's going to keep coming up—and, if this is going to be taken seriously—it needs to be answered each time.
However, that was not the substance of the question. Please re-read and/or respond, or don't... you don't have to take the question "on" yourself if you don't want to.
R
readalot
Guest
I wasn't diminishing the question. Opposite. Highlighting it again. Great question.
People like me will happily pay a measly $5 or $7 extra per vial.
Even at Matrix's current price, if you are on TRT, it's $37 for 15 to 20 weeks worth of TC. Even at 2g/week, it's $37 for 5 weeks. A drop in the bucket.
I can say that dealing with Matrix was mind blowing compared to QSC,HYB,GA,etc.
I hope this level of testing catches on.
Thanks readalot for uping the bar, every little bit helps.
Even at Matrix's current price, if you are on TRT, it's $37 for 15 to 20 weeks worth of TC. Even at 2g/week, it's $37 for 5 weeks. A drop in the bucket.
I can say that dealing with Matrix was mind blowing compared to QSC,HYB,GA,etc.
I hope this level of testing catches on.
Thanks readalot for uping the bar, every little bit helps.
iris
New Member
What if they are not "stuck with the bill"?
Let's just look at it as an extra service.
Those people don't mind paying more because they want their gear to be tested that way.
One can offer it alongside the same product without that variable.
If it is not deemed essential by the majority of people, make the option available for the ones who want it.
And if those numbers make sense for the vendor, they will keep it going.
If offering a premium line, then, ends up turning more and more people onto the "elevated" option, we always say customers vote with their wallet and we will see which way it goes.
Many will not care for this and do not want to pay more, regard the extra testing as not necessary and will not buy into it.
But, at least, people have a choice, rather than an imposition of how things must be done (or not done).
bigMoJo
Member
Iris,
Thank you. I do understand all that. I'm not sure if you are following Narta's original point I elaborated on. Let me illustrate:
What do you think the "Wolfpack" backpack costs?
$144.95
As far as material, quality, zippers, etc., they are identical. Cosmetically, practically identical, with small differences.
I bought a set from Amazon—two different backpacks—for my boys... compared to a gym bro's... even the shoulder strap padding is "identical."
Why would I pay more? For the name? The marketing? My gym bro was pissed he paid that much for his "Wolfpack."
Please try to understand what I previously posted:
- The "raws" are the same batch.
- A sample of that batch is tested for "sterility," the rest is not.
- The raws/batch are all then manufactured into oils.
- All of the oils go into vials through the same process: brewing, filtering, bottling/crimping.
- A portion of vials are sold under "label" as "Tested Sterile + Endotoxin Free" or whatever.
- The remaining vials are sold without "label."
Why would I pay more for the vial with the "label" when the vial without the "label" is the same thing? What else—aside tested raws (because the same raws were used for both types of vials)—makes that "label" vial different from the un-labeled vial?
iris
New Member
Thank you. I understand.
I did say it is the same product, with a separate price point just in virtue of the extra testing.
They are not deceiving customers saying it is a bespoke batch/production.
It costs more because it is tested more, an added service.
So it is there, batch made and tests performed;
If the vendor is doing this as a separate line, they are testing the waters, they are giving the choice, they advertise they have labs for everything under the sun, for which you pay however much more, if you want it.
Even if you and I don't care about it, if i were asked how many people out there would be interested in this, I have no idea.
But you don't think anyone would place value in the extra service and so it's a no go.
I mean, fair enough, you may be right.
It's a risk for the vendor, as an investment for the first go, but they can make money on it if it works.
If it doesn't work, or don't sell enough kits/vials to cover the extra work of the testing, it gets discontinued.
It's an experiment of sorts, I guess, and Narta said he can see it fail.
He may be right in thinking that, like you. The audience is not there.
Tbh, I have been listening to both sides of the discussion and they both bring good points.
But what is left is to see the reality of it in action, for both sources and customers.
And the ones that buy the "basic" version still benefit for the "useless" testing the others are paying for.
Is this premium service going to attract enough interest?
We will see what it generates.
Ateam2023
Member
the vast majority of people "don't want to pay extra" for ANYTHING,,, ,, cars , food , taxes, and i imagine it'll be that way for steroids,,,
There are a zillion people paying compound pharmacies $250 per bottle of test C from these TRT clinics.
How can you think people won't pony up an extra $5 for the extra piece of mind?
There is a reason stores like Whole Foods exist and are extremely profitable. People actually like paying more if they feel they get a better product.
The constant pessimism from you guys is impressive. Let these vendors give it a shot and let the market decide.
narta
Member
That's pharma grade.
Most people? No. There is no such thing as pharma grade UGL.
Cause whole foods is a gov regulated entity. How many regulated street dealers do you know that charge extra for premium fenta?
And for this whole enchanced testing thing to put to bed:
All the raws come from China. If all raws tested positive for let's say metal contaminations, high but acceptable, what course of action could be taken to change that?
None.
End users would have the choices to go legit pharma , continue using or quit steroids.
You missed the point. While Foods could be next door to a normal grocery store (almost always is) and charge twice as much for everything and it will be twice as busy. Why? The market has decided it's worth it, that's why.
Well, I have seen tirzepatide from a compound pharmacy that was $400 for 20mg pre mixed with a crappy nimbot style label (red rock pharmacy).
If 3 out of 4 factories had high levels of contamination but 1 tested clean, would it be with a $5 markup per vial to get from that factory?
narta
Member
You are the one missing the point. You can't compare regulated with unregulated markets. If Whole Foods was caught selling non organic shit as organic, there would be fines. If a aas vendor caught selling non premium gear as premium you do what? And first and foremost how would you know?
That means that the pharmacy is either dumb enough to resell Chinese shit or that Chinese shit is good enough to be labeled pharma.
What if there were 4 out of 4? You, me or anyone else would do what? Threaten them to stop purchasing? They would be laughing till they jaws cramped up
narta
Member
You are helpless...Project 3. Forthcoming.
Project Code Name:
An Honest and Ethical Vendor can make a difference.
Why GCMS (along with HPLC) is your friend. Of course some vendors will continue to not test their raws.
Test C and Test E raws are very pure and g2g, right? "Don't look behind the curtain, we'll go back and dial in the concentrations; everything A-ok. Extra stuff on the house!"
Test E has crippling pip for some reason, maybe because they changed the procedure. So everyone goes for Test C nowdays. You asked my input and when I gave it, you insist on posting irrelevant shit about some isomere in Test C.
DOES Test C have crippling pip like Test E? Yes or No? I don't fucking care about isomeres.
Spaceman Spiff
Subscriber
Since lab results somehow reflect a user's post injection pain.
narta
Member
Jano has no clue what's causing the Test E shenanigans. Nothing can be extrapolated from testing. It's probably some obscure residue that can't be quantified and probably it becomes a literal pain in the ass as time passes for production date.
We can't solve it, so we go to the alternatives, Test C and I am going to experiment with Test Iso, that's in theory a medium hl ester with high concentration capabilities
Similar threads
